Убийство Литвиненко: речь адвоката Эммерсона

[aillarionov]

Полный текст выступления адвоката Марины Литвиненко Бена Эммерсона на открытии публичного расследования убийства Александра Литвиненко.
Лондон, 27 января 2015 года
Перевод Фонда Литвиненко

Comments

Conclusion

[aillarionov]

73. I have upheld the claimant’s challenge to the adequacy or correctness of the first, third and fourth of the reasons given by the Secretary of State for refusing the Coroner’s request to set up a statutory inquiry. I have also indicated my concerns about the fifth and sixth reasons though they are of subsidiary importance for the claim. As to the second reason, the Secretary of State was wrong to proceed on the basis that Article 2 was not engaged but I have found that the procedural obligation under Article 2 does not require any investigation beyond that already carried out and that the error was therefore immaterial.

74. Taking everything together, I am satisfied that the reasons given by the Secretary of State do not provide a rational basis for the decision not to set up a statutory inquiry at this time but to adopt a “wait and see” approach. The deficiencies in the reasons are so substantial that the decision cannot stand. The appropriate relief is a quashing order.

75. The case for setting up an immediate statutory inquiry as requested by the Coroner is plainly a strong one. The existence of important factors in its favour is acknowledged, as I have said, in the Secretary of State’s own decision letter. I would not go so far, however, as to accept Mr Emmerson’s submission that the Secretary of State’s refusal to set up an inquiry is so obviously contrary to the public interest as to be irrational, that is to say that the only course reasonably open to her is to accede to the Coroner’s request. If she is to maintain her refusal she will need better reasons than those given in the decision letter, so as to provide a rational basis for her decision. But her discretion under section 1(1) of the 2005 Act is a very broad one and the question of an inquiry is, as Mr Garnham submitted, difficult and nuanced. I do not think that this court is in a position to say that the Secretary of State has no rational option but to set up a statutory inquiry now.

76. Accordingly, whilst it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to give fresh consideration to the exercise of her discretion under section 1(1) of the 2005 Act and in so doing to take into account the points made in this judgment, I would stress that the judgment does not of itself mandate any particular outcome.

Lord Justice Treacy:
77. I agree.

Mr Justice Mitting:
78. I also agree.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-litvinenko-v-sshd-1102014.pdf

RE: Conclusion

[bbb]

Ну так я же именно эту ссылку и дал. Верховный суд решил, что если правительство действительно хочет и дальше не допускать расследования, то ему следует придумать какие-то дополнительные обоснования. Придумать их не удалось (другое дело, что, наверно, не очень хотелось).

При этом ясно, что если бы верховный суд согласился с позицией правительства и отверг иск Марины Литвиненко, то расследование было бы похоронено.

Так что именно решение верховного суда было решающим моментом, и менно так его все и поняли - http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26141627

Re: Conclusion

[aillarionov]

Так я специально, следуя твоему линку, заключение и выложил))