Are you OK with cookies?

We use small files called ‘cookies’ on Some are essential to make the site work, some help us to understand how we can improve your experience, and some are set by third parties. You can choose to turn off the non-essential cookies. Which cookies are you happy for us to use?

Submissions from Core Participants

  1. 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.
  2. 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[]