Submissions from Core Participants

5. The Inquiry’s Core Participants submitted Closing Statements about the findings that I am permitted to make in relation to Article 3.¹ I have considered and been assisted by them all.
6. There were two viewpoints.

6.1 The first was argued by Deighton Pierce Glynn, solicitors representing D687 and Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group.² In summary, they suggested that there is no prohibition preventing the Inquiry from making findings that treatment, conduct, omissions and/or conditions at Brook House were “contrary to Article 3” (which is a phrase used in the Terms of Reference set by the Home Secretary) or “amounted” to a breach of Article 3.³

6.2 In contrast, the Home Office and G4S argued that factual findings must be distinguished from legal findings. G4S stated:

“the Inquiry is prohibited from making substantive findings that any party has breached Article 3 ECHR or that any person has been subject to treatment in breach of Article 3 ECHR – or words to the equivalent effect that constitute, in substance, such a finding (e.g. that a person suffered inhuman or degrading treatment – as these are legal terms of art within the rubric of Article 3)”.⁴

The Home Office acknowledged that the words “inhuman” and “degrading” may be used, not in the legal sense, but only in a “non-technical” and “non-legal sense”.⁵ Deighton Pierce Glynn, the Home Office and G4S relied on findings made in previous inquiries and on the case law in relation to inquests.⁶

1. Closing Statements: DPG000048_021-022 paras 32-34; HOM0332165_015-017 paras 45-56;CJS0074153_067-074 paras 193-203[↩]
2. Deighton Pierce Glynn was the only firm representing detained people to make submissions on the issue[↩]
3. DPG000048_021 para 32[↩]
4. CJS0074153_072 para 196[↩]
5. HOM0332165_016 para 51[↩]
6. In particular the Billy Wright Inquiry; the Litvinenko Inquiry; R (Pounder) v HM Coroner for North and South Districts of Durham and Darlington[2009] EWHC 76 (Admin) paras 62, 70, 73 and 78; R (Pounder) v HM Coroner for North and South Districts of Durham and Darlington [2010] EWHC 328 (Admin) paras 3, 6, 15 and 53; R (Jamieson) v North Humberside Coroner [1995] QB 1 paras 25 and 53; R (GS) v Wiltshire and Swindon Senior Coroner[2020] EWHC 2007 (Admin) paras 52-56; R (Smith) v Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner [2008] EWHC 694 (Admin) paras 23-24[↩]