The withdrawal of civil proceedings against Gerry Adams in a London court on Friday came after the judge in the case raised the possibility that the three men pursuing the action, Jonathan Ganesh, Barry Laycock and John Clark, could face a bill running into the hundreds of thousands of pounds should they lose.

The judge had raised questions over a number of days as to whether the men’s claim for personal injuries against Adams was an abuse of process because its real ambition went beyond their claim for damages.

They had sought a judgment in the amount of £1 against the former Sinn Féin president.

The social media machine was of course in full swing after the announcement, with supporters on both sides claiming a ‘victory’ despite the reality being that a withdrawn case means nobody wins.

Róisín Lanigan: To be Irish in England today is to be the punchline of an unfunny joke

Patricia Mac Bride: Why I hate the term ‘lawfare’ when it comes to the Troubles

What was troubling in online commentary and in some news articles was the way the proceedings were described as ‘lawfare’, designed to discredit Adams’s claims that he had never been a member of the IRA.

I am not suggesting that the victims in this case, nor their lawyers, were politically motivated in pursuing the civil action.

I am just uncomfortable that any legal proceedings relating to the legacy of the conflict might be characterised as ‘lawfare’, because to do so could delegitimise the experiences of victims and survivors and retraumatise people who have already borne incredible suffering.

Actually, I hate the term ‘lawfare’.

We have come to understand its meaning as the strategic use of litigation and the legal system to achieve a political or ideological objective.

‘Lawfare’ can imply that the legal action being pursued is not primarily designed to seek justice or resolve a dispute, but rather is being used as a tool to weaken an opponent, shape public narratives or impose a financial and reputational cost.

Using the term ‘lawfare’ is not only problematic, but I would argue it’s also disrespectful to the legal system.

The purpose of the court system is to uphold the rule of law by providing an impartial forum where claims are tested against evidence and legal principles.

Using the term ‘lawfare’ carries the risk of suggesting that the use of legal proceedings is somehow illegitimate or manipulative, even where individuals are exercising their lawful right to seek justice.

It’s language that can undermine public confidence in the justice system because by casually dismissing litigation as ‘lawfare’, the suggestion is that outcomes are driven by strategy rather than legal merit, which could result in the erosion of trust in judicial independence.

Further, as we have seen time and time again in relation to legacy litigation in the north, the term ‘lawfare’ has been used as an effort to delegitimise victims of the conflict by characterising their pursuit of justice as politically motivated or an abuse of process, rather than as a legitimate use of their legal rights.

During debates around the introduction of the Legacy Act, British politicians and veterans’ advocates repeatedly framed civil cases and inquests as ‘lawfare’ against soldiers.

By framing victims’ families as politically motivated rather than as persons with rights under the law, this narrative helped justify limited access to courts and civil claims – a position the British government has had to accept is wrong because it blocked victims from accessing justice.

Historical prosecutions, including the Soldier F case in relation to Bloody Sunday, were described as ‘lawfare’ and it was argued that elderly soldiers were being unfairly targeted decades later.

The effect of this was to frame victims’ families who are pursuing prosecutions as seeking retribution, rather than lawful accountability.

Legacy inquests have also been described as ‘lawfare.’

In the case of the 1992 Clonoe shootings, the inquest made findings of unjustified lethal force and false official accounts of events.

Again, politicians and veterans groups described the process and findings as ‘lawfare’ against soldiers.

This rhetoric risks delegitimising judicial findings themselves, even where courts conclude state wrongdoing has happened, discouraging further truth recovery efforts.

There is an important distinction between abusive litigation and legitimate claims and the legal system already contains safeguards, including rules against vexatious or frivolous claims in order to prevent misuse or abuse of process.

The lazy, casual categorisation of any legal proceedings as ‘lawfare’ undermines the rule of law and diminishes respect for the legal process and the foundational principle that courts exist to resolve disputes according to law, not power.

If you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article and would like to submit a Letter to the Editor to be considered for publication, please click here.

Letters to the Editor are invited on any subject. They should be authenticated with a full name, address and a daytime telephone number. Pen names are not allowed.

© The Irish News