Yahoo News Manchester Arena bombing survivors cannot continue legal claim against MI5, judges rule
Judges at a specialist tribunal have ruled that more than 300 people affected by the Manchester Arena bombing cannot continue their legal action against MI5.
Survivors and bereaved relatives of the attack had brought a case to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) earlier this month, alleging that the Security Services' failure to take "appropriate measures" to prevent the tragedy was a breach of their human rights.
The tribunal was told that cases on behalf of survivors, the deceased, and those impacted by the aftermath would be represented by three lead cases: Chloe Rutherford, 17, from South Shields, who was killed in the attack; Eve Hibbert, who suffered severe brain damage; and Lesley Callander, mother of 18 year old Georgina who also died.
READ MORE: Wayne Rooney breaks silence on wife Coleen's I'm A Celeb stint and drops bombshell
READ MORE: Davina McCall's boyfriend shares update on her condition after brain tumour surgery
However, in a decision handed down on Friday, Lord Justice Singh and Mrs Justice Farbey stated that the claims were not admissible as they were filed too late. Lord Justice Singh expressed: "We are particularly conscious of the importance of the rights concerned... We are also conscious of the horrendous impact of the atrocity on the claimants and their families."
"Any reasonable person would have sympathy for them. The grief and trauma which they have suffered, particularly where young children were killed, is almost unimaginable. Nevertheless, we have reached the conclusion that, in all the circumstances, it would not be equitable to permit the claims to proceed."
The judge noted that although the tribunal "readily understand" the reasons behind the delay in filing the legal claims until after the final report from the inquiry into the attack, there was a need for "real expedition" once the report was released. Lord Justice Singh remarked: "We bear in mind the other matters that had to be investigated and arrangements which had to be put in place but, in our view, the filing of the proceedings was not given the priority which, assessed objectively, it should have been."
He further noted that if the claims had proceeded, there would have been a need for the security services to "divert time and resources to defending these proceedings rather than their core responsibilities".
"Those responsibilities of course include the protection of the lives of people in this country by, for example, preventing future attacks," Lord Justice Singh highlighted.
Representatives from Hudgell Solicitors, Slater & Gordon, and Broudie Jackson Canter, the firms representing the affected individuals, stated that the decision was "extremely disappointing for our clients".
They added: "Ever since the attack in May 2017, our clients have had to endure continued delays but have done so with great patience and understanding in the hope that by allowing all legal processes to be fully explored, transparency and justice would be achieved."
Following the inquiry into the bombing, it was revealed that the atrocity might have been averted if MI5 had responded to crucial intelligence obtained in the months leading up to the incident.
Ken McCallum, Director-General of MI5, issued an expression of profound regret after the inquiry's outcomes were made public, acknowledging the failure to process the significant information.
Two pieces of intelligence about suicide bomber Salman Abedi were initially not deemed terror-related by the security service, but Sir John Saunders, chairing the inquiry into the May 2017 Manchester Arena attack that left 22 dead and hundreds injured, has stated this did not give an "accurate picture" after hearing from MI5 witnesses. Lawyers for those affected have argued that there was a "real possibility" one piece of intelligence could have led to actions preventing the tragedy.
Pete Weatherby KC, representing the affected parties, referred to the IPT claims as "the next step" in seeking justice following the inquiry's conclusions.
