JUDGMENT RESERVED IN SCHOOL FEES CLAIM BY BOMB VICTIM'S PARENTS
Judgment reserved in school claim by bomb victim's parents
JUDGMENT has been reserved in a test compensation claim brought by the father of one of the youngest victims of the Omagh bombing.
Mr. Victor Barker, whose 12-year-old son, James, was one of those murdered in last year's bombing of Market Street, made an appeal against the determination of the Compensation Agency, which has granted compensation to him of �13,010.70 in respect of his son's death.
James was one of three children from Bundoran who were among the 29 people killed on August 15.
Mr. Barker's challenge, believed to be the first of its kind against the Compensation Agency, was against the refusal to pay out a claim for school fees the Barkers had paid during James's lifetime. Speaking after the hearing at Omagh County Court, Mr. Barker, a lawyer, said that the civil action was not about the money, but to highlight the unfair system for compensating victims' families.
He added that Omagh was a "dreadful place" for him and his wife, Donna Marie - it was where their son had died - but he was both humbled and privileged to represent his son in the action.
Earlier, in a submission to Judge Jeffrey Foote, Mr. Barker said the compensation he had received included a bereavement award of �7,500, funeral expenses of �1,160, the cost of a headstone for his son's grave amounting to �1,000, associated funeral costs of �2,780.70 and the cost of school uniforms bought for his son's forthcoming attendance at Cabin Hill College, of �570. He said the total paid out had been �13,010.70.
However, Mr. Barker, who still works in Surrey, stressed that the purpose of the hearing was to consider the failure to include in the compensation award the sums of money spent in respect of the private education of his son of �28,770.55.
He said that he and his wife had relieved the State burden of the cost of James's education by paying privately, and the layout they had incurred should not be seen simply as pecuniary losses.
He submitted that the money spent on his son's education became "wasted expenses" at the time of his death.
"When James was alive these school fees were paid out. They were costs of living paid out from our net income in a way we believed would benefit our son. They only became expenses, wasted expenses, at the moment of his death, and resulted directly from his death," Mr. Barker said.
He said that in the aftermath of his son's death he had been forced to live off his own capital, and loss had been caused to his practice, which was something he accepted.
Mr. Barker added that if the court found in favour of the appeal, it would also be acknowledging the plight of the victims of crimes that had blackened the history of Northern Ireland for so many years.
Tragic death
Counsel for the Compensation Agency, Mr. Turlough Montague, said that no one could fail to be moved by the tragic death of James Barker, and anyone who had suffered a similar bereavement could understand the suffering of the child's family.
He stressed that the Agency did not come before the appeal in an adversarial manner.
He said the role and aim of the Agency was to endeavour to deal with the claim, and all other such claims, as expediently and fairly as possible.
Much media attention had been focused on the claim, but the payout was not an attempt to put a monetary value on a human life, Mr, Montague said. If that were the case, no amount of money would be enough, he added.
The Barkers' claim was unprecedented in Common Law and Criminal Injury legislation, Mr. Montague said, but it remained the fact that the claim brought by them was for money expended during the life of James, and did not flow directly from the child's death.
He said if the Court found in favour of the Barkers, it would "open the flood gates" in respect of the costs of bringing up a person until the date of their death.
It was not merely the case that the Compensation Agency was seeking to save on public funds, or to deny any applicant or victim their entitlement to compensation, Mr. Montague argued.
"On the contrary, the burden upon the Agency is to ensure that applicants are fairly compensated, and if there is any issue over the fairness of the Compensation Agency, it falls on the court to determine it," he added.
Expressing his sympathy, Judge Foote said he would forward a written copy of his decision on the appeal to the Barker family prior to making it public.
Speaking on the steps of the courthouse, Mr. Barker said he thought the hearing had been "very fair".
"I think the judge listened very carefully to both points of view and I am sure in due course he will deliver his decision in a very fair and reasonable manner," he said.
Asked to outline his reasons for bringing the appeal, he commented: "Simply to draw attention to the way in which compensation is dished out to victims of crime.
"It is just an appalling system, and it gives no assistance to the ongoing problems that many people suffer. We are among 3,500 people to suffer in Northern Ireland since 1968, and I think it is high time the Government did something about it rather than just pass it on to another commission," he said.
Mr. Barker went on to say that he felt the perpetrators of violent crime were treated better than victims and while he understood the position the government was in, it was time that victims were treated a little better than those who carried out acts of violence.
He told reporters: "I certainly think the Government treats them better - they let them out of prison after all.
Means to an end
"That may be a means to an end for this Government, because that, after all, is, as far as they are concerned, a way of saving themselves for the future because they don't want any more bombings, and I can understand that, and I can understand the Government's position.
"But it is time they started treating the victims a little better than the perpetrators."
Asked what he thought about the claim that his appeal might open the floodgates for others to challenge the Compensation Agency's decision- making, Mr. Barker said: "I don't think that is necessarily the case. I cannot obviously comment on what the judge is going to decide, but if he makes the decision than it will be up to other people to take advice as to whether their claim can succeed as well.
"I could not really predict that, and I don't think I am allowed to," he added.
Mr. Barker said that it had been at his wife's request that he had brought the claim, and revealed that he would have been "quite keen" to let the matter rest, which might have been the best way for him to deal with his son's death personally.
"It is not easy coming back to Omagh, to be honest. You know, Omagh is a dreadful place for us, but it is the place where James was when he died, and you are drawn to it, sadly. But we were quite happy to come back today.
"It was quite a privilege to represent our son. I felt very happy and very good about representing him, and I think my other children, if they ever see it in the future, will be proud of what I did," Mr. Barker said.
He went on to say that the support shown to him by other victims' families, and by members of the Omagh Support and Self-help Group was "fantastic".
He added that he also hoped the attention shown by the media might make the new Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Mandelson, sit up and think.
He said Mr. Mandelson had been invited to a meeting on Saturday, but he had been unable to attend due to other commitments.
"It is time he started devoting some of his hours to the 3,500 who have lost families in Northern Ireland," he said.
He added that if his appeal was not successful it would probably be the "end of the line" for his action, and when asked if he would encourage others who felt let down by the system commented: "I am not a practising Northern Ireland lawyer, so I could not tell you if others would have a chance. We brought the claim simply to try and bring some justice for our son."
JUDGMENT has been reserved in a test compensation claim brought by the father of one of the youngest victims of the Omagh bombing.
Mr. Victor Barker, whose 12-year-old son, James, was one of those murdered in last year's bombing of Market Street, made an appeal against the determination of the Compensation Agency, which has granted compensation to him of �13,010.70 in respect of his son's death.
James was one of three children from Bundoran who were among the 29 people killed on August 15.
Mr. Barker's challenge, believed to be the first of its kind against the Compensation Agency, was against the refusal to pay out a claim for school fees the Barkers had paid during James's lifetime. Speaking after the hearing at Omagh County Court, Mr. Barker, a lawyer, said that the civil action was not about the money, but to highlight the unfair system for compensating victims' families.
He added that Omagh was a "dreadful place" for him and his wife, Donna Marie - it was where their son had died - but he was both humbled and privileged to represent his son in the action.
Earlier, in a submission to Judge Jeffrey Foote, Mr. Barker said the compensation he had received included a bereavement award of �7,500, funeral expenses of �1,160, the cost of a headstone for his son's grave amounting to �1,000, associated funeral costs of �2,780.70 and the cost of school uniforms bought for his son's forthcoming attendance at Cabin Hill College, of �570. He said the total paid out had been �13,010.70.
However, Mr. Barker, who still works in Surrey, stressed that the purpose of the hearing was to consider the failure to include in the compensation award the sums of money spent in respect of the private education of his son of �28,770.55.
He said that he and his wife had relieved the State burden of the cost of James's education by paying privately, and the layout they had incurred should not be seen simply as pecuniary losses.
He submitted that the money spent on his son's education became "wasted expenses" at the time of his death.
"When James was alive these school fees were paid out. They were costs of living paid out from our net income in a way we believed would benefit our son. They only became expenses, wasted expenses, at the moment of his death, and resulted directly from his death," Mr. Barker said.
He said that in the aftermath of his son's death he had been forced to live off his own capital, and loss had been caused to his practice, which was something he accepted.
Mr. Barker added that if the court found in favour of the appeal, it would also be acknowledging the plight of the victims of crimes that had blackened the history of Northern Ireland for so many years.
Tragic death
Counsel for the Compensation Agency, Mr. Turlough Montague, said that no one could fail to be moved by the tragic death of James Barker, and anyone who had suffered a similar bereavement could understand the suffering of the child's family.
He stressed that the Agency did not come before the appeal in an adversarial manner.
He said the role and aim of the Agency was to endeavour to deal with the claim, and all other such claims, as expediently and fairly as possible.
Much media attention had been focused on the claim, but the payout was not an attempt to put a monetary value on a human life, Mr, Montague said. If that were the case, no amount of money would be enough, he added.
The Barkers' claim was unprecedented in Common Law and Criminal Injury legislation, Mr. Montague said, but it remained the fact that the claim brought by them was for money expended during the life of James, and did not flow directly from the child's death.
He said if the Court found in favour of the Barkers, it would "open the flood gates" in respect of the costs of bringing up a person until the date of their death.
It was not merely the case that the Compensation Agency was seeking to save on public funds, or to deny any applicant or victim their entitlement to compensation, Mr. Montague argued.
"On the contrary, the burden upon the Agency is to ensure that applicants are fairly compensated, and if there is any issue over the fairness of the Compensation Agency, it falls on the court to determine it," he added.
Expressing his sympathy, Judge Foote said he would forward a written copy of his decision on the appeal to the Barker family prior to making it public.
Speaking on the steps of the courthouse, Mr. Barker said he thought the hearing had been "very fair".
"I think the judge listened very carefully to both points of view and I am sure in due course he will deliver his decision in a very fair and reasonable manner," he said.
Asked to outline his reasons for bringing the appeal, he commented: "Simply to draw attention to the way in which compensation is dished out to victims of crime.
"It is just an appalling system, and it gives no assistance to the ongoing problems that many people suffer. We are among 3,500 people to suffer in Northern Ireland since 1968, and I think it is high time the Government did something about it rather than just pass it on to another commission," he said.
Mr. Barker went on to say that he felt the perpetrators of violent crime were treated better than victims and while he understood the position the government was in, it was time that victims were treated a little better than those who carried out acts of violence.
He told reporters: "I certainly think the Government treats them better - they let them out of prison after all.
Means to an end
"That may be a means to an end for this Government, because that, after all, is, as far as they are concerned, a way of saving themselves for the future because they don't want any more bombings, and I can understand that, and I can understand the Government's position.
"But it is time they started treating the victims a little better than the perpetrators."
Asked what he thought about the claim that his appeal might open the floodgates for others to challenge the Compensation Agency's decision- making, Mr. Barker said: "I don't think that is necessarily the case. I cannot obviously comment on what the judge is going to decide, but if he makes the decision than it will be up to other people to take advice as to whether their claim can succeed as well.
"I could not really predict that, and I don't think I am allowed to," he added.
Mr. Barker said that it had been at his wife's request that he had brought the claim, and revealed that he would have been "quite keen" to let the matter rest, which might have been the best way for him to deal with his son's death personally.
"It is not easy coming back to Omagh, to be honest. You know, Omagh is a dreadful place for us, but it is the place where James was when he died, and you are drawn to it, sadly. But we were quite happy to come back today.
"It was quite a privilege to represent our son. I felt very happy and very good about representing him, and I think my other children, if they ever see it in the future, will be proud of what I did," Mr. Barker said.
He went on to say that the support shown to him by other victims' families, and by members of the Omagh Support and Self-help Group was "fantastic".
He added that he also hoped the attention shown by the media might make the new Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Mandelson, sit up and think.
He said Mr. Mandelson had been invited to a meeting on Saturday, but he had been unable to attend due to other commitments.
"It is time he started devoting some of his hours to the 3,500 who have lost families in Northern Ireland," he said.
He added that if his appeal was not successful it would probably be the "end of the line" for his action, and when asked if he would encourage others who felt let down by the system commented: "I am not a practising Northern Ireland lawyer, so I could not tell you if others would have a chance. We brought the claim simply to try and bring some justice for our son."
Further Information
Publisher: TYRONE CONSTITUTION
Ref: TC/1411
Published Date: 04-Nov-99
Related Images
