Judgment on the Rock

Wild criticism of the European Court over the Gibraltar Three is unjustified, says Trevor Hartley

Share
Related Topics
The announcement that the Government had paid nearly pounds 40,000 to the relatives of the three IRA terrorists killed by the SAS in Gibraltar caused predictable outrage. "Another surrender to Europe", the Daily Mail called it, alongside a feature attacking the European Union and the Court of Justice - neither of which had anything to do with the payment.

Although it paid up, the Government had greeted the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in September with outrage - "ludicrous", said Michael Heseltine - and threats to withdraw from its jurisdiction. The IRA and the relatives of the dead three were jubilant. They claimed it proved that the Government was guilty of murder, and even said it branded Britain as a "terrorist nation". However, neither reaction can be justified by anyone who looks at what the judgment actually said.

In fact the judgment came quite close to backing the British government line. The basic facts were awkward. In March 1988, three unarmed Irish people, one a woman, were mown down by the SAS in a hail of bullets. One eye-witness claimed that the soldiers had given no warning and then made no attempt to arrest the suspects. Moreover the car that one of them was seen parking contained no explosives.

No wonder the IRA claimed that the three were murdered, and when an attempt to sue the Ministry of Defence in Northern Ireland was blocked as a result of certificates issued by the Government, their relatives lodged an application before the European Commission of Human Rights.

The Government based its argument on intelligence reports that the IRA planned an attack in Gibraltar. The three were identified as members of an IRA active service unit. When one was seen parking a car, it was thought that the attack was imminent. IRA members on active service have been known to shoot their way to freedom when under threat of arrest. When challenged, each of the three had, according to the SAS, made a suspicious movement that could have been an attempt to draw a gun. The only way for the soldiers to protect their own lives and save those of other people was, the Government said, to kill.

Later a car was found in Spain that had been hired by one of the three under an assumed name. It contained Semtex and ammunition, showing that they were on a terrorist mission.

The Human Rights Commission held in favour of the UK by eleven votes to six. The case then went to the court. At this point the Government must have felt fairly confident. The shock and chagrin must have been all the greater, therefore, when judgment went against the UK - and this by the narrowest of majorities. The court held by ten votes to nine that the UK had violated Article 2 of the convention that protects the right to life.

The European Convention on Human Rights was signed in Rome in 1950. Britain accepts the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and the preliminary filtering body, the European Commission of Human Rights. The Human Rights Convention is the most notable achievement of the Council of Europe, a body that is completely separate from the EU and has a much wider membership. Originally seen as a bulwark against the resurgence of Nazism in Europe, the Human Rights Convention was regarded at the time of its inception as particularly advanced, both because of the detail and precision of its provisions - most declarations on human rights are notorious for their vague generalities - and because of its enforcement mechanism: the commission and the court. The fact that individuals could bring proceedings before these bodies - most international bodies allow only governments to do this - was also seen as praiseworthy.

For many years the United Kingdom has accepted the right of individuals to bring cases against it, but it does so only for five years at a time. It would be open to it to withdraw when the time comes for it to renew its acceptance. In the past it has occasionally made threatening noises when it has not approved of a decision by the court, but so far it has always renewed its acceptance.

Article 2 of the convention prohibits deliberate killing, save in the execution of a sentence of a court for an offence punishable by death. There are, however, three exceptions: self-defence or defence of others from unlawful violence; making an arrest or preventing a person from escaping; and quelling a riot or insurrection. The UK argued that the Gibraltar killings were excused by the first of these.

The court accepted that the SAS soldiers were not guilty of murder or of any unlawful killing. They accepted the Government version that the soldiers honestly - though, as it turned out, wrongly - believed that they had to act as they did to protect their own lives and the lives of others. To this extent the Government was vindicated. Nine of the judges, including the president of the court, held that the UK had not violated the convention at all. The majority, however, held that there was a violation, though not by the SAS soldiers. They ruled that the UK was at fault for allowing the situation to develop in which the soldiers believed that they had no option but to kill the suspects.

The Government admitted that they could have arrested the three suspects when they entered Gibraltar. However, if they had done that they would not have had enough evidence to bring them to trial. The authorities decided to wait, therefore, until they could get the car which they hoped would contain a bomb. The court felt that the authorities should have evaluated their information more carefully: for example, by considering the possibility that the car parked by one of the suspects might have been put there to keep the parking space free for a later car loaded with explosives.

In the end, therefore, the UK was found guilty of not having taken sufficient care to ensure that the lives of IRA personnel were protected. Some might feel that when known terrorists are at work one should not risk innocent lives, even if the risk is slight. The court disagreed. Nevertheless, the court accepted the Government's version of the facts, thus vindicating in large measure the UK. It awarded no compensation to the relatives, just costs, showing that the court accepted that the three were themselves out to kill. It may have been unfortunate that it did not hold fully for the Government, but the wilder criticisms of the court are not justified.

The writer is professor of law at the London School of Economics.

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Operations Manager

competitive: Progressive Recruitment: I am currently recruiting for an Operati...

Project Coordinator/Order Entry, Security Cleared

£100 - £110 per day + competitive: Orgtel: Project Coordinator/Order Entry Ham...

Senior Digital Marketing Executive

£35000 - £45000 Per Annum: Clearwater People Solutions Ltd: Our client based i...

Junior Developer- CSS, HMTL, Bootstrap

competitive: Progressive Recruitment: A leading company within the healthcare ...

Day In a Page

Read Next
Prime Minister David Cameron walks on stage to speak at The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) annual conference on November 4, 2013  

Does Cameron really believe in 'British Values'?

Temi Ogunye
The Lada became a symbol of Russia’s failure to keep up with Western economies  

Our sanctions will not cripple Russia. It is doing a lot of the dirty work itself

Hamish McRae
Save the tiger: The animals bred for bones on China’s tiger farms

The animals bred for bones on China’s tiger farms

The big cats kept in captivity to perform for paying audiences and then, when dead, their bodies used to fortify wine
A former custard factory, a Midlands bog and a Leeds cemetery all included in top 50 hidden spots in the UK

A former custard factory, a Midlands bog and a Leeds cemetery

Introducing the top 50 hidden spots in Britain
Ebola epidemic: Plagued by fear

Ebola epidemic: Plagued by fear

How a disease that has claimed fewer than 2,000 victims in its history has earned a place in the darkest corner of the public's imagination
Chris Pratt: From 'Parks and Recreation' to 'Guardians of the Galaxy'

From 'Parks and Recreation' to 'Guardians of the Galaxy'

He was homeless in Hawaii when he got his big break. Now the comic actor Chris Pratt is Hollywood's new favourite action star
How live cinema screenings can boost arts audiences

How live cinema screenings can boost arts audiences

Broadcasting plays and exhibitions to cinemas is a sure-fire box office smash
Shipping container hotels: Pop-up hotels filling a niche

Pop-up hotels filling a niche

Spending the night in a shipping container doesn't sound appealing, but these mobile crash pads are popping up at the summer's biggest events
Native American headdresses are not fashion accessories

Feather dust-up

A Canadian festival has banned Native American headwear. Haven't we been here before?
Boris Johnson's war on diesel

Boris Johnson's war on diesel

11m cars here run on diesel. It's seen as a greener alternative to unleaded petrol. So why is London's mayor on a crusade against the black pump?
5 best waterproof cameras

Splash and flash: 5 best waterproof cameras

Don't let water stop you taking snaps with one of these machines that will take you from the sand to meters deep
Louis van Gaal interview: Manchester United manager discusses tactics and rebuilding after the David Moyes era

Louis van Gaal interview

Manchester United manager discusses tactics and rebuilding after the David Moyes era
Will Gore: The goodwill shown by fans towards Alastair Cook will evaporate rapidly if India win the series

Will Gore: Outside Edge

The goodwill shown by fans towards Alastair Cook will evaporate rapidly if India win the series
The children were playing in the street with toy guns. The air strikes were tragically real

The air strikes were tragically real

The children were playing in the street with toy guns
Boozy, ignorant, intolerant, but very polite – The British, as others see us

Britain as others see us

Boozy, ignorant, intolerant, but very polite
How did our legends really begin?

How did our legends really begin?

Applying the theory of evolution to the world's many mythologies
Watch out: Lambrusco is back on the menu

Lambrusco is back on the menu

Naff Seventies corner-shop staple is this year's Aperol Spritz