Sarah Jane Young v John Anthony Downey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Yip,Mrs Justice Yip DBE |
| Judgment Date | 18 December 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWHC 3508 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ17X00521 |
| Date | 18 December 2019 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2019] EWHC 3508 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mrs Justice Yip DBE
Case No: HQ17X00521
Lord Brennan QC and Ms A Studd QC (instructed by McCue & Partners LLP) for the Claimant
The Defendant was not in attendance
Hearing dates: 11 & 12 December 2019
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
This claim arises from the bomb attack in Hyde Park on 20 July 1982, for which the Irish Republican Army (the IRA) claimed responsibility. The bomb, concealed in a car boot, was detonated as members of the Household Cavalry rode past on their regular route from the Knightsbridge Barracks to Horse Guards for the Changing of the Guard. Four soldiers were killed by the bomb, 31 other people were injured, and seven horses were destroyed.
The claimant is Sarah Jane Young, who was aged four at the time. Her father, Lance Corporal Jeffrey Young, then aged just 19 years old sustained severe injuries and died the following day.
The others who died were Lieutenant Anthony Daly, aged 23, and Trooper Simon Tipper, aged 19, both of whom died at the scene and Squadron Quartermaster Corporal Roy Bright, aged 36, who died three days later.
There can be no doubt that this was a wicked, pre-meditated attack. Four young men lost their lives and the lives of many others were indelibly altered. The claimant was in the nursery at the Hyde Park Barracks. She knew that her father had gone off as part of the Guard. She heard the blast and, looking from the nursery window, witnessed the injured soldiers returning, many covered in blood and some with nails embedded in their bodies.
The defendant, John Anthony Downey, was arrested in connection with the explosion in May 2013. His involvement had been suspected from shortly after the bombing. During the 1980s, consideration was given to seeking his extradition. However, proceedings were not commenced. His arrest in 2013 resulted from him voluntarily travelling to Gatwick Airport. He was subsequently charged with four counts of murder and one of doing an act with intent to cause an explosion and was due to stand trial at the Central Criminal Court. On 21 February 2014, Sweeney J acceded to an application to stay the indictment as an abuse of process.
Sweeney J set out his reasons in a detailed judgment. The ruling triggered an independent review of the administrative scheme for ‘on the runs’ (OTRs) in Northern Ireland conducted by Dame Heather Hallett DBE. The report of the Hallett Review is also detailed and I shall not repeat that which has already been publicly stated. It suffices to say that the scheme was implemented as part of the Northern Ireland peace process. It was not intended to provide an amnesty for those who had committed terrorist offences or to impact on ongoing investigations. Had the scheme been properly administered, the defendant should not have received a letter of assurance under the scheme. However, a catastrophic failure led to the defendant being provided with assurance that he was not under investigation, which he relied upon in travelling to the United Kingdom mainland. This underpinned Sweeney J's ruling, although a short summary such as this cannot do justice to the full analysis of all the circumstances which is contained in his judgment, which remains readily available on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales
Following the collapse of the criminal proceedings, the claimant decided to pursue this civil claim. The claimant seeks damages for her own psychiatric harm and consequential loss. She also brings an action on her behalf and on behalf of the dependants under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. Further, she seeks aggravated and exemplary damages. It is the claimant's openly stated aim to achieve vindication for the deadly attack on her father, in circumstances where the criminal case against the defendant cannot proceed. Through her lawyers, she makes it clear that she regards this as the only remaining route to seeking justice for the atrocity which led to the death of her father.
I accept that there can be no objection to civil proceedings being brought for a vindicatory purpose, see Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008] UKHL 25. Here though, the claimant seeks compensation and, unlike in Ashley, there has been no offer to satisfy her claim for damages. The motivation for bringing a valid claim for damages is of no concern to the court. I observe, as did Morgan J, in the claim brought in Northern Ireland arising out of the Omagh bombing ( Breslin & others v McKenna & others [2009] NIQB 50), that the role of the civil court is not the same as in the criminal jurisdiction. In this court, there is no criminal charge in issue. The role of this court is to determine whether the claimant has succeeded in proving her claim on a balance of probabilities. Subject to the issue of limitation, which I must deal with first, that involves considering whether the claimant has established, to that standard, that the defendant was responsible for the unlawful killing of her father.
The procedural history of this claim
The claim form in these proceedings was issued on 15 February 2017. Third party disclosure was obtained from the Metropolitan Police pursuant to an order dated 20 June 2017. The claimant obtained an order for service out of the jurisdiction. The claim, with detailed Particulars of Claim, was served on 18 August 2017 and the defendant acknowledged service promptly. By a Defence dated 12 September 2017, the defendant denied any involvement in the planning and planting of the bomb. Further, he raised issues relevant to limitation.
The Particulars of Claim identified that the claimant relied upon evidence gathered by the Metropolitan Police to establish that the defendant was involved in carrying out the bombing. That evidence fell into two main categories, namely identification evidence and fingerprint evidence, linking the defendant to the car in which the bomb was planted. The claimant also relied upon the defendant's conviction in 1974 in the Dublin Special Criminal Court of being a member of an unlawful organisation, namely the IRA.
By his Defence, the Defendant challenged both the identification evidence and the fingerprint evidence. He contended that the identification evidence has since been discredited and that the fingerprint evidence is unreliable. He did not dispute the fact of his conviction in 1974 but maintained that on another occasion he was acquitted of a similar offence. A Defence having been filed, this claim has proceeded as a defended claim.
A case management conference took place on 30 October 2018. In advance of that hearing, the defendant sent a note to the court. He raised an issue as to the representation of the claimant. Although not strictly a matter for the court, I raised this with Lord Brennan QC and was assured that no conflict of interest existed. The defendant said that he was unable to be represented. His note concluded:
“I therefore notify the Court and the parties that such proceedings as may continue, will have to take place without my active participation. What I have to say has already been set out. I have always made it clear that none of the comments I have made should in any way be taken as disrespect to the Claimant herself and her integrity.”
The court directed a split trial of liability and quantum and that the trial on liability should include the issue of limitation. I am therefore required to determine the issues of limitation and liability only at this stage. If liability is established, the amount of recoverable damages will be determined later.
The defendant's absence from the trial
The defendant has not engaged with the Court since submitting his Note in 2018 and he did not attend the trial. He is currently detained in Maghaberry Prison in Northern Ireland, following his extradition from the Republic of Ireland to face charges arising out of a car bomb attack in Enniskillen in 1972 which killed two members of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
Had the defendant wished to attend the trial, arrangements could have been made for him to do so. If not possible for him to attend in person, a video-link could have been arranged. In my experience, the attendance of parties and witnesses by video-link works well within civil proceedings and is a perfectly acceptable alternative to attendance in person. In advance of the pre-trial review, the claimant's solicitors wrote to him suggesting he may wish to seek the facility of a video-link for that hearing. He did not respond. He made no application to adjourn the trial or for directions to allow his participation in any way. Although unrepresented in this claim, the defendant has lawyers acting for him in the criminal proceedings in Northern Ireland. He has not made any contact through them, either with the Court or the claimant's solicitors.
I am entirely satisfied that the defendant has chosen not to participate in the trial. In the circumstances, I considered it appropriate to proceed without him being present.
The conduct of the trial
Given the defendant's non-attendance, much of the evidence relied upon by the claimant was presented in the form of written statements. The key evidence was read to the court, although I had the opportunity before the start of the trial to read all the material in the trial bundle. I heard oral evidence from a total of four witnesses, including the claimant.
Simon Utley was the first to be called. He was one of the troopers riding on the day of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial