Patrick Shanaghan v the United Kingdom - The Pat Finucane Centre

SHANAGHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 39
the time of his death and living in the applicant’s home, the applicant should
be awarded pecuniary damages for loss of earnings and non-pecuniary
damages.
143. The Government disputed that any award of damages would be
appropriate in the present case. They considered that the applicant had been
fully compensated for the loss suffered as a result of the death of Patrick
Shanaghan as she had accepted the sum of 25,520 pounds sterling (GBP)
from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. In their view, no loss
flowed from any violation of the procedural elements of Article 2 of the
Convention and a finding of violation in that context would in itself
constitute just satisfaction.
144. The Court has made no finding as to whether the security forces
played any role in the death of Patrick Shanaghan, which issues are pending
in the civil proceedings. No award can therefore be made in that respect.
However, the Court has found that the authorities failed in their obligation
under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out a prompt and effective
investigation into the circumstances of the death. The applicant must
thereby have suffered feelings of frustration, distress and anxiety. The Court
considers that the applicant sustained some non-pecuniary damage which is
not sufficiently compensated by the finding of a violation as a result of the
Convention. It has not taken into account the ex gratia compensation
payment from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme which related to
the damage flowing from a criminal act and not to the lack of procedural
efficacy in the investigation.
145. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the
applicant the sum of GBP 10,000.
B. Costs and expenses
146. The applicant claimed a total of GBP 29,046.55. This included
GBP 5,218.20 and GBP 13,344 respectively for two counsel, exclusive of
VAT, and GBP 10,484.35 for solicitors’ fees.
147. The Government submitted that these claims were excessive,
noting that the issues in this case overlapped significantly with the other
cases examined at the same time.
148. The Court recalls that this case has involved several rounds of
written submissions and an oral hearing, and may be regarded as factually
and legally complex. Nonetheless, it finds the fees claimed to be on the high
side when compared with other cases from the United Kingdom and is not
persuaded that they are reasonable as to quantum. Having regard to
equitable considerations, it awards the sum of GBP 20,000, plus any value
added tax which may be payable. It has taken into account the sums
received by the applicant by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe.