High Court claim against Gerry Adams has been discontinued

Three men injured in Provisional IRA attacks in England will discontinue their civil claim against former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams, the High Court was told by their lawyers.

The trio had sought a nominal £1 in damages, citing injuries from bombings in the 1970s and 1990s.

The claimants are John Clark, hurt in the 1973 Old Bailey bombing in London; Jonathan Ganesh, a survivor of the 1996 London Docklands blast; and Barry Laycock, injured in the 1996 attack on Manchester’s Arndale shopping centre. They alleged Mr Adams was a leading Provisional IRA figure at the time, including a member of its army council.

Mr Adams rejected the allegations and contested the lawsuit, telling the court earlier this week that he had “no involvement whatsoever” in the bombings and was never a member of the Provisional IRA.

Mr Adams was not in court today.

In written submissions for the trial, Ms Studd said the men contend none of the attacks “took place without the knowledge and agreement” of Mr Adams in his Provisional IRA role and of its seven-man Army Council.

She added that they believe Mr Adams was “as involved as the people who planted and detonated those bombs”.

In his evidence, Mr Adams said opponents of Sinn Féin, which he led from 1983 to 2018, “have repeatedly sought to conflate” the party with the Provisional IRA, stressing they are “separate organisations”.

He maintained he had “no involvement in or advance knowledge of” any of the bombings and was never a member of the IRA or its army council, telling the court on Tuesday that he was “glad that the IRA has left the stage”.

He also said that while he believes in the “broad principle that people have the right to resist occupation”, he is “very, very clear that there were dastardly things that were done that should never have been done”.

Edward Craven KC, representing Mr Adams, told the court in London that evidence linking his client to the attacks was “extremely limited and we say bordering on non-existent”.

The barrister also argued the case should be dismissed as out of time, suggesting the three men were attempting a “public inquiry-style” hearing to find historical truths.

He added: “The desire to establish for the historical record that Mr Adams was a member of the IRA is the purpose that has driven this claim,” saying that could amount to an abuse of the court process.

Mr Craven yesterday questioned why the men waited several decades to sue, saying the claim should be dismissed for being brought too late.

He told the judge: “In Mr Clark’s case, we are dealing with a delay that is genuinely unprecedented in magnitude.

“We say the very brief and bald hearsay evidence you have been provided with falls a long way short of the kind of explanation that ought to be provided for a delay of this length.”

The barrister said this could be an abuse of the court system, adding: “One of the concerns we have had throughout is that the claim is being used as a vehicle for a much wider examination of Mr Adams’s alleged role and actions.”

In statements to the court, the three men said they did not bring claims earlier because they did not realise they could, could not afford to do so, were coping with mental or physical injuries, and feared violent reprisals.

Ms Studd said yesterday it would be “unfair” if, after the trial, the case were thrown out on abuse-of-process grounds.

She said: “It is arguable and legally unobjectionable, and these claimants are entitled to pursue it.”

In their evidence, the men repeated that they delayed action because they were unaware of their legal options, lacked funds, suffered ongoing injuries, and were afraid of retaliation.