TC/1416

Court rules against bomb family's compensation claim

"THE fight will go on" was the defiant message from the mother of a 12-year-old boy killed in the Omagh bomb 15 months
Mrs. Donna-Marie Barker made the comment following the refusal by a County Court judge to allow an appeal by her and her husband, Victor, for compensation for school fees in excess of £28,000 which the couple had paid for the private education of their murdered son, James.
Mrs. Barker said she had been shocked at the brevity of the final court hearing, which lasted little more than 20 seconds, in which Judge Jeffrey Foote, QC, refused to find in favour of the couple.
The couple had brought an appeal to the court three weeks ago against the Compensation Agency, in respect of private tuition fees for their son, and at the time it was hailed a landmark case, as it was the first of its kind to be taken against the Compensation Agency.
They claimed that the private fees they had paid had become 'wasted' when their son died, and as such they should be compensated for their loss.
At the time the couple stressed that their court action was mainly to raise awareness of the plight of victims of violence, and to seek better and more humane treatment for those who found themselves in similar circumstances.
Disappointed
Speaking after the judgement, Mrs. Barker said both she and her husband, who was unable to attend the court hearing, were "bitterly disappointed" about the outcome, but not surprised. And both she and members of the Omagh, Support and Self-Help Group vowed that, if needs be, the issue would be taken to the European Court of Human Rights.
"In drawing this issue to the attention of the court, we were not seeking to place a monetary value on our son's life - nor to argue that the life of any one person is more valuable than another as the judgement would seem to imply," she said.
"We were simply asking to be paid back expenses which we have incurred, and in respect of which we have relieved the State of a burden, and which have now been thrown away because of our son's murder," she said.
She said her husband had met the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on Thursday of last week at Downing Street, and they would continue to fight on to highlight the vast disparity in the treatment of victims of terrorist crime and the perpetrators.
"The time has come for the Government to start to treat the victims of such crimes in a more humane manner than it treats the perpetrators, and to acknowledge the suffering caused to people such as ourselves by these acts of senseless inhumanity," she said.
Appeal
Mrs. Barker went on to appeal for help in putting the perpetrators of the Omagh bombing behind bars.
"If anyone has any information that will lead to the arrest and conviction of these murderers of innocent children I urge then to go to the RUC or the Garda. Everyone in the Island of Ireland who has information and who does not come forward must surely bear a moral responsibility for shielding these criminals - they should be in prison now so that they are not free to commit any further barbaric deeds - like the one which shook this town to its core on August 15, 1998," she said.
Mrs. Barker said she was "quite shocked" by the speed at which the judgment had been given, despite the fact that they had received a copy of the outcome on Thursday.
"It hurts even though we knew we were up against a brick wall. But you have to keep going and we will keep going and the fight will go on" she said defiantly.
She added that the continued support of other bereaved families was appreciated and meant a lot to her and her husband.
Speaking after the judgement Mr. Michael Gallagher, whose 21-year-old son, Aidan, was also killed in the August 15 bomb, said the speed with which the appeal judgment had been handled was "very sad".
"It's very sad, actually, that such a short amount of time was allowed for such a serious subject," he said.
"We just feel like all the families involved that we have heard a lot in the last 30 years about civil rights and we have just seen here in a few seconds the rights of the people who have died," he said.
"We feel that this is only the beginning. There are a lot of aggrieved people out there that over the 30 years have been treated in a similar way. Sadly we will see this through to the end," he said.
Mr. Gallagher revealed that they would be taking their first step in finding out where to go next immediately after the court, by seeking legal advice from a solicitor.
"In what direction we move I don't know, but we are looking at it.
"It is active and ongoing and this is certainly only the beginning," he said.
Mr, Gallagher and Mrs. Barker also revealed that they would take the issue to the European Courts of Human Rights to make their point if they had to.
In his written refusal Judge Foote said that Mr. Barker's submissions to the court had been lucid and dignified.
"He submitted that the school fees were costs of living, paid out of net income, and only became wasted expenses at the moment of his son's death and, therefore, were caused by his death," Judge Foote said.
He continued: "He relied on the fact that the Compensation Agency had agreed to pay out the sum of £570 for James' school uniform for Cabin Hill. I took the view that this was done as an act of humanity as it would have been remarkably insensitive to demand that James' parents should attempt to return the uniform."
He continued that Mr. Barker further submitted that it was "reasonable and proper" for this sum to be paid out when one compared the treatment of victims and offenders in Northern Ireland.
"On behalf of the Compensation Agency Mr. Turlough Montague reminded me that the role of the Agency was not an adversarial one.
"Their duty was to behave reasonably, within the law. He further reminded me that the law did not, attempt to put a value on human life, and that the present legislation was intended to avoid 'an unedifying attempt to place a value on life'," he said.
Unique application
"Mr. Montague further submitted that this application was unique, and if acceded to would 'open the floodgates'. Neither of these points impressed me. Originality is not a valid argument, and if the law requires a flood, so be it," he said.
He added that what did impress him was Mr. Montague's submission that the words of the relevant Article in the legislation should be given their normal meaning.
"I have come to the view that Mr. Barker's interpretation Article 3 was ingenious, but flawed. The words are clear and school fees already paid are not recoverable under the present legislation.
"Nor do 1 consider it 'reasonable and proper' that they should be paid. To decide so might involve the courts in the 'unedifying' situation of saying that the life of a child who had attended a state school was worth less than a child who had been privately educated.
"Accordingly I dismiss Mr. Barker's application, while at the same time complimenting him on the dignity of his submissions, and offering him and his family condolences on their tragic loss," Judge Foote said.