Three victims of IRA bombings who sued Gerry Adams alleging he was a member of the paramilitary group and culpable for the attacks have withdrawn their lawsuit on the last day of the civil trial.
John Clark, Jonathan Ganesh and Barry Laycock, who were injured respectively in the 1973 Old Bailey bombing and the 1996 London Docklands and Manchester bombings, were seeking symbolic “vindicatory” damages of £1 each.
They alleged that the former Sinn Féin leader, who is credited with helping to bring about the Northern Ireland peace process that ended the Troubles, was a member of the IRA and had sat on its army council. Adams denied being a member of the IRA or being involved in bombings.
On Friday, the ninth and final day of the trial, the claimants’ lawyer, Anne Studd KC, was expected to finish her closing submissions, but she told the high court that the claim would be discontinued after “proceedings developed overnight”.
Adams, who, for the first time in the trial, was not in court on Friday, welcomed the end of the case. “I attended the civil case out of respect for them [the victims],” he said. “This decision brings to an emphatic end to a case that should never have been brought. I contested this case and defended myself against the smears and false accusations being levelled against me.
“I asserted the legitimacy of the republican cause and the right of the people of Ireland to freedom and self-determination. I do so again.”
He called for a “renewed focus” on the Good Friday agreement.
Studd told the court the reason for the withdrawal of the case related to an argument around “abuse of process”, before being stopped by the judge, Mr Justice Swift, who said: “Whatever statement your clients may wish to make outside court is entirely a matter for them.”
But Studd did add: “The claimants’ view is that these proceedings have been affected by unfairness.”
Barry Laycock, one of the claimants, said he was ‘completely devastated’. Photograph: Vuk Valcic/Zuma Press Wire/Shutterstock
Laycock said afterwards he was “completely devastated”, adding: “We can all hold our heads up high – our team have worked tirelessly and achieved something that successive governments have failed to do so. Adams’s true self has been seen in court in all our evidence.”
The claimants’ solicitors, McCue Jury, said the evidence presented against Adams meant it was still a victory for its clients. It said it had discontinued the case because of Swift’s “extraordinary” decision to invite the parties to make submissions on whether the case constituted an abuse of process, which, if substantiated, could lead to its clients being liable for Adams’s costs.
As such, they were forced to accept an offer from Adams on the final day of the trial to “drop hands”, meaning the claim is abandoned and each party bears their own costs, McCue Jury said.
Adams’s lawyer, Edward Craven KC, said in written closing submissions on Thursday that Clark, Ganesh and Laycock “have clearly brought this claim for the purpose of seeking to compel the high court to undertake a protracted, wide-ranging public-inquiry-style examination of D’s [the defendant’s] alleged membership of, associations and involvement in the activities of the PIRA [Provisional IRA] over a period of several decades”.
He told the court the evidence suggested the claim had been driven by the claimants’ solicitors, highlighting a social media post in which McCue Jury explained why “we felt it necessary to bring our case”. Craven also pointed to an article in the Telegraph this month that said the lawyers had selected the bombings that formed the basis of the case “in an attempt to prove Mr Adams’s influence spanned almost 25 years of the Troubles”.
Craven said the trial had heard “very little evidence” relating to the three bombings but rather “a sprawling array of allegations” with no direct connection to them.
On Thursday, Studd had told the judge: “My fundamental submission is that this is the wrong time to consider abuse of process … This is not a court of public inquiry and no one is suggesting it is.”
