Legal Challenge to Government as Pressure Grows for Independent 7/7 Inquiry

Today I will go to the Home Office at noon with a small but representative group of bereaved families and survivors of 7/7 and serve the Home Secretary a legal letter. It is a letter before action. It outlines the legal case for an inquiry under the European Convention on Human Rights article 2, and states that we are prepared to go to a Judicial Review to challenge the Government on their continuing failure to hold an inquiry. We have been immeasurably helped by Oury Clark solicitors acting pro-bono, and by Edward Fitzgerald QC. We have given up many hours over many months to work towards this point, and it has been exhausting and painful work.

We are not asking for money, we are not ''suing'' the Government for damages, we are not vindictively trying to apportion blame, or make people lose their jobs. We are simply doing what we have always done since the bombs went off; flagging up that we believe such an inquiry is essential to save lives and spare suffering in the future and to restore public trust, and to show that lessons have been learned, particularly with regard to communication between agencies and identification of threats, that will help thousands of people be safer in future.

The London Assembly will soon release a report following the 7 July Review at the London Assembly, which looked at the response AFTER the bombings. Much good work has been done to learn lessons after the GLA scrutiny, whuich remains the only public investigation of some of the facts pertaining to the bombs and used testimony of many people involved and affected by the aftermath of 7/7. Richard Barnes, who chaired the 7 July Review Committee backs our calls for an inquiry, and has always said it was never intended to be a subsitute for an independent inquiry. The calls for an inquiry have also been backed by the Tories and the Lib Dems in Parliament.


Now we, whose lives were so affected by 7/7, want to someone independent to look at what happened BEFORE the bombs exploded. Someone with the power to compel witnesses and examine evidence and make recommendations.We particularly want to know what was known about the 4 bombers and their behaviour and associates in the months and years leading up to the blasts.


We know that the ISC is neither independent, being appointed by the PM, nor does it even have an independent investigator anymore.


We know the report they made is full of ommissions and inaccuracies - and that's being charitable. The Official Narrative, the account of the bombs, is also full of inaccuracies. The recent Operation Crevice trial showed us some of the extent to which the authorities knew about the 7/7 bombers, bugging and taping two of them having 4 meetings with men who were soon to be arrested for their plot to blow up the UK public with a giant fertiliser bomb - and later jailed for life. .

To state[carefully, oh, so carefully], as the ISC do

'' We have been told in evidence that none of the individuals involved inthe 7 July attacks had been identified, ( that is, named and listed) as potential terrorist threats prior to July...''

is ridiculous.The lead 7/7 bomber, Siddique Khan, was followed to his own house, in his own car! He and his main accomplice were photographed chatting about jihad with watched terrorists, and their movements here and abroad were known. As soon as the lead bomber's ID was found, deliberately left at 3 of the sites on 7/7, as his calling card, and run through the police database, he was ''found to have links to international terrorism'', we were told at a private meeting with the police. That link was made on 8th July 2005, for heaven's sake. 24 hours after the bombs went off. How can the ISC conduct a second report into their own failures? That is not an independent investigation, nor an impartial one.

Not everyone who is a Claimant on the letter before action wanted their name released to the public, because of the attention this brings, which can be difficult to deal with. However, the following have released their names and some of them have released details of how they were affected on 7/7/05

Danny Biddle, survivor, Edgware Rd. Lost both legs, eye, spleen
Nader Mozzaka, bereaved. Nader's wife, Nazy, died at Kings Cross
Graham Foulkes, bereaved. Graham's son, David, died at Edgware Rd
Rob Webb, bereaved. Rob's sister, laura, died at Edgware Rd
Paul Mitchell, survivor. Paul lost part of his leg and had serious hearing injuries at Kings Cross
Thelma Stober, survivor. Thelma lost her left leg and had other serious back injuries at Aldgate
Kirsty Morrison, survivor, King's Cross. Kirsty developed debililtating PTSD.
Elizabeth Alderton, survivor, Aldgate
Jacqui Putnam, survivor, Edgware Rd
Ros Morley, bereaved. Ros's husband Colin died at Edgware Rd
Lesley Ratcliff, survivor, King's Cross
Michael Henning, survivor, Aldgate. Michael had facial injuries and developed PTSD
Judy Mallinson. Judy's husband, Ross, suffered serious head injuries.
John Tulloch, survivor, Edgware Rd. John suffered severe head injuries
Ema Plunkett, survivor, Tavistock Square
Elizabeth Kenworthy, Aldgate. Survivor and first responder
David Gould, bereaved. David's step-daughter, Helen, died at King's Cross
Angela Iouannou, survivor, King's Cross
Fiona Crosbie, survivor, King's Cross
Mark Elding, survivor, Tavistock Square
Andy Brown, survivor, Aldgate. Andy lost both legs in the explosion.
Janine Mitchell. Janine's husband Paul was seriously injured at King's Cross
Janne Palthe, survivor, Edgware Rd
Thomas Ikemi, bereaved. Thomas cousin, Anthony, was killed in Tavistock Sq
Ross Mallinson, survivor. Ross suffered serious head injuries at Aldgate
Sarah Stow, survivor, Tavistock Sq
Tim Coulson, survivor, Edgware Rd
Rachel North, survivor, King's Cross


Graham Foulkes, whose son David Foulkes, 22, was murdered at Edgware Rd said:

"We were very disappointed that the Government rejected our call for an independent enquiry. We believe that our country can only benefit from an independent investigation into the largest ever terrorist attack on mainland Britain."

He continued:

"There have been reports into the bombings. None of these have been independent. And as time has gone on it has become obvious that much of what we were told was untrue. For instance, we have gone from being told that the bombers were unknown to the authorities ("clean skins", as Charles Clarke, the then Home Secretary said in the wake of the bombings) to finding out through the "Crevice" trial that at least two of the bombers were known prior to July 7 th 2005 and that one of them, Mohammed Siddique Khan (the Edgware Road bomber) had been followed home by the authorities."

This concern has been supported by the Greater London Assembly who, on May 28 th 2007, passed a motion calling for an independent inquiry following the conviction of the Crevice Defendants "given the conflicting accounts of what happened in the months leading up to 7th July 2005".

The legal case for an enquiry rests on Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This requires the state to protect life and to undertake an independent and effective investigation of the issue if the article is breached. Even if the requirement to protect life was not breached, the Article allows for an enquiry because of the obvious need for public protection.
Rob Webb, whose sister Laura Webb, 29 was murdered at Edgware Rd said:

"The drip feed of information since the attacks probably doesn't give the whole story. But it is now clear that the security services knew far more about the bombers and the possibility of an attack than we had originally been led to believe. So the state looks to have breached its duty to protect life. We all – Government, Security Services, survivors, bereaved and of course the public at large, who remain at risk of terrorist plots, need to learn all we can about the 7/7 attacks. We need to know what could have been done to help prevent them and so help prevent innocent people from suffering the fate of all those who were caught up in the awful events of that day in July 2005."

Should the Government once again turn down the request for an independent investigation, the signatories of the letter will seek a Judicial Review into the decision.

Rob concluded:

"We don't wish to take our Government to Court. But we need to ensure that everything is done to prevent further attacks. We believe that an Independent investigation will help do that, which is why we are prepared to go to Court to ensure that one happens."

Petition for an inquiry here .
Write to your MP

Graham and Rob and others will be our spokesmen today. I am proud to stand silently with them, and the others in the group, and would like to thank everyone who has helped for their invaluable support.

One last thing. The Inquiries Act 2005. Despite provocation, I have not commented on this before now because it was strategically unwise to do so. It is my personal opinion (and the opinion of some others in the group, as well as many members of the Judiciary and Amnesty International), that this pernicious piece of legislation will make it very difficult to have a truly independent inquiry. But we will cross that bridge when we come to it; at the moment, we just want a proper response from the new Government, whom we are hopeful will listen to us, look at our case and do the right thing, after two long and painful years.

Wish us luck; we need it.

UPDATE:
Coverage: Lead story on BBC Breakfast London news, Graham and other spokespeople have just done BBC London radio, Sky, BBC News, BBC News 24, C4 lunchtime news, also Top story in Mirror, Reuters, South Wales Echo
Bloggers: Chicken Yogurt, Bloggerheads, Prisoner'sVoice , Ministry of Truth , Netherworld,
SepticIsle , Blairwatch
Thanks guys.

more soon...

late at night: Guardian website and a load of stuff via Press Association that I can't link tonight as my net connection is d-e-a-d s-l-o-w. But I know we were in Japan, Croatia, Australia and the Washingdon Post, & more.

Thursday: Guardian newspaper page 6 today, The Lawyer, Gulf News
C4 News website, Metro

A good point about the split Home Office...

'The Liberal Democrat's Nick Clegg [Shadow Home Secretary] also highlighted what is believed to be the underlying politics of the decision, claiming it is being rushed through by Mr Reid and Tony Blair before Gordon Brown - thought to be lukewarm, at best, over the proposal - becomes prime minister.
He also noted the fact that an inquiry into the 7 July bombings had been rejected on the grounds it would distract attention from the fight against terrorism.
Would not, he asked, the time and effort taken in arranging the department's split be greater than holding a public inquiry would have taken up.
There is a suspicion already running around Westminster that Mr Brown may want to take an entirely different approach to the Home Office' (BBC)

David Davis the Tory Shadow Home Secretary came out for a 7/7 inquiry at the weekend. And we know that the Lib Dems support an inquiry too. Hmmm. Is Mr. Brown receptive, I wonder? It would be wonderful if he was, if he at least listened with an open mind, which I believe he may very well do, to an issue of such public interest and concern.

I have been privately informed about precisely who has blocked a public inquiry into 7/7. A few weeks after it happened, he gave his personal assurance to Eliza Manningham Buller that she needn't worry about one happening. No consultation with cabinet or Parliament. Just, presumably, the usual ''trust me''.

Now, with the expected imminent departure of the two key stakeholders in NOT having an inquiry, plus forthcoming revelations ( oh, hurry up, Jury!) when reporting restrictions are off, strong support for an inquiry from the Tories and Lib Dems, the picture is very different to when that wink was shamefully tipped.

An inquiry into 7/7 is above politics. Especially above that sort of sofa-special, off-the-record, know-who-your-pals are, play-'Presidential' politics. Ugh. Sooner he departs, the better.

Come on Mr Brown, help us out?

David Davis comes out for an independent inquiry

...in the Sunday Telegraph at the weekend. I don't agree with all of what he says, and I am not a Conservative but I am glad that he said it. Timing is everything. Ho hum.

''America confronted its failure to prevent 9/11 with three formal inquiries. They galvanised a consensus to force through the changes required to prevent another 9/11.''

''The contrast with Britain is sobering. No independent inquiry after the July 7 bombings. No lessons learnt. A lack of political will and resources to tackle the terrorist threat. The Prime Minister's Delivery Unit describes government strategy as "immature, disjointed and weak", lacking the capacity to measure "real world impact".

''...gestures and gimmicks, including ID cards, 90-day detention and control orders, are no substitute for serious law enforcement...''

''The Conservatives will put politics aside [I'll believe that when I see it - RN] and support this Government in taking measures to strengthen our defences against another attack. But the Government must face up to past mistakes. It must be as candid about the weaknesses in our defences as it is about the terrorist threat we now face. It must answer our call for an independent inquiry into the attacks of July 2005. Britain deserves no less.''

Thing is, he's mostly right. Especially about gestures and gimmicks, and about this being above politics, though sadly the only way for politicians to take notice of any genuine concern is if it is political, or in the media and hence an ''issue''. There are hundreds of important issues for politicians to consider. But this is a very important one, because it is not just about the dreadful waste of life and injuries of summer 2005. It's about freedom and liberty and security and fear, foreign and domestic policy, communication and communities and integration and trust and where we go from here, what sort of society we build, what sort of world we live in and it affects far more people than those directly involved on 7 July 2005. It affects us all.

And I wish that the Government would just be honest with us. So there's - what - 3500 - 5000 terrorists, planning a score or more attacks? That's scary, but still dealable with, so let's stop demonising 1 million British Muslims and freaking ourselves out about The Terror That Stalks The Streets (TM) - because the actual percentages of people involved in this suicide-bombing-murder-exonerating-death-cult perversion of an ancient religion is tiny. For now.

These people planning plots are no more representative of UK Muslims than people blowing up animal labs are representative of vegetarians. Tell us the stats. We can do the maths. Fear might sell policies and newspapers and help along stale political careers - but people want to know the truth, not the hype or the sell. We're grown ups too, you know. We can deal with it, however bad it is, however bad you think it is. We got through two world wars and bombs falling on our cities day after day and people dying. Just come out with it, the real situation. You'll probably find that people are already imagining that it's a whole lot worse, because they just don't know at the moment and they don't trust the Government and that, that is far more toxic and destructive than a clear-eyed look at what went right, what went wrong and what the threat is now, after 7 July.

So M15 didn't scoop up all the clues, and made mistakes, and are still scrambling, flat out? So Government policy - especially foreign policy - but domestic economic policy too - and a thousand decisions made over a dozen years have all impacted on getting us where we stand today? Okay. Just. Admit. It.

Then can we all start from a different, better place. It's not making mistakes that's unforgiveable -it's refusing to admit it, and then trying to cover them up, and then refusing to let anyone criticise the cover ups and obfuscations and carefully chosen words, the leaks and briefings and spin, and counter-spin, and the endless avoiding of an inquiry out of what is increasingly starting to look like...embarrassment.

Which is worse than shameful, it's dishonest and disgraceful and insulting.

Come on. Just...help us out here. And help yourselves, while you are at it.
It's not that difficult. And it's starting to look like it's bloody well essential.

UPDATE: Over half of this blog's readers have signed this petition. This is a small blog, and I am asking you to circulate it and pass it around. Now, if you want to look clever and prescient, or in a few weeks or days time. Remember - David Davis has come out, so this is real, and there is no need to be scared. It's a signature. What's to lose?

Interesting news....

'Anti-terrorism police are to begin questioning three men arrested over the 7 July suicide bombings in London'. (more from the BBC)

But not the news to which I am referring....that is still to come.

Update: CNN have just asked me to comment on this. I said that I can't see that there is anything to comment on - these men have not been charged, I know nothing about them, they may be guilty, or innocent, of absolutely anything, we just don't know, and it is a very bad idea to start commenting on something as vague as mere arrests/questioning, particularly if there are to be charges and a trial, since for a ''7/7 person'' to publicly voice an opinion about these men based on such sketchy information runs the risk of being arguably prejudicial to a fair trial, (if they are charged), and unfair on the men, (if they are not charged and turn out to be innocent.)

On a purely personal note I am hoping that the police have made a breakthrough, I know a great many people have been working very hard indeed, for a long time, and are as anxious as anyone to gain further clarity in the terrible murders of 7 July. And it is encouraging to know that more clarity will soon be available to the public. As soon as a particular jury have concluded their duties.

Ben Aldo's news report video played on the BBC

Genette, a commenter points out that these images are taking from the trial run and are not, as I first thought, additional 7/7 CCTV images of the bombers entering Luton station.)