MI5 accused of ‘gagging ’ justice on 7/7

Lawyers for families of those killed in the 7/7 bombings suggest MI5 is trying to “gag” justice by restricting the verdicts of the inquest into the attacks.

MI5’s legal team argued that by law only “brief, neutral and factual” verdicts can be recorded for the 52 people who died in the July 7, 2005 attacks on London.

But the bereaved families said the coroner should be allowed to go into much greater detail about how the deaths came about.

They do not want a “sterile” conclusion that their loved ones were unlawfully killed, that fails to rule on whether the security agencies could have prevented the atrocities or whether the emergency services could have saved more lives, their lawyers said. Patrick O’Connor QC, for the relatives, told the inquest in a legal argument hearing: “Of course the bereaved interested persons would be very disappointed.

“But the public may well be quite astonished if that were the position and we were literally kept to the kind of one, one-and-a-half, two sentence verdict in the inquisition that is suggested by some.”

He added: “The statue of Justice is very often depicted blindfolded, but never gagged.”

Traditionally, short-form verdicts like “natural causes” or “unlawful killing” have been recorded at the end of inquests.

But it is now common in more complicated cases for coroners and juries to opt for a longer “narrative verdict” setting out the circumstances of the death.

Mr O’Connor suggested the July 7 coroner should be able to record a narrative verdict running to dozens of pages.

Lawyers for the bereaved relatives said in written submissions to the inquest: “The families we represent want a meaningful end result – an explanation about what exactly happened to their loved ones; what, if anything, went wrong pre-7/7 and on the day; laying to rest unjustified concerns or suspicions; and for any appropriate recommendations to be made by the coroner to ensure that lessons are learned from their loved ones’ deaths.

“What they do not want is a sterile, bare conclusion of ‘unlawful killing’, accompanied by the likely time of death and basic registration details only.

“They want an end result which reflects the evidence over the five months of the hearings, and to the extent possible answers their questions about their loved ones’ deaths.”

But Neil Garnham QC, for the Home Secretary and MI5, said: “It is, we submit, clear that a narrative verdict is permissible in these inquests.

“But it would have to be short in the sense that you could not prepare a detailed factual statement, and it would have to be factual and neutral in the sense that it could not include statements of opinion or judgment.”

The coroner, Lady Justice Hallett, who is sitting without a jury, said she would not make a ruling on her legal powers before hearing the rest of the evidence and further submissions from the lawyers.

The bombings carried out by Mohammed Sidique Khan, 30, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, Hasib Hussain, 18, and Jermaine Lindsay, 19, were the worst single terrorist atrocity on British soil.

The inquest into the attacks, which is sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, began in October and is due to finish next month.

The hearing was adjourned until Monday, when it will hear anonymous evidence from a senior MI5 officer about whether the security agencies could have prevented the attacks.

Hugo Keith QC, counsel to the inquest, told the hearing that a landmark 1995 Court of Appeal ruling limited the possible scope of the coroner’s verdicts.

“We agree with my learned friend Mr Garnham that the narrative must be brief, neutral and factual and not contain any expressions of judgment or opinion,” he said.