Call for fresh inquest into Summerland fire rejected

A call for a fresh inquest into the 1973 Summerland fire tragedy has been rejected by the high court.

First Deemster Andrew Corlett ruled that the Attorney General had not erred in law last year when he directed the Coroner of Inquests not to hold a new inquest into the deaths of the 50 adults and children who lost their lives in the blaze.

Speaking outside court after the judgment was handed down, Jackie Hallam, of the Justice for Summerland campaign group, vowed to fight on.

She said: ‘We are naturally disappointed by the decision.

‘However, we have no hesitation in seeking permission to appeal. My resolve and that of the other bereaved families in unwavering.

‘Our journey continues. Our focus is firmly on the steps ahead and we will continue to seek to follow the proper channels as we look to achieve our goal of a fresh inquest for the victims of this tragedy.’

Jackie was just 13 when she got caught up in the fire at the Summerland entertainment complex on August 2, 1973. Her mum and best friend were among those who died.

The Summerland fire was the subject of a lengthy judge-led public inquiry which reported in 1974 and which highlighted errors in planning, design and staff training as well as failings on the night of the blaze including locked or blocked fire exits.

A short inquest held on August 27 1974 returned unanimous verdicts of death by misadventure.

Deemster Corlett described it as an ‘appalling tragedy’.

He explained his role in this case was solely to examine the lawfulness of Attorney General Walter Wannenburgh’s decision not to order a fresh inquest.

The Justice for Summerland group had challenged that decision by way of a doleance - judicial review - claim which was heard over two days in May this year.

In a 36-page judgment, Deemster Corlett concluded that there was no basis upon which he could interfere with the Attorney General’s decision.

He said that misadventure was a proper verdict in 1974 and would now also be a proper verdict. There was no legal error revealed by the Attorney General’s decision and the claim for judicial review therefore had to be rejected, he said.

Deemster Corlett said given the exceptional nature of the case he would exercise his ultimate discretion not to order the claimants to pay costs.

Advocate for the campaign group, Steven Coren, said it would be ‘unconscionable’ for a survivor of such a tragedy to be penalised for seeking answers.

Oliver Helfrich, representing the AG’s chambers, initially said the AG would be seeking costs but would ‘not be pushing to hard’ for this.

Mr Coren sought leave to appeal from the First Deemster who rejected this, saying he believed it would not have any great prospect of success.

The claimants now have the option of applying directly to the Staff of Government division for permission to appeal. ‘You will have to take it up with the appeal court,’ said Deemster Corlett.