Boost for 'injured' smokers: High Court overrules block on legal aid to sue tobacco firms
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE HIGH COURT in London yesterday opened up the possibility of publicly-funded legal action against British tobacco companies accused of negligently causing smoking- related health problems. If the action goes ahead and proves successful, the damages claim could cost manufacturers more than pounds 20m and would prompt thousands of similar suits.
Mr Justice Popplewell overruled a decision by the Northern Area Legal Aid Committee refusing financial support to 27 people who have filed test cases relating to a total of 227 claims. The claimants have accused Gallaher, Rothmans, Imperial Tobacco, Philip Morris Inc and British- American Tobacco (BAT) of failing to minimise the dangers of smoking or give adequate warning of those risks.
Michael Beloff QC said that many of the claimants were seriously ill and three had died since the first application for legal aid was made.
The judge ordered that a different legal committee should re-examine the application for public funds. He said that he was driven to the conclusion that there had been a procedural irregularity during the original committee hearings.
He said that there were general issues common to claimants that the Northern Area committee seemed not to have addressed, relating to what the industry knew about the risks of smoking, when it knew about them and what companies did once they had that knowledge.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments