Facts
- The case concerned the UK government’s decision not to hold a public inquiry into the 1948 deaths of 24 unarmed civilians in Batang Kali, Malaya (now Malaysia), an incident known as the Batang Kali massacre.
- Claimants challenged this decision, arguing for the necessity of an inquiry, given credible allegations of state involvement in the deaths.
- The government justified its decision by reference to extensive historical records and prior examinations conducted into the incident.
- The claimants invoked both the procedural obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and argued for a common law duty to investigate.
- The Supreme Court reviewed how investigative obligations under the ECHR and common law apply to events that occurred many decades earlier.
Issues
- Whether Article 2 ECHR imposed a continuing procedural obligation on the UK to investigate the Batang Kali killings despite the historic nature of the events.
- Whether there existed a common law duty to investigate deaths in circumstances such as those at Batang Kali, and if so, whether the government breached that duty.
- Whether it was appropriate for the courts to review the government’s decision not to hold a public inquiry—i.e., the justiciability of this executive action.
- Whether the approach taken in the Hillsborough inquests required a different outcome for the Batang Kali case.
Decision
- The Supreme Court held that Article 2 ECHR did not require the UK government to conduct a fresh investigation into the Batang Kali deaths, given the significant passage of time and previous reviews undertaken.
- The Court found that, even if a common law investigative duty existed, it would not extend beyond the requirements found in Article 2, and did not impose an obligation to hold a public inquiry for historical events of this nature.
- The challenge was found to concern matters of policy and executive discretion, limiting the scope of judicial review; however, the executive’s actions remained subject to legal principles of rationality and compliance with human rights.
- The reference to the Hillsborough inquests was distinguished: the Court deemed Hillsborough did not establish a binding precedent that would mandate inquiries for all historical deaths, especially those occurring in markedly different contexts.
- The appeal was dismissed, and the government’s refusal to hold an inquiry was declared lawful.
Legal Principles
- Article 2 ECHR imposes procedural obligations requiring credible allegations of state involvement in deaths to be subject to impartial, effective, and prompt examination.
- The obligation to investigate under Article 2 may extend to historic events, but the threshold increases with the passage of time and practical constraints.
- Common law may recognize a duty to investigate deaths, but this duty does not exceed the scope of the Article 2 ECHR obligation.
- Executive decisions regarding public inquiries are primarily matters for the government, subject only to review for irrationality and non-compliance with legal or human rights obligations.
- Precedents involving more recent domestic incidents, such as Hillsborough, are not automatically transferrable to historic events occurring in different jurisdictions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court in Keyu v Secretary of State clarified that the requirement to investigate deaths under Article 2 ECHR and common law has limits, particularly regarding historical events. The government was not required to establish a public inquiry into the Batang Kali massacre, and its decision was found to be lawful, reaffirming the balance between truth-seeking, practicality, and executive discretion in investigating alleged human rights violations from the past.