COMPENSATION claims by 1,000 nuclear test veterans who say they became ill after being poisoned by radiation have “no reasonable prospect of success”, the High Court was told yesterday.
The court is hearing claims by veterans, including seven from Merseyside, from all three services who served during, and in the aftermath of, bomb tests by the Ministry of Defence in mainland Australia and the Pacific in the 1950s.
Lawyers say the men suffered personal injuries of all types, ranging from skin conditions to cancers of the thyroid, liver, intestine and lungs, and even death.
But yesterday, a top QC for the Ministry of Defence told Mr Justice Foskett that the claims should fail, not only because they are too late, but because they have no chance of succeeding anyway.
Charles Gibson QC told the court that the men’s claims were an attack on distinguished veterans, scientists and public servants who organised the tests and were themselves present at the time.
The allegation that the veterans had been deliberately exposed to ionising radiation was an extremely serious one to make, he said.
“At its core, it is not an attack on some edifice, but on the men and women, many of whom distinguished soldiers, scientists and public servants, who designed and implemented these unique and extraordinary tests,” he said.
“It is their acts and omissions which will be put under scrutiny at the trial of these cases.
“The scientists were there. The men whose responsibility for safety, for cordoning off areas, for ensuring protective equipment was worn, for ensuring areas of fallout were policed, these men were there.”
The hearing which is expected to continue for 15 days is to assess whether the claims should be allowed to go ahead at all.
The Ministry of Defence says they are “time-barred” by the Limitation Act 1980, as they have come far too late after the men gained knowledge of their injuries and their cause of legal action.
But Mr Gibson argued that the question of limitation could only be conducted on the basis that the veterans have a reasonable case to argue that their injuries were caused by MoDnegligence.
He said it was an “abuse of process, in the legal sense, to bring a case which has no reasonable prospect of success and to prosecute a case which has no reasonable prospect of success”. On Wednesday, Benjamin Browne QC, representing the veterans, told the judge that only recently had the information become available to proceed with the claims.
Recent research from New Zealand showed that sailors operating long distances from the test areas had suffered ill effects from the fallout, he said.
Dozens of veterans, many of them members of the British Nuclear Tests Veterans Association, have packed the court with their families to hear the case proceed.
A writ released last April revealed five Merseyside men are claiming compensation, with two representatives of deceased veterans.
They include Karen Brogan, from Crosby, who is taking action on behalf of her father, Alfred Martin, who served at Christmas Island in the late 1950s. He died of bone cancer, aged 55.
Ernest Cocker, 72, of Irby, and Harold Brocken, 71, from Woolton, who served during tests on Malden Island, are also involved.
More than 120 bundles of papers, including witness statements by all of the claimants and documents dating back to the time of the tests, have already been considered by the judge.
Other Merseyside claimants include Keith Syder, from Haydock; William Vaughan, from Whiston; Peter Guy, from Crosby; and Pauline Hart, on behalf of John Hart, from Southport.
The hearing, due to last three weeks, continues.
