Lexploria

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 53

May 2003

Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 47916/99

Decision 6.5.2003 [Section II]

Article 2

Positive obligations

Effective investigation – alleged racism in police investigation into murder of black man: inadmissible

The applicants are the siblings of a black musician, Michael Menson, who died in hospital at the age of 30 following a racist attack in Janu ary 1997, during which he was set alight. He suffered from mental health problems during the last years of his life and was living in special accommodation at the time of his death. He was attacked on a London street late at night. The police arrived at th e scene shortly afterwards. They concluded that he had set himself on fire and indicated as much to family members. Consequently, no attempt was made to secure evidence in the immediate aftermath of the crime. The next day, Michael Menson informed family m embers of the attack. They requested the police to take a statement from him and to begin a criminal investigation. However, the police never interviewed Michael Menson, who lapsed into a coma one week after the attack and died shortly afterwards.

In 1998, the police reviewed the conduct of the first stage of the investigation into the attack and concluded that it was not satisfactory. In September 1998, the Coroner’s Court recorded a verdict of unlawful killing. The applicants lodged a detailed complaint w ith the Police Complaints Authority over the handling of the case by the police. In 1999, four persons were tried (one in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”) in relation to the killing of Michael Menson and received substantial terms of imprisonment . The applicants pursued their official complaint about police handling of the case. The internal inquiry into the affair was hampered by the fact that police officers could not be compelled to answer questions; moreover, certain officers had retired and w ere therefore no longer subject to police discipline. A copy of the report was passed to the Crown Prosecution Service in December 2002.

Inadmissible under Article 2: The applicants did not seek to blame the authorities for the death of Michael Menson or a rgue that there had been a positive obligation to protect him. Article 2 requires that there should be some form of effective official investigation when there is reason to believe that an individual has sustained life-threatening injuries in suspicious ci rcumstances. Where the person dies, the investigation assumes even greater importance. The obligation on the State is one of means, not of result. The authorities must take reasonable steps to secure evidence. Any deficiency in the investigation risks fall ing foul of the Convention standard. The authorities must act of their own motion and a prompt response is generally essential. Although there was no State involvement in Michael Menson’s death, the same basic procedural requirements applied with equal for ce. Where an attack is racially motivated, the investigation must be pursued with vigour and impartiality, having regard to the need to reassert continuously society’s condemnation of racism and to maintain the confidence of minorities in the ability of th e authorities to protect them from the threat of racist violence. The perpetrators in this case were convicted and sentenced and the coroner’s court recorded a verdict of unlawful killing. The evidence before the national courts indicated very significant defects on the part of the police which were entirely at odds with the requirements of Article 2. It was, however, decisive that the criminal law had been effectively enforced against those who killed Michael Menson. As for the applicants’ complaints regar ding racism within the police, the internal inquiry was not yet complete: manifestly ill-founded.

Inadmissible under Article 6: The applicants complained that they were prevented by the rule of absolute immunity from bringing a claim against the police in respect of acts and omissions during the investigation into Michael Menson’s death. However, the Court noted a change of practice within the United Kingdom following its judgment in the Osman case ( Reports 1998-VIII), which would have allowed the applicant s to argue that it was fair, just and reasonable for their claim to be decided on its merits. As for their contention that they had no remedy under the Race Relations Act 1976, it would have been open to them to invite a national court to broaden the notio n of “provision of services” under that Act to include police activities. In any event, if Parliament had intended to exclude the police from the 1976 Act, the Court could not create a right of action in favour of the applicants based on Article 6 § 1. The same applied to their arguments regarding common law and statutory rules concerning death as a cause of action: manifestly ill-founded.

Inadmissible under Article 13. The applicants did not have an arguable claim under the other provisions they relied on. The requirements of Article 13 in connection with the right to protection of life are the payment of any appropriate compensation as well as a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsibl e, including effective access for the complainant to the procedure. Article 13 may apply to a case in which the authorities, although not responsible for an unlawful death, acted in a manner that was at variance with their duty to investigate, for example where the investigation procedure was tainted with racism with the result that it failed to identify the perpetrators. In the present case, the perpetrators were caught and punished. Moreover, it had not been established so far that the investigation was s ignificantly tainted by racism: manifestly ill-founded.

Inadmissible under Article 14: The applicants’ complaint of police racism was still under internal investigation. Even if valid, the authorities ultimately discharged their obligations under Article 2 . The alleged discriminatory treatment of the applicants at a particular phase of the procedure did not ultimately affect the assurance of their or their brother’s rights under Article 2: manifestly ill-founded.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes