Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
172-179)
MR JASON
MCCUE
8 JULY 2009
Q172 Chairman: Mr McCue, may I welcome
you on behalf of the Committee. Thank you very much indeed for
coming. We are little constrained on time, partly at your request,
but we are very grateful to you for being here and we are anxious
to hear what you have to say to us. Was there anything that you
wanted to say by way of brief introductory comment before I begin
the questioning?
Mr McCue: No, I
do not think. I think it can just come out through questions and
see where we go.
Q173 Chairman: That is the model
witness, if I may say so. You have been living with this issue
for a very long time and you have been working with Mr Gallagher
and his committee and clearly you have rendered them a very signal
service and we recognise that; it was a landmark judgment when
it was given. Are the families likely ever to see any of the compensation
that they have been awarded as a result of this landmark judgment?
Mr McCue: The first way of answering
that question is that, when we started off on the case nine years
ago, we did not have people like yourself saying, "You are
likely to win, you are likely to get anywhere", so I preface
it by saying that anything is possible if you try hard enough
and have the determination of the families. Will they see compensation?
Why not? There are four defendants, as you know, who have been
found liable. Some of them have moved money around over the period.
If Legal Aid chooses to fund the families to enforce their judgment,
I do not see why they will not get a number of assets. The Judge
made a very interesting comment in his judgment which forms part
of it in relation to finding the Army Council liable between the
dates of Omagh. That opens up a spectrum of other potential people
to go after for the damages and some of those, we are told by
sources, have significant funds within the jurisdictions of that
island.
Q174 Chairman: Is this what you meant
when you said that there are lots of possibilities to consider?
Mr McCue: Yes.
Q175 Chairman: Would you like to
amplify further on that at this stage?
Mr McCue: I would not go into
the specifics of it; I thought it was going far enough by explaining
that the Army Council is people who are not defendants who are
identifiable by sources in evidence and, if we get the co-operation
of the police et cetera, north and south of the border, I can
see the families being able to enforce their judgment and obtain
money far in excess of the damages award which leads to an interesting
question of whether the families choose to appeal on the grounds
of exemplary damages. I do not know if anyone realised the point
in the case, but the Judge could not find for us on exemplary
damages because they do not exist in English law, so we have to
appeal it at the courts. I am rather hoping again that Legal Aid
see the sense in the families being able to push this as the case
for bringing exemplary damages into the UK.
Q176 Chairman: What would exemplary
damages be likely to amount to?
Mr McCue: Multi-multi-millions.
Q177 Chairman: You think—and
let me phrase my question very carefully—that the sort of
people who could be implicated as a result of the identification
of the Army Council might well have multi-millions at their disposal
in one way or another?
Mr McCue: Yes.
Q178 Chairman: That is very interesting.
That really answers my question about what value this action has
for the families. You are saying that there is money there and,
given the co-operation of the authorities, there is no reason
why you should not be able to obtain that money.
Mr McCue: I think that we would
feel quite confident.
Q179 Chairman: Are you equally confident
in the co-operation that you have received and believe that you
are likely to receive from the police north and south of the border?
Mr McCue: I would like to come
back to that question and just finish off the first part, if you
do not mind.
| 
