R (Gentle) v Prime Minister
Article 2 does not impose a duty on the state to hold an inquiry into the lawfulness of a decision to go to war, so the families of soldiers killed in Iraq could not compel such an inquiry.
Facts
The mothers of two soldiers who were killed while serving in Iraq sought judicial review of the government's refusal to hold an independent inquiry into the circumstances in which the United Kingdom went to war in Iraq, and in particular whether the government had taken reasonable steps to obtain reliable legal advice that the invasion was lawful under international law. They argued that article 2 required such an inquiry.
Legal principle
The House of Lords dismissed the appeal. Lord Bingham said that article 2 did not impose a substantive obligation on the state not to deploy its armed forces in an unlawful war, and that the question of the lawfulness of the war under international law was not one which article 2 required the state to investigate. The deaths of the soldiers had been caused by the actions of insurgents, and the procedural obligation under article 2 did not extend to an inquiry into the political decision to go to war. The Iraq Inquiry, chaired by Sir John Chilcot, was later set up by the government.
Related cases on right to life (article 2)
- Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2001] Fam 147
- Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789
- Re Finucane's Application for Judicial Review [2019] UKSC 7
- Jordan v United Kingdom (2003) 37 EHRR 2
- McCann v United Kingdom (1996) 21 EHRR 97
- Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2, [2015] AC 1732
- Opuz v Turkey (2010) 50 EHRR 28
- Osman v United Kingdom (2000) 29 EHRR 245
Studying human rights law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
