Patrick Shanaghan v the United Kingdom - The Pat Finucane Centre

34 SHANAGHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
prevented examination of any circumstances relevant to the death of the
applicant’s son.
119. Finally, the Court has had regard to the delay in the proceedings.
The inquest opened on 26 March 1996, more than four and a half years after
Patrick Shanaghan’s death. The Government explained that the delay in the
RUC sending the file to the Coroner on 14 January 1994 resulted from their
heavy criminal workload. The Court does not find this a satisfactory
explanation for failure to carry out a transfer of documents for an important
judicial procedure. No explanation, beyond unspecified further enquiries,
has been forthcoming for the delay after the transfer of the file. Once the
inquest opened, it proceeded without delay, concluding within a month.
120. In the circumstances, the delay in commencing the inquest cannot
be regarded as compatible with the State’s obligation under Article 2 of the
Convention to ensure that investigations into suspicious deaths are carried
out promptly.
(iv) Civil proceedings
121. As found above (see paragraph 96), civil proceedings would
provide a judicial fact finding forum, with the attendant safeguards and the
possibility of obtaining findings of unlawfulness and damages. It is however
a procedure undertaken on the initiative of the applicant, not the authorities,
and it does not involve the identification or punishment of any alleged
perpetrator. As such, it cannot be taken into account in the assessment of
the State’s compliance with its procedural obligations under Article 2 of the
Convention.
(v) Conclusion
122. The Court finds that the proceedings for investigating the use of
lethal force by the police officer have been shown in this case to disclose the
following shortcomings:
– no prompt or effective investigation into the allegations of collusion in
the death of Patrick Shanaghan has been shown to have been carried out;
– a lack of independence of the police officers investigating the incident
from the security force personnel alleged to have been implicated in
collusion with the loyalist paramilitaries who carried out the shooting;
– a lack of public scrutiny, and information to the victim’s family, of the
reasons for the decision of the DPP not to prosecute in respect of alleged
collusion;
– the scope of examination of the inquest excluded the concerns of
collusion by security force personnel in the targeting and killing of
Patrick Shanaghan;
– the inquest procedure did not allow for any verdict or findings which
could play an effective role in securing a prosecution in respect of any
criminal offence which might have been disclosed;