Keyu v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2015]
Share
Keyu & Ors v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs & Secretary of State for Defence [2015] UKSC 69 revolves around the decision of the Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs and Defence to deny a public inquiry into events that occurred during the UK's colonial rule in the former Federation of Malaya (now Malaysia).
In 1948, British troops, responding to an insurgency, killed 23 unarmed civilians in the village of Batang Kali in Selangor. The appellants are relatives of the victims. Despite calls for investigation, the UK government characterised the events as the killing of bandits. Various investigations were initiated but inconclusive. The appellants sought a public inquiry, which was refused by the respondents, leading to judicial review proceedings.
The court unanimously rejected the respondents' argument that the UK had no jurisdiction over the killings. It was established that the actions of the Scots Guards were attributable to the UK government, and the duty to hold an inquiry was not released even after the Federation gained independence in 1957.
While rejecting the jurisdiction argument, the court unanimously dismissed the Article 2 claim, which asserts the right to life. The ECHR, in force for the UK in 1953 and extended to Malaya, was recognised by the UK in 1966. The critical date for the ten-year rule was debated. The majority held it was when the right to petition the European Court of Human Rights was recognised in 1966. As the killings occurred over ten years before this, the Article 2 claim failed.
The argument that customary international law required the UK government to investigate the events was unanimously rejected. The court held that the duty recognised in international law within the last 25 years could not be relied upon for events predating this acknowledgment.
The appellants argued for a duty to hold an inquiry under common law, incorporating principles of customary international law. The court rejected this, stating that even if such a duty existed, it could not be implied into the common law. The duty established in customary international law was too recent to apply retroactively.
The court, applying principles of judicial review, found the grounds for the decision not to hold an inquiry were not unreasonable and were not disproportionate. Lady Hale dissented, emphasising that the decision was one no reasonable authority could reach, as it failed to consider the public interest and importance of establishing the truth.
In 1948, British troops, responding to an insurgency, killed 23 unarmed civilians in the village of Batang Kali in Selangor. The appellants are relatives of the victims. Despite calls for investigation, the UK government characterised the events as the killing of bandits. Various investigations were initiated but inconclusive. The appellants sought a public inquiry, which was refused by the respondents, leading to judicial review proceedings.
The court unanimously rejected the respondents' argument that the UK had no jurisdiction over the killings. It was established that the actions of the Scots Guards were attributable to the UK government, and the duty to hold an inquiry was not released even after the Federation gained independence in 1957.
While rejecting the jurisdiction argument, the court unanimously dismissed the Article 2 claim, which asserts the right to life. The ECHR, in force for the UK in 1953 and extended to Malaya, was recognised by the UK in 1966. The critical date for the ten-year rule was debated. The majority held it was when the right to petition the European Court of Human Rights was recognised in 1966. As the killings occurred over ten years before this, the Article 2 claim failed.
The argument that customary international law required the UK government to investigate the events was unanimously rejected. The court held that the duty recognised in international law within the last 25 years could not be relied upon for events predating this acknowledgment.
The appellants argued for a duty to hold an inquiry under common law, incorporating principles of customary international law. The court rejected this, stating that even if such a duty existed, it could not be implied into the common law. The duty established in customary international law was too recent to apply retroactively.
The court, applying principles of judicial review, found the grounds for the decision not to hold an inquiry were not unreasonable and were not disproportionate. Lady Hale dissented, emphasising that the decision was one no reasonable authority could reach, as it failed to consider the public interest and importance of establishing the truth.
