Written Evidence submitted by Paris Panther for the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s inquiry into HM Government support for UK Victims of IRA attacks that used Gaddafi-supplied Semtex and weapons (LSX0004)

 

Short Summary:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evidence:

I, Paris Panther, a trainee solicitor pre-approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, will say as follows:

  1. On 18th February 1996, while In the course of my engagement as a duty solicitor travelling through Aldwych, on the 171 London public transport bus, a bomb employing Semtex in its makeup detonated in the carriage of Irish terrorism when it was carried on board by an IRA terrorist. As reported in The Times 1 on 17th April 1996, evidence noting further details of the incident was subsequently disclosed to the Coroner’s Inquest of Edward O’Brian, killed in the explosion, confirming his membership of the IRA, and the planning of acts of terrorism.

 

  1. On 13th June 2010, The Sunday Times 2 published an article noting ‘The Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi is to pay up to £2 billion to victims of Irish terrorism for his role in supplying shiploads of explosives to the IRA…’ Assistance was therefore sought on this matter, and written correspondence entered into with the local constituency Labour Member of Parliament for Hackney and Shoreditch South, the Right Honourable Meg Hillier MP.

 

  1. Further to a unilateral contract believed to have been entered into with the State of Libya, a civil claim was subsequently issued by the Royal Courts of Justice on 8th October 2010 for personal injury compensation payment. Pursuing the claim as a litigant in person, with fully researched and comprehensive legal arguments contained therein 3, it noted consideration of exemplary punitive damages, with allowance to be given for the oppressive, arbitrary and unconstitutional action of the defendant and acknowledging the claimant to be a victim of punishable behaviour; and general damages, inclusive of all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, including pain and suffering and loss of future earnings.

 

  1. During the course of these proceedings, a court Order was obtained on 29th October 2010 granting permission to serve the claim outside jurisdiction. Therein, a request was made of HM Government to serve legal documents on the Libyan State’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in compliance with The State Immunity Act 1978. A legal complication, however, had arisen when documents returned from the Foreign Process Section of the Royal Courts of Justice on 21st March 2011 disclosed conflicting evidence of service, noting the following:

 

4.1.   The FCO had, in its letter of ‘assurance’ to the Senior Master of 2nd March 2011, made a claim of non - execution of service, citing ‘refusal’ of papers by the Libyan MFA;

 

4.2.   FCO correspondence and email communique between Paul Easson of the FCO’s Overseas Residents Services Unit, Jenny Fenton, HM Consul at the British Embassy in Tripoli, and Nick Latta, Deputy Head of Mission at the Embassy, spoke of facts to the contrary, suggesting service being carried out with delivery of the papers to the Libyan MFA on 24th January 2011.

 

  1. Directions were subsequently sought and given by a Senior Master of the court to raise the matter with a Member of Parliament in April 2011.

 

  1. At this time, Moussa Koussa, the Libyan Minister of Foreign Affairs who was ultimately responsible for the refusal, had defected to the United Kingdom following the onset of the Libyan conflict. Media reports had subsequently made clear his defection was without diplomatic immunity, and raised the possibility of a criminal prosecution, for his alleged involvement in the supply of semtex to the IRA; and complicity in the murder of a lawyer and Libyan dissident in London.4

 

  1. Between April 2011 and January 2012, written correspondence once again entered into with Meg Hillier MP attempted to obtain a response from the former Cabinet Minister for Justice, the Right Honourable Kenneth Clarke QC MP, on issues relevant to the service of the claim by HM Government, inclusive of the following:

 

7.1.   To address the possible prosecution of Moussa Koussa 5;

 

7.2.   Further to media reports alleging the discovery of documents in the Tripoli offices of Moussa Koussa linking MI6 involvement in the torture of Libyan dissidents 6, the correspondence raised the possibility of an alleged breach of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and its possible consideration by the Gibson Inquiry.7

 

  1. During this time, instructions were also issued to Thames Chambers Solicitors to extend the life of the claim prior to the expiry of its six month statutory limitation period, and submit an application for judgement in default. There was notable failure, both on the part of HM Government in providing a response, and legal representation to extend the life of the claim.

 

  1. An application for judgement in default, submitted by the solicitors on 11th April 2012, was refused by a Senior Master granting a court Order of 10th May 2012, on the ground that service was not effected. Going to appeal before a High Court judge as a litigant in person on 30th November 2012, the issue of enquiries made with HM Government and the alleged Human Rights breach, as described fully in an application to the European Court of Human Rights, was raised, noting factual discrepancies made by HM Foreign Office in its failure to make provision for a certificate of service/non service. Permission to appeal was however refused on the ground that service had not been effected.

 

  1. The ECHR application was later found to be inadmissible following a failure to comply with the admissibility criteria, and subsequently resubmitted, with reference to the recent court Order made. Once again, the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention had not been satisfied, as noted in a letter of 18th April 2013 from the ECHR.

 

  1. Both the ECHR letter and application were cited in a subsequent Appellant’s Notice, filed on 24th May 2013 at the Court of Appeal in response to the judgement Order of 1st February 2013, and making a further request of HM Government by a Senior Master of the Senior Courts on 7th June 2013 to serve notice on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State of Libya. Service was subsequently effected on 9th July 2013, evidenced by a certificate of service signed by the First Secretary, Kevin Curran.

 

  1. The State of Libya, through its’ Consular Secretary, Mrs Raiddah, arranged for a meeting to be held on 6th January 2014 at the Libyan Embassy in London, where they raised the issue of the application made to the ECHR. In the course of paraphrasing the statement of facts as set out by the application, it was made clear that an appeal to the Supreme Court was pending, following notification by the Court of Appeal, in a letter of 5th June 2013, that there was no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

 

  1. On 6th November 2014 an application was made for legal aid and assistance, in the drafting of an appeal to the Supreme Court, to the Bar Pro Bono Unit on referral from advice received at the Citizens Advice Bureau. Qualification for legal assistance is dependent on an application for legal aid being refused by the legal aid board, which to date has not been met.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A

Footnotes to written submissions

  1.                                                                                                                                                   Reported by Adrian Lee, headlined ‘Bus bomber plotted mayhem as IRA talked peace … Accident verdict on terrorist who blew himself to pieces’.

 

  1.                                                                                                                                                   Reported by Liam Clarke, headlined ‘Gadaffi to pay £2bn to victims of IRA bombs’.

 

  1.                                                                                                                                                   See Appendix B for complete list of legal cases and statutory instruments cited.

 

  1.                                                                                                                                                   See report by Robin Henry, as published in the Sunday Times on 10th April 2011, headlined ‘Musa Kusa linked to lawyer’s killing’.

 

  1.                                                                                                                                                   Correspondence listed in chronological order:

 

5.1.                                                                                                                                   letter to Meg Hillier MP of 5th April 2011;

5.2.                                                                                                                                   letter in reply of 21st April 2011;

5.3.                                                                                                                                   letter to the Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP of 21st April 2011;

5.4.                                                                                                                                   letter from Meg Hillier MP of 2nd August 2011;

5.5.                                                                                                                                   letter to Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP of 2nd August 2011.

 

  1.                                                                                                                                                   See report by Miles Amoure and David Leppard, as published by The Sunday Times on   4th September 2011.

 

  1.                                                                                                                                                   Correspondence listed in chronological order:

 

7.1.                                                                                                                                   letters to Meg Hillier MP of 9th and 22nd September 2011;

7.2.                                                                                                                                   letter in reply of 27th September 2011;

7.3.                                                                                                                                   letter to Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP of 27th September 2011;

7.4.                                                                                                                                   letters to Meg Hillier MP of 13th and 25th January 2012 noting the cancellation of the Gibson Inquiry by the Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP and citing the European case of Stran Greek Refineries and Stran Andreadis v Greece to make the allegation of an alleged Article 6 Human Rights breach.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B

Legal cases, statutory instruments, and legal text cited in the matter of Paris Panther v The Republic of Libya, Claim No. HQ10X03821:

  1. The State Immunity Act 1978
  2. I Congresso del Partido [1983] 1 A.C. 244
  3. Halsbury’s Laws of England, Volume 9(1)
  4. G.H. Treitel, The Law of Contracts, 10th edn, p.8
  5. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1
  6. Restatement (Second) of Contracts §32 (1981)
  7. Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204
  8. Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153
  9. Callisher v Bischoffsheim (1870) LR 5 QB 449
  10. Poussard v Spiers and Pond (1876) 1 QBD 410
  11. Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1960] AC 87
  12. White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36
  13. The Alien Torts Claims Act, enacted by The Judiciary Act 1789
  14. Tweddle v Atkinson (861) 1 B & S 393; 121 ER 762
  15. Scammel v Ousten [1941] AC 251
  16. The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
  17. The Sale of Goods Act 1979
  18. Nicolene v Simmonds [1953] 1 QB 543, {1953] 1 ALL E.R. 822 (C.A)
  19. Studbook Trading Estate v Eggleton
  20. Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co [1880] 5 App Cas 25, 39
  21. Wilkes v Wood [1763] Lofft 1; 98 ER 489
  22. Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129
  23. Filartiga v Pena-Irala 630 F.2d 876, 887 (2d Cir. 1980)
  24. WesleyPapa, et al v The United States and the U.S. Immigration & Naturalisation Service, 281 F.3d 1004 (Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 2002)
  25. Deutsch v Turner Corporation, et al. consolidating case of In re World War 11 Era Japanese Forced Labour Litigation, 317 F.3d 1005, p. 1028, n.18 (Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 2003)
  26. Lillich, The Role of Domestic Courts in Promoting Human Rights Norms, 24 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 153 (1978)
  27. Siderman v Republic of Argentina
  28. Trajano v Marcos
  29. Letelier v Republic of Chile
  30. Forti v Suarez-Mason
  31. Martinez-Baca v Suarez-Mason
  32. Rapaport v Suarez-Mason
  33. The law of nations, as considered in The Marianna Flora, 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 1, 41, 6L.Ed.405 (1826)
  34. Sosa v Alvarez-Machain (542 U.S. 692 (2004))

Please refer to Appendix A for footnote references              1