In the Matter of an Application by Dillon, McEvoy, Hughes and McManus [2026] UKSC 15

Why It Matters

The decision preserves the government’s ability to grant immunity for Troubles‑related crimes, shaping the balance between reconciliation and victims’ rights, while signalling that EU‑derived protections have limited reach post‑Brexit.

Key Takeaways

• Supreme Court upheld immunity provisions under Windsor Framework, rejecting appeal.
• Court found Article 21 of Windsor Framework lacks direct effect for victims.
• Charter of Fundamental Rights cannot be invoked to overturn 2023 Act provisions.
• Commission deemed insufficiently independent for next‑of‑kin involvement requirements.
• Civil claim restrictions remain, but sections 8 and 43.1 not disapplied.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland challenging a Court of Appeal ruling on the Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy and Reconciliation Act 2023. The appeal focused on whether the Act’s conditional immunity scheme and the powers of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery breached Article 21 of the Windsor Framework and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Court concluded that Article 21 does not have direct effect because the RSEO chapter of the Belfast Agreement is framed in overly general terms. Consequently, the immunity provisions do not infringe the Windsor Framework, and the Court declined to disapply them. It also affirmed that the Charter cannot be invoked independently of EU implementing law, rejecting the applicants’ cross‑appeal. While the Court upheld the immunity scheme, it reiterated that the Commission is not presently capable of meeting Article 2(3) investigative obligations, noting the lack of next‑of‑kin participation and insufficient independence from the state. However, it left in place the restrictions on civil claims under sections 8 and 43.1, rejecting the Court of Appeal’s earlier disapplication of those provisions. The judgment clarifies the limits of post‑conflict reconciliation measures under UK law, confirming that the UK can maintain immunity schemes without breaching the Windsor Framework, but also highlighting ongoing deficiencies in victims’ procedural rights within the Commission’s investigative framework.

Original Description

In the matter of an application by Martina Dillon, John McEvoy, Brigid Hughes and Lynda McManus for Judicial Review (Respondents)

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0013.html

Case ID: UKSC/2025/0013

Judgment date: 7 May 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKSC 15

On appeal from: [2024] NICA 59

Issue:

In summary, did the Court of Appeal err by holding that:

(1) The trial judge at first instance was entitled to disapply provisions of the Legacy Act under Article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework (and the related EU and Treaty mechanisms);

(2) The trial judge was wrong to find no violation of the European Convention of Human Rights ("ECHR") with respect to the ability of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (“ICRIR”) to comply with its obligations under the ECHR.

Facts:

This is the first ever appeal of a decision to disapply primary legislation pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework.

In 1997, Martina Dillon’s husband was shot and killed in Northern Ireland, making up one of the more than 3,500 killed, with another 40,000 injured, from the time of the Troubles. Around 1,200 cases remain unsolved. There are 700 civil cases in the judicial system, and less than 20 approaching trial.

On 18 September 2023, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act (the “Legacy Act”) received royal assent, granting conditional immunity to those involved in death from the Troubles. As of 1 May 2024, police investigations, the police ombudsman and various inquests into the Troubles were replaced with a new body, the ICRIR, which is to carry out reviews of these deaths and harmful conduct.

An application was made to apply for judicial review, challenging various provisions of the Act. These included those which: created and facilitated immunity from prosecution; established ICRIR, its functions and its working mechanisms; controlled the disclosure of material to and by ICRIR; prohibited criminal enforcement action in relation to Troubles-related offences unless ‘serious’ or ‘connected’; and ended inquests, criminal investigations by police, civil proceedings and police complaints.

Colton J, in the High Court found that the provisions which related to conditional immunity from prosecution (sections 7(3), 8, 12, 19 – 22, 39, 41 and 42(1)) were in breach of Articles 2 and 3 ECHR, and that the prohibition on criminal enforcement action in section 41 breached Article 2. He also concluded that section 43(1), in terminating civil claims issued between 17 May 2022 and 18 November 2023, was a breach of Article 6 ECHR. In respect of those provisions in which he had found breaches of the ECHR, he concluded that they also breached Article 2(1) WF. Colton J rejected the submission that ICRIR was not capable of conducting an Article 2 ECHR compliant investigation.

In agreement with the High Court, the Court of Appeal found that the conditional immunity provisions of the Legacy Act were disapplied by Article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework. The Court of Appeal additionally found that the Legacy Act’s restrictions on civil actions; as well as the current method in which the ICRIR dealt with complaints, particularly in relation to the effective participation by the next of kin and in relation to disclosure, were each a breach of the Human Rights Act.

The Appellants appeal these decisions.

In the matter of an application by Martina Dillon, John McEvoy, Brigid Hughes and Lynda McManus for Judicial Review (Appellants) No 2

Case ID: UKSC/2025/0013/A

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0013-a.html

Issue:

Did the Court of Appeal err in departing from Colton J’s decision to disapply provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 for breach of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Supreme Court unanimously allows the Secretary of State's appeal on both the Windsor Framework ground of appeal and the ICRIR: Next of kin involvement and disclosure ground of appeal. It dismisses the applicant's cross-appeal on the Charter ground of appeal.

In March 2025, Lord Hodge, Lord Leggatt and Lord Stephens granted permission to appeal in UKSC/2025/0013 - In the matter of an application by Martina Dillon, John McEvoy, Brigid Hughes and Lynda McManus for Judicial Review.

In June 2025, the panel granted permission to the Respondents to cross-appeal on the ground below. The cross-appeal proceeds under the reference number UKSC/2025/0013A, but the appeal and cross-appeal will be heard together.

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously allows the Secretary of State’s appeal on both the Windsor Framework ground of appeal and the ICRIR: Next of kin involvement and disclosure ground of appeal. It dismisses the applicants’ cross-appeal on the Charter ground of appeal. The Supreme Court gives a judgment to which all of its members have contributed.

More information is available on our website