A civil lawsuit seeking to establish legal accountability for historic IRA bombings opened at the High Court in London, where three victims of attacks carried out in Britain during the Northern Ireland conflict are asking the court to rule that former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams can be held personally liable under civil law for decisions linked to the bombings.
The case is being heard at the Royal Courts of Justice before Mr Justice Swift and is scheduled to last about seven days. The claimants are seeking £1 in “vindicatory damages”, a symbolic amount intended to obtain a formal judicial declaration of liability rather than significant financial compensation.
The lawsuit was filed by three men injured in IRA attacks in Britain John Clark, who was injured in the 1973 Old Bailey bombing, and Jonathan Ganesh and Barry Laycock, who were injured in the 1996 Docklands bombing and the 1996 Manchester bombing respectively.
In opening submissions, Anne Studd KC, representing the claimants, told the court that while Adams contributed to the Northern Ireland peace process, the plaintiffs argue that evidence will show he was involved in the conflict through alleged participation in the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Studd said the claimants intend to establish liability through what she described as a “jigsaw of evidence” including witness testimony and historical material.
The claimants’ legal argument focuses on the civil standard of proof known as the “balance of probabilities.” Under this standard, the court must determine whether it is more likely than not that Adams was involved in IRA leadership decisions linked to the attacks. This threshold differs from the criminal law standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt.”
The attacks referenced in the case span more than two decades during the conflict known as the Troubles. In 1973, a car bomb exploded outside the Old Bailey courthouse in London, injuring hundreds of people after the device was transported from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry before reaching London. More than twenty years later, in February 1996, an IRA truck bomb detonated in London’s Docklands financial district, killing two people and injuring dozens, ending the IRA ceasefire during the peace negotiations period. A few months later, in June 1996, another bomb exploded near Manchester’s Arndale Shopping Centre, injuring hundreds of people and damaging large parts of the city centre; it was described as the largest bomb detonated in Britain since the Second World War.
The claimants’ lawyers say the court will hear evidence from witnesses including former IRA members, retired police officers and former soldiers. Two witnesses have been granted anonymity and will give evidence behind screens. Adams, 77, denies any involvement in the attacks and has repeatedly said he was never a member of the IRA. In a written statement published in the Andersonstown News, Adams said “I had no direct or indirect involvement in these explosions.” He added that he would challenge what he described as “unsubstantiated hearsay statements” forming part of the claimants’ case.
Adams’ defense team, led by Edward Craven KC, argued in written submissions that the claims are strongly contested. The defense also raised legal objections concerning the timing of the lawsuit, noting that the events occurred decades ago.
Craven told the court the claims were filed “several decades after the expiry of the applicable limitation period,” referring to the statutory deadlines for bringing civil claims. The lawsuit was initiated in 2022 shortly before the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 came into force. The legislation restricts new civil claims related to incidents connected with the Troubles. Adams’ legal team also stated that he has never been arrested, charged or convicted in connection with the bombings cited in the case.
The court will determine whether Adams can be held liable for the bombings under civil law standards. The judge will decide the issue of liability based on the balance of probabilities, rather than the criminal law standard of proof.