It was not the outcome the Campbell family was hoping for at this juncture, but it was exactly what we’ve come to expect after three years of the British government standing in the way of the family’s wish for a new inquest into the death of their son and brother Geoff Campbell in the North Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
This past Thursday, the attorney general’s office submitted its response to the application for judicial review filed by the Campbell family on October 4, 2024. The Campbells are challenging the legality of the decision issued in January of this year by then-Attorney General Victoria Prentis to deny their application for a new inquest, which was submitted two and half years earlier in August 2021.
The family’s goal in seeking a new inquest is to establish that Geoff Campbell’s death was caused by the North Tower being brought down with explosives. The original conclusion, reached by West London Coroner Alison Thompson at the first inquest in 2013, stated that the building collapsed due to the impact of American Airlines Flight 11.
Under the Coroners Act 1988, a new inquest must be ordered when new evidence emerges that could possibly overturn the conclusion reached at the first inquest or when there was an insufficiency of inquiry at the first inquest. The Campbell family contends that their case readily satisfies both of these grounds as well as the principal test that the courts have said is to be given considerable weight: that the family — in this case all of Geoff’s family, which includes his mother, father, and two brothers — wishes for a new inquest to be opened.
With the prospect of a long, unnecessary, and potentially embarrassing judicial review process looming for the attorney general’s office, the Campbell family was hoping the new attorney general, Richard Hermer, would simply withdraw his predecessor’s egregiously unlawful decision and issue a new one after conducting his own review of the family’s original application. But instead Hermer has elected to defend his predecessor’s decision.
Thus begins in earnest the judicial review proceeding that will effectively determine whether the first real official investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers will go forward in the West London Coroner’s Court in the near future.
Judicial review and the path ahead
The Campbell family now has until this coming Thursday, October 31, to file a short reply addressing new points raised in the attorney general’s response.
The High Court will then rule on whether to grant permission to the family to apply for judicial review. The question before the court at the “permission stage” of a judicial review proceeding is whether “there is an arguable ground for judicial review which has a realistic prospect of success.” The Campbell family expects the High Court to take two to four months to rule on whether to grant permission.
As previously anticipated and now all but confirmed by the contents of the attorney general’s filing on Thursday, permission in this case could hinge on the unsettled matter of whether decisions issued by the attorney general can be judicially reviewed by the courts. Case law from 1978 says that attorney general decisions are not judicially reviewable, but more recent case law has suggested that unlawful decisions by the attorney general should not be beyond the power of the courts to review. While the 1978 precedent has not been completely overturned, the courts appear to be moving in the direction that attorney general decisions should be subject to judicial review or else the attorney general would be empowered to make unlawful decisions at will.
If the High Court grants permission, the case would proceed to a “substantive hearing” and would be decided either at that hearing or, more likely, within a few months after.
If the Campbells prevail at that stage, the High Court would quash the decision and order Attorney General Hermer to make a new one. In that scenario, the new decision would likely be positive, since it would be highly unlikely for Hermer to reject the family’s application again after Prentis (the previous attorney general) withdrew her first decision in 2023 and after her second decision was quashed by the High Court.
Should the High Court either refuse judicial review at the permission stage or dismiss the case at the substantive hearing, the Campbell family would have the right to appeal.
At any point in the process, Hermer can withdraw the decision and issue a new one.
It is especially common for government officials to withdraw disputed decisions once permission has been granted and before the substantive hearing. This is the outcome the Campbells are now aiming for, since they believe it will be impossible for Hermer to put forth a credible defense of the decision at a substantive hearing.
For further information about the family’s grounds for challenging the attorney general’s decision, please see the announcement of the filing on October 4, 2024.
The Campbell family and we at the International Center for 9/11 Justice are immensely grateful to the hundreds of people whose generous donations have enabled the family to continue fighting for the new inquest to which the law clearly entitles them.
Please stay tuned for further developments.
Past updates
Family of British 9/11 victim files High Court challenge to AG’s unlawful denial of new inquest (October 2024)
Neil Oliver interviews Ted Walter about British 9/11 family’s fight to reopen inquest into son’s death (September 2024)
George Galloway covers British 9/11 family’s fight for new inquest on 23rd anniversary (September 2024)
Campbell family to take on British AG in fight to reopen son’s inquest and prove Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolition (March 2024)
Family of 9/11 victim vows to keep fighting for new inquest after UK Attorney General denies them a second time (January 2024)
In major victory for 9/11 family, UK attorney general withdraws decision to deny family’s application for new inquest (September 2023)
9/11 family denied new inquest by UK Attorney General, will seek judicial review (July 2023)
UK Family Seeks New Inquest into Son’s Death on 9/11, Rejecting Claim that Airplane Caused Collapse (August 2021)
Photo: Solicitor General Sarah Sackman, left, Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood, center, Attorney General Richard Hermer, right.
