This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/19/batang-kali-massacre-judges-reject-inquiry-malaysia

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Batang Kali massacre: judges reject call for inquiry into 1948 shootings Batang Kali massacre ruling clears way for UK supreme court appeal
(35 minutes later)
Relatives of unarmed rubber plantation workers killed by British troops in Malaysia said on Wednesday they would appeal to the supreme court after three senior UK judges said they had "forged the first link in the chain" in their campaign for an independent inquiry into the massacre.Relatives of unarmed rubber plantation workers killed by British troops in Malaysia said on Wednesday they would appeal to the supreme court after three senior UK judges said they had "forged the first link in the chain" in their campaign for an independent inquiry into the massacre.
The appeal court ruled that precedence forced them to dismiss their case. However, Lord Justices Maurice Kay, Rimer, and Fulford, in effect invited the Malaysian families to pursue their case in Britain's highest court. They added that it was probable that their case would succeed in the European human rights court in Strasbourg.The appeal court ruled that precedence forced them to dismiss their case. However, Lord Justices Maurice Kay, Rimer, and Fulford, in effect invited the Malaysian families to pursue their case in Britain's highest court. They added that it was probable that their case would succeed in the European human rights court in Strasbourg.
The judges described initial British investigations into what is known as the massacre of Batang Kali in December 1948 as woefully inadequate.The judges described initial British investigations into what is known as the massacre of Batang Kali in December 1948 as woefully inadequate.
They pointed to later investigations by the Malaysian and British police which cast doubt on initial claims that the plantation workers were trying to escape as first claimed, and to confessions by some of the Scots Guards soldiers involved who said the rubber workers were "shot down in cold blood". They pointed to later investigations by the Malaysian and British police that cast doubt on initial claims that the plantation workers were trying to escape as first claimed, and to confessions by some of the Scots Guards soldiers involved who said the rubber workers were "shot down in cold blood".
The appeal court judges said: "The confessions which arose in 1969-1970 were of potential significance and remain so, not least because the investigation within which they emerged was brought to an abrupt halt. They have never been tested or discredited."The appeal court judges said: "The confessions which arose in 1969-1970 were of potential significance and remain so, not least because the investigation within which they emerged was brought to an abrupt halt. They have never been tested or discredited."
The judges said the families of the victims could not seek help at this stage from the European human rights convention because the UK supreme court had not given clear guidance on the extent to which it applied to past events.The judges said the families of the victims could not seek help at this stage from the European human rights convention because the UK supreme court had not given clear guidance on the extent to which it applied to past events.
A "move in that direction would now be a matter for the supreme court rather than for us". It was for that court to decide whether to change its jurisprudence so as "to bring it into line" with current European court of human rights case law.A "move in that direction would now be a matter for the supreme court rather than for us". It was for that court to decide whether to change its jurisprudence so as "to bring it into line" with current European court of human rights case law.
The familes' lawyer, John Halford of Bindmans, said on Wednesday: "Some might think it remarkable that present-day human rights standards could create a duty to investigate wrongdoing by British troops in a colonial village six decades ago and its cover up in the years that followed.The familes' lawyer, John Halford of Bindmans, said on Wednesday: "Some might think it remarkable that present-day human rights standards could create a duty to investigate wrongdoing by British troops in a colonial village six decades ago and its cover up in the years that followed.
"But those standards are rooted in far older British principles, specifically the right to life and to its protection by laws to be enforced on an equal basis. The Batang Kali massacre occurred because, in Britain's Empire, its principles were sometimes abandoned." "But those standards are rooted in far older British principles, specifically the right to life and to its protection by laws to be enforced on an equal basis. The Batang Kali massacre occurred because, in Britain's empire, its principles were sometimes abandoned."
The families will now ask the supreme court "to call the state to account for the killings", said Halford.The families will now ask the supreme court "to call the state to account for the killings", said Halford.
The families' lawyers described Wednesday's appeal court ruling as a turning point in their 65-year campaign for justice.The families' lawyers described Wednesday's appeal court ruling as a turning point in their 65-year campaign for justice.
Quek Ngee Meng, co-ordinator of the campaign group, Action Committee Condemning the Batang Kali Massacre, said: "Despite the dismissal of the families' appeal, our journey to seek redress and justice has not come to an end. The destination is not too far off either. Either UK human rights law needs to catch up with Europe with the help of the UK supreme court, or the families will need to go to Europe for satisfaction."Quek Ngee Meng, co-ordinator of the campaign group, Action Committee Condemning the Batang Kali Massacre, said: "Despite the dismissal of the families' appeal, our journey to seek redress and justice has not come to an end. The destination is not too far off either. Either UK human rights law needs to catch up with Europe with the help of the UK supreme court, or the families will need to go to Europe for satisfaction."
Lawyers for the The British government argued that the UK was not liable for the deaths at Batang Kali "and in any event liability fell away from the United Kingdom as a result of the post-colonial constitutional settlement with Malaysia in 1957". Lawyers for the the British government argued that the UK was not liable for the deaths at Batang Kali "and in any event liability fell away from the United Kingdom as a result of the post-colonial constitutional settlement with Malaysia in 1957".
In their judgment, the appeal court referred to the lack of "meaningful co-operation from the United Kingdom authorities". In its judgment, the appeal court referred to the lack of "meaningful co-operation from the United Kingdom authorities".
British troops were fighting a counter-insurgency campaign in what was then Malaya at the time of the killings in 1948.British troops were fighting a counter-insurgency campaign in what was then Malaya at the time of the killings in 1948.