JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE CORONER’S RULING ON SCOPE LISTED FOR 6 AND 7 DECEMBER
KRW LAW LLP represents ten of the families of victims of the Birmingham Pub Bombings 1974 in the resumed inquests into the deaths of their loved ones.
Following the Coroner’s Ruling on Scope delivered on 3rd July 2017 we decided that since the Ruling on Scope excluded any investigation or examination of the perpetrator issue – who made the bombs, who planted the bombs and their associates – that decision should be challenged.
We applied for the Ruling on Scope to be challenged by way a judicial review. That application was accepted by a high Court judge and permission to proceed with the challenge granted.
There will be hearing before the Divisional Court (a court of a minimum of two judges) at the Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on the 6th and 7th December.
Our clients will be represented by Adam Straw, barrister, Doughty Street Chambers, London.
This application for permission was funded by Crowd Justice – public pledges and donations – and our clients through J4the21. We then applied for public funding through legal aid because a judge had considered there was both merit and public interest in this application: the Legal Aid Agency refused this application despite the opinion of a judge.
As this is the final opportunity for an independent human rights compliant investigation into the bombings, this inquest must be as inclusive as possible otherwise our clients fear it will deliver only what is already in the public domain.
This judicial review will be a way of making those arguments and requesting that the Ruling on Scope be set aside and a new Ruling on Scope made which will include the core perpetrator issue.
Kevin Winters, Senior Partner, KRW LAW LLP said:
“The hearing in Birmingham next week is very important for our clients as we hope that we can persuade the judges that the Coroner’s Ruling on Scope – specifically ruling out of scope the critical issue of the perpetrators – was wrong and should be set aside. If the judges rule in favour of us this may possibly be a landmark decision regarding the extent of coronial law and the remit of inquests in terms of both domestic and Starsbourg obligations to investigate when there has been state involvement in a violation of the right to life.”