In Various Claimants v Security Service & Others (2024), more than 300 claims were brought before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal arising out of a suicide bombing attack at an Ariana Grande concert in 2017 at the Manchester Arena. 

On 22 November 2024, the Tribunal delivered their decision that it would not be equitable to grant the victims of the attack an extension of time to bring their claims against the Security Service (MI5), the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) or GCHQ.

Following the attack, The Manchester Arena Enquiry was established and in March 2023, Sir John Saunders produced the final volume of the Inquiry’s report. In Part 24, entitled ‘Preventing the Attack’, a key finding was as follows: 

“There was a significant missed opportunity to take action that might have prevented the Attack. It is not possible to reach any conclusion on the balance of probabilities or to any other evidential standard as to whether the Attack would have been prevented. However, there was a realistic possibility that actionable intelligence could have been obtained which might have led to actions preventing the Attack.” 

The report led to the then Director General of MI5, Ken McCallum, issuing a public apology and expressed his deep regret that such intelligence was not obtained and that M15 did not prevent the attack. 

During the Inquest into the deaths resulting from the bombing, Counsel to the Inquest expressed a view that Article 2 of the European Convention was probably engaged. However, it was not until some five years later, in February 2024, that claims for violation of Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention were issued in the Tribunal. 

The Tribunal ordered a hearing and limitation was considered as a preliminary issue.

The claimants contended that:

• No viable claim could have been brought until the Inquiry report in March 2023.
• There would be no prejudice to the Respondents.
• Whilst there had been some delay between issuing the report and bringing the claims, the claimants had suffered trauma, including trauma from the report itself. 
• The subject matter was of supreme importance to the claimants and the sheer seriousness of the atrocity meant expedition was less imperative.

The Tribunal acknowledged the horrendous impact of the terrorist attack however, concluded that it would not be equitable to permit the claims to proceed “having regard to all the circumstances”. The core of the Tribunal’s reasoning focussed on the claimant’s procedural delays. Their solicitors had written to the security services in May 2018 referring to the limitation period under the HRA and asking for a ‘general amnesty’ which was refused. Some two years later, the claimants’ solicitors wrote again, inviting a ‘standstill agreement’. Again, no formal agreement was reached.

The Tribunal observed that whilst it was understandable the claimants felt unable to issue protectively before the publication of the report in March 2023, this only reinforced the need to act with expedition as soon as the report was published. While the claim was brought less than 12 months after the report was published, the Tribunal considered the delay demonstrated a failure to give the issue of proceedings the priority it warranted.

The Tribunal was also heavily influenced by the fact proceedings were unlikely to reveal any new evidence or serve any legal purpose. It was noted the primary purpose of claims under the HRA was to vindicate rights, not award compensation. Although the Inquiry had not formally included a declaration that the claimants’ rights had been violated, it had led to a full public apology. To allow the claims to continue would inevitably divert resources away from key public bodies which the Tribunal did not consider to be justified by providing the claimants with a further declaration to the same effect, together with a modest award of damages.

This decision is a reminder to all parties that the primary purpose of claims under the Convention is the vindication of rights rather than to provide monetary compensation. This is notwithstanding the claimants would have been seeking significant sums of money in respect of life changing injuries. It also provides a clear message that limitation will continue to be applied much more strictly in HRA claims than under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 in which case, any request to extend the limitation under the HRA should be considered carefully.