Duncan Lewis Represents Claimant in ECtHR Challenge Concerning Article 3 Investigation Duties (14 July 2026)

The European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) has considered a case brought by Duncan Lewis (MG v United Kingdom, Application No. 13063/23) challenging the failure of the UK Government to initiate an Article 3 compliant investigation into the events which culminated in a near-fatal stabbing attack at an asylum hotel in Glasgow in June 2020.

The Court invited submissions from the UK Government in response to the application, and has decided, at this stage, that the complaint is premature as a Fatal Accident Inquiry (‘FAI’) – the Scottish equivalent of an Inquest - into the incident remains ongoing. However, the Court has left it open to MG to re-approach the Court and re-open the investigation should he be dissatisfied in the future with the progress or outcome of the domestic procedure.

Judicial review claim and impact

The matter began as a judicial review claim, heard at the Administrative Court in June 2022 (R (on the application of MG) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 1847 (Admin).

The Claimant (MG) was one of the victims of a near-fatal stabbing attack at the Park Inn Hotel (contingency asylum accommodation) in Glasgow on 26 June 2020. MG, alongside five others, was stabbed by BA, a fellow asylum seeker residing in the hotel. MG sustained a serious injury to his abdomen which necessitated the removal of his spleen. The attack also caused him lasting psychological consequences.

In the judicial review claim, MG argued that the SSHD’s obligations arising under Article 3 of the ECHR (the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) required her to commission an independent investigation into the events which culminated in the attack. MG argued that there was an arguable breach of both the ‘systems’ and ‘operational’ duties under Article 3 ECHR, that the investigative duty under Article 3 ECHR was therefore engaged, and that any such investigation had to comply with the minimum requirements set out in the case law, including independence, adequacy, promptness, reasonable expedition, public scrutiny and participation of the victims.

In a decision handed down on 20 July 2022, Johnson J dismissed the application for judicial review. He decided:

• The (low level) systems duty was not arguably breached, because 1) he had not been shown any previous case in which a (UK) Court had considered whether the lower level systems duty should apply to the housing of asylum seekers in private accommodation; and 2) he was therefore required to examine (i) whether the activity in question was inherently dangerous; (ii) whether BA/ MG were under the Defendant’s exclusive control; (iii) whether the Defendant was otherwise responsible for their health and welfare; and (iv) whether the categories of the lower level systems duty is owed should be expanded to accommodate this case. He was unconvinced of these four matters and thus found no arguable breach of the systems duty.

• The operational duty was not arguably breached, because, once it was appreciated that BA posed a real and immediate risk to life, there was no arguable failure by the Defendant to take reasonable steps in response.

• The investigative duty was therefore not engaged. However, even if the duty had been engaged, the Claimant had not demonstrated that a Scottish Fatalities Investigation Unit (‘SFIU’)’s investigation, followed if appropriate, by a Fatal Accidents Inquiry (‘FAI’), was incapable of discharging the Article 3 investigative obligation.

This judgment was significant (and has been applied widely), in 1) providing an overview of the principles and authorities regarding the ‘systems’ duty and the ‘operational’ duty under article 3; and 2) setting out that the Article 3 systems duty is not engaged in the context of the housing of asylum seekers in private accommodation.

However, the UK domestic case law is not entirely clear on the circumstances in which the systems duty is and is not engaged. In particular, in ASY v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 373, the Court of Appeal approved Johnson J’s summary of the principles but decided that the ‘lower level’ Article 3 systems duty is engaged in the context of the system for removing migrants from the ‘no recourse to public funds’ (‘NRPF’) condition. It is unclear how this aligns with Johnson J’s judgment in MG v SSHD.

Moreover, the UK domestic and ECtHR case law is inconsistent in its approach to the Article 3 systems duty. This is because ECtHR case law on the systems duty, unlike the domestic authorities, makes no explicit distinction between ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ systems. For example, the cases of Osman v UK (1998) App No 87/1997/871/1083 [§115], and Fernandes de Oliveira v Portugal (2019) App No 78103/14 [§103], do not feature that wording. This is partly why MG sought for the ECtHR to consider the case and clarify the position.

Decision of the ECtHR

On 25 June 2026, six years after the incident, a decision on admissibility was given by the European Court of Human Rights. This followed the consideration of the application on 2 June 2026 by a committee comprising of the President of the ECtHR (Jovan Ilievski), judges (Gediminas Sagatys and Hugh Mercer) and Deputy Section Registrar (Dorothee von Arnim).

The Court decided that the complaint was premature, on the grounds that the evidence (principally provided by the UK Government) points to the FAI taking a broad approach, encompassing all the factors that may have contributed to the violent attack by BA on 26 June 2020. The application was determined inadmissible on this basis. The Court did not regard it necessary to determine whether the Article 3 investigative duty had been triggered by the facts of the case (i.e. no analysis of the systemic and/or operational duties was made).

However, the Court noted that ‘should the applicant be dissatisfied in the future with the progress or outcome of the domestic procedure, it would be open to him to reintroduce his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention once domestic remedies have been exhausted.’

As of 30 June 2026, the FAI remains ongoing. While MG is participating in the inquiry, it is still unclear whether the scope is wide enough to cover the wider systemic issues set out above.

Importance of the case

The judgment of Johnson J has important consequences for asylum seekers accommodated in hotels and other forms of asylum accommodation, and remains a leading authority on the issue of the engagement of Article 3 in the context of private asylum accommodation. It is therefore unfortunate that neither the Court of Appeal nor the ECtHR have yet ruled on the issue of whether the ‘systems duty’ and/or ‘operational duty’ are engaged in this context, and that the decision of the High Court therefore still stands.

Moreover, six years on, there is still no indication that an effective investigation into the incident at the Park Inn hotel will be taken. This includes the Fatal Accident Inquiry, which is not due to conclude until 2027 at the earliest.

The Duncan Lewis team is made up of solicitors Elizabeth Cole and Lewis Roach-Kett. Counsel instructed are Nick Armstrong KC, of Matrix Chambers, and Camila Zapata Besso, of Doughty St Chambers.

About Elizabeth Cole

Elizabeth Cole is a Solicitor in the Public Law team at Duncan Lewis Solicitors. Elizabeth has developed particular expertise in public inquiries and Article 3 investigation matters, having played a role in litigation concerning the Manston House Short-Term Holding Facility and the above proceedings seeking an Article 3-compliant inquiry into the 2020 Glasgow asylum accommodation stabbing attack. She has recently led the high-profile litigation relating to the One in-one out’ Agreement with France. Her experience includes strategic litigation involving age disputes, asylum accommodation, trafficking, immigration legal aid funding, and wider public law challenges.

About Lewis Roach-Kett

Lewis Roach-Kett is a Supervising Solicitor in the Public Law Department at Duncan Lewis Solicitors, specialising in complex public law and human rights cases, with particular expertise in immigration detention. He has extensive experience representing clients in judicial review proceedings, public inquiries and civil claims.

Lewis acted as Lead Solicitor for the Duncan Lewis cohort of clients in the Brook House Public Inquiry, which examined the mistreatment and abuse of detainees following the BBC Panorama investigation. He also played a leading role in the legal challenge to the Home Office's Rwanda asylum removal policy.

About Duncan Lewis Solicitors

Duncan Lewis Solicitors is a multi-award winning law firm with one of the country's most highly regarded Public Law and Human Rights teams. The firm has an established reputation for bringing strategic litigation that shapes the development of public law, immigration and human rights, regularly acting in precedent-setting cases before the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. We are rated as Top Tier by the Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 directories. Duncan Lewis is currently Women in Law’s Law Firm of the Year for 2026.