Chunk-level Retrieval Eval
Collection
Contextualized chunk-level (query2chunk) retrieval eval for the Citras benchmark. • 46 items • Updated
chunk_id stringlengths 12 16 | chunk stringlengths 1 797 | source_url stringclasses 200
values | title stringclasses 1
value | chunk_idx int64 0 573 | chunk_start_char int64 0 283k | chunk_end_char int64 57 283k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
passage_118::0 | INTRODUCTION
The case concerns various aspects of the applicant’s arrest and pre-trial detention.
THE FACTS
1. The applicant was born in 1984. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms O.O. Richko, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv.
2. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr I. ... | passage_118 | 0 | 0 | 402 | |
passage_118::1 | On 2 August 2018 his mother, Ms Svitlana Oleksiyivna Romanova (hereinafter “the applicant’s mother”), expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court.
4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
5. On 16 June 2011 criminal proceedings for grievous bodily harm w... | passage_118 | 1 | 403 | 866 | |
passage_118::2 | On 21 July 2011 the applicant appeared before the investigator in connection with the criminal investigation into attempted murder and gave an undertaking not to abscond.
7. On 25 July 2011 the investigator arrested the applicant and placed him in police custody on suspicion of attempted murder. The investigator drew... | passage_118 | 2 | 868 | 1,333 | |
passage_118::3 | On 25 July 2011 the investigator arrested the applicant and placed him in police custody on suspicion of attempted murder. The investigator drew up a report on his arrest, making a general reference to Article 106 § 2 and Article 115 of the 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”).
8. According to the official rep... | passage_118 | 3 | 1,335 | 1,722 | |
passage_118::4 | [He] was caught at the scene of the crime immediately after an offence had been committed, and
2. eyewitnesses, including the victim, directly identified [him] as the one who had committed the offence.”
It stated that his arrest was justified by the necessity of preventing him from evading justice or obstructing the... | passage_118 | 4 | 1,724 | 2,352 | |
passage_118::5 | On 26 July 2011 a forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant was carried out. The experts provided the following conclusions:
“1. Mr Romanov is currently showing signs of chronic mental illness in the form of paranoid schizophrenia. The present psychiatric condition of [Mr Romanov] is such that he is unaware o... | passage_118 | 5 | 2,354 | 2,897 | |
passage_118::6 | In view of his mental health Mr Romanov requires involuntary medical treatment by way of admission to a psychiatric hospital under close supervision.”
3. In view of his mental health Mr Romanov requires involuntary medical treatment by way of admission to a psychiatric hospital under close supervision.”
10. On 28 J... | passage_118 | 6 | 2,899 | 3,529 | |
passage_118::7 | On 28 July 2011 the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”) extended the applicant’s detention in police custody to ten days with a view to obtaining an assessment of his personality and the likelihood of his absconding the investigation. No further reasons were provided by the District Court.
11. O... | passage_118 | 7 | 3,531 | 3,965 | |
passage_118::8 | The District Court referred in its decision to the conclusions of the psychiatric examination of 26 July 2011 and stated that the applicant had been accused of a serious offence and might otherwise escape and hinder the investigation or continue with his criminal activity. No further reasons were provided by the Distri... | passage_118 | 8 | 3,966 | 4,585 | |
passage_118::9 | The District Court referred in its decision to the conclusions of the psychiatric examination of 26 July 2011 and stated that the applicant had been accused of a serious offence and might otherwise escape and hinder the investigation or continue with his criminal activity. No further reasons were provided by the Distri... | passage_118 | 9 | 4,586 | 5,189 | |
passage_118::10 | On 19 September 2011 the investigator’s request and the case file were transferred to the District Court.
12. On 12 September 2011 the investigator requested compulsory psychiatric treatment for the applicant. On 19 September 2011 the investigator’s request and the case file were transferred to the District Court.
1... | passage_118 | 10 | 5,190 | 5,806 | |
passage_118::11 | The District Court also specified that the applicant was to be held in the SIZO pending his transfer to a special psychiatric facility.
14. The applicant and his defence lawyer appealed against that decision on 9 and 8 December 2011 respectively.
15. On 15 December 2011 the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals w... | passage_118 | 11 | 5,807 | 6,306 | |
passage_118::12 | On 15 December 2011 the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals without examining them, on the ground that the applicant and his defence lawyer had both missed the time-limit for lodging their appeals without having requested an extension.
16. On 7 February 2012 the applicant was placed in the psychiatric hospital un... | passage_118 | 12 | 6,308 | 6,825 | |
passage_118::13 | RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
18. The provisions of the CCP concerning the conditions of arrest of a suspect by the body of inquiry and further pre-trial detention can be found in Osypenko v. Ukraine (no. 4634/04, § 33, 9 November 2010).
THE LAW
LOCUS STANDI OF THE APP... | passage_118 | 13 | 6,827 | 7,260 | |
passage_118::14 | The applicant’s mother informed the Court that she wished to pursue his application. In a number of cases relating to Article 5 of the Convention in which an applicant has died in the course of the proceedings, the Court has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close family members expressin... | passage_118 | 14 | 7,261 | 7,729 | |
passage_118::15 | It sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case and therefore accepts that the applicant’s mother can pursue the application initially brought by the applicant. For convenience, the Court will continue to refer to Mr Ivan Volodymyrovych Romanov as “the applicant” in the present judgment.
ALLEGED ... | passage_118 | 15 | 7,730 | 8,299 | |
passage_118::16 | He relied on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 5 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. | passage_118 | 16 | 8,300 | 8,464 | |
passage_118::17 | No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it ... | passage_118 | 17 | 8,465 | 8,960 | |
passage_118::18 | Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial ...
5. Everyone who has been the... | passage_118 | 18 | 8,962 | 9,625 | |
passage_118::19 | Merits
Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
The applicant’s arrest on 25 July 2011
22. The applicant complained that his arrest on 25 July 2011 without a judicial warrant had been in breach of the domestic law and the Convention.
23. The Government contended that the applicant’s arrest had been in compliance with both... | passage_118 | 19 | 9,627 | 9,989 | |
passage_118::20 | The Court notes that the investigator justified the applicant’s arrest by making a general reference to Article 106 of the CCP and stating that the applicant might try to abscond from justice and obstruct the investigation (see paragraph 8 above). No further specific reasons for the applicant’s arrest on the basis of t... | passage_118 | 20 | 9,991 | 10,641 | |
passage_118::21 | However, the Court observes that there was no explanation why the applicant’s case fell within the scope of those exceptional situations affording investigators the power of arrest without a court decision first being delivered (see, for example, Makarenko v. Ukraine, no. 622/11, §§ 73-74, 30 January 2018).
26. | passage_118 | 21 | 10,642 | 10,955 | |
passage_118::22 | It is also of relevance that, except of the general statements in the report on his arrest (see paragraph 8 above), the parties’ submissions do not contain any further indications of attempts by the applicant to abscond from justice, obstruct the investigation and influence witnesses in the proceedings, or of the possi... | passage_118 | 22 | 10,957 | 11,565 | |
passage_118::23 | The Court notes that it has examined similar situations in a number of cases against Ukraine in which it found that depriving applicants of their liberty without a judicial warrant had contravened the domestic legislation and had thus been incompatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, muta... | passage_118 | 23 | 11,567 | 12,049 | |
passage_118::24 | 10042/11, §§ 48-52, 30 January 2018).
27. The Court notes that it has examined similar situations in a number of cases against Ukraine in which it found that depriving applicants of their liberty without a judicial warrant had contravened the domestic legislation and had thus been incompatible with the requirements o... | passage_118 | 24 | 12,050 | 12,451 | |
passage_118::25 | 30198/11, § 88, 6 October 2016, with further references therein, and, as a most recent authority, Korniychuk v. Ukraine, no. 10042/11, §§ 48-52, 30 January 2018).
28. The Court does not see any reason to depart from its earlier findings in the present case. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of t... | passage_118 | 25 | 12,452 | 12,835 | |
passage_118::26 | The applicant’s detention in police custody between 28 July and 4 August 2011
29. The applicant submitted that the District Court’s decision of 28 July 2011 extending his detention in police custody had not been lawful or in compliance with Article 5 § 1.
30. The Government contested that complaint.
31. | passage_118 | 26 | 12,837 | 13,146 | |
passage_118::27 | The Court notes that, once the applicant was brought before a court on 28 July 2011, he was not remanded in custody, but his detention was extended to ten days with reference to Article 165-2 of the CCP, which provides that a court may extend a person’s detention for up to ten days (fifteen days at the request of the ... | passage_118 | 27 | 13,148 | 13,592 | |
passage_118::28 | The Court has previously held that an extension of detention under Article 165 § 2 may be justified in certain circumstances where the court requires time to establish the person’s identity and to collect other information crucial for taking a decision on his or her pre-trial detention. At the same time, the Court has ... | passage_118 | 28 | 13,593 | 14,039 | |
passage_118::29 | In the present case, the reasons for extending the applicant’s detention were the need to obtain an assessment of his personality and of the likelihood of his absconding (see paragraph 10 above). The Court notes that the reasons given do not substantiate the existence of any risks or circumstances justifying the need t... | passage_118 | 29 | 14,040 | 14,614 | |
passage_118::30 | The Court thus considers that the applicant was detained between 28 July and 4 August 2011 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
The applicant’s detention from 25 September to 2 December 2011
33. The applicant submitted that his detention upon expiry of the statutory time-limit (two months from the time of h... | passage_118 | 30 | 14,616 | 15,125 | |
passage_118::31 | The Court observes that the District Court’s decision of 4 August 2011 ordering the applicant’s pre-trial detention did not indicate a time-limit for such detention. Under the provisions of the CCP (as in force at the material time), the maximum term of a suspect’s initial pre-trial detention was two months from the mo... | passage_118 | 31 | 15,127 | 15,534 | |
passage_118::32 | The Court furthermore notes that on 19 September 2011 – that is, before the expiry of the statutory time-limit – the investigator’s request for the applicant’s compulsory psychiatric treatment and the case file were transferred to the District Court for consideration. However, no further decision on the applicant’s det... | passage_118 | 32 | 15,536 | 16,066 | |
passage_118::33 | It appears that the reason for the applicant’s being held in custody during the above-mentioned period of time was based on the fact that the investigator’s request for the applicant’s compulsory psychiatric treatment and the case file had been submitted to the District Court for consideration. In that connection, the ... | passage_118 | 33 | 16,068 | 16,658 | |
passage_118::34 | 40107/02, § 71, 10 February 2011).
38. The Court does not see any reason to depart from its earlier findings in the present case. It thus considers that from 25 September to 2 December 2011 the applicant was detained in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
The applicant’s detention from 2 December 2011 to 7 Fe... | passage_118 | 34 | 16,659 | 17,050 | |
passage_118::35 | The applicant stressed that his detention pending his transfer to a special psychiatric facility pursuant to the District Court’s decision of 2 December 2011 had not been justified.
40. The Government contested and submitted that the period of the applicant’s detention had been justified and reasonable.
41. The Cou... | passage_118 | 35 | 17,052 | 17,501 | |
passage_118::36 | However, the applicability of one ground does not necessarily preclude that of another; a detention may, depending on the circumstances, be justified under more than one sub-paragraph (see Eriksen v. Norway, 27 May 1997, § 76, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997III).
42. | passage_118 | 36 | 17,502 | 17,778 | |
passage_118::37 | The Court firstly observes that in the instant case the applicant’s deprivation of liberty, ordered by decision of 2 December 2011, falls within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (e) (see Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, § 45, Reports 1998V).
43. | passage_118 | 37 | 17,780 | 18,019 | |
passage_118::38 | It must further be established whether the continuation of the applicant’s detention in the SIZO from 2 December 2011 to 7 February 2012 was “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” and “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1. The Convention here refers essentially to national law and states the obligati... | passage_118 | 38 | 18,021 | 18,625 | |
passage_118::39 | However, for the purposes of Article 5 of the Convention, the lawfulness under domestic law of the applicant’s detention is not in itself decisive. It must also be established that his detention during the relevant period was in conformity with the purpose of Article 5 § 1, which is to prevent persons from being depriv... | passage_118 | 39 | 18,627 | 19,062 | |
passage_118::40 | The Court notes that the length of detention pending transfer to a psychiatric hospital is not specified by any statutory or other provision. Nevertheless, it must determine whether the continuation of the applicant’s detention in the SIZO for more than two months following the relevant decision of the District Court (... | passage_118 | 40 | 19,064 | 19,696 | |
passage_118::41 | Even though that delay may not at first glance seem particularly excessive, the Court is deprived of the possibility to assess its reasonableness (compare Brand v. the Netherlands, no. 49902/99, §§ 58-67, 11 May 2004, and Pankiewicz v. Poland, no. 34151/04, §§ 38-46, 12 February 2008).
47. | passage_118 | 41 | 19,697 | 19,988 | |
passage_118::42 | In the absence of any reasons on the part of the Government explaining the applicant’s continued detention in the SIZO pending his transfer to a special psychiatric facility, the Court considers that it was not justified and thus compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. There has accordingly... | passage_118 | 42 | 19,990 | 20,613 | |
passage_118::43 | 49. The Government submitted that there had been reasonable grounds to place the applicant in detention. They referred, in particular, to the conclusions of the psychiatric examination of 26 July 2011 (see paragraph 9 above), the seriousness of the offence allegedly committed by the applicant, and the risk of his absc... | passage_118 | 43 | 20,615 | 21,142 | |
passage_118::44 | 23755/07, §§ 84-91 and 102, 5 July 2016).
51. The Court observes that the reasons given by the District Court for the applicant’s pre-trial detention in its decision of 4 August 2011 were the seriousness of the offence he was accused of, and the possibility of his escaping and hindering the investigation. However, no... | passage_118 | 44 | 21,143 | 21,500 | |
passage_118::45 | It furthermore observes that the District Court, when taking its decision, referred, without making any assessment, to the forensic psychiatric examination report of 26 July 2011 concluding that the applicant required involuntary medical treatment by way of admission to a psychiatric hospital with close supervision.
5... | passage_118 | 45 | 21,501 | 22,107 | |
passage_118::46 | In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the decision of the District Court of 4 August 2011 ordering the applicant’s pre-trial detention does not seem to have contained any assessment of the individual circumstances and of the risks justifying the alteration of the preventive measure imposed on him. The rea... | passage_118 | 46 | 22,109 | 22,625 | |
passage_118::47 | The Court observes that the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 5 is similar to the complaints examined by the Court in a number of other cases against Ukraine (see, as the most recent example, Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, §§ 79-84, 27 February 2018). The Court concludes that the applicant did not have an enfo... | passage_118 | 47 | 22,627 | 23,093 | |
passage_118::48 | APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
56. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessa... | passage_118 | 48 | 23,095 | 23,622 | |
passage_118::49 | Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant’s mother EUR 9,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
59. The applicant’s mother did not request any sum in respect of costs and expenses. Therefore, the Court is not called upon to make an award under th... | passage_118 | 49 | 23,624 | 24,149 | |
passage_118::50 | FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Declares that the applicant’s mother, Ms Svitlana Oleksiyivna Romanova, has standing to continue the present proceedings in the applicant’s stead;
Declares the application admissible;
Holds that there have been violations of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention regarding the app... | passage_118 | 50 | 24,151 | 24,617 | |
passage_118::51 | without being covered by a court order, and his detention from 2 December 2011 to 7 February 2012 pending his transfer to a special psychiatric facility;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention regarding the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant’s detention followi... | passage_118 | 51 | 24,617 | 25,169 | |
passage_118::52 | unlawful and unjustified detention;
Holds
that the respondent State is to pay the applicant’s mother, Ms Svitlana Oleksiyivna Romanova, within three months, EUR 9,800 (nine thousand eight hundred euros), to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus ... | passage_118 | 52 | 25,169 | 25,753 | |
passage_118::53 | Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction. | passage_118 | 53 | 25,753 | 25,875 | |
passage_118::54 | Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 May 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. | passage_118 | 54 | 25,877 | 25,987 | |
passage_921::0 | PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 29178/95) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Conventi... | passage_921 | 0 | 0 | 481 | |
passage_921::1 | The Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
3. The applicant alleged that there had been no proper, effective investigation into the death of her husband, Patrick Finucane.
4. The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November... | passage_921 | 1 | 482 | 1,019 | |
passage_921::2 | On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Fourth Section (Rule 52 § 1). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.
7. By a decision o... | passage_921 | 2 | 1,021 | 1,495 | |
passage_921::3 | The Chamber decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
9. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in .
10. Around 7.25 p.m. on 12 February 1989 the applicant's husband, solicitor Patrick Finucane, was killed... | passage_921 | 3 | 1,496 | 1,958 | |
passage_921::4 | Patrick Finucane was shot in the head, neck and chest. Six bullets had struck the head and there was evidence that one or more of these had been fired within a range of 15 inches when he was lying on the floor. The day after the murder, 13 February 1989, a man telephoned the press and stated that the illegal loyalist p... | passage_921 | 4 | 1,959 | 2,474 | |
passage_921::5 | Patrick Finucane represented clients from both sides of the conflict in and was involved in a number of high-profile cases arising from that conflict. The applicant believed that it was because of his work on these cases that prior to his murder he had received death threats, via his clients, from officers of the Roya... | passage_921 | 5 | 2,476 | 2,924 | |
passage_921::6 | After acting for Brian Gillen in a case concerning maltreatment in RUC custody, the threats apparently escalated, and clients reported that police officers often abused and threatened to kill him during interrogations at holding centres such as Castlereagh. On 5 January 1989, five weeks before his death, one of Patrick... | passage_921 | 6 | 2,925 | 3,456 | |
passage_921::7 | His death came less than four weeks after Douglas Hogg MP, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, had said in a committee stage debate on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill on 17 January 1989:
“I have to state as a fact, but with great regret, that there are in a num... | passage_921 | 7 | 3,457 | 3,892 | |
passage_921::8 | After the shooting, the applicant's house was cordoned off by the RUC and a forensic examination of the scene conducted by experts. Photographs were taken and maps prepared. A scene of crimes officer examined the car believed to have been used by those responsible for the shooting and which had been found abandoned.
1... | passage_921 | 8 | 3,894 | 4,452 | |
passage_921::9 | On 4 July 1989 the RUC found one of the weapons believed to have been used in the murder. On 5 April 1990 three members of the UFF were convicted of possessing this and another weapon and of membership of the UFF. The weapon had been stolen from the barracks of the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR – a locally recruited reg... | passage_921 | 9 | 4,454 | 4,882 | |
passage_921::10 | In or around September 1990 the police found firearms in the attic of William Stobie's flat. The latter was arrested. He was, according to the applicant, questioned about the Finucane murder from 13 to 20 September 1990. A journalist had allegedly interviewed William Stobie and had told the police about the interview b... | passage_921 | 10 | 4,884 | 5,472 | |
passage_921::11 | He is also reported as having told the police that he had been acting as an informer for Special Branch for the past three years. A decision was taken on 16 January 1991 not to prosecute William Stobie in connection with the Finucane case, apparently on the ground that there was insufficient evidence. On 23 January 199... | passage_921 | 11 | 5,473 | 5,962 | |
passage_921::12 | The inquest into Patrick Finucane's death opened on 6 September 1990 and ended the same day. Evidence was heard from RUC officers involved in investigating the death, as well as from the applicant, two neighbours and a taxi driver whose car had been hijacked and used by those responsible for the shooting. The applicant... | passage_921 | 12 | 5,964 | 6,596 | |
passage_921::13 | 18. Forensic evidence showed that the victim had been hit at least eleven times by a 9 mm Browning automatic pistol and twice by a .38 Special revolver. Detective Superintendent (D/S) Simpson of the RUC, who was in charge of the murder investigation, gave evidence that the Browning pistol was one of thirteen weapons s... | passage_921 | 13 | 6,598 | 7,177 | |
passage_921::14 | However, the police were satisfied that those individuals had not been in possession of the weapons at the time of Patrick Finucane's murder.
19. According to the evidence given by D/S Simpson at the inquest, the police had interviewed fourteen people in connection with the murder, but had found that, although their ... | passage_921 | 14 | 7,178 | 7,867 | |
passage_921::15 | He rejected the claim made by the UFF that Patrick Finucane was a member of the Provisional IRA.
20. The inquest heard evidence that the murderers had used a red Ford Sierra car with the registration no. VIA 2985, which had been hijacked by three men from a taxi driver, W.R., shortly before the murder. D/S Simpson st... | passage_921 | 15 | 7,868 | 8,450 | |
passage_921::16 | He had also seen parts of a report by a group of international lawyers. This had been investigated by the Stevens inquiry team (see below), with whom he liaised closely. Although he did not know who had been interviewed, as the Stevens inquiry was separate from the murder investigation, he said that no evidence had bee... | passage_921 | 16 | 8,451 | 9,052 | |
passage_921::17 | On 14 September 1989 the Chief Constable of the RUC appointed John Stevens, then Deputy Chief Constable of the Cambridgeshire Constabulary, to investigate allegations of collusion between members of the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries (the Stevens 1 inquiry).
22. While, according to the applicant, it was ... | passage_921 | 17 | 9,054 | 9,579 | |
passage_921::18 | On 5 April 1990 John Stevens submitted his report to the Chief Constable of the RUC. While the full report was not made public, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a statement to the House of Commons on 17 May 1990 in which he declared, inter alia, that as a result of the inquiry ninety-four persons had be... | passage_921 | 18 | 9,581 | 10,192 | |
passage_921::19 | Any evidence or allegation of criminal conduct had been rigorously followed up. No charges had been laid against members of the RUC, but John Stevens had concluded that there had been misbehaviour by a few members of the UDR. He had made detailed recommendations aimed at improving the arrangements for the dissemination... | passage_921 | 19 | 10,193 | 10,857 | |
passage_921::20 | At his trial, the British authorities claimed that he had got out of hand and had become personally involved in loyalist murder plots. Originally, he faced thirty-five charges, but thirteen were dropped and he was eventually convicted on five charges of conspiracy to murder, for which he was sentenced to ten years' imp... | passage_921 | 20 | 10,858 | 11,335 | |
passage_921::21 | In prison, Brian Nelson allegedly admitted that, in his capacity as a UDA intelligence officer, he had himself targeted Patrick Finucane and, in his capacity as a double agent, had told his British army handlers about the approach at the time. It was also alleged that he had passed a photograph of Patrick Finucane to t... | passage_921 | 21 | 11,337 | 11,801 | |
passage_921::22 | These allegations were transmitted in a BBC Panorama programme on 8 June 1992 and the transcript of the programme was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
26. Following the Panorama programme, the DPP asked the Chief Constable of the RUC to conduct further inquiries into the issues raised in the program... | passage_921 | 22 | 11,802 | 12,268 | |
passage_921::23 | According to the Government, he investigated the alleged involvement of Brian Nelson and members of the army in the death of Patrick Finucane (see, however, John Steven's press statement, paragraph 33 below). The applicant stated that no member of the inquiry team contacted her or her legal representative, or any forme... | passage_921 | 23 | 12,269 | 12,817 | |
passage_921::24 | On 17 February 1995 the DPP issued a direction of “no prosecution” to the Chief Constable of the RUC.
28. In answer to a parliamentary question published on 15 May 1995, Sir John Wheeler MP said that the DPP had concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant the prosecution of any person, despite Brian Nel... | passage_921 | 24 | 12,818 | 13,332 | |
passage_921::25 | On 11 February 1992 the applicant issued a writ of summons against the Ministry of Defence and Brian Nelson, claiming damages on behalf of the estate of the deceased, herself and other dependants of the deceased. It was alleged that the deceased's murder had been committed by or at the instigation of or with the conniv... | passage_921 | 25 | 13,334 | 13,824 | |
passage_921::26 | It was also alleged that the first defendant had been negligent in the gathering, recording, retention, safe-keeping and dissemination of material concerning the deceased, and in the warning, protection and safeguarding of the deceased.
30. The applicant's statement of claim was served on 8 December 1993 and the defe... | passage_921 | 26 | 13,825 | 14,196 | |
passage_921::27 | In its amended defence of 11 October 1995, it was admitted that Brian Nelson had acted as agent for and on behalf of the Ministry of Defence but it was claimed that if he had had any information about the proposed attack on Patrick Finucane he had not communicated it to the ministry as he was required to do.
31. On 2... | passage_921 | 27 | 14,197 | 14,727 | |
passage_921::28 | On 20 May 1999 a supplemental list of documents, certified by an affidavit sworn by the Permanent Under Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, was served on the applicant. The applicant requested copies of those documents, which were provided on 20 July 1999. The applicant then asked to inspect the originals but was inf... | passage_921 | 28 | 14,728 | 15,177 | |
passage_921::29 | On 12 February 1999 the Government stated that at a meeting between the applicant and Dr Mowlem, the Secretary of State for , a paper was handed over to Dr Mowlem which, it was claimed, contained new material relating to the murder of Patrick Finucane. This paper was passed on to John Stevens, now Deputy Commissioner o... | passage_921 | 29 | 15,179 | 15,695 | |
passage_921::30 | On 28 April 1999, at a press conference, John Stevens stated:
“... in September 1989 ... I was appointed ... to conduct the so-called 'Stevens inquiry' into breaches of security by the security forces in .
This commenced after the theft of montages from Dunmurry Police Station.
This inquiry resulted in 43 conviction... | passage_921 | 30 | 15,697 | 16,258 | |
passage_921::31 | This 'Stevens 1' inquiry was followed by a 'Stevens 2' inquiry in April 1993 ...
At the request of the DPP I was asked to investigate further matters which solely related to the previous inquiry and prosecutions. [The then RUC Chief Constable] referred to our return as 'tying up some loose ends'.
At no time, either i... | passage_921 | 31 | 16,260 | 16,805 | |
passage_921::32 | [The] Chief Constable of the [RUC] has now asked me to conduct an independent investigation into the murder of Patrick Finucane. I am also investigating the associated matters raised by the British Irish Rights Watch document 'Deadly Intelligence' and the UN Commissioner's Report. ...”
2. The criminal prosecution
34... | passage_921 | 32 | 16,807 | 17,382 | |
passage_921::33 | It was reported by the Committee for the Administration of Justice that on being charged William Stobie made the following statement:
“Not guilty of the charge that you have put to me tonight. At the time I was police informer for Special Branch. On the night of the death of Patrick Finucane I informed Special Branch ... | passage_921 | 33 | 17,384 | 17,832 | |
passage_921::34 | William Stobie's solicitor told the court that his client was a paid police informer from 1987 to 1990 and that he had given information to the police on two occasions before the Finucane murder which was not acted upon. He also stated that, at his client's trial on 23 January 1991 on firearms charges, the prosecution ... | passage_921 | 34 | 17,834 | 18,325 | |
passage_921::35 | On 26 November 2001 it was reported in the press that William Stobie's trial had collapsed when the Lord Chief Justice returned a verdict of not guilty in the absence of evidence. The prosecution had informed the court that the key witness, a journalist, was not able to give evidence due to serious mental illness.
38.... | passage_921 | 35 | 18,327 | 18,775 | |
passage_921::36 | Further arrests were reported as having been made by officers in the Stevens inquiry in March 2002, with persons being questioned in relation to the Finucane murder.
3. the proposed international investigation
40. On 24 October 2001 the government announced in Parliament that, amongst the measures proposed to the I... | passage_921 | 36 | 18,777 | 19,442 | |
passage_921::37 | In the light of the investigation, the judge would decide whether to recommend a public inquiry into any of the killings.
4. the Stevens 3 inquiry report
41. On 17 April 2003 John Stevens submitted his report to the DPP. A nineteen-page overview with recommendations was made public. It included the following:
“4.6... | passage_921 | 37 | 19,443 | 20,049 | |
passage_921::38 | 4.7. I concluded that there was collusion in both murders and the circumstances surrounding them. Collusion is evidenced in many ways. This ranges from the wilful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, through to the extreme of agents being involved in mur... | passage_921 | 38 | 20,051 | 20,635 | |
passage_921::39 | The conduct of inquests in is governed by the Coroners Act () 1959 and the Coroners (Practice and Procedure) Rules () 1963. These provide the framework for a procedure within which deaths by violence or in suspicious circumstances are notified to the coroner, who then has the power to hold an inquest, with or without ... | passage_921 | 39 | 20,637 | 21,185 | |
passage_921::40 | Under the Coroners Act, every medical practitioner, registrar of deaths or funeral undertaker who has reason to believe that a person died directly or indirectly by violence must inform the coroner (section 7). Every medical practitioner who performs a post-mortem examination has to notify the coroner of the result in ... | passage_921 | 40 | 21,187 | 21,716 | |
passage_921::41 | Rules 12 and 13 of the Coroners Rules give power to the coroner to adjourn an inquest where a person may be or has been charged with murder or other specified criminal offences in relation to the deceased.
45. Where the coroner decides to hold an inquest with a jury, persons are called from the Jury List, compiled by... | passage_921 | 41 | 21,718 | 22,252 | |
passage_921::42 | The proceedings and evidence at an inquest shall be directed solely to ascertaining the following matters, namely –
(a) who the deceased was;
(b) how, when and where the deceased came by his death;
(c) the particulars for the time being required by the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 ... | passage_921 | 42 | 22,254 | 22,802 | |
passage_921::43 | The verdict forms used in Northern Ireland accord with this recommendation, recording the name and other particulars of the deceased, a statement of the cause of death (for example, bullet wounds) and findings as to when and where the deceased met his death. In England and Wales, the verdict form appended to the Englis... | passage_921 | 43 | 22,804 | 23,301 | |
passage_921::44 | These findings involve expressing an opinion on criminal liability in that they involve a finding as to whether the death resulted from a criminal act, but no finding is made that any identified person is criminally liable. The jury in and may also append recommendations to their verdict.
48. However, in , the coro... | passage_921 | 44 | 23,302 | 23,850 |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 74