The Claimant attempted to commit suicide whilst in a Young Offenders Institute. The claimant brought an application for judicial review on the basis that the State had breached its obligations under Article 2 ECHR. Under Article 2 ECHR there is a procedural obligation for the State in cases where there is death or attempted suicide to conduct an investigation which must remain independent and open. So as to meet the requirements of Article 2, the Secretary of State ordered a public investigation, which involved a first-stage investigation and a second-stage public inquiry. Stage 1 was to be conducted by a charted forensic psychologist (M), who had experience of prisons but had not worked at the young offender institution in question. M’s request by a letter for a meeting with L was refused, and there was no response to her further letters. M completed her investigation and reported her findings in draft. Stage 2 of the enquiry had yet to take place.

The claimant asserted that the enquiry did not match the demands of Article 2, on three main grounds. 

First, the claimant posited that stage 1 of the investigation was not independent of the State. The court rejected this claim. The forensic psychologist had no hierarchical or institutional connection with any individual potentially implicated in the circumstances of L’s attempted suicide or with the institution in question and a fair-minded informed observer would not perceive any conscious or unconscious bias.

Secondly, the claimant put forward that Article 2 ECHR requires the claimant to be afforded the opportunity to participate in the investigation and the claimant’s legitimate expectation to participate in the investigation was not fulfilled. The court rejected this claim. Although it would have been better for M to have taken more steps to involve L, it was evident that L chose not to engage with the enquiry process. Had he been co-operative with M as to the enquiry’s procedures and mechanics, there was no reason why the process should not have been advanced with Article 2 being satisfied, hence L bore some responsibility. Moreover, M’s report remained a draft. L could put his points before her, which would certainly be responded to on a considered basis. As the second stage of the enquiry was still to take place L could still put or repeat matters of concern there. It followed that L enjoyed and continued to enjoy sufficient assurances of participation.

Thirdly, the claimant asserted that the investigation had not been conducted promptly. The court considered that although a great deal of time had passed, which was inimical to an Article 2 investigation, the investigation was not complete yet so no proof of damage was established. Thus no relief could be ordered on this basis for the present. 

Hence the application for judicial review on account of a breach of Article 2 obligations was refused.