Liability for Terrorist Acts under Tort Law: Breslin v. McKenna and Others (2009)

Introduction

The case of Breslin & Ors v. McKenna & Ors (2009) serves as a pivotal legal examination of applying tort law to acts of terrorism. The plaintiffs, comprising twelve individuals who sustained personal injuries and three others seeking damages due to the tragic Omagh bombing on August 15, 1998, sought compensation from five named individuals and an unincorporated association, The Real Irish Republican Army (Real IRA). This commentary delves into the intricacies of the judgment delivered by the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division, elucidating the establishment of liability, the legal precedents cited, and the broader implications for civil litigation in the context of terrorist acts.

Summary of the Judgment

The plaintiffs initiated legal action claiming damages for personal injuries and, in some cases, for the loss of family members due to the Omagh bombing. The defendants included five individuals and The Real IRA, alleged to have been involved in the planning, production, planting, and detonation of the bomb. The High Court meticulously examined the plaintiffs' claims under the framework of tort law, specifically addressing trespass to the person, intentional infliction of harm, and conspiracy to injure.

The court ultimately found three of the individual defendants and The Real IRA liable for their roles in executing the bombing. The judgment emphasized the intentional nature of the defendants' actions and the foreseeability of harm resulting from planting a bomb in a public space. Additionally, the court dismissed claims against other defendants, citing insufficient evidence and unreliable witness testimony.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced historical tort cases to outline the elements required to establish liability. Notably, cases from the 19th and 20th centuries, such as Stanley v Powell [1891] 1 QB 86 and Fowler v Lanning [1959] 1 QB 426, were instrumental in defining the scope of trespass and negligence in cases involving direct or indirect injury. The court also considered modern interpretations and applications of tort law, addressing how traditional principles adapt to contemporary acts of terrorism.

Legal Reasoning

The core of the legal reasoning centered on applying the doctrine of intentional torts to the defendants' actions. The court delineated the necessary elements of trespass to the person, intentional infliction of harm, and conspiracy to injure, demonstrating how each applied to the circumstances of the Omagh bombing. Emphasis was placed on the defendants' intent and the direct consequences of their actions, underscoring the foreseeability of injuries resulting from bomb detonations in populated areas.

Furthermore, the judgment navigated complex issues surrounding hearsay evidence and the standard of proof in civil cases. It addressed concerns about the reliability of witness testimonies and the admissibility of altered interview notes, ultimately prioritizing the objective evidence linking the defendants to the bombing.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for civil litigation in contexts involving acts of terrorism. By affirming that individuals and organizations can be held liable under tort law for the direct and foreseeable harm caused by deliberate attacks, the case sets a precedent for victims seeking compensation outside the criminal justice system. It expands the avenues for redress, ensuring that those responsible for such heinous acts are accountable in multiple legal spheres.

Additionally, the judgment highlights the challenges of litigating cases involving complex criminal activities, where evidentiary standards and witness reliability are often contentious. It underscores the necessity for meticulous legal scrutiny and the application of established tort principles to ensure justice for the victims.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Tort Law Applied to Terrorism: Traditionally used to address civil wrongs causing injury, tort law in this context assesses the defendants' actions as deliberate acts intended to cause harm. This framework allows victims to seek compensation through civil courts, independent of criminal prosecutions.

Trespass to the Person: This tort involves direct or indirect interference with an individual's body, personal feelings, or liberty. In the case of the Omagh bombing, the planting and detonation of a bomb interfered with the plaintiffs' bodily integrity and personal safety.

Intentional Infliction of Harm: This tort occurs when one party intentionally acts in a way that causes significant emotional or psychological injury to another. The court considered the emotional trauma experienced by the victims as a direct result of the bombing.

Conspiracy to Injure: This involves an agreement between two or more parties to perform an unlawful act resulting in injury to another. The collaboration between the defendants to execute the bombing constitutes such a conspiracy.

Hearsay Evidence: Refers to statements made outside the court that are presented to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The court addressed the reliability and admissibility of such evidence, especially when witness testimonies were compromised or unreliable.

Conclusion

The Breslin & Ors v. McKenna & Ors (2009) judgment marks a significant advancement in the application of tort law to acts of terrorism. By holding the defendants liable for the Omagh bombing under intentional torts, the court provided a robust mechanism for victims to obtain compensation for the profound and enduring harm inflicted upon them. This case underscores the adaptability of tort principles in addressing modern forms of criminal violence and reinforces the legal system's commitment to ensuring accountability and justice for victims of terrorism.

Moreover, the judgment serves as a reference point for future civil cases involving similar circumstances, highlighting the importance of meticulous evidence examination and the perseverance required to navigate the complexities of such litigation. It reaffirms that the legal system remains a vital avenue for redress, even when traditional criminal avenues may fall short in delivering comprehensive justice.