A decision by three men injured in IRA bombings in England to withdraw a High Court case against Gerry Adams could result in the former Sinn Féin leader being spared years of civil actions from Troubles-era victims.
The decision came after the judge raised the possibility of Jonathan Ganesh, Barry Laycock and John Clark footing a bill totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds in Adams’s legal costs if they lost.
During a London civil case seeking £1 in vindicatory damages, lawyers for the men argued Adams was a senior IRA figure, despite decades of denials. They said he ordered the Old Bailey bombing in 1973, as well as 1996 bombings in London Docklands and Manchester.
Judge Jonathan Swift had raised questions for several days over whether the men’s claim for personal injuries against Adams was an abuse of process because its real ambition went beyond their claim for damages.
READ MORE
Legacy legislation being considered by Westminster may open the door for further actions against Adams. However, the outcome of this case raises the stakes for anyone else considering legal action against the former Sinn Féin president.
Speaking in Belfast on Friday, Adams, who did not attend the last day of the two-week trial, said he was pleased the case had been withdrawn, but that the three men had been used by others.
The proceedings verged on “a show trial”, he said, with “anonymous secret agents of the British state hiding” behind screens, while others “up to their neck in subversion” had made unfounded claims.
Adams said throughout that he had never been an IRA member and had nothing to do with the three bombings.
He said he had “nothing but sympathy” for the claimants, adding he was “particularly moved” by the testimony of Laycock and Ganesh in relation to the suffering they had endured.
The case on Friday came to a sudden and surprising end after Anne Studd, barrister for the claimants, sought a 90-minute adjournment until noon. When it resumed, Studd said it had been agreed between the sides that the case would be withdrawn, with no order for costs. She said the judge’s actions had forced her side’s hand.
Adams’s lawyer, Edward Craven, had never argued that the case should be dismissed on abuse grounds until he was specifically asked by the judge to offer legal arguments on the matter.
Two years ago, Judge Michael Soole, who dealt with earlier chapters in what has been a four-year legal battle, had dismissed the possibility that the case could fall on such grounds. Despite opposition from Adams’s lawyers, he issued a costs protection order in favour of the three men, guaranteeing they would not face having to pay Adams’s legal bill, even if they lost.
The anger of the solicitors for the claimants towards Swift on Friday was evident, accusing the judge of making “extraordinary” and “unnecessary” interventions that forced the case’s withdrawal.
Swift never ruled on the issue of abuse, though it is clear at least two of the three men involved believed their protection from having to pay Adams’s costs was seriously threatened.
In a statement, Laycock said: ”I’m completely devastated. The fair trial we sought – getting Mr Adams into the dock for the first time – was achieved. But somehow we have lost our protection.
“How is that fair on me or all the victims who deserve justice? We can all hold our heads up high. Our team have worked tirelessly and achieved something that successive governments have failed to do.”
Ganesh said they were “outmatched financially” and “had to withdraw”.
“But we brought him to court, which is something no one else has done and the evidence against him is now on the public record,” he told The Irish Times.
