Supreme Court to Consider Limits of Judicial Review in 9/11 Inquest Case
The UK Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal in the significant public law case, R (on the application of Campbell) (Appellant) v His Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales (Respondent) (Case ID: UKSC/2025/0162), focusing on the availability and scope of judicial review over decisions made by the Attorney General. Permission to Appeal was granted on 19 November 2025, by Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Burrows, and Lord Stephens.
The Appellant, Mr Matthew Campbell, is the brother of Mr Geoffrey Campbell, who was killed during the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. A 2013 inquest concluded that Mr Geoffrey Campbell's death was caused by the collapse of the World Trade Centre North Tower following Al Qaeda deliberately flying an aircraft into it.
Mr Campbell, however, contends that the collapse of the World Trade Centre was actually caused by the detonation of pre-planted explosives. In August 2021, he, his parents, and his other brother sought to have the inquest into his brother’s death reopened on the grounds of insufficiency of inquiry and/or voluminous and detailed fresh evidence.
Under the Coroners Act 1988, the Attorney General (the Respondent) holds the power to permit, or refuse to permit, an application to be made to the High Court to reopen an inquest. In January 2024, the Attorney General declined the Campbell family’s application, asserting that the September 11 terrorist attacks had already been fully investigated.
In April 2024, Mr Campbell challenged this refusal by filing a claim for judicial review of the Attorney General’s decision.
The Divisional Court (Stuart Smith LJ and Chamberlain J) refused permission for the application for judicial review. Crucially, the Divisional Court held that decisions made by the Attorney General are immune from judicial review. The Divisional Court also stated that if the decision were amenable to review, the grounds would be exceptionally limited, extending only to dishonesty, bad faith, or exceptional circumstances. The Divisional Court nonetheless granted permission for the Appellant to seek permission to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
The importance of the Campbell case stems from the two fundamental legal questions the Supreme Court must address, which directly concern the limits of executive power and the reach of judicial oversight:
- Is the exercise of the Attorney General’s power to allow or refuse an application to reopen an inquest amenable to Judicial Review?
- If the decision is reviewable, on what grounds may the Attorney General’s exercise of that power be reviewed?
The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will clarify whether and how the courts can scrutinise decisions made by the Attorney General when those decisions affect the procedural rights (such as reopening an inquest) of individuals seeking legal remedies.
The case presents a key opportunity to define where the operational independence and historical immunity of the Attorney General’s office end, and where the accountability demanded by the principles of judicial review begins. The ruling will act as a boundary marker, determining the extent to which the judiciary can look behind decisions made by one of the most senior legal officers of the Crown.
Nicholas Bowen KC and Nick Stanage regularly act for a wide range of interested persons in public inquiries and complex inquests and applications to the High Court for fresh inquests.
