## Facts

- Patrick Finucane, a solicitor, was murdered in Northern Ireland in 1989 amid allegations of collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and state agents.
- Multiple investigations and reviews ensued, including the Stevens Inquiries and the De Silva Review, but Finucane's family contended these did not meet the standards required by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- The case questioned whether the UK's investigative actions satisfied its obligations under Article 2, which requires effective inquiry into deaths involving state agents or failures to protect life.
- There were prior judgments, notably _Jordan v United Kingdom_ (2003), setting the standard that Article 2 inquiries must be independent.
- The Finucane family asserted that government statements had created a legitimate expectation of a public inquiry compliant with Article 2.

## Issues

1. Whether the investigations into Patrick Finucane's death met the state's procedural obligations under Article 2 ECHR.
2. Whether there was a legitimate expectation, based on government statements and commitments, that a further public inquiry would be held.
3. Whether the state's prior actions and statements constituted an unequivocal promise of a public inquiry as required to found a legitimate expectation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court found the state had not fulfilled its Article 2 obligations regarding an effective investigation into Finucane's murder at the time of judgment.
- The Court determined that the existing investigations did not amount to an unequivocal governmental promise of a particular form of inquiry.
- It held that, despite acknowledging the seriousness of the case and previous calls for more thorough inquiries, a legitimate expectation of a further public inquiry did not arise.
- The Court highlighted the high threshold for establishing a legitimate expectation, especially in politically sensitive cases.

## Legal Principles

- Article 2 ECHR requires investigations into deaths involving state agents to be independent, effective, prompt, open to public scrutiny, and inclusive of next of kin participation.
- An independent inquiry is not obligatory in every case, but credible allegations of state involvement heighten the requirement for independent scrutiny.
- A legitimate expectation can only arise where government statements or commitments are clear and unequivocal.
- The threshold for legitimate expectation is particularly high in politically sensitive matters.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that while the UK's Article 2 investigative obligations had not been satisfied in Patrick Finucane’s case, prior government statements and actions fell short of creating a legitimate expectation of a further public inquiry. The judgment clarifies both the procedural requirements for Article 2 investigations and the legal standards for legitimate expectation in contexts of alleged state collusion.

Finucane v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland [2019] UKSC 7