Human rights and the righting of ‘historical’ wrongs: the Supreme Court’s judgment in Re McQuillan, McGuigan, and McKenna

Abstract

This comment examines particular aspects of the Supreme Court’s judgment in McQuillan, McGuigan and McKenna, notably its reasoning and findings in respect of the investigative obligation emanating from the right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as it related to the case of the ‘Hooded Men’. Although the Supreme Court acknowledged that the subjection of the Hooded Men to the so-called ‘five techniques’ of interrogation in 1971 would, today, be characterised as ‘torture’, and in spite of new evidence linking named members of the United Kingdom (UK) Government to the authorisation of the ‘five techniques’, the court found that there was no basis for recognising the applicability or revival of UK authorities’ obligation to investigate under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this case commentary, I consider the court’s analysis and conclusions and reflect briefly on their significance in the context of an uninterrupted ‘history’ of British involvement in torture.