Relatives of the 21 people killed in the Birmingham pub bombings have reacted furiously to new figures showing that the media campaign for the inquest got two-thirds as much public money as the total legal aid offered to the victims’ families.
Figures obtained following a freedom of information request into the 1974 attacks reveal that £202,000 was paid to Crest Advisory, who dealt with the inquest’s media strategy and provided press officers to cover the inquest. Some families allege that the firm “spun” against the victims, a claim it denies.
Lawyers for the families are expected to receive legal aid of up to £350,000 for the five-week inquest into the bombings that concluded in April with the jury delivering an unlawful killing verdict.
The figures reveal that £3.63m was spent on holding the inquest. Relatives of those who died in the blasts at the Mulberry Bush and Tavern in the Town pubs said they were “utterly disgusted” by how the money was spent.
Julie Hambleton, sister of one of the victims, 18-year-old Maxine Hambleton, said: “It’s an absolute outrage. The families will receive legal aid worth less than 10% of the amounts paid to the state. There is no overview of accounting and no justification for a PR firm which from our point of view was employed to brief against the relatives.”
The FoI response revealed that law firm Fieldfisher was paid £1.42m to run the inquests, with another £1.34m spent on other logistical costs. A further £870,000 was charged by four barristers employed by the coroner’s court. Hambleton said that relatives felt they were so poorly legally represented that one barrister was paid for by CrowdJustice, the online funding platform.
Following the inquest, relatives urged police to bring the alleged perpetrators to justice after a convicted IRA bomber named four men as being responsible for the attacks.
Hambleton said that since the conclusion of the inquest two months ago some of the families had not been “able to eat or sleep since”.
She said: “The weight has been absolutely dropping off them. This latest news has made them apoplectic – they are even angrier than me.”
Critics point to the lack of a tendering process when awarding contracts to law firms for such inquests. They also cite the fact that private law firms representing the state can charge up to £700 an hour for barristers while lawyers using legal aid to represent the public are limited to £75 an hour.
The Northern Ireland firm KRW Law LLP was contracted to enable the “effective participation” of the families at the inquest, although the firm was initially refused legal aid to challenge a ruling that suspects should not be named.
Christopher Stanley of KRW said: “These are nearly £4m of fees which have not been publicly tendered for and which illustrate the disproportionate nature of the process for victims and their legal representatives attempting to do the best quality work they can.
“Rates for legal representation for relatives of victims at inquests by way of legal aid – including complex multi-death inquests like this – are fixed in law and only paid for those with a contract to provide these services and then subject to an assessment by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA). Legal Aid remains the outcast child of the welfare state system.”
The amounts disclosed do not include the costs of West Midlands police being represented during the inquest, whose jury found that there were no errors in the way police responded to the warning call and their actions did not contribute to the loss of life.
KRW have yet to submit final costings to be assessed by the LAA for work dating back to last September but using legal aid rates can calculate its approximate payment.
A spokesman for Crest Advisory said: “During six weeks of evidential hearings earlier this year, we liaised with more than 70 journalists on a daily basis and uploaded transcripts and evidence shown in court in order to provide the greatest possible transparency to the legal process. The suggestion that our team briefed against any of the parties involved in the inquests is categorically untrue.”
