Our requests have
caused a bit of a stir and some family members are telling us “We
have heard you are representing the fans.” What? Hardly, we are 4
guys who are representing ourselves. It's not for us to represent
the fans. I am not even a Liverpool fan! The SoS or LFC or FSA,
now they could represent the fans but like us, have chosen to keep
away from the families' inquests. Unlike us they probably don't know
about Q7 and about the summing up that is about to shaft us.
One of our options, if
we get IP status granted is to speak to another group so they can
then represent the fans. An informal approach is made to the SoS to
make them aware of our plans and they also seem supportive of what we
are trying to achieve. Nothing formal is agreed, but we are
confident they would help mobilise 100s maybe 1000s of survivors if
necessary.
Back in Warrington and
we are getting informal support from family members, who support our
IP application even though it may mean a 4 week delay. They tell us
' “We've been waiting 27 years, another month isn't ideal, but you
should do what's right for you”. We are getting big grins and
thumbs up from the legal teams and word is coming through that they
want us to apply. Are we being played? For sure, but we are
willing participants and after much soul-searching we apply. One of
the original applicants drops out, but we don't fall out. We all
know it is a personal decision and we are all wanting the same thing.
Our application goes in
and we await the solicitor inviting us into the proceedings. We get
ahead of ourselves and I start working out which SYP I would request
are re-examined. Which of the lying bastards, and there are many,
should we pull over the coals one more time. I joke to the others
of the irony of our “Turning up last minute and demanding to get
in” and we can all laugh at this despite the stress / tension.
We soon get our
response, which is basically fck off again. The response seems to
be all over the place and full of contradictions, as if it were
pulled together hurriedly and late into the night. The most bizarre
of the arguments against us being legally represented at proceedings
in which we are being accused of contributing to the deaths of 96
people, is that the survivors of 7/7/ bombings were refused IP status
at the inquests of those who died.
Seriously? These guys
have no idea of what natural justice is do they? Or that anyone
reading that will laugh. The survivors of 7/7 were not being accused
of anything, we are. How can they use that as some sort of
precedent?
We are passed the name
of a lawyer in London who will assist us, for free, presumably
knowing he would get to represent us if we get our IP status granted.
He prepares us a response, a really aggressive letter to the Coroner
and states again we want IP status, this time in legal talk. Again
we are knocked back and left deflated.
Another bizarre twist
is that the response now includes the fact that we are exonerated.
Part of the reasoning not to give us IP is that the coroner, nor
indeed any of the Interested Parties who have been made aware of our
application, none of them raises any misconduct on our part. We are
formally cleared of any wrong doing. Of course this means little, to
exonerate us, yet blame the fans, as this will still mean a stain on
our name. The argument is made often and we are steadfast on this,
that to blame one fan, you blame us all.
But there is a silver
cloud here. The Coroner has stated we are blameless, so exactly who
is to blame? Who are these fans who caused the problems. If you
can't identify them, then it seems you are on weak ground regarding
Q7. Your question is against a catch all “the fans” yet everyone
who has come forward is blameless. Jim loves his strategy stuff and
highlights an anomaly in the Coroner's position. “There are now 3
categories of supporter. A, those who died, who are are blameless.
B, those who by chance applied for IP status, all now officially
blameless too, and C – the rest, who are still subject to Q7,
although no one can name them, or show any misbehavior on their
part.”
The Coroner's arguments
seems weak and we speak again to our London lawyer who says we can
judicially review the decision. This means the proceedings are held
at a court in Manchester and that the inquests stop for 24 hours
only. 3 judges would rule on whether the refusal of our IP request
is legal in law. Or whether the Coroner was right to exclude us from
the proceedings. Again, after much soul-searching we instruct our
lawyer to go for a JR.
This is big, as if
successful, this would destroy the Coroner's reputation. Given that
he is in the middle of summing up, this could work against us,
Making him look like a useless twat, whilst very satisfying, does not
necessarily play into our hands. The papers are served and we
attend the pre-court meeting on a Thursday in London. We meet with
the barrister who will argue our case and we are due in court 10am
the following morning.
The barrister takes us
through all the legal arguments and we have one weakness to our case,
namely that the proceedings have been going on for 2 years so why did
we not apply 2 years ago? Our position is that we did not know 2
years ago that Q7 would be on the table. But whilst it is
understandable, would it stand up to 3 high court judges? 4 hours of
discussions and we ask the key question to the barrister – Are we
going to win? As ever we get a load of legal talk but the message
is simple – unlikely. High court judges don't like to overrule
other high court judges, so they will find a way to reject your
claim, probably on the fact you are late.
No comments:
Post a Comment