Nine other people unlawfully interned without trial are being denied compensation amid uncertainty over the legislative prohibition on any payout to Gerry Adams, a court heard today.
The former Sinn Féin President pursued a claim for damages after his historic convictions for trying to escape from prison were overturned.
Despite a ruling that he was unlawfully refused a payout, the UK Government’s controversial new Troubles legacy has imposed a bar on making a miscarriage of justice payment.
Barrister Peter Coll KC, representing the department of justice in Northern Ireland, told the Court of Appeal further claims have also been lodged.
“The Department has nine other applications of a similar nature,” he disclosed.
Mr Adams had been found guilty of two attempts to escape from lawful custody while being held without trial at the Maze Prison – then known as Long Kesh internment camp – in 1973 and 1974.
However, in 2020 the Supreme Court quashed both convictions after it emerged that clearance for his initial detention was invalid.
The Interim Custody Order (ICO) signed by a junior minister should instead have been personally authorised by the Northern Ireland Secretary at the time, William Whitelaw.
In December 2021 the Department refused Mr Adams’s application for compensation as a victim of a miscarriage of justice.
His lawyers successfully challenged that decision based on the findings made by the Supreme Court – that the ICO was legally defective.
Earlier this year the High Court quashed the decision to deny a payout and ordered reconsideration of the veteran republican’s application.
With the Department appealing that ruling, it was suggested that the case has been rendered academic by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act imposing a block on compensation.
Mr Coll argued that an ongoing legal challenge to the new law could lead to a change in the situation.
Appeal judges were told If the Act is ultimately declared unlawful the ruling that the former Sinn Féin leader was wrongly denied compensation would be “the only show in town”.
During exchanges it was acknowledged that the challenge to the legacy legislation is ultimately likely to go to the Supreme Court.
“Realistically, I suggest that will take us to the year 2025,” Lord Justice McCloskey observed.
Counsel for Mr Adams, Donal Sayers KC, countered that the proper outcome should be a dismissal of the Department’s appeal.
“Cases of this nature cannot now see payment made and are therefore academic,” he said.
“That being so, it falls to be decided whether there is any public interest in adjourning on what is a wholly speculative basis.”
A decision on how to deal with the case will be given at a later date.