UH/0590

Court case highlights the plight of victims
By ADRIAN MULLAN

Judgement reserved in County court test case
The media spotlight was once again cast on the victims of violence in Northern Ireland last Friday when, Victor Barker, father of twelve year old James, who died in the Omagh bomb, took a claim against the Compensation Agency in the County Court in Omagh.
Before and after the hearing, Mr Barker stressed that the action was not about money, rather to highlight the difference in the way in which innocent victims are treated compared with the perpetrators of violence.
Mr Barker took the action against the Compensation Agency, to recover funds spent on his son's education. His argument was that the monies spent on James' education only became 'expenses', irrecoverable or wasted expenditure, at the moment of James' death.
It was hoped that that line of argument would address the criteria of the Compensation Agency which allows awards to cover 'expenses' flowing from the death of a dependent.
Mr Barker told the Court in Omagh that it was a privilege to be there to represent his son and the other 28 victims who died in the Omagh bomb. He told the Court that James had passed his 12th birthday by just 13 days at the time of his death.
As Mr Barker traced the various schooling experiences of James, the murdered boy's mother, Donna-Maria Barker, wept.
The Court heard that James was blown a considerable distance against a hard wall and suffered injuries which he could not survive, even after four hours of emergency surgery.
Mr Barker, whose voice trembled as he recounted the circumstances of his son's death, made the case that, in keeping with the Compensation Agency's criteria, the funding spent on James' education was an expense resulting directly from his death, and argued that it was reasonable and proper to make good that expense out of the public funds.
He claimed that, in order to pay the school fees, he had had to earn in excess of £47,000 to meet those fees, and paid taxes on all of the money he earned.
"Whilst James was alive, they were costs of living, paid in a way which we believed would benefit our son, they only became wasted expenses at the date of his death", he said.
The case arose out of the fact that the government had been seen to treat the paramilitaries in a more considerate, sensitive, and respectful manner than it treated victims of violence.
Defending the Compensation Agency's position, Turlagh Montague, QC, having extended his condolences to the Barker Family, made the case that money paid by the Agency was not an attempt to put a value on human life.
"The Compensation Agency does not come here in an adversarial capacity. Its role has been to deal with claims as expediently and justly as possible."
He said that the award from the Agency, followed the recommendation of the 1973 consultation document. That document suggested the provision of a solace which, it was hoped, would bring some comfort to the bereaved. "It was", he said, "an expression from society of the gravity with which it regarded human life."
He said that there was much misunderstanding about the awards which are seen as placing a value on life and added that, if that were the case, no sum of money would be enough.
Counsel for the Compensation Agency said the claim was unprecedented and argued that the loss could not be construed as flowing from fatal injuries to James: "They are expenses from during his life and are no different from the obvious expenses of rearing a child...The respondent is driven to deny the claim...legislation does not stretch to paying any expenses incurred in the deceased's lifetime."
He further added that the Compensation Agency was not seeking to save on public funds or to deny any victim entitlement to compensation, and said: "If there is an issue as to the fairness of the operation of the Agency, it falls on the Court to decide."
Judge, Geoffrey Foote, said he would take some time to think about the case and then give a written judgment, a copy of which would be sent to the family.