Coroner Nicolas Loraine-Smith is expected to give his verdict next Tuesday (February 28), with the key argument being if, and how, tour operator Tui UK and the Riu Imperial Marhaba Hotel had acted negligently before the killings.
All parties represented at the inquest, taking place at London’s Royal Courts of Justice, agreed that a verdict of ‘unlawful killing’ should be delivered for the 30 British Tui clients massacred by gunman Seifeddine Rezgul.
However, families for the holidaymakers want the court to add that these killings were ‘with neglect’, potentially opening up the possibility of further legal action for compensation against the travel giant.
The complicated legal argument to prove ‘neglect’ rests on three factors – that those killed were ‘dependent’ on Tui for their safety; that the neglect was a result of ‘gross failure’; and that these failures had a ‘clear and direct causal connection’ to the deaths.
Counsel for families of 21 of the victims, Andrew Ritchie QC, recapped evidence heard by the inquest over the last six weeks, claiming much of it demonstrated failings on behalf of the holiday company, hotel and Tunisian security forces.
He said: “It is a fact that Tui did nothing to audit security after [the earlier terrorist attack at] Bardo.
“Tui simply audits for the ‘three Fs’ - fire, food and falling over. We say this is gross negligence in light of the fact the country had a high risk of terrorism.”
Ritchie highlighted what he claimed were a number of serious security failings at the hotel, including the lack of guards, poor training of staff and the delays in calling for help from the armed National Guard.
“If looking for an easy target, this was the easiest,” he said. “There was a lack of security at the hotel and on the gates [of the beach].”
“At the pool area, they [hotel staff] were wandering around in chaos, and that is a clear result of having no training.”
He added later: “It is not proper procedure to leave the doors of the hotel open when there is a man walking around with a gun.”
Ritchie admitted there was no case law precedent that could show holidaymakers were ‘dependent’ on Tui, but he claimed the company was responsible under common law.
Speaking about the evidence concerning the Tunisian security force response on the day, Loraine-Smith said: “There seems to have been a fair amount of back covering in light of what happened.”
And he added: “Sadly, this really is a case of ‘what ifs’.”
