Troubles Bill means Gerry Adams won't get payout for Maze Escape attempts, court is told

The Department of Justice is currently challenging a ruling that the former Sinn Fein President was unlawfully refused a pay-out after his historic convictions for trying to escape from prison were overturned.

But senior judges were told that the controversial Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act will prohibit him from obtaining any damages.

It was suggested that Mr Adams could have achieved “a pyrrhic victory” in the case.

He 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’ application for compensation as a victim of a miscarriage of justice.

Under the statutory scheme a payment is made in cases where “a new or newly discovered fact” shows the person did not commit the offence.

Lawyers representing Mr Adams successfully argued that he qualified based on the findings made by the Supreme Court - that the ICO was legally defective.

Earlier this year a High Court judge held that in those circumstances Mr Adams was innocent of the crime for which he had been convicted.

He quashed the decision to deny a pay-out and ordered reconsideration of the veteran republican’s application.

Even though the Department has lodged an appeal against that ruling, its lawyers argued that the case should be put on hold until separate challenges to the new legacy laws are dealt with.

The court was told that under the current legislative position no compensation will be paid out.

Lord Justice McCloskey put to senior counsel: “Your position is that the success in the first instance is of no value to Mr Adams, it’s a pyrrhic victory?”

Peter Coll KC, for the Department, replied: “Yes, because the statutory landscape has been so radically altered by the 2023 Act.”

But it was also acknowledged that the lawfulness of the new legislation fiercely opposed by victims of the Troubles is set to be tested later this month.

“The 2023 Act essentially renders this appeal academic,” Mr Coll submitted.

“There is the ongoing challenge, therefore one doesn’t know exactly how that will crystallise in the near future.”

Seeking an adjournment, the barrister suggested it may still be necessary at some point to obtain a further adjudication on the lawfulness of the Department’s decision to refuse compensation.

Mr Adams' legal team also claimed the appeal was academic, but argued that it should be dismissed at this stage.

Donal Sayers KC said: “This whole question about whether there is any public interest in hearing the appeal is extremely speculative.”

A further hearing to map out the way forward was listed for November 22.