## 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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

Keyu and Others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2015] UKSC 69