Clifford Tibber, Partner
Young Lawyer - Autumn 2011
email Clifford
I became a solicitor because I wanted to help people. Real people with real problems. It may sound like a romantic notion but it is true. From the moment I signed my deed of articles, as training contracts used to be called, in 1980 I was on a mission to put right the wrongs of the world and eradicate injustice.
Many people entering the profession today will harbour the same ideals. But solicitors firms are very different places from when I started. Over the years the profession has become more business orientated.
Just as I was becoming disillusioned that the ideals were no longer achievable, along came the case that made it all worthwhile again. A case that was born out of tragedy revitalised my love of the law.
On 7 July 2005, 52 innocent people were murdered when four suicide bombers detonated explosives in separate attacks on the London transport network. Three tube trains were ripped apart when bombs exploded simultaneously on the underground network killing 39 people. An hour later another 13 died on a number 30 bus at Tavistock Square.
Fast forward two years and for the first time I met some of those who had survived the bombings and some of the families whose loved ones had perished. They had been trying to unravel exactly what happened on that day and whether the attacks could have been prevented.
We wrote to the home secretary who refused an inquiry, but, after it emerged that some of the suicide bombers had been under police surveillance for a year before the bombings, the position became untenable.
Acting pro bono we wrote a pre action protocol letter seeking judicial review of the refusal and we issued proceedings shortly afterwards. The proceedings were stayed to see what information came to light during the course of criminal prosecution and the inquests.
It was a long wait. The prosecutions were delayed because the jury could not reach a decision and the trial had to start again. Eventually in November 2009 it was announced that Lady Justice Hallett would preside over the inquests. I was still representing a mixture of bereaved families and survivors. After a long public battle with the government we eventually secured public funding.
Despite its flaws and the need for modernisation, the inquest system works reasonably well. It is different from criminal and civil hearings because it is inquisitorial rather than adversarial. It is an inquisition requiring a coroner to inquire into a death where the deceased has died a violent or unnatural death, has died a sudden death of which the cause is unknown or has died in prison "or in such circumstances as require an inquest under another Act".
Although different parties may be separately represented at an inquest and have competing interests, the law requires that the proceedings and evidence at an inquest "shall be directed solely to ascertaining" answers to the "four questions": who the deceased was and how, where and when the deceased came by his death. It is no part of an inquest to apportion either civil or criminal liability.
Relief and disappointment
The coroner first dealt with a series of preliminary issues as a result of which the inquests into the four bombers were not resumed; survivors were not entitled to ask questions and the scope of the inquests extended to an examination into the role of the Security Service and whether or not the bombings might have been prevented.
There was relief for some and disappointment for others. Some survivors who had campaigned so hard for a public inquiry felt excluded (although the coroner consistently took note of their opinions) while some of the bereaved families had not wanted the survivors to take part in the proceedings believing that the "inquests are for the dead not the living".
Pre-inquest hearings started in April 2010; the inquests opened in October 2010 and the last evidence was given in March 2011. It was an intense year with no holidays and seven-day working weeks. It was emotionally and physically draining. Getting to grips with the facts and some complex legal arguments and then explaining it all to lay clients was a challenge. On occasion the wishes of our clients were at odds with some of the other families.
Balanced against the many challenges was the enormous satisfaction of knowing that the law is not all about time sheets, billing and marketing. More than 25 years after qualifying, it was a relief to know that solicitors are still there to help real people overcome real problems and that the legal system can provide access to real justice. Almost without exception the bereaved families now know what happened to their loved ones. They know that many lessons have already been learned and that changes have already been made which should prevent others suffering as they did. It took six years and many, but not all, of their questions have been answered.
Achieving that was its own reward and has restored my faith in a much maligned legal system that rarely receives the credit it deserves.
Adam Dyl, Solicitor
Young Lawyer - Autumn 2011
email Adam
I would have found it hard to believe if, half way through my training contract, someone told me I would be working on one of the biggest cases of my career before the end of the year.
Then came the inquests into the London bombings of 7 July 2005. I recall the first time I discussed the case with my supervising partner. He had a detailed knowledge of the bombings having campaigned for a public inquiry for some years previously. Not being from London, I only had a vague recollection of the events of that day.
Anthony Gold represented seven of the victims' families. Collectively, our client families suffered a loss in all but one of the explosions. I attended court for almost all of the evidence. What struck me most was that, before the attacks, the victims were just like you and me. They were ordinary people going about their daily lives; on their way to work, to an appointment, to see a friend, or simply visiting London for the first time.
The evidence of three survivors sticks particularly clearly in my mind. A man who risked everything to try and save another, only to watch him die in his arms a few moments later. Another man who lost a leg in one of the blasts but, despite his injuries, picked it up and tried to hop off the train in an attempt to escape. Also a woman who suffered the agony of seeing one of her colleagues dies after being blown from the seat next to her. Five years on she was still coming to terms with why she was spared and her friend was not.
Our client families wanted to find out so much more than the answers to the four obligatory questions posed at every inquest. Establishing whether the attacks could have been prevented was of common interest to all of them. I was part of the lead team examining this issue. On balance, the evidence indicated that, although the Security Service might have done better, there was not enough credible intelligence available at the time to enable them to prevent what happened.
Testing times
The inquests presented me with a number of challenges. I was required to work closely with counsel on a daily basis and assist with the preparation of questions for some of the 300 or more witnesses called to give evidence.
Due to the demanding court timetable I sometimes worked long hours in attending meetings after court and spent a number of evenings in the office pouring over some of the 60,000 pages of evidence. I also assisted in dealing with the media where I had the surreal experience of seeing my supervisor give several interviews on live television.
As the inquests were never going to answer all of our clients' questions, managing their expectations was crucial. I learned that doing small things made a big difference to them such as warning them if certain evidence was likely to be particularly distressing, supporting them through it, summarising the evidence afterwards and keeping them updated.
At the end of the case, many of the families thanked me for my efforts and it was incredibly rewarding to know that I had, in some way, helped them to make the process a little easier.
The attacks were so random and unpredictable; without prejudice as to race, gender or age, any person using London transport that day could have lost their life. After a rigorous examination of the evidence, the coroner concluded the proceedings by producing a report which includes a number of recommendations.
The report is a testament to those who lost their lives and their families. There is no guarantee that the recommendations will be followed through but, if they are, it will go some way to ensuring a safer future for everybody.
Clifford Tibber is a Partner at Anthony Gold. Adam Dyl trained and is now a solicitor at Anthony Gold. For further information email Clifford or email Adam or call 020 7940 4000.
