Claimants Withdraw Lawsuit Against Gerry Adams
Three individuals who had filed a lawsuit against former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams, alleging his membership in the IRA and responsibility for bombings in the UK that caused their injuries, have withdrawn their case on the final day of the civil trial.
John Clark, Jonathan Ganesh, and Barry Laycock, each injured in separate IRA bombings, sought symbolic “vindicatory” damages of £1 each.
The claimants asserted that Adams, credited with contributing to the peace process that ended the Troubles, was a member of the IRA and had served on its army council. Adams denied any membership in the IRA or involvement in bombings.
On Friday, the ninth and final day of the trial, the claimants’ lawyer, Anne Studd KC, was expected to conclude her closing submissions but informed the high court that the claim would be discontinued following developments overnight.
Adams, who was absent from court on Friday for the first time during the trial, welcomed the case's conclusion.
“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 that the withdrawal related to an argument concerning “abuse of process,” but was interrupted by the judge, Mr Justice Swift, who stated:
“Whatever statement your clients may wish to make outside court is entirely a matter for them.”
However, Studd added:
“The claimants’ view is that these proceedings have been affected by unfairness.”
Laycock expressed his feelings after the withdrawal, stating he was
“completely devastated,”and added:
“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, stated that despite discontinuing the case, the evidence presented against Adams represented a victory for their clients. They explained the discontinuation was due to Mr Justice Swift’s “extraordinary” decision to invite submissions on whether the case constituted an abuse of process, which, if proven, could have rendered their clients liable for Adams’s legal costs.
Consequently, they accepted an offer from Adams on the trial’s final day to “drop hands,” meaning the claim was abandoned and each party would bear their own costs, according to McCue Jury.
Adams’s lawyer, Edward Craven KC, stated 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.”
Craven argued that the evidence suggested the claim was driven by the claimants’ solicitors, referencing a social media post by McCue Jury explaining why the case was brought. He also cited a recent Telegraph article stating the lawyers selected the bombings forming the basis of the case in an attempt to demonstrate that Adams’s influence spanned nearly 25 years of the Troubles.
He further noted that the trial heard
“very little evidence”directly related to the three bombings, instead presenting
“a sprawling array of allegations”without direct connection to those incidents.
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.”
