Quick answer
In McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (Grand Chamber, 27 September 1995, application no. 18984/91), the European Court of Human Rights held — by ten votes to nine — that the killing by the SAS of three IRA members in Gibraltar violated Article 2 (the right to life). The soldiers’ own use of lethal force, based on an honest belief, was not itself the breach; the violation lay in the planning and control of the operation, which failed to minimise the need to resort to lethal force. It is the Court’s foundational judgment on the right to life.
Background and facts
In March 1988 the authorities in the United Kingdom, Spain and Gibraltar were aware that a Provisional IRA active-service unit — Daniel McCann, Mairéad Farrell and Seán Savage — was planning a car-bomb attack in Gibraltar. Soldiers of the Special Air Service (SAS) were deployed. On 6 March 1988, believing that the three suspects were about to detonate a bomb by remote control, the soldiers shot and killed all three. In the event, the suspects were unarmed and there was no bomb in the car parked in Gibraltar at that time, although a car containing explosives was later found in Spain.
The relatives of the deceased brought a complaint under Article 2, arguing that the killings were unlawful. The case became widely known as the “Death on the Rock” affair.
The complaint
The applicants complained under Article 2 that the deprivation of life was not “absolutely necessary” within the meaning of Article 2 § 2, and that the operation had not been planned and controlled so as to minimise recourse to lethal force.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court held that Article 2 is one of the most fundamental provisions of the Convention and must be strictly construed. The use of lethal force is permitted only where “absolutely necessary” for one of the aims in Article 2 § 2 — a stricter and more compelling test of necessity than that applied under other Articles.
As to the soldiers, the Court accepted that they honestly believed, in the light of the information they had been given, that it was necessary to shoot the suspects to prevent them detonating a bomb and causing loss of life. Their use of force did not, in itself, give rise to a violation. However, the Court examined the control and organisation of the operation as a whole. It found that the authorities had failed to make sufficient allowance for the possibility that their intelligence assessments might be wrong; that the decision not to prevent the suspects from entering Gibraltar was open to criticism; and that the information and instructions given to the soldiers rendered the use of lethal force almost unavoidable. The operation had therefore not been controlled and organised in a manner that respected the requirement to minimise recourse to lethal force. On that basis the Court found a violation of Article 2 — by the narrowest possible margin, ten votes to nine.
The judgment
- by ten votes to nine, that there had been a violation of Article 2;
- unanimously, that the United Kingdom was to pay the applicants’ costs and expenses; and
- unanimously, that the claim for damages was dismissed.
Why this case matters
- The “absolutely necessary” standard. Lethal force by the State is judged against a strict-necessity test, more demanding than ordinary proportionality.
- Planning and control. The State’s Article 2 responsibility extends beyond the moment of the shooting to the way the whole operation is planned and controlled, so as to minimise the risk to life.
- The seeds of the procedural obligation. The case foreshadowed the now well-established duty to carry out an effective official investigation into deaths caused by State agents.
McCann has been applied in a long line of use-of-force cases and remains the starting point for any analysis of the right to life under the Convention.
What this means for applicants
- Article 2 scrutinises the whole operation, not just the split-second decision to fire. Failures in planning, intelligence and command can found a violation even where individual officers acted in good faith.
- Lethal force must be “absolutely necessary” — a strict standard.
- The State must investigate deaths involving its agents effectively and independently.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did McCann v. UK decide?
The Grand Chamber held, by ten votes to nine, that the SAS killing of three IRA members in Gibraltar violated Article 2 — not because of the soldiers’ split-second decision, but because the planning and control of the operation failed to minimise the need to use lethal force.
Were the soldiers found to have acted unlawfully?
No. The Court accepted that the soldiers honestly believed lethal force was necessary and that their own use of force did not, in itself, breach Article 2. The violation lay in the organisation of the operation by the authorities.
What is the “absolutely necessary” test?
Article 2 permits lethal force only where “absolutely necessary” for a listed aim, such as defending others from unlawful violence. This is a stricter necessity standard than applies to most other Convention rights.
Why is McCann important?
It is the Court’s foundational right-to-life judgment, establishing that the State’s duty extends to the planning and control of operations and foreshadowing the duty to investigate deaths caused by State agents.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, or check the admissibility criteria.