McCann v. United Kingdom

McCann and others v United Kingdom (21 ECHR 97 GC) is a legal case that was tried before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) regarding a breach of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights by the United Kingdom.

Facts

Intelligence suggested a team of known IRA members were planning a bombing in Gibraltar. One of the team was a known explosives expert whilst the others had been linked as well as convicted for various explosive and terrorist related activities. During surveillance, the team crossed the border from Spain with no resistance from the authorities and subsequently parked a car in a crowded place. In previous times, the IRA had employed remote control detonators and intelligence suggested the car was rigged with explosives whilst the suspects may have the remote detonator.

A team of highly trained SAS soldiers was sent to intercept and arrest them on conspiracy charges. The team, in accordance with their training, shot and killed the suspects which at the time was justified by the teams to be in response to the suspects reaching for what they believed where the detonators. The inquest into the shootings found no breach of Article 2 of the Gibraltar constitution. At the time of the shootings the suspects had neither a detonator nor any explosives. A car was however found registered under one of the suspects names which had been laced with explosive devices of 'ticking time bomb' type and not remote detonators. It appeared that the suspects were on a reconnaissance-mission and had parked their car to save a space for the actual car containing the explosives.

Findings

The case went to the ECHR. The court at the time had to consider whether the shooting was disproportionate to the aims to be achieved by the state in apprehending the suspects and defending the citizens of Gibraltar from unlawful violence. The court basically ruled that the actions of the soldiers at the time met the requirement of absolute necessity because they believed the suspects where reaching for detonators which intelligence and superiors had specifically warned them against. The Breach of Article 2 was found in the planning by the Authorities in that it was not 'strictly proportionate' to the objectives to be achieved; saving lives. Firstly, the court found a breach in the failure to arrest the suspects at the border so as to regard the life of both citizens and the suspects. Secondly, the court found that the Authorities did not consider the correctness of the intelligence (which turned out to be wrong) and, thirdly, the use of SAS soldiers - combat teams trained to shoot to kill - also amounted to a procedural failure in planning the mission which breached article 2.

The court rejected that the UK had specifically planned an execution mission and not an arrest mission.

Dissenting judges Ryssdal, Bernhardt, Thór Vilhjálmsson, Gölcüklü, Palm, Pekkanen, Sir John Freeland, Baka and Jambrek warned however against the benefits of hindsight, especially considering the situation at the time and the large number of innocent lives at risk.

External links

• ECtHR judgment