The owners and staff at a Tunisian hotel where 30 British tourists, including four Scots, were brutally killed by an Islamic extremist could have done nothing before the attack that would have done more than "possibly make a difference", a coroner said.
Judge Nicholas Loraine-Smith said he could not include "neglect" by holiday firm TUI or the owners of the five-star Riu Imperial Marhaba Hotel when ruling on the deaths of the British victims of Seifeddine Rezgui.
Rezgui opened fire on the beach and grounds of the Sousse hotel in June 2015, but the judge, sitting as coroner at the victims' inquest, said the law regarding neglect did not cover tourists on holiday.
Scots couples Lisa and Billy Graham, from Perth, and Jim and Ann McQuite, from Cumbernauld were killed in the beach massacre.
The lawyers for more than 20 of Rezgui's victims had wanted this included after the lengthy inquest heard evidence from survivors that they were not warned of the danger of holidaying in Tunisia before they left.
The inquests also heard the hotel had just a handful of unarmed guards, while "cowardly" local police delayed their arrival to tackle Rezgui, who killed 38 people in total.
Giving his reasons for rejecting a neglect ruling, Judge Loraine-Smith said there were a lot of "what ifs" around the case, and better hotel security may simply have meant more people died on the beach.
As the packed courtroom watched in silence he said the only factor that may have made a material difference was if the hotel had armed guards.
But Judge Loraine-Smith said: "Having reviewed the legal advice on gun law in Tunisia it's clear this was not a realistic option."
He added: "The simple but tragic truth in this case is that a gunman armed with a gun and grenades went to that hotel intending to kill as many tourists as he could."
Judge Loraine-Smith added the local police "most certainly" were responsible for tourist security, and said: "Their response could and should have been effective."
He added: "The response by the police was at best shambolic, at worst cowardly."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel