Claimants drop lawsuit against Gerry Adams over IRA bombings | Gerry Adams
Three victims of IRA bombings who sued Gerry Adams, alleging he was a member of the paramilitary group and responsible for the attacks, withdrew their case on the final day of the civil trial.
John Clark, Jonathan Ganesh and Barry Laycock, who were injured respectively in the Old Bailey bombing in 1973 and the London Docklands and Manchester bombings in 1996, were seeking symbolic “corroborative” compensation of £1 each.
They claimed the former Sinn Féin leader, who is thought to have helped bring about the Northern Ireland peace process that ended the Troubles, was a member of the IRA and sat on its army council. Adams denied being a member of the IRA or being involved in the bombings.
On Friday, the ninth and final day of the hearing, the plaintiffs’ barrister Anne Studd KC was expected to complete her closing argument, but she told the high court the argument would be discontinued after “the proceedings unfolded overnight”.
Adams, who did not appear in court for the first time on Friday, welcomed the end of the case. “I joined the legal case out of respect for them [the victims]”This decision puts a definitive end to a lawsuit that should never have been filed. I objected to this lawsuit and defended myself against the slander and false accusations made against me.
“I have defended the legitimacy of the cause of republicanism and the right of the Irish people to freedom and self-determination. I do so once again.”
He called for a “refocus” on the Good Friday agreement.
Studd told the court the reason for withdrawing the case, alleging “abuse of process”, but was then stopped by the judge, Mr Justice Swift, who said: “Any representations your clients may wish to make outside of court are a matter entirely for them.”
The judge continued: “I am happy to make a decision on the terms agreed by the parties.”
Studd later said: “The plaintiffs’ position is that these proceedings were affected by injustice.”
Earlier this week, Swift invited the parties to make statements at the end of the case on whether the case constituted an abuse of process.
Adams’ lawyer, Edward Craven KC, said in written closing submissions on Thursday that Clark, Ganesh and Laycock “made this argument with the express purpose of compelling the high court to conduct a protracted, wide-ranging public inquiry-style review of D’s cases.” [the defendant’s] Claiming membership, association and participation in PIRA’s activities [Provisional IRA] over a period of several decades”.
He told the court the evidence showed the claim was driven by the plaintiffs’ attorneys, McCue Jury, and pointed to a social media post in which the firm explained why “we felt it was necessary to file our lawsuit.” Craven also noted an article in the Telegraph this month that said lawyers had chosen the bombings that formed the basis of the case “in an attempt to prove that Mr Adam’s influence extended over nearly 25 years of the Troubles”.
He said the hearing heard “very little evidence” about the three bombings, but instead a “widespread range of allegations” that were not directly linked to them.
On Thursday Studd told the judge: “My basic view is that this is the wrong time to be considering the issue of abuse of process… This is not a court of public inquiry and no one is suggesting that it is.”
He added: “The plaintiffs had to expand the evidence before the court because it had to be a jigsaw puzzle.”
The plaintiffs’ 13 witnesses included former senior members of the armed forces, police and intelligence officers, a journalist and a convicted IRA bomber.
