Press release begins

Survivors and relatives of the people killed in the July 7th London bomb attacks have warned the Government that they will seek a Judicial Review into its continued refusal to grant an independent enquiry into the attacks.

They will outline their legal case in a letter, which will be presented to the Home Office at noon on Wednesday 15th August 2007.

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.”

Press release ends

Signatories to the letter to the Home Office include:

• 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
• Ros Morley, bereaved. Ros’s husband Colin died at Edgware Rd
• Lesley Ratcliff, survivor, King’s Cross
• Michael Henning, survivor, Aldgate. Michael had facial injuried and developed PTSD
• Judy Mallinson. Judy’s husband, Ross, suffered serious 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.

As I’ve said before, in the absence of any official support, some survivors have had to, by themselves, fend off voracious conspiracy theorists and journalists. Survivor Rachel North has become a focus, via her blog, of much media attention. She has had to deal with a stalker and a legion of conspiracy theorists who simply refuse to take the facts at face value. Some of them have even imaginatively accused her of being a team of MI5 disinformation agents.

On the question of a public inquiry, the government’s refusal to hold one gives tacit approval to the investigation into the bombings being conducted by gossip. The inquiry into the intelligence failures in the run up to the bombings, along with their causes and ramifications, have been left to the media via anonymous police and MI5 briefings and leaks.

This serves to stoke even more resentment and paranoia while eroding further the Government’s vestigial reputation as a straight dealer and fuelling the not unreasonable suspicion that it has something to hide. And that’s before we even arrive at the vital conclusion that getting to the heart of this atrocity might just prevent another one. The survivors don’t want glory or publicity or revenge; it’s a matter of sparing others what they themselves have been through over the last two years.

Helping the victims’ families and the survivors, and preventing future atrocities, is about simple compassion, reaching out to those in pain. Honour the dead and comfort the living - demonstrate in all the ways we can that we’re better, higher, more civilised beings than the creatures who took their rucksacks to London on July 7 2005 and those who might choose to follow them.

Demand a public inquiry. Write to your MP. Sign the petition. Spread the word.

Update: Rachel North has more.

…

The letter to the Home Office is a 25-page legal document. A summary of its contents can be found under the fold:

1. Oury Clark are acting for us pro bono representing named bereaved people, injured, survivors and relatives of survivors. List of names and how they were affected by 7/7 is attached.
2. We, Oury Clark’s clients want an independent and public inquiry into the events surrounding the bombings
3. The letter is a legal letter that precedes a Judicial Review. The previous Home Secretary refused our request. We don’t want to rush into litigation. We welcome the opportunity to discuss things. We don’t have fixed ideas about what an inquiry would involve. But we do want the truth to be seen to be told so lessons can be learned.
4. The letter is to the Home Secretary. If there is legal action, she will be the defendant
5. We are the Claimants – the people making the claim that there should be an inquiry
6. Other interested parties include the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, and Coroner. It is not known when he can have his inquest into the deaths caused by the bombs, because of court cases.
7. We’re challenging the failure to hold an inquiry so far
8. The facts – suicide bombings by Khan, Tanweer, Hussein and Lindsey. 2 bombers made suicide videos, 52 dead and many seriously injured on 7/705
9. Various accounts by various authorities given after the bombings. Apparent inconsistencies and factual untruths in these accounts in information given to the public leads us to believe there may have been a breach of the duty to protect life. So an inquiry is necessary
10. In July 2005, Clarke, the Home Secretary at the time said the bombers were ‘clean skins’ who ‘came out of the blue’. Since he said this, information has been revealed to the group/public that suggests that this is not the whole truth and is misleading or a deliberate lie. More on this in Appendix 1.
11. One of the key troubling issues is whether there was any prior knowledge about the bombers (especially Khan and Tanweer) that ought to have alerted the authorities to arrest them/put them under surveillance. Information about this has emerged in a piecemeal way. The authorities ought to have known more about the bombers before and on 7 July 2005. We explain why in Appendix 1
12. The ISC (Intelligence and Security Committee appointed by the PM to look into the work of the security services) said that the security services failed to take action against Khan and Tanweer because their focus was training in Pakistan, and fraud in the UK. This is challenged by information we’ve put into Appendix 1.
13. The ISC report carefully states that the bombers were not ‘identified’as terrorist threats before 7 July. They should have been, and we enclose a M15 transcript of Khan talking to a known terrorist who was jailed for life recently and a list of disrecrepancies
14. REASONS WHY AN INQUIRY IS NECESSARY – The Home Secretary has power to call an inquiry as a matter of public concern
15. DUTY TO HAVE AN INQUIRY under the European Convention of Human Rights article 2 – State has positive duty to protect life.
16. FAILURE BY THE STATE TO PROTECT LIFE. We have reason to believe the State has failed in this duty
17. Of course, we don’t have access to all the information that the Government and its agencies has. We rely on reports from the ISC, the Government, the courts and the media
18. Law about how the Government has a duty to protect individuals lives from the criminal acts of a 3rd party if they knew or ought to have known the risk, or could take measures to reduce it
19. Legal argument
20. If the Government were warned about 7/7 and could have taken steps to prevent it then they are in breach of the law ( article 2)
21. If the State made a tactical decision not to arrest suspects in the hope that they would lead to other suspects, or because they were informants, then they are in breach of the law ( article 2).
22. DUTY TO HOLD AN INQUIRY EVEN IF THERE HASN’T BEEN A BREACH OF THE LAW – courts undecided
23. Common humanity and common sense should be applied when making decision about having an inquiry even if there’s been no breach of article 2
24. Argument about needing to learn the lessons of history
25. Public interest, public concern about lessons learned, public fears being allayed
26. The known facts should therefore trigger an inquiry
27. A reasonable Home Secretary should recognise need for an inquiry even if there hasn’t been an article 2 breach because accounts keep varying, which does not put minds at ease
28. Inquiry should be independent, effective, open to a reasonable amount of public scrutiny and have survivors/next of kin involvement
29. Nothing produced thus far meets this standard – the ISC Report, the Narrative, the London Assembly report
30. Because none of them used material made available during the Crevice trial ( fertiliser bomb trial which revealed links between 7/7 bombers and another group of terrorists who were intercepted and jailed for life). The ISC report is now inconsistent with new evidence made available. The Narrative relies on the ISC report. This suggests the ISC did not see all the material they should have seen or did not appreciate its significance
31. There are serious factual errors and inconsistencies in the ISC report and Narrative set out in appendix 2 which makes them ineffective.
32. Coroner’s Inquest has been postponed
33. And he can’t have an inquest for the foreseeable future
34. In any case, a coroner’s inquest is not adequate and can’t cover all the issues.
35. The Government have asked the ISC to re-examine the evidence, but they are not independent, they are appointed by the PM, they don’t have an independent investigator any more, no survivor or family can participate, we don’t know the ISC’s terms of reference, or how it will ensure the investigation is effective, there’s a conflict of interest because they have to defend why they missed things before, and they don’t have the power to compel witnesses/evidence. The Chair and Blair have even made statements saying they think the ISC will stand by its original report!
36. THE GOVERNMENT’S CURRENT APPROACH – Reid’s 30 May 2007 response to our letter is quoted.
37. Errors made in Reid’s letter
38. Article 2 – does the case fall within it?
39. Why Reid’s letter concerns us – material showing generalised security failures – no comfort to know there was no specific intelligence about an attack on 7/7.
40. Troubling suggestion that inquiry can’t be carried out because of pressure on security services
41. This seems to be an excuse not to have one at any time!
42. This misses the point that we want an inquiry to help fight terrorism. Systemic failings need to be ironed out, bad practice tackled. Not doing this means the Government is not doing everything within our power to minimise the chance of anything similar happening again”( Reid’s letter).
43. The argument about diverting resources is overstated and not supported by evidence
44. Expert evidence from Anthony Glees and Crispin Black to back up our case
45. Quote from Crispin Black
46. ACTION THE GOVERNMENT MUST TAKE – an inquiry into the level of intelligence that there was a risk of an attack on or about 7/7/05, intelligence about the bombers, steps that could have been taken to apprehend the bombers or prevent the attacks, future recommendations, agree an inquiry is needed under Human rights legislation, timetable for an inquiry
47. FURTHER DOCUMENTS – warnings of attacks
48. And audio records of meetings between families, survivors and Government
49. Expert evidence
50. Contact details and proposed reply date