The three cases brought before the High Court against Gerry Adams sought to claim damages for injuries sustained during the Troubles. The first case brought before the Old Bailey was in May of 2022 by Barry Laycock. Laycock, who was injured during the 1996 Arndale Shopping Centre bombing in Manchester. He made a claim for £1 million. This claim was then followed by Jonathan Ganesh, who was one of the surviving victims of the Canary Wharf bombing a few months later and John Clark’s lawsuit, where he made a claim for damages from the 1973 London Docklands bombing.
While Adams vehemently denied responsibility for the damages caused by the bombings, the biggest accusation that he was refuting was one he had faced for several decades. The accusation in which Adams was alleged to be a member of the IRA and had direct involvement with attacks carried out by the IRA during the Troubles. Throughout the trial, Adams was adamant that not only was he not responsible for any injuries caused to the plaintiffs, but that he had no connection or involvement with the activities of the IRA during the Troubles and association with them in the present. According to RTÉ, Adams felt that the central importance of the trial was to be present and prepare a defence regarding the integrity of the claimants who were injured during the bombings and for anyone who was affected by the violence of the Troubles.
As Adams wanted to extend his sympathies and respect to the claimants’ hardships sustained as a result of the bombings, he did not shy away from conveying his own sentiments as far as the Republican cause is concerned. After the trial came to a close, Adams gave a statement that he “asserted the Republican cause and the right of the people of Ireland and self-determination” and that “we now have, through the Good Friday Agreement, a peaceful and democratic route to a new Ireland”, according to RTÉ. Therefore, showing that while Adams was aware of the sensitivity regarding the case, he was still determined to assert his right to Irish Republican expression and drive the longing for a 32-county republic in the foreseeable future.
The case brought forward before the High Court was dismissed, and Gerry Adams was acquitted of any involvement with the bombings. This particular case was monumental in legal action brought against renowned figures from both factions of the contention during the Troubles, because not only in the eyes of the law was Gerry Adams dismissed for any liability for what occurred in the bombings that injured the plaintiffs. It also vindicated Gerry Adams of any involvement with the actions of the IRA throughout the nearly thirty-year duration of the Troubles under the eyes of the law. As the law being precedent for any judicial verdicts on wrongdoing was paramount to reputational accountability for acts of violence committed during the Troubles, this was seen as one of the biggest victories for Adams and his legal team.
In terms of the reasons why the case was dismissed, a key issue that was brought up by the defence was the matter of the statute of limitations. It was noted by Adams’ defence team that if one is to make a personal injury claim against another party under English Common Law, under the statute of limitations, it must be filed within three years of the injury happening. In this case, one of the plaintiffs, John Clark, had not made a personal injury claim until fifty years after the London Docklands Bombing.
A bone of contention that existed for both the defendants and plaintiffs was the matter of the plaintiffs being liable for the legal expenses of Gerry Adams. This was routinely brought up throughout the trial as it was commented by Adams’ lawyers that there was no legitimate standing behind having Adams as a sole source of blame for the damages caused by the three bombings, as the defence team stressed that there was zero between Mr Adams and the IRA. In cases where it is found by the court that there is an “abuse” of the legal system by wasting its time and resources on personal injury claims and other criminal matters, the plaintiffs who pursued the original case through the courts can be held responsible for paying the expenses of the defendant.
As this became even a matter of strong consideration for the judge, the legal team for Laycock, Clark and Ganesh decided that towards the end of the trial, it was better to end their legal pursuits in this case as it started to become a matter of deliberating whether Laycock, Clark and Ganesh were wasting the courts time rather than just solely focusing on the level of liability that Gerry Adams was alleged to have had for the tribulations caused by the bombing.
One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, Anne Studd, argued that considering how far the case had gone through the Royal Courts of Justice, it would be unjust to the claimants to have their case thrown out. Moreover, an issue that went back and forth between the plaintiffs and the defence was the notion that Laycock, Ganesh and Clark were utilising their case as a representation for those who were victimised by the violence throughout the Troubles. Studd went on to elaborate on this matter by arguing that even if Laycock, Ganesh and Clark wanted to act as a representation for victims of the Troubles, this should have no relevance in the trial, as it is not one of the matters being deliberated throughout the trial
While the claimants were unsuccessful in winning their case, Studd had pointed out that the attempt made by the barrister for Gerry Adams, Edward Creavan to have the case thrown out on the basis of the length of time it took Clark to file his case against Adams and a previous case filed by Laycock against suppliers in Libya who provided weapons to the IRA was not relevant as there are several factors that could affect how long it took to file these cases such as the trauma endured by the plaintiffs and the length of time it took in Britain to file these cases.
The judge supported Studd’s point but in an alternative way by acknowledging that the length of time it took to develop an acceptable level of evidence to bring before the British courts, compared to the case against Libyan suppliers to the IRA, would greatly differ. Therefore, this argument by the defence would be redundant. Nevertheless, that does not negate the paramount fact that the statute of limitations and the murky evidence surrounding the years-long allegation over Gerry Adams’ alleged ties to the IRA were crucial for the success of the defence.
Even though Adams was successful in this trial, this case just goes on to show that even if the paramilitary violence of the Troubles has long concluded since the Good Friday Agreement, the wounds left by the unresolved matters surrounding accountability for violence in Northern Ireland are still at the forefront of many people’s minds both inside and outside of the courtroom today.
