LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Loading citations...Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
SINFIELD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Doc ref: 61332/12 • ECHR ID: 001-141838
Document date: February 18, 2014
- Inbound citations: 1
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 2
- •
- Outbound citations: 4
SINFIELD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Doc ref: 61332/12 • ECHR ID: 001-141838
Document date: February 18, 2014
Cited paragraphs only
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 61332/12 Jean Ethel SINFIELD and O thers against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 18 February 2014 as a Chamber composed of:
Ineta Ziemele , President, George Nicolaou , Ledi Bianku , Nona Tsotsoria , Zdravka Kalaydjieva , Paul Mahoney, Faris Vehabović , judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos , Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 September 2012 ,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The 707 applicants are either former servicemen or personal representatives or dependents of deceased former servicemen. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are represented before the Court by Mr N. Sampson, a solicitor practising in London.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. For ease of reference, the term “applicants” in the following statement of facts should be taken to mean both the present applicants and the deceased former servicemen who are represented by their estates.
1 . The atmospheric tests of nuclear devices
3. Between 1952 and 1958 the United Kingdom carried out a series of atmospheric tests of thermonuclear devices in the region of the Pacific Ocean. All three branches of the armed forces took part, involving some 22,000 servicemen, including the applicants. Some contemporaneous monitoring was carried out of radiation levels to which individual servicemen were exposed at the moment of detonation, but no monitoring took place of subsequent exposure to radiation in the form of fallout through ingestion of contaminated water or fish, for example.
2. Attempts to establish whether there was a causal link between participation in the tests and illness
4. In medical and scientific circles it was known since the 1940s that exposure to ionising radiation was capable of causing many forms of cancer , although the risk was generally associated with fairly high levels of exposure caused by “prompt” or “instantaneous” radiation. Subsequently, the effects of lower levels of radiation caused by fallout were studied. In the United Kingdom , public interest in the possibility that British servicemen might have suffered ill effects as the result of exposure during the nuclear tests was aroused following a series of items on a BBC television news programme broadcast in December 1982 and early 1983. These ventilated the possibility that test participants were suffering unusual levels of ill health of various forms. This interest appears to have stemmed from publicity in Scotland generated by concerns raised in the Daily Record by one of the applicants, Mr Kenneth McGinley . Mr McGinley publicly claimed that he was one of a number of nuclear test veterans who had suffered ill health as the result of exposure to radiation.
5. Soon after this publicity, a group of veterans, all of whom had served in the Pacific during the tests, formed the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association (BNTVA). Mr McGinley was their Chairman. Their objectives were to gather information about their exposure to radiation and its likely effects, to press for further research and to seek financial recompense for any harm suffered , either by claiming for war pensions or by making claims for damages.
6. As a result of the publicity described above, in January 1983, questions were raised in Parliament about the possibility that the veterans had been injured by exposure to radiation. The attitude of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) was , and is, that the men had not been exposed to excessive levels of ionising radiation. However, the Government commissioned a health survey of the men involved in the tests, to be conducted by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB).
7. The survey sought to identify all the men who had been present in the area at the time of the tests and to compare them with a similar sized cohort of men of similar backgrounds who had not attended the tests. A bout 22,000 nuclear test veterans were identified . The survey examined death registration documents for causes of death and also the incidence of cancer using the N ational H ealth S ervice Cancer Register. The report, issued in November 1988, disclosed that, among the veteran s, there was no excess mortality either from all causes or from all cancers. However, there was a significantly higher level of deaths from leukaemia and multiple myeloma among the participants than among the controls. The report expressed the view that this was probably a chance result, to be explained by the very low level of deaths from these causes among the control group. When the deaths among the participants were compared with the national mortality figures for those conditions, the excess among the participants was only slight. It was concluded that participation in the nuclear tests was not associated with any detectable effect on expectation of life or the risk of developing cancer. It added:
“ that there may well have been small hazards of leukaemia and multiple myeloma associated with participation in the programme, but their existence is certainly not proven and further research is desirable ”.
The NRPB carried out two more surveys and reported in 1993 and 2003 , but the later conclusions did not differ significantly from the earlier ones. The methodology and conclusions of all three surveys were criticised by the BNTVA and subsequently by the claimants in the group action, principally on the ground that they looked only at deceased, but not living, veterans.
8. Meanwhile, in 1985 an action for damages was begun by a veteran named Melvyn Pearce. He developed a lymphoma in 1978 and alleged that it had been caused by exposure to ionising radiation during the tests. The allegations of negligence in Pearce v. The Secretary of State for Defence and Ministry of Defence [1988] AC 755 were based on both exposure to prompt high dose radiation ( that is, as a result of proximate presence at one or more of the nuclear tests) and delayed, low dose, exposure (as a consequence of ingesting radionuclides from fallout while swimming in contaminated waters or eating contaminated fish). It was also alleged that the MOD had deliberately exposed the men to radiation as an experiment to see what the effects were. The MOD denied liability and sought to rely on immunity from suit provided by section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. It did not plead the Limitation Act. The issue of immunity was treated as a preliminary issue and in due course went to the House of Lo rds which held in the Mr Pearce ’ s favour , leaving him free to proceed to trial. However, soon afterwards, the claim was disc ontinued, because the Mr Pearce ’ s team concluded that it could not prove a causal link between the exposure to radiation and the development of cancer.
9. In 2008, the results of a study carried out by a team of scientists led by Dr R.E. Rowland of the New Zealand Institute of Molecular Bio s ciences were published as “ Elevated chromosome translocation frequencies in Ne w Zealand nuclear test veterans” (“the Rowland Study”). Using a technique called “ mFISH ” , which involved “painting” chromosomes enabling breaks and rearrangements to become visible, the team had examined the damage to the chromosomes of 49 New Zealand veterans who had served on board two frigates positioned between 20 and 150 nautical miles upwind from certain explosions which were part of the United Kingdom nuclear test programme . T he Rowland study found that the 49 crew members examined had on average three times as many chromosomal aberrations than 50 controls who had not taken part in the tests. This finding was regarded as significant and probably attributable to long term genetic damage resulting from ionising radiation during and after the nuclear test. An attempt was made to estimate the radiation dose from the level of translocations . The median dose for the veterans was estimated to be far in excess of the median estimated dose of the controls. However, t he study made no claim for any correlation between the raised levels of chromosomal aberrations and the incidence of any illness.
3. The group action
10. Meanwhile, i n 2002, several veterans instructed two different firms of solicitors with a view to bringing claims for damages. Legal Aid was granted for the investigation of the claims. On 23 December 2004 a claim form was issued in respect of a group action brought by or on behalf of 1,011 former servicemen, including the applicants, against the MOD . Damages were sought in respect of injury, disability or death alleged to have occurred in consequence of the exposure of the former servicemen to ionising radiation as a result of their presence near, or involvement in the aftermath of, the nuclear tests.
11. In August 2005 public funding was withdrawn from the claimants on the ground that the legal merits were insufficient to justify the case being pursued at public expense. It was agreed between the parties to stay the proceedings, until the Rowland study had been published. The stay was lifted on 1 September 2006 and a different firm of solicitors took over, after arrangements had been made for the matter to proceed on a conditional fee basis . Under the conditional fee arrangement, the solicitors would be paid only if the claimants were successful. The claimants purchased an insurance policy, known as “ATE (after the event) insurance”, to cover the MOD ’ s costs, should they be ordered against them.
12. On 29 December 2006 Master Particulars of Claim, containing more detailed allegations, were served. It was alleged that the nuclear tests had been negligently planned and executed, in that, inter alia , protective clothing and equipment was not supplied, to prevent the exposure of the servicemen to ionising radiation both at the time of each blast and subsequently, in the form of fall-out, and steps were not taken to prevent servicemen from swimming in contaminated water and eating contaminated seafood in the aftermath of the tests. In addition, it was alleged that the authorities failed properly to monitor the extent to which each serviceman was exposed to ionising radiation, both during and after each test. The claimants further claimed that they had suffered a variety of illnesses known to result from radiation exposure and relied in particular on the mFISH methodology, used by the Rowland study (see paragraph 10 above), as a reliable and specific indicator of genetic damage caused by exposure to ionising radiation. The Master Particulars of Claim included a partial list of the illnesses which the claimants, as a group, contended to have suffered as a result of their exposure to radiation, but individual medical reports were not included. In connection with the questi on whether the claims were time ‑ barred, the applicants contended that it was only with the availability of the results of the Rowland study in 2007 that “scientific evidence became available that indicated that the conditions suffered by the veterans were attributable to exposure during the tests”. Furthermore, they argued that where delay had occurred, which in most cases was not great, this was explicable by funding difficulties and the MOD ’ s attitude of denial, and that the cases should be allowed to proceed under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 (“the 1980 Act”: see paragraphs 27-29 below).
13. The MOD denied liability, alleging that all proper precautions were taken to protect service personnel from exposure to ionising radiation and that, in most cases, the actual exposure of the men was no more than the background radiation they would have experienced in the United Kingdom. In addition, the MOD contended that the claimants would be unable to prove, individually or as a group, that their illnesses were attributable to their presence during the nuclear tests, rather than other factors. The MOD also argued that the claims were time-barred under the terms of the 1980 Act, which requires a claimant to institute proceedings within three years of the date on which the cause of action accrue d or “the date of knowledge (if later) of the person injured”. It was contended on behalf of the Ministry of Defence that the claimants had relevant knowledge prior to 23 December 2001 (that is, before the three-year period preceding the institution of proceedings). In relation to the discretionary power under section 33 of the 1980 Act, it was argued that the passage of time since the tests had eroded the cogency of the evidence and that the overall merits of the claim were weak, particularly in relation to causation.
14. A group litigation order was made, which decided inter alia that the issue of limitation should be tried as a preliminary point. On the agreement of the parties, five test cases were selected by each side for the purpose of the preliminary hearing to determine the limitation issues. On 10 April 2008 the MOD informed the veterans ’ solicitor that it intended to serve expert evidence going to the weakness of the claims on causation. The following day the MOD was granted leave to serve limited expert evidence in the fields of radiobiology, epidemiology and nucl e ar physics. The applicants were subsequently granted leave to serve expert evidence in the same disciplines. The selection of the test cases was completed by August 2008. Disclosure was provided by the parties, but was limited to documents relevant to the limitation is s ues only.
4. The judgment of the High Court
15. The hearing took place over ten days in January and February 2009 before Foskett J, who heard and considered expert evidence in relation to the development of scientific knowledge of the effects of ionising radi a tion as well as evidence from the claimants about their knowledge and belief about the cause of their injuries. He delivered his judgment on 5 June 2009. Although the claimants had complained in their Particulars of Claim of exposure to prompt radiation, it was agreed early in the trial that none of the veterans had been sufficiently close to the explosions to have been affected by prompt radiation.
16. At the hearing, without issuing any application, the MOD invited the judge to strike out the claims or, in the alternative, to give summary judgment in favour of the MOD, on the ground that the claims had no prospect of success. Foskett J declined to do so, ruling that these requests were premature, since causation was essentially a question of fact and since the facts, dependent on lay and expert evidence, had not been established at the current stage of the proceedings. Moreover, he did not accept that the claimants ’ case on causation was so weak that the claims were bound to fail. However, he accepted that, if any of the cases were to clear the limitation hurdle and proceed to trial, there was a risk that they might subsequently be abandoned because of difficulties in establishing causation, and stated that, if invited to do so by the defendant, he would consider how the Ministry of Defence could be protected in terms of costs and other adverse consequences should this occur.
17. On the limitation issue, the judge considered himself bound by previous case-law to hold that “knowledge ” within the meaning of section 14(1 )( b) of the 1980 Act in effect meant “belief”, so that each claimant acquired the relevant knowledge at the moment in time when he formed the belief that his injury was capable of having been caused by exposure to radiation. Following this approach, he examined each case to determine the moment at which the veteran had manifested not merely suspicion but a firm belief that his illness was attributable to exposure to radiation. He found that five of the lead claimants had not had knowledge of their claims, within the meaning of section 14 of the 1980 Act, until less than three years before they began proceedings, so they were entitled to proceed with their claims as of right. He further considered that the claims of the other five test claimants were prima facie statute barred, but exercis ed his discretion under section 33 of the 1980 Act so as to allow the actions to proceed. In particular, he emphasised that the need to avoid an apparent injustice, both in the minds of the claimants and of the general public, was a weighty factor to be taken into account. The judge awarded the claimants their costs, estimated at GBP 11.8 million, to be paid by the MOD.
5. The judgment of the Court of Appeal
18. The MOD appealed to the Court of Ap peal, which gave judgment on 19 November 2010 ( Ministry of Defence v. A.B. and Others [2010] EWCA Civ 1317 ). The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge ’ s refusal to strike out the case, but on different grounds. They considered that the pleadings disclosed reasonable grounds for bringing the case and that as there had been no abuse of process nor failure to comply with procedural rules, it would be wholly inappropriate to strike the cases out. The Court of Appeal considered that the MOD ’ s application for summary judgment should be rejected on procedural grounds, because no formal notice had been given.
19. With regard to the limitation issues, the Court of Appeal applied broadly the same test as Foskett J, although it considered that in relation to nine of the ten test cases, he had applied too high a threshold. In the Court of Appeal ’ s view, only one case, that of Mr Sinfield (the first applicant ’ s husband), who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin ’ s lymphoma in October 2005, had been brought in time. In relation to the discretion under section 33, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had erred in law in holding that the need to avoid an apparent injustice, both in the minds of the claimants and of the newspaper-reading public, was a weighty factor to be taken into account. The court further held that the broad merits test should be a prominent consideration when deciding whether or not to exercise the discretion. The resource implications both for the MOD and Treasury solicitors and for the courts would be enormous, and it would be inappropriate to allow an expensive and resource-consuming trial to take place if the prospects for the claimants ’ success were slight. On the other hand, if the prospects of success “were even reasonable, those resource considerations fade into relative insignificance”. The Court of Appeal next examined the likely strength of the applicants ’ case on causation. They observed that the burden of proving that the alleged tort caused the alleged injury lay on the claimant, on the balance of probabilities. In order to determine whether the section 33 discretion should be exercised, the court had to assess the broad merits of the material put before. The claimants had not produced evidence of how they intended to estimate the doses of radiation to which they were exposed and the court considered that the best they could hope for would be to show low but significant exposure. In addition, on the state of the evidence before the court, there was no prospect that the claimants would be able to satisfy the “but for” test of causation by showing that their illnesses were at least twice as likely to have been caused by their exposure to radiation during the tests than by other causes, for example, smoking. Nor was there any possibility, on the evidence as it stood, that the claimants would be able to rely on the synergistic inter-action of two different causative agents. The foundation of medical evidence had not been laid. The court therefore concluded that the claimants ’ case on causation faced very great difficulties. They accepted that there was a theoretical possibility that further evidence might become available if the case were permitted to proceed, but nonetheless underlined that they had to apply the broad merits test under section 33 on the basis of the evidence which the claimants had put before the court. When considering, in relation to each of the nine time-barred test cases, whether to exercise its discretion under section 33, the Court of Appeal found that the merits of each case were weak on causation and that the prospects of success were therefore weak. In addition, the delay in bringing the claims would be prejudicial to the MOD, through the loss of available witnesses. In consequence, the court declined to exercise its discretion to allow the time-barred cases to proceed.
20. The Court of Appeal concluded with the following words:
“ We recognise that these decisions will come as a great disappointment to the claimants and their advisers. We readily acknowledge the strength of feeling and conviction held by many of the claimants that they have been damaged by the Ministry of Defence in the service of their country. The problem is that the common law of this country requires that, before damages can be awarded, a claimant must prove not only that the defendant has breached its duty of care but also that that breach of duty has, on the balance of probabilities, caused the injury of which the claimant complains. These can be heavy burdens to discharge.
If we look back to 1985, Melvyn Pearce won a significant victory in the House of Lords, which established that the MOD could not rely on the immunity of the Crown from suit. Yet, within a few months of that victory, Mr Pearce abandoned his claim because his advisers recognised that they could not satisfy the burden of proving that Mr Pearce ’ s cancer had probably been caused by radiation exposure; for his personal position, the victory was entirely pyrrhic. As we noted earlier, the abandonment of that case comprised a warning to those who wished to follow after. Causation would be a potentially difficult issue and would have to be addressed if any such actions were to have a prospect of success. Thus, it was no surprise that one of the first steps taken by [the solicitors ] originally instructed by Mrs Brothers, was to seek evidence to establish causation (which was not forthcoming). Further, although the MOD raised the issue of causation both generically and, later, in the individual cases, no attempt was apparently made when the lead cases were identified to obtain specific evidence on this topic. It may be that it is not yet possible for a doctor to say that a condition such as cancer has probably been caused by radiation as opposed to any of the other possible causes but, until such evidence is available, claimants will face the difficulty which caused Mr Pearce to abandon his claim.
We have no doubt that it will appear that the law is hard on people like these claimants who have given service to their country and may have suffered harm as a result. No doubt partly with this background in mind, Parliament has provided that servicemen who have been exposed to radiation which might have caused them injury will be entitled to a war pension. Of course, a war pension is not as financially beneficial as common law damages but it is some compensation. Of particular importance on this issue, on an application for a war pension, the burden of proving causation is reversed; thus, the MOD has to exclude the possibility that the applicant has been harmed by radiation. We cannot say that any of these claimants who have, so far, not been awarded pensions will succeed in their attempts to do so but their chances of success must be far greater with the MOD having to prove the absence of causation than they ever were while the claimants had to establish it.”
21 . The c laimants were ordered to pay 90% of the MOD ’ s costs of the first instance trial on the preliminary issues of limitation, and all of the MOD ’ s costs of the appeal. These costs, in excess of GBP 5.6 million, were paid by the applicants ’ ATE insurers.
6. The judgment of the Supreme Court
22 . The nine lead claimants who had lost before the Court of Appeal appealed to the Supreme Court, which gave judgment on 14 March 2012 ( Ministry of Defence v. A.B. and Others [2012] UKSC 9). The Supreme Court was divided by four judges to three as to the application of the 19 80 Act in this case. The minority (Lord Phillips, Lady Hale and Lord Kerr) held that the Court of Appeal had confused knowledge with belief and that, although the claimants believed that their injuries were caused by exposure during the nuclear tests at the time they issued their claim, they lacked knowledge of attributability because at that time there was no available scientific evidence. The majority (Lords Wilson, Walker, Brown and Mance ) agreed with the Court of Appeal that “knowledge” should be equated to belief held “with sufficient confidence to justify embarking on the preliminaries of the issue of a writ, such as submitting a claim to the proposed defendant, taking legal and other advice and collecting evidence”. The majority found that each of the nine appellants had believed that his exposure to radiation had put his health at risk and, on becoming ill, had believed that his illness was attributable to his presence d u ring the nuclear tests, on that each had attained the requisite state of knowledge more than three years before the commencement of proceedings. It was conceded before the Supreme Court by counsel for the claimants that they lacked evidence with which to establish a credible case that the injuries were caused by the tests. The majority also agreed with the Court of Appeal ’ s approach to the exercise of discretion under section 33 of the 1980 Act and upheld the refusal to allow the claims to proceed.
23. All members of the Supreme Court agreed that the claims had no real prospects of success. Lord Phillips observed that:
“The current difficulties facing the veterans in relation to causation appear to me to be very great indeed. The Rowland report assists them a little but it does not have the significance that [their counsel] has sought to attach to it.
The Rowland report shows that many of the New Zealand veterans had a raised incidence of chromosome translocation that suggested exposure to abnormal, albeit low level, fall-out radiation. But this was not true of all the veterans assayed. The assays of some show no abnormalities. This is no more than one would expect. Exposure to radiation results from inhalation or ingestion of fall-out. It may result from swallowing sea water while swimming or eating contaminated fish. Thus it can vary from one man to the next. The most that can be deduced from the Rowland report is that it is probable that individual veterans were exposed to low level fall ‑ out. There is currently no evidence that there is any correlation between the raised incidence of chromosome translocation of individual New Zealand veterans and the incidence of cancer or any of the other conditions of which the claimant veterans complain. ... The Rowland report results simply constitute a biomarker suggesting exposure to radiation.
The most the veterans as a group are currently in a position to establish is that there is a possibility that some of them were exposed to a raised, albeit low level, of fall-out radiation and that this may have increased the risk of contracting some at least of the injuries in respect of which they claim. This falls well short of establishing causation according to the established principles of English law. ...
For these reasons I do not believe that the veterans ’ claims have a reasonable prospect of success.”
Lord Wilson accepted that the Court of Appeal had wrongly elevated the issue of causation to be the determining factor under section 33, but nonetheless concluded:
“It is undesirable that a court which conducts an inquiry into whether a claim is time-barred should, even at the stage when it considers its power under section 33, have detailed regard to the evidence with which the claimant aspires to prove his case at trial. But the ten claims placed before Foskett J were of particular complexity; and the nature of the submissions made to him on behalf of the appellants about the meaning of knowledge for the purpose of section 14(1) of the 1980 Act led him to undertake, over ten days of hearing and expressed in 885 paragraphs of judgment, a microscopic survey of the written evidence available to the parties, in particular to the appellants, in relation to causation. At all events the result was to yield to the Court of Appeal an unusual advantage, namely a mass of material which enabled it with rare confidence to assess the appellants ’ prospects of success. It expressed its conclusions in terms of the ‘ very great difficulties ’ which confronted the appellants in that regard. But, in line with the realistic concession made by [counsel for the appellants] in this court, the fact is that, for the reasons set out by Lord Phillips ... their claims have no real prospect of success. In my view it would have been absurd for the Court of Appeal to have exercised the discretion to disapply section 11 so as to allow the appellants to proceed in circumstances in which the next stage of the litigation would be likely to have been their failure to resist entry against them of summary judgment ... ”
24. On 14 November 2012 the Supreme Court made an order relating to the costs of the appeal, which provided that the applicants should pay the MOD ’ s costs of the appeal and that the stay of execution in respect of the previous costs orders should be removed.
7. Subsequent developments
25 . Following the above proceedings, one of the applican ts (Ms Sinfield ) had an absolute right to go forward to trial, since her case had not been found to be time-barred. The other applicants (whose cases had been stayed while the ten test cases went ahead) had to consider whether, in the light of the Supreme Court ’ s judgment, t heir claims were time-barred. A certain number of the applicants ’ claims were no t time-barred, because, like Mr Sinfield , they had become ill within three years of the commencement of proceedings. This group of applicants therefore wished to proceed to trial. The other applicants, whose claims were prima facie time-barred, took the view that much of the assessment of the Supreme Court, in relation to the question whether to exercise the discretion under section 33 of the 1980 Act, had been concerned with the difficulties that the claimants would face in establishing causation. However, the applicants considered that there was increasing evidence establishing that the illnesses they suffered were caused by exposure during the tests. This group of applicants also wished to proceed to trial.
26 . Under the terms of the group litigation order , the MOD ’ s costs of the preliminary limitation proceedings were paid by all the claimants within the group, in equal proportions, whether or not their claims had been brought out of time. In a letter dated 12 September 2012, the MOD insisted that, before pursuing further litigation, t he applicants had to obtain ATE insurance to cover them for the MOD ’ s costs should their claims fail. It proved impossible for the applicants to obtain such insurance, since the ATE insurers had already made large payments following the costs orders made by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Legal aid, which was withdrawn in 2005, will not be re-awarded. None of the applicants is in a position to contribute to the funding of the litigation on a private basis. In consequence, none of the applicants ’ claims proceed ed to trial.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
27 . The background to the adoption of the Limitation Act 1980 (“the 1980 Act”) is set out in detail in the Court ’ s judgment in Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom , 22 October 1996, §§ 28-37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ IV.
28 . Section 11 of the 1980 Act deals with special time limits for actions in respect of personal injuries and, in its relevant parts, reads as follows:
“11 (1) This section applies to any action for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty (whether the duty exists by virtue of a contract or of provision made by or under a statute or independently of any contract or any such provision) where the damages claimed by the plaintiff for the negligence, nuisance or breach of duty consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries to the plaintiff or any other person. ...
...
(3) An action to which this section applies shall not be brought after the expiration of the period applicable in accordance with subsection (4) or (5) below.
(4) Except where subsection (5) below applies, the period applicable is three years from—
(a) the date on which the cause of action accrued; or
(b) the date of knowledge (if later) of the person injured... ”
29 . Section 33 of the 1980 Act further provides for discretionary exclusion of the time limit for actions in respect of personal injuries or death in the following terms:
“(1) If it appears to the court that it would be equitable to allow an action to proceed having regard to the degree to which—
(a) the provisions of section 11 or 12 of this Act prejudice the plaintiff or any person whom he represents; and
(b) any decision of the court under this subsection would prejudice the defendant or any person whom he represents;
the court may direct that those provisions shall not apply to the action, or shall not apply to any specified cause of action to which the action relates.
(3) In acting under this section the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and in particular to—
(a) the length of, and the reasons for, the delay on the part of the plaintiff;
(b) the extent to which, having regard to the delay, the evidence adduced or likely to be adduced by the plaintiff or the defendant is or is likely to be less cogent than if the action had been brought within the time allowed by section 11 or (as the case may be) by section 12;
(c) the conduct of the defendant after the cause of action arose, including the extent (if any) to which he responded to requests reasonably made by the plaintiff for information or inspection for the purpose of ascertaining facts which were or might be relevant to the plaintiff ’ s cause of action against the defendant;
(d) the duration of any disability of the plaintiff arising after the date of the accrual of the cause of action;
(e) the extent to which the plaintiff acted promptly and reasonably once he knew whether or not the act or omission of the defendant, to which the injury was attributable, might be capable at that time of giving rise to an action for damages;
(f) the steps, if any, taken by the plaintiff to obtain medical, legal or other expert advice and the nature of any such advice he may have received.
(4) In a case where the person injured died when, because of section 11, he could no longer maintain an action and recover damages in respect of the injury, the court shall have regard in particular to the length of, and the reasons for, the delay on the part of the deceased.
(5) In a case under subsection (4) above, or any other case where the time limit, or one of the time limits, depends on the date of knowledge of a person other than the plaintiff, subsection (3) above shall have effect with appropriate modifications, and shall have effect in particular as if references to the plaintiff included references to any person whose date of knowledge is or was relevant in determining a time limit.
(6) A direction by the court disapplying the provisions of section 12(1) shall operate to disapply the provisions to the same effect in section 1(1) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976...”
COMPLAINTS
30. T h e applicants complained under Article s 2 and 6 of the Convention that , despite its size, complexity and importance, neither legal aid nor any other source of funding was made available to allow them to pursue their case and exercise their right of access to the courts. They also complain, under Article 2, that there has been no public investigation into the causes of death of the deceased atomic veterans.
THE LAW
31. The applicants complained of breaches of Articles 2 § 1 and 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provide as follows:
“ Article 2 § 1
Everyone ’ s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. ”
“ Article 6 § 1
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
A. The applicants ’ arguments
32. Under Article 2, the applicants submitted that the Court ’ s case-law provided that the State should carry out a procedural investigation into the accountability of State agents for deaths occurring under their responsibility. However, the effect of the procedure employed by the MOD to have limitation determined as a preliminary issue, together with the effect of the costs orders, meant that there had never been an adequate investigation into the death of Mr Sinfield or other applicants. The applicants complained that notwithstanding the strong prima facie case that the veterans were exposed to ionising radiation in harmful quantities and notwithstanding the available evidence on causation, there would be no public inquiry in the United Kingdom and no further scientific investigation on the part of the State. They contended that, apart from the United Kingdom, every atomic power that had conducted atmospheric atomic tests had established a scheme to compensate servicemen suffering from certain illnesses linked to radiation exposure. Such schemes existed in the United States of America, Canada, New Zealand, France, Russia, Australia and China and some of these countries had also held public inquiries into the atomic tests.
33. The applicants accepted that the Government operated a scheme whereby veterans or their dependants suffering illnesses or death caused by service in the Armed Forces could claim for a pension and that where a veteran applied for a military pension the onus was on the Government to show that the relevant service with the Armed Forces did not cause the relevant illness. Some of the applicants had claimed and been granted pensions; others had had their claims rejected. However, these proceedings did not involve a full inquiry into the circumstances in which the servicemen served, nor did they provide the applicants with an opportunity to make claims for their loss and damage in accordance with the normal principles of English law.
34. The applicants argued under Article 6 that the Court ’ s case-law demonstrated that it would carefully examine a restriction on access to court based on costs to determine whether it pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate. Moreover, legal aid could be required in civil cases to give effect to the right of access to court. In determining whether legal aid was necessary under Article 6 § 1 in any particular civil case, the Court had attached considerable weight to the rights that were at stake for the applicant in the litigation. In addition, the size and complexity of the case had been held to be an important factor. In the applicants ’ submission, their case had a strong public interest, because of the number of litigants involved in the group action and also the number of servicemen who had been involved in the tests and who could be similarly affected. Against this background, the Government had a particular obligation to ensure that they could exercise their right of access to court. In a more normal piece of litigation, the prospects of success would be a reasonable condition for the availability of legal aid. However, in a case such as this, the prospects of success could not be a determining factor. The complexity of the scientific evidence and the fact that research was still developing meant that establishing causation would never be straightforward. The importance and scale of the case would still justify the grant of legal aid in general. In addition, the applicants submitted that the size of the costs orders awarded by the nat i onal courts amounted to a disproportionate restriction on their right of access to court, because their effect was to ensure that none of the applicants, even those like Ms Sinfield whose claim was not time-barred, was able to take out further ATE insurance and pursue their claims.
35. In the present case, the Government (acting through the MOD) did not succeed in showing that each of the applicants ’ claims was statute ‑ barred. However, by diverting all the applicants ’ limited resources into the preliminary issue on limitation, and obtaining costs orders, the Government had effectively prevented the applicants from continuing to trial, despite the fact that the issues about exposure of the applicants to radiation and causation of their illnesses merited examination by a court. The preliminary proceedings on limitation were extremely costly and gave rise to delay. It meant that the applicants ’ aim to have a full and fair hearing where they could learn the truth about what happened was frustrated. This was despite the fact that the issue of causation could only fairly be decided when, first, the extent of exposure to radiation had been determined in the light of full disclosure of documents; secondly, the actual illnesses suffered by the applicants had been considered in the light of the exposure each suffered; and, thirdly, other potential causes had been considered, whether for synergistic effect or as competing bases of causation. The applicants contended that it was clear that further medical evidence would come to light which would assist them in proving causation. For example, the Redfearn Report, dated 16 November 2010, had now become available. This showed that the Atomic Weapons Establishment had analysed human tissue in order to assist the Treasury Solicitor, the coroner and families of deceased veterans in investigations following the deaths of atomic veterans. The Report also indicated that there was more material yet to be disclosed by the MOD that would assist in identifying causation in these cases.
B. The Court ’ s assessment
36. The Court observes that, to the extent that the applicants complain that the procedural obligation under Article 2 entails that there should be a public inquiry into the conduct of the nuclear tests and the health consequences for veterans, it does not appear that this point was expressly raised by the applicants in the domestic proceedings. Furthermore, the events which the applicants claim should be investigated took place between 1952 and 1958, before the United Kingdom ’ s Articles 25 and 46 declarations of 14 January 1966 (see, mutatis mutandis , McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom , 9 June 1998, § 68 , Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ III and L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom , 9 June 1998, § 35 , Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ III ) . It would therefore appear that the Article 2 complaint about failure to hold a public inquiry is inadmissible on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic rem e dies and incompatibility ratione temporis with t he scope of the Convention (c ompare Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, ECHR 2009 ).
37. To the extent that the applicants complain under Article 2 that, following the judgment of the Supreme Court and the adverse costs orders made against them, they have been unable further to pursue their civil claims for damages, the Court considers that this is, in essence, a complaint about lack of access to court, which does not need to be considered separately from the complaint under Article 6.
38. In connection with the Article 6 complaint, the Court recalls that in Golder v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 13-18, §§ 28-36), it held that the procedural guarantees laid down in that Article, concerning fairness, publicity and expeditiousness , would be meaningless if there were no protection of the pre-condition for the enjoyment of those guarantees, namely, access to a court. It established this as an inherent aspect of the safeguards enshrined in Article 6, referring to the principles of the rule of law and the avoidance of arbitrary power which underlie much of the Convention. Article 6 § 1 “may ... be relied on by anyone who considers that an interference with the exercise of one of his (civil) rights is unlawful and complains that he has not had the possibility of submitting that claim to a tribunal meeting the requirements of Article 6 § 1” (see Le Compte , Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium , judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 20, § 44). Where there is a serious and genuine dispute as to the lawfulness of such an interference, going either to the very existence or the scope of the as serted civil right, Article 6 § 1 entitles the individual “to have this question of domestic law determined by a tribunal” (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden , judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 30, § 81; see also Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden , judgment of 7 July 1989 , Series A no. 159, p. 18, § 40 and, more recently, Z a nd Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 91, ECHR 2001 ‑ V § 91 and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 116, ECHR 2005 ‑ X).
39. One aspect of the right of access to court is that a litigant is not denied the opportunity to present his or her case effectively before the court and that he or she is able to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side (see Airey v. Ireland , 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32 and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom , no. 68416/01, § 59, ECHR 2005 ‑ II). Article 6 § 1 leaves to the State a free choice of the means to be used in guaranteeing litigants the above rights. The institution of a legal aid scheme constitutes one of those means but there are others, such as for example simplifying the applicable procedure (see Airey , cited above , § 26 and Steel and Morris , cited above, § 60 ). The question whether the provision of legal aid is necessary for a fair hearing must be determined on the basis of the particular facts and circumstances of each case and will depend, inter alia , on the importance of what is at stake for the applicant in the proceedings, the complexity of the relevant law and procedure and the applicant ’ s capacity to represent him or herself effectively (see Steel and Morris , cited above, § 61 ).
40. The right of access to court is not absolute. Where the individual ’ s access is limited either by operation of law or in fact, the Court will examine whether the limitation imposed impaired the essence of the right and, in particular, whether it pursued a legitimate aim and whether there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved . If the restriction is compatible with these principles, no violation of Article 6 will arise (see Z and Others , cited above, § 93) . The Court has considered regulations concerning minors and persons of unsound mind , statutory limitation periods and security for costs orders to constitute legitimate restrictions on access to court (see Golde r , cited above, § 39 ; Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 22 October 1996, Reports 1996-IV, pp. 1502-03, §§ 51-52; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom , judgmen t of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, pp. 80-81, §§ 62-67). It has also held that it may be acceptable to impose conditions on the grant of legal aid based , inter alia , on the financial situation of the litigant or his or her prospects of success in the proceedings . Moreover, it is not incumbent on the State to seek through the use of public funds to ensure total equality of arms between the assisted person and the opposing party, as long as each side is afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case under conditions that do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis the adversary (see Steel and Morris , cited above , § 62 ).
41. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that the applicants were claimants in a group action b rought by or on behalf of 1,011 former servicemen who had been present during the nuclear tests carried out by the United Kingdom between 1952 and 1958. Legal aid was initially granted for the investigation of the claims. However, once initial investigations had been carried out, including consultation with experts with a view to obtaining evidence that the claimants ’ injuries had been caused by their exposure to radiation during or in the immediate aftermath of the nuclear tests, the Legal Services Commission withdrew legal aid because it did not consider that the prospects of the claimants proving their case were sufficiently strong to justify further public money being spent. Nonetheless, the claimants were able to continue with the proceedings, through the negotiation of a conditional fee arrangement with new legal representatives and the purchase of an insurance policy to cover the MOD ’ s costs should they lose the case and become subject to an adverse costs order.
42. The decision was made by the first instance court that the question whether the claims were statute-barred on grounds of delay should be decided as a preliminary issue. This Court has recognised that limitation periods in personal injury cases serve important purposes, namely to ensure legal certainty and finality, protect potential defendants from stale claims which might be difficult to counter and prevent the injustice which might arise if courts were required to decide upon events which took place in the distant past on the basis of evidence which might have become unreliable and incomplete because of the passage of time (see Stubbings , cited above, § 51) . Given that the claims related to events which occurred in the 1950s, it cannot be said that it was unreasonable of the national court, in 2009, to decide first to examine whether the claims were statute-barred, before proceeding to a trial on the merits.
43. In any event, the fact that the national legislation allows the judge discretion to permit claims which are time-barred but otherwise meritorious to proceed , meant that the causation of the claimants ’ injuries was a central issue. Although expert witnesses were not subject to cross-examination, both sides were granted leave to file written expert evidence, which was considered in detail, particularly by Foskett J in his thorough judgment, which ran to some 885 paragraphs. The question of causation was also a key issue in the appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. While some of the judges in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court differed as to how the Limitation Act 1980 should be interpreted and applied, they were all agreed that the claimants would face serious difficulties in establishing causation. Indeed, all the judges of the Supreme Court were unanimous in agreeing with Lord Phillips ’ assessment that the applicants ’ claims had no reasonable prospects of success. As Lord Brown put it in the Supreme Court, “[t]he plain fact is, despite decades spent urgently trying to assemble a viable case, on the evidence as it stands these claims (in which huge costs have already been expended) are doomed to fail”. Indeed, it was conceded before the Supreme Court by counsel for the applicants that they lacked evidence with which to establish a credible case that the alleged injuries were caused by the tests.
44. Since the applicants, through the ten test cases, were able vigorously to pursue their claims as far as the Supreme Court, the Court finds it hard to conclude that they were denied access to court. To the extent that the judgment of the Supreme Court, together with the costs orders and the earlier decision of the Legal Services ’ Commission to withdraw legal aid, entailed a restriction on access to court, the Court considers that any such restriction pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate to that aim. The litigation undertaken was complex and very expensive. The Court notes in this connection that the applicants ’ costs awarded against the MOD at first instance were estimated at GBP 11.8 million and that the MOD ’ s costs before the Court of Appeal, paid by the applicants ’ insurers, were in excess of GBP 5.6 million. In addition to the millions of pounds of legal fees and expenses incurred by each side in relation to the limitation issue, the costs to the court service in time and resources must have been extensive. Against this background, it was reasonable for the State authorities to decide that no further public money should be spent on funding litigation which objectively appeared to have no reasonable prospects at all of success.
45. The applicants reason that the large number of servicemen who participated in the tests and the complexity and incomplete nature of the scientific evidence were grounds for disapplying the usual rules about withdrawing legal aid in respect of cases with no reasonable prospects of success. The Court does not accept any such requirement incumbent on the State can be derived from Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, for the reasons set out above. Moreover, it considers it relevant that an alternative scheme for the provision of compensation to nuclear test veterans has been established. In proceedings before a tribunal for the award of a military disablement pension, the burden is on the Government to prove that the claimant ’ s illness was not caused by his or her military service. In the Court ’ s view, it fell within the State ’ s margin of appreciation under Article 6 § 1 to decide to channel public funds into this alternative means of access to a court for the provision of compensation, rather than to continue to provide legal aid to the applicants in respect of further speculative and highly costly litigation in the High Court.
46. It follows that the applicants ’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 are manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmiss ible, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-Passos Ineta Ziemele Registrar President
Appendix
Number
Name
D ate of Birth
Nationality
Place of R esidence
Jean Ethel SINFIELD
09/11/1938
British
Potters Bar
Toni ADAMS
24/06/1935
New Zealand
Blenheim
Paul AHPOY
01/06/1936
Fidjien
Suva
Ngaire ALEXANDER
11/09/1933
New Zealand
Dannevirke
Anne ALLAN
09/07/1936
British
Stockton-on-Tees
Edward ALLEN
04/05/1938
British
Manchester
Elizabeth ALLEN
25/03/1936
British
Whitby
Pamela ALLEN
17/11/1936
New Zealand
Riverton
W V AMUNDSEN
28/09/1935
New Zealand
Carterton
Alfred ANDERSON
18/08/1938
British
Widnes
Ralph ANDERSON
31/03/1937
British
Bristol
Anthony ANNALL
01/02/1939
British
Beverley
Sidney ANNING
03/08/1943
British
Plymouth
Helen APIHAI
16/02/1928
New Zealand
Kawerau
Bernard ARMER
01/04/1939
British
Newton Abbot
George ARMSTRONG
03/03/1936
British
Wallsend
Martyn ASHCROFT
30/04/1936
British
Stoke-on-Trent
Adeline ASHWOOD
05/07/1935
British
Beith
George ASKHAM
20/03/1938
British
Sheffield
Stanley ASPINALL
17/07/1936
British
Bradford-upon-Avon
Bernard ATKIN
03/03/1939
British
Hull
Warren ATKINS
27/04/1937
New Zealand
Auckland
Kathleen Doreen ATKINSON
08/10/1932
British
Plymouth
Raymond ATKINSON
21/07/1938
British
Portsmouth
Garry ATTWOOD
18/01/1938
British
Rotherham
Sheila AUSTEN
01/12/1937
British
Westgate-on-sea
Stephen AUSTEN
01/12/1937
British
Poole
Lorraine AVERY
24/12/1938
New Zealand
Rotorua
Anne AYRES
26/12/1932
British
Barry
Edwina Mary AYRES
26/12/1932
British
South Molton
Filipe Vaka BABENISALA
11/12/1937
Fidjien
Suva
James BADLEY
09/03/1936
British
Sleaford
Elaine BAILEY
23/12/1937
British
Gloucester
Marie BAILEY
27/01/1939
British
Newport City
Llimotama BAKA
18/01/1937
Fidjien
Lautoka
Anare BAKELE
17/08/1938
Fidjien
Tailevu
Gordon BAKER
19/03/1922
British
Canterbury
Isaia BALEITAVUKI
04/05/1930
Fidjien
Suva
Frederick BALL
25/02/1937
British
Mitcham
Kenneth BALLOCH
04/12/1937
New Zealand
Atawhai Nelson
Terence BAMBRIDGE
04/11/1935
British
Hertford
John BANNISTER
23/09/1935
British
Salisbury
Tevita BARIKACIWA
14/10/1938
Fidjien
Nausori
Michael BARKER
22/12/1938
British
Leyland
Lesley BARLOW
11/08/1921
British
Bury St Edmunds
Peter BARNARD
23/02/1939
British
Scunthorpe
Isaia BARO
24/08/1937
Fidjien
Wainivula
Harold BARWELL
06/04/1938
British
Braunstone
Keler BATAI
02/07/1926
Fidjien
Nausori
Josefa BATIMOKO
30/09/1938
Fidjien
Suva
Wendy BEAR
16/02/1939
British
Sudbury
Marion BEASLEY
11/08/1935
British
Charlton
Molly BECKETT
25/02/1932
British
Barnsley
Kevin BEDDOW
07/05/1935
British
Durham
Deborah BEGG
24/06/1940
British
Dundee
Andrew BELL
21/06/1928
New Zealand
Auckland
Ruth BENSON
07/03/1938
British
Dorchester
Wilfred BESSANT
02/11/1938
British
Clevedon
Morgan BEYNON
05/03/1936
Australian
Trafalgar
Donald BICKERTON
10/07/1933
British
Poole
Donald BICKERTON
01/07/1940
New Zealand
Auckland
Mary BISHOP
16/04/1942
British
Chapel Hall
Richard BISHOP
31/12/1939
New Zealand
Christchurch
Angela BLACK
30/08/1918
British
Norwich
Marion BLACKBURN
08/02/1929
British
Manchester
Patricia BLACKBURN
28/05/1937
British
London
Phyllis BODIE
28/03/1939
British
Wrexham
Maraia BOILA
11/07/1925
Fidjien
Nabua
Ian BOLD
29/08/1938
Canadian
Ontario
Richard BONAS
24/03/1938
British
Glastonbury
Jean BOND
13/04/1933
British
St Leonard ’ s On Sea
Kieran BOOMER
14/12/1935
British
Chorley
Janet Lesley BOOTH
10/05/1937
New Zealand
Auckland
Denise BORTHWICK
13/05/1934
Canadian
New Westminster
Suzy BOWEN
19/08/1930
British
Market Rasen
David BOYFIELD
21/04/1938
British
Worksop
William BRADLEY
18/08/1931
British
Géraldine
Ronald BRADSHAW
09/07/1938
British
Wigan
Stanley BRADSHAW
06/09/1937
British
Wigston
Terence BRADY
05/06/1932
British
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Joan BRAIN
17/08/1939
British
Wingate
Malcolm BRAIN
02/07/1937
American
Newport Richey
Kenneth BRAMWELL
22/02/1937
British
Runcorn
Thomas BRANDON
28/03/1938
British
Beith
Gillian BRAY
25/12/1934
British
Plymouth
George BRENNAN
19/04/1938
British
Rhyl
Edward BRIERLEY
18/05/1939
British
Ayr
Harold BROCKEN
05/03/1937
British
Liverpool
Karen BROGAN
03/10/1927
British
Crosby
Peter BROOK
19/12/1936
British
Huddersfield
Dennis BROOKS
05/09/1934
British
Blackpool
Wendy BROTHERS
20/05/1933
British
Sleaford
Allan BROWN
20/05/1938
British
Penmaenmawr
Robert BROWN
09/02/1938
British
Fraserburgh
Betty BRUCE
30/04/1936
British
Thornaby
Charles BRUCE
12/11/1938
British
Crieff
Bill BRYCE
05/04/1937
British
Aberdeen
Gregory BRYDEN
10/05/1937
British
Girvan
Gregory BRYDON
26/08/1931
New Zealand
Auckland
Dorothy Joan BUCKLE
26/08/1928
British
Daventry
Eta BULIMAITOGA
03/07/1932
Fidjien
Suva
Peter BULLEN
08/04/1938
British
Gwynedd
Ronald BURGESS
12/01/1938
British
Ellesmere Port
Sylvia BURNETT
03/02/1935
British
Worthing
Josephine BURNS
06/03/1933
British
Corby
Patrick BURNS
28/10/1937
British
Coventry
Rusiate BUSA
17/02/1941
Fidjien
Lautoka
Brian BUTLER
04/07/1937
British
Hebburn
Trevor BUTLER
07/03/1938
British
Hull
Michael BUTTERS
07/01/1935
British
Greenwich
Viliame CAGILABA
07/12/1934
Fidjien
Ba
Roy CAIN
24/04/1939
British
Isle of Man
William CALDWELL
10/09/1938
British
Glasgow
Maureen CALLENDER
23/03/1938
British
Gwynedd
Maxwell CAMERON
09/04/1934
Australian
Mackay
Nanette CAMPBELL
25/12/1934
British
Stafford
Robert CARBERY
27/06/1937
British
Isle of Man
Neil CAREY
04/08/1939
New Zealand
Dargaville
Ada CARMAN
28/06/1925
British
Helensburgh
Alvin CARMICHAEL
02/10/1938
British
Hull
Ann Elizabeth CARMICHAEL
29/09/1937
British
Maidstone
Alan CARR
04/10/1934
British
Northants
James CARR
04/10/1934
British
Newcastle
Daphne CARTWRIGHT
30/06/1938
Australian
Tuncurry
Maureen CAW
23/02/1938
British
Wolverhampton
Lynn CAWSE
12/03/1928
British
Plymouth
Setoki CEINATURAGA
25/12/1929
Fidjien
Ovalau
Carol CHAMBERLAIN
05/10/1937
British
New Duston
Mary CHAMBERLAIN
30/10/1936
British
Birmingham
Gil CHAPMAN
02/07/1935
British
Derby
Derek CHAPPELL
30/11/1936
British
Norfolk
June CHARNEY
28/02/1920
British
Eastbourne
Diana CHENEY
24/09/1926
New Zealand
Wellington
John CHESHER
20/07/1935
British
Ripon
Ann CHEW
01/09/1938
British
Birmingham
Raymond CHIMES
04/07/1937
British
Southampton
Alice CLARK
04/04/1938
British
Romford
Ronald CLARK
15/07/1938
British
Cheltenham
Thomas CLARK
21/03/1938
British
Saltash
Keith CLARKE
21/07/1937
British
Stevenage
Richard CLIFFORD
09/10/1938
British
Southwold
William COCKBURN
07/12/1938
British
Berwick on Tweed
Ann COCKCROFT
26/09/1934
British
Gosport
Ernest COCKER
20/02/1936
British
Wirral
Beryl COLE
14/06/1935
British
Colchester
Ronald COLEBY
03/10/1934
British
Brighton
Philip COLEMAN
08/09/1936
British
Birmingham
Charles COLLINS
21/07/1930
British
Dawlish
Gerald COLLINS
27/12/1935
British
Birmingham
Maureen COLLINS
29/08/1935
British
Accrington
Bruce COLLYER
03/12/1937
British
Kent
Katherine CONNERY
17/04/1936
Irish
Limerick
John CONQUEST
20/03/1915
British
Bedford
Roy CONSTABLE
13/04/1935
British
Kettering
Brian COOK
19/08/1938
British
Bridport
John COOKE
02/10/1937
British
Ammanford
David COOMBER
21/12/1938
British
Maidstone
Patricia COOMBES
10/11/1934
British
Yate
Graham COOPER
30/06/1938
Australian
Kallangur
John COOPER
06/11/1934
British
London
Molly COOPER
19/02/1938
New Zealand
Te Kuiti
Ronald COOPER
29/04/1930
New Zealand
Rotorua
Jean Marion COPELAND
09/05/1937
British
Romford
Carole CORNWELL
25/01/1934
British
Cambridgeshire
Diana COSTIN
21/11/1938
British
St Austell
George COWAN
24/11/1938
New Zealand
Timaru
Naima COWEN
09/05/1933
New Zealand
Paeroa
Brian COWIE
12/05/1937
British
Aberdeen
Jane COWLING
18/09/1938
British
Cheltenham
Allan COX
10/11/1938
British
Burton-on-Trent
Stanley CRAIG
17/08/1933
British
Caernarfon
John CRAWFORD
15/04/1936
New Zealand
Auckland
Margaret Elizabeth CRISP
21/05/1922
British
Hornsea
Rose CROMPTON
25/07/1939
British
Leyland
Terence CRUNDWELL
16/08/1938
British
Hull
Thomas CUNNANE
20/02/1937
British
Wakefield
Jona CURUVAKARUA
30/11/1936
Fidjien
Nausoh
Robyn Maree CUTFIELD
14/08/1934
New Zealand
Whangarei
Wini CUVATOKA
10/08/1938
Fidjien
Suva
Kathleen DADD
06/03/1927
British
Weston-Super-Mare
Margaret DAINES
25/11/1934
American
Alpharetta
David DAVENPORT
02/06/1932
British
Taunton
Allan DAVEY
30/05/1940
Australian
Ipswich
George DAVIES
20/04/1936
British
Sunderland
Sidney DAVIES
01/05/1933
British
Gwent
John DAVIS
27/07/1938
British
Selkirk
Edward DAWES
25/05/1935
British
Darlington
Joan DAY
23/05/1925
British
Cardiff
Paul DE ROSA
20/05/1936
British
Glasgow
Ralph DE ROSA
20/05/1936
British
Glasgow
Geoffrey DEAN
13/09/1937
British
Knaresborough
Esita DEBALEVU
13/04/1933
Fidjien
Nadi Airport
Shirley DENSON
06/04/1932
British
Morden
Fred DENT
26/06/1935
British
Crook
Freda Nellie DENT
05/12/1936
British
Brigg
Geoffrey DENYER
22/09/1930
Australian
Leabrook
Evelyn DICKINSON
08/06/1938
British
Wakefield
Norman DICKINSON
27/01/1938
British
Earl Shilton
Michael DILWORTH
21/09/1938
British
Buxton
Anthony DIXON
14/02/1940
British
Plymouth
Edith DOBSON
03/10/1938
New Zealand
Cambridge
Elizabeth DONNELLY
02/08/1938
British
Cheshire
Sheila DONNO
17/07/1917
British
Cambridge
Terence DORRALL
24/12/1936
British
Plymouth
Gordon DOWNEY
02/02/1937
British
Hastings
Dree Beryl DOWNIE
28/08/1916
British
Surrey
Kathleen DOWNING
20/11/1936
British
Atherstone
Alan DOWSON
10/05/1938
British
Peterborough
Margaret Catherine Ellen DRAKE
27/01/1934
British
King ’ s Lynn
Charles DUDLEY
21/03/1937
British
Exeter
Neil DUNKERLEY
29/07/1938
British
Oldham
Mary DYTOR
28/06/1938
British
Braunton
Christopher EASTGATE
29/12/1938
British
Woodford Green
Kevin EINON
14/09/1924
British
Abingdon
Helen ELKIN
07/10/1938
British
Nelson
Graham ELLIOTT
05/02/1946
British
Littlehampton
Ronald ELLIOTT
09/01/1938
British
County Durham
Coral ELLIS
28/10/1936
New Zealand
Auckland
Edna ELLIS
05/05/1926
British
Hook
Hilary ELLIS
04/08/1938
British
Hereford
Trevor ELLIS
01/09/1931
British
St. Helens
Terence ELLISON
28/09/1939
British
Leeds
Clifford EMERY
27/10/1936
British
Ayr
Leslie EMERY
22/11/1934
British
Solihull
Murray ENGEBRESTSEN
06/01/1940
New Zealand
Bullo
Joan ETHERINGTON
02/08/1932
British
Tuffley
Avril EVANS
04/09/1936
British
Ammanford
Michael EVANS
01/12/1935
British
Gwynedd
Michael EVELEIGH
12/12/1933
British
Exeter
William FAIR
30/01/1937
Australian
Tasmania
Carole FAIRS
01/05/1938
Portuguese
Algarve
Frank FALCONER
01/01/1954
British
Arbroath
Lynda FARR
20/09/1938
British
Bromsgrove
Derek FIDDAMAN
14/12/1936
British
Horsham
Rosemary FINDLAY
01/06/1937
British
Cowdenbeath
Brian FITZGERALD
21/06/1939
British
Branksome
Enid FITZSIMMONS
04/03/1927
British
Liverpool
Leon FLAVELL
06/05/1934
New Zealand
Dargaville
Reginald FLETCHER
04/11/1938
British
Blidworth
Thomas FOOT
14/10/1934
Australian
Sydney
Agnes FORBES
25/12/1936
British
Cumbernauld
David FORBES
19/03/1930
British
Carlisle
Doreen FORD
31/03/1938
British
Killingbeck
Raymond FORD
08/05/1938
Australian
Queensland
Raymond FORWARD
11/08/1938
British
Sittingbourne
John FRANKLIN
25/09/1935
British
Gravesend
David FREEMAN
21/11/1938
British
Norwich
Erina FREEMAN
06/08/1935
New Zealand
Blenheim
Dennis FURR
04/03/1939
British
Carlton
Temalesi GALALA
08/06/1933
Fidjien
Nadi Airport
David GAMBLE
11/02/1933
New Zealand
Auckland
Lusiana GANILAU
28/07/1919
Fidjien
Suva
Kenith GARDNER
03/04/1923
British
Leicestershire
Pauline GARNHAM
12/05/1938
British
Torquay
Harold GARRETT
03/10/1938
New Zealand
Tauranga
Jean GATWARD
14/05/1937
British
Manchester
Alice GAUL
18/02/1938
British
Llanelli
Brian GAY
22/08/1937
British
Leeds
Michael GAYWOOD
24/11/1936
British
Exeter
Christine GELLENDER-MILLS
13/02/1939
British
Warlingham
Peter GILBODY
13/05/1939
British
Manchester
John GILCHRIST
01/10/1935
British
Dundee
Margaret GILLESPIE
13/06/1937
British
Leeds
Callum GILMOUR
09/02/1939
British
Swansea
William GIRDWOOD
03/04/1940
British
Larkhall
Christine GODBEHERE
25/03/1936
British
Sheffield
George GOLDS
12/10/1928
New Zealand
Auckland
James GOLDSMITH
27/02/1934
New Zealand
Auckland
Mabel GOLDSMITH
29/05/1938
British
Newport
Gerald GOODRIDGE
31/08/1935
British
Crewe
Catherine GORDON
19/06/1928
British
Paisley
Janette GRAFTON
01/06/1937
British
Christchurch
Alistair GRANT
05/07/1939
British
St Albans
Elizabeth GRAY
09/08/1936
British
Blackpool
Helen GRAY
11/11/1932
British
Gourock
Ismail GRIFFITHS
21/03/1936
British
Cannock
Lindsay GRIFFITHS
21/10/1938
British
Chorley
Ida GRIMES
02/08/1937
New Zealand
Tauranga
Steven GRIMMOND
26/04/1936
British
Dundee
Senimelia GUGUQALI
05/01/1934
Fidjien
Nakasi
Patricia GUIGNET
15/04/1939
British
Liverpool
Peter GUY
18/06/1938
British
Crosby
Rosemary HABERMAN
15/01/1933
British
Hemel Hempstead
Isabel HALL
24/10/1933
British
Berwick-on-Tweed
Ivan HALL
27/07/1939
British
Wareham
Joy HALL
24/01/1933
British
Leicester
Marilyn HALL
19/06/1938
British
Leicester
Stephen HALL
01/04/1938
British
York
Peter HALLEWELL
27/06/1937
British
Tadley
Denzil HANCOCK
21/08/1937
British
Abertillery
Rex HANDCOCK
14/05/1939
New Zealand
Murchison
Joyce HANSEN
25/10/1929
New Zealand
Milford
Lianne Marie HANSON
27/11/1937
British
Manchester
Bernard HARGREAVES
22/06/1939
British
Thondda CynonTaff
Pauline HARGREAVES
20/11/1938
British
Swansea
David HARMAN
11/12/1936
British
Hemel Hempstead
David HARMS
28/06/1935
British
Bolton
Brian HARNOR
11/02/1938
New Zealand
Tauranga
Carol HARRIS
27/08/1938
British
Pontypridd
Malcolm HARRIS
07/11/1938
New Zealand
Masterton
Mary HARRIS
11/05/1932
New Zealand
Auckland
Miriam HARRIS
06/03/1939
British
Hertfordshire
Raymond HARRIS
24/09/1939
American
Edgewater
George HARRISON
09/10/1935
British
Preston
Arthur HART
08/06/1937
British
Warrington
Pauline HART
04/01/1939
British
Southport
Gordon HARVEY
20/09/1937
British
Rugby
Arthur HASELDEN
30/11/1936
Portuguese
Algarve
William HASLOCK
11/03/1937
British
Redcar
William HATFIELD
18/04/1935
British
Middlesbrough
Ahitana HAWEA
29/07/1939
New Zealand
Waipukurau
Colin HAWKER
10/03/1938
British
Stockport
David HAWLEY
21/02/1935
British
Cobham
Dennis HAYDEN
16/03/1944
British
Lydney
Christina HAYMAN
16/08/1933
New Zealand
BIuff
Carole Anne HAYNES
23/08/1936
British
Exeter
Dawn HAYNES
16/08/1935
British
Hertford
Alister HAYWOOD
22/06/1938
British
Isle of Man
Maurice HEADINGS
31/03/1929
British
London
Derek HEAPS
06/07/1933
British
Castle Donington
Douglas HERN
11/09/1936
British
Spalding
Ann HESS
14/06/1936
British
Skelmersdale
Kenneth HEWITT
14/11/1937
British
Weybridge
Alison HILL
27/12/1938
British
Halesowen
Ronald HILL
02/08/1936
British
Coventry
John HINDMARCH
04/04/1935
British
Hitchin
Mavice HINE
14/04/1919
British
London
John HIRD
23/07/1937
New Zealand
Auckland
Michael HOBSON
30/05/1935
British
Redcar
Geraldine HOLFORD
16/05/1937
British
Stoke-on-Trent
Shaun HOLLINGER
04/05/1929
New Zealand
Auckland
Gwyneth HOLLOWAY
28/05/1937
British
Todmorden
Ronald HOOPER
13/07/1937
British
Fakenham
David HOWARD
28/05/1929
British
Southport
Queenie HOWARD
19/05/1938
British
Bury St.Edmond
Sean HOWARD
20/11/1935
British
Bicester
Peter HUDDLESTONE
29/05/1941
New Zealand
Oamaru
Ernest HUGHES
08/03/1935
British
Bognor Regis
Ann HUME
04/05/1934
British
Newtownards
Ronald HUME
17/11/1938
British
Thornton- Cleveleys
Brian HUNT
14/08/1932
New Zealand
New South Wales
Merle INGRAM
07/02/1937
British
Nuneaton
Ian IRVING
24/11/1938
New Zealand
Warkworth
Stanley JACOBS
10/09/1931
British
Camberley
Allan JAGGARD
30/06/1937
British
Auckland
Donald JAMES
11/06/1938
British
London
Raymond JAMES
11/09/1933
British
Newton Abbot
Colin JEFFERS
23/09/1934
British
Pinner
Dennis JENKINS
18/04/1936
British
Pontypridd
Geoffrey JENKINSON
28/02/1940
British
Norwich
Stanley JENKINSON
12/07/1937
British
Llanfairfechan
Vonivate JIOJI
08/01/1934
Fidjien
Navua
Arlene JOHNSON
13/01/1935
British
Lincoln
Josephine JOHNSON
11/05/1934
British
Manchester
Raeburn JOHNSON
19/07/1937
British
Oxford
Alice JOHNSTON
24/10/1927
New Zealand
Оһоре
Kenneth JOHNSTONE
11/10/1937
British
Salford
Peter JOHNSTONE
22/05/1933
New Zealand
Gisborne
Malcolm JONES
07/04/1920
British
Malvern
Michael JONES
19/05/1938
British
Caldicot
Ralph JONES
16/12/1933
British
Pontypridd
Ani KAIKAIVONU
30/01/1938
Fidjien
Nausori
Kini KAMARUSI
18/01/1933
Fidjien
Nausori
Elesio KANASALUSALU
07/02/1926
Fidjien
Suva
Viniasi KARIKARITU
31/01/1933
Fidjien
Nabalili
James KEAVENY
17/05/1933
British
Bradford
Vorray KEEGAN
27/04/1935
New Zealand
Auckland
Vernon KEEN
28/12/1937
British
Truro
Rex KEEPING
10/01/1935
British
Bicester
Patricia KELLY
23/02/1939
British
Isle of Man
William KELSEY
11/12/1934
Australian
Queensland
Raymond KENNEDY
28/10/1937
British
Northumberland
Lynn KENT
28/02/1934
British
Halstead
June KILBY
19/10/1932
British
Slough
Basil KING
21/07/1935
New Zealand
Christchurch
Colin KING
02/05/1938
British
Norfolk
Raymond KING
12/08/1938
British
Rochester
Thomas KITCHING
11/09/1933
British
Hull
Monica KNOX
04/03/1939
British
Abergavenny
Rupeni KOCOLEVU
04/10/1934
Fidjien
Nausori
Eseroma KURUWALE
19/06/1934
Fidjien
Suva
Geoffrey LAMBIE
23/09/1940
New Zealand
Auckland
Terence LARKIN
10/05/1934
British
Watford
Marieta LASAGAVIGAU
06/04/1931
Fidjien
Suva
Agnes LAW
27/04/1934
British
Mold
Eileen LAWRENCE
26/01/1921
British
Rickmansworth
Thelma LAWRENCE
20/05/1927
New Zealand
Auckland
Andrew LAWSON
27/11/1939
British
Slough
David LE PREVOST
01/12/1935
New Zealand
Auckland
Inoke LEDUA
15/07/1940
Fidjien
Suva
Mereoni LEDUA
26/03/1905
Fidjien
Nabua
Anthony LEE
25/03/1939
British
Mildenhall
Joan LEE
11/12/1935
British
Manchester
William LENNON
07/07/1937
British
Motherwell
Paul LEVENE
06/05/1937
British
Edgware
Cagimudre LEWENILOVO
27/07/1934
Fidjien
Ba
Elsbeth LEWIS
03/02/1942
British
Swansea
Kate LEWIS
23/07/1933
New Zealand
Wellington
Teresa LEWIS
26/03/1937
British
Swindon
Jeffrey LIDDIATT
28/11/1940
British
Bristol
Kelera LIGAIRI
14/03/1936
Fidjien
Cakaudrove
Emori LIGICA
23/09/1935
Fidjien
Nausori
Anthony LISTER
22/05/1925
New Zealand
Auckland
John LOCKWOOD
19/04/1938
British
Leicestershire
Jeffrey LOFTHOUSE
15/06/1934
British
Todmorden
Catherine LOVATT
08/08/1935
British
Nottingham
Frederick LOVELOCK
13/02/1937
British
Letchworth Garden City
Douglas LOW
13/01/1938
New Zealand
Timaru
Gordon LOWE
02/12/1933
British
Brierley Hill
Leslie LUND
23/07/1935
British
Telford
Muriel MACCROSSEN
16/08/1928
British
Crawley
Mary MACKENZIE
03/12/1931
British
Portree
Christine MADDISON
07/08/1940
British
Oldham
Audrey MAILER
07/01/1939
British
Beverley
Robert MALCOMSON
10/11/1937
Spanish
Alicante
Thomas MALONE
10/01/1938
British
Dundee
Richard MANDLEY
18/09/1938
British
Chatteris
Brian MARCHANT
26/07/1938
British
Brighton
Alan MARKS
05/07/1938
British
Biggin Hill
John MARR
15/09/1938
British
Liverpool
Christopher MARSHALL
06/04/1937
British
St Columb
David MARSHALL
13/12/1936
British
Dereham
William MASSON JNR
06/06/1936
British
Bacup
Samuel MAUCHLINE
22/07/1939
Australian
Queensland
Linda MAUGER
19/03/1935
British
Uttoxeter
Dennis MCCANN
23/01/1940
British
Christchurch
Dorothy MCCANN
17/09/1917
New Zealand
Auckland
Margaret MCCANN
15/12/1937
British
Glasgow
Alastair MCCUE
30/04/1936
British
Galashiels
Malcolm MCDONNELL
06/05/1931
British
Rugby
Ken MCGINLEY
18/09/1938
British
Johnstone
Bede MCGURK
24/02/1937
British
Jarrow
David MCINTYRE
04/07/1939
British
Gainsborough
George MCKECHNIE
11/12/1936
British
Aberdeen
Ruth MCKENZIE
08/10/1916
New Zealand
Waiheke Island
Joan MCLACHLAN
21/12/1918
New Zealand
Auckland
Anne MCLELLAN
18/05/1936
British
Falmouth
Pauline MCLEOD
17/03/1936
Australian
Victoria
Joan MCNAMEE
10/08/1936
British
St Helens
Harry MELIA
13/04/1938
British
Holmesfield
Philipp MERCER
18/04/1938
New Zealand
Porirura
William MIDDLEMASS
04/08/1936
British
Lincoln
Derek MILLERSHIP
02/07/1939
British
Sancton
Susie Hokimate MILLYNN
24/07/1935
New Zealand
Kaikohe
Brian MONK
08/04/1938
British
Plymouth
Lionel MOORE
16/09/1934
British
Norwich
Archibald MORRIS
15/10/1937
British
Johnstone
Ethel MORRIS
08/03/1934
British
Southport
John MORRIS
17/08/1937
British
Bury
Francis MORRISEY
11/04/1930
British
Podsmead
Sheila MOULTON
03/07/1930
British
Hove
Reapi MUALAULAU
30/12/1922
Fidjien
Nadawa
Adi MUALEVU
15/04/1934
Fidjien
Nausori
Keith MULLEN
10/08/1941
British
Dorchester
Margaret MULLEN
01/12/1928
British
Manchester
Jessie MUNN
01/12/1933
British
Glasgow
Dianne MUNRO
22/02/1938
Australian
Wingham
Russell MUNRO
09/08/1934
British
Renfrew
Reginald MURRAY
15/06/1937
New Zealand
Maketu
Asikinasa NABUKAVOU
08/01/1930
Fidjien
Nabua
Milika V NADUVA
17/02/1935
Fidjien
Nausori
Silivakadua NAIKAWAKAWAVESI
05/05/1938
Fidjien
Tailevu
Epeli NAILATIKAU
21/12/1908
Fidjien
Suva
Vereniki NAILOLO
27/08/1915
Fidjien
Narere
Salacieli NAISEVU
14/09/1937
Fidjien
Tailevu
Margaret NAISMITH MORGAN
23/04/1939
British
Lanark
Raijieli NAIVIQA
27/03/1927
Fidjien
Tailevu
Virisila NAIVOWAI
13/08/1936
Fidjien
Tailevu
Bette NATHAN
08/09/1937
British
Nottingham
Mere NAULU
19/12/1931
Fidjien
Macuata
Silina NAVITI
17/04/1926
Fidjien
Suva
Levani NAWAQA
27/01/1936
Fidjien
Rewa
James NEARY
23/03/1939
British
Mearnskirk
Catherine NETLEY
07/03/1929
British
Troon
Kenneth NEWMAN
12/10/1934
British
Saltburn -by-the-Sea
Christopher NOONE
15/06/1938
British
Brighton
Virginia NORRIS
21/12/1923
British
Stoke-on-Trent
Virginia NORRIS
23/09/1939
British
Stoke-on-Trent
Maureen Francis NORTH
16/10/1936
British
Bedfordshire
John NUTTAL
18/09/1935
British
Bolton
Peter O ’ DONNELL
03/05/1939
Australian
East Maitland
Margaret ORMROD
20/01/1937
British
St. Helens
Duncan Raymond OSBORNE
27/07/1939
Fidjien
Taveuni
Ronald OWEN
26/04/1936
New Zealand
Auckland
Tina PAINE
15/03/1936
British
Hastings
Barbara PARKINSON
01/08/1935
British
Preston
Alec PARRY
28/02/1930
British
Ross-on-Wye
Roy PARRY
04/11/1930
British
Sittingbourne
Ian PATON
18/03/1937
British
Perth
David PAUL
28/01/1935
British
Swindon
Andrew PAYNE
03/02/1937
British
Mexborough
Brian PAYNE
24/01/1934
British
Spalding
David PEACEY
06/07/1937
British
Cheltenham
Ann PEACOCK
20/03/1935
American
League City
Ronald PEDGE
10/08/1934
British
Lincoln
William PENGELLY
21/04/1934
British
Okehampton
Morlais PHILLIPS
22/02/1936
British
Llantwit Major
David PICKFORD
21/07/1938
British
Torquay
Malcolm PIKE
02/03/1935
British
Bexhill -on-Sea
Edwards PITHERS
18/09/1936
British
Nottingham
Barry PITT
16/11/1937
British
Norfolk
Sheila PLANK
18/09/1933
British
Hawkhurst
Amy POLLARD
06/01/1930
New Zealand
Dannevirke
Stella PRATLEY
25/04/1932
British
Barking
James PRATT
24/04/1937
British
Kingswinford
Sheila PREECE
21/09/1937
British
Stockport
Janet PRICE
07/09/1929
New Zealand
Nelson
Barbara PRIESTLEY
05/06/1935
British
Helston
Margaret PRING
21/12/1934
British
Kidlington
Isireli QALO
20/05/1937
Fidjien
Nadi Airport
Kelerayani QASEVAKATINI
23/08/1924
Fidjien
Navua
Llisapeci QOLI
25/05/1940
Fidjien
Tacirua
Elden QUALILAWA
28/01/1927
Fidjien
Nausori
Joseph QUINN
06/01/1939
British
Sheffield
Siteri RANOKO
27/05/1928
Fidjien
Rewa
Salamieto RATULECA
18/09/1927
Fidjien
Nausori
Kelera RAVUSUVUSU
30/06/1934
Fidjien
Tailevu
Alan RAYFIELD
04/07/1938
British
Gravesend
Helen REDDY
31/05/1939
British
Wirral
Robert REDMAN
29/08/1935
British
Hebburn
Albert REED
12/02/1937
British
St Andrews
Barry REED
20/11/1936
British
Middlesbrough
Aeron REES
21/09/1937
British
Bridgend
Ann Marie REYNOLDS
27/12/1935
British
King ’ s Lynn
Colin REYNOLDS
08/02/1937
British
Bexhill -on-Sea
Lorraine RHIND
10/02/1937
Australian
Queensland
Lawrence RICHARDS
11/11/1931
British
Haywards Heath
Peter RICHARDSON
30/08/1938
British
Sheffield
Henry RIPLEY
01/10/1929
British
Burnley
Elisabeth RITCHIE
11/04/1940
New Zealand
North Shore City
Dennis ROBBINS
04/07/1937
Australian
Ridgewood
Anthony T ROBERTS
10/06/1928
British
Ardrossan
Gordon ROBERTS
26/02/1939
New Zealand
Omokoroa
Trevor ROBERTS
02/04/1934
British
Coatbridge
Henry ROBERTSON
03/03/1938
British
London
Frances ROBINSON
29/10/1925
New Zealand
Auckland
Randall ROBSON
05/05/1937
British
Houghton-Le-Spring
Michael ROGERSON
02/11/1936
British
Edinburgh
Kelera ROKOBIAU
18/10/1932
Fidjien
Nausori
Seruwaia ROKOLEWASAU
07/06/1931
Fidjien
Lautoka
George ROLTON
27/08/1932
New Zealand
Dunedin
Tekoti ROTAN
25/09/1934
Fidjien
Laucala Beach Estate
Evelyn RUGGLES
10/08/1931
British
Braintree
John RYDER
18/05/1938
British
Lichfield
Michael SAFFERY
18/02/1934
American
Stamford
Joan SANGER
01/11/1935
British
Doncaster
Ethel SARGEANT
05/07/1943
British
Oldham
Timoci SAUMAKI
16/06/1938
Fidjien
Lami
John SCANLIN
01/08/1940
Australian
Victoria
Catherine SCOTT
18/02/1938
British
Haddington
Elizabeth SCOTT
07/03/1940
British
Dunfermline
James SCOTT
24/08/1936
British
Edinburgh
Robert SCOWCROFT
19/11/1937
British
Bury St Edmunds
Brian SCRUNTON
24/08/1939
Australian
Queensland
Robert SEENEY
24/07/1938
British
Oldbury
Nacanieli SERU
07/05/1936
Fidjien
Lami
John SHARP
26/03/1934
British
Bristol
Denis SHAW
17/04/1937
British
Whitby
James SHAW
16/07/1939
British
Skelmersdale
Raymond SHAW
01/10/1937
British
Dinas Powys
Ronald SHEELEY
31/10/1934
British
Manchester
Martin SHERGOLD
28/01/1938
Australian
Queensland
Anthony SHERIDAN
07/06/1937
British
Westbury Wilts
Gareth SHORT
26/07/1939
British
Abertillery
Peniame SILATOLU
21/05/1937
Fidjien
Rewa Provincial Office
John SIMPSON
05/08/1935
British
Leven
Susan SIMPSON
11/12/1938
British
Cambridge
Joan SKILKY
07/10/1938
British
Widnes
Neil SLINGER
21/08/1939
British
Barton-On-Sea
Alan SMITH
26/02/1936
British
Liverpool
David SMITH
09/12/1936
British
Leicester
David SMITH
18/10/1937
British
Blackpool
John SMITH
28/08/1934
British
Sheffield
John M SMITH
06/06/1933
British
Eaglescliffe
Margaret SMITH
13/03/1936
British
Blackburn
Maurice SMITH
12/02/1938
British
Castle Douglas
Robert SMITH
19/03/1911
British
Wimborne
Robert SMITH
16/07/1938
British
Glasgow
Stewart SMITH
07/07/1938
British
Nottingham
Mereti SOBU
25/05/1929
Fidjien
Tailevu
Noel SORRENSON
03/07/1936
New Zealand
Te Awamutu
Ronald SOUTHARD
30/08/1937
British
Bath
Carolyn SPENCER
20/04/1938
British
Aberdeen
Tony SPOSITO
20/07/1936
British
Plymouth
Harold STEAD
25/03/1938
British
Malton
Meryl STEVENS
15/08/1939
British
Colne
Leonard STRETTON-ROSE
18/12/1933
British
Chippenham
Clive STRICKETT
13/04/1935
New Zealand
Pirongia
Brian STROUD
27/11/1938
British
Westcliff -on-Sea
Maciu SUGUTURAGA
20/02/1931
Fidjien
Nausori
Laisa SUKA
08/01/1934
Fidjien
Suva
Tulia TABUA
26/03/1932
Fidjien
Nausori
Loata TABUAKARAWA
18/12/1936
Fidjien
Naitasiri
Tere TAHI
07/06/1938
New Zealand
Bulls
Raijieli TAKAYAWA
27/12/1927
Fidjien
Tailevu
Cagi TALICA
25/09/1938
Fidjien
Suva
Samuel TAMS
21/03/1939
British
Crewe
Ronald TANSEY
21/07/1935
New Zealand
Northland
Frederick TASKER
29/05/1939
British
North Allerton
William TASKER
05/09/1936
British
Peterlee
Katherine TATE
12/03/1938
British
Northampton
Cagica TAWAKE
06/08/1935
Fidjien
Nausori
John TAYLOR
24/03/1937
British
South Shields
Maureen TAYLOR
16/02/1929
British
Gloucester
Pamela TAYLOR
01/03/1936
British
London
John TEMPLETON
10/09/1929
British
Plymouth
Paul THACKRAY
04/01/1936
British
Halifax
George THEAKER
04/07/1935
British
Barton-on-Sea
Clifford THOMAS
12/10/1937
Australian
Queensland
William THOMAS
30/04/1938
British
Hereford
Florence THOMPSON
29/03/1939
British
Paignton
James THOMPSON
03/05/1939
British
Stocksfield
Karen THOMPSON
02/01/1939
British
Stockton-on-Tees
Barry THORNTON
09/08/1934
British
Thornton- Cleveleys
Miriama TIKOENALIWALAIA
27/09/1936
Fidjien
Suva
Alena TINAI
31/03/1928
Fidjien
Savusavu
Anasaini TINAIRUVE
31/07/1932
Fidjien
Nasinu
Doris TITMUS
08/05/1925
British
Emsworth
Joeli TOKABOBO
02/04/1931
Fidjien
Nausori
Gillian TOMPKINS
17/09/1929
British
Melksham
Michael TOOMATH
29/06/1938
British
Ohaupo
Brian TORODE
16/10/1937
British
Colchester
Glenys TRIANA
07/03/1934
New Zealand
Rotorua
Raymond TRING
27/11/1935
British
High Barnet
Apisalome TUILAWAKI
27/05/1928
Fidjien
Suva
Benedito TUIMALABE
08/05/1938
Fidjien
Suva
George TUMMEY
10/06/1937
British
Kidderminster
Patrick TUNNICLIFF
10/02/1929
British
Nelson
Sandra TUNNICLIFFE-JENNER
06/11/1934
British
Plymouth
Wame TURAGA
22/11/1935
Fidjien
Suva
Dereck TURVEY
28/08/1928
New Zealand
Palmerston North
Barry UNDERDOWN
15/02/1938
British
London
Katarina VAKATALE
24/09/1938
Fidjien
Suva
Jone VARIVAL
Fidjien
Lami
Jone VARIVAL
27/12/1935
Fidjien
Lami
Terence VAUGHAN
21/08/1938
British
Leeds
William VAUGHAN
21/06/1938
British
Merseyside
Angela VESSEY
14/02/1939
British
London
Howard VINCENT
29/01/1939
British
Leicester
Brian VOSPER
30/10/1938
British
Dunoon
Josefa VUETI
06/08/1938
Fidjien
Nausori
Kinisimere VULAVOU
20/06/1939
Fidjien
Nabua
Jone VUNIVALU
23/10/1922
Fidjien
Nausori
John WADE
06/12/1938
American
Bradenton
Keith WADSWORTH
29/07/1937
British
Tadcaster
Sylvia WAIGH
08/04/1922
British
Ambleside
Nathaniel WAKEFIELD
02/05/1937
British
Pontefract
Pauline WALKER
13/04/1939
British
Eston
Robert WALLACE
27/09/1930
British
Auckland
Harold WALMSLEY
17/06/1938
British
Holywell
Norman WALSH
28/03/1928
New Zealand
Ashburton
Usaia WAQATAIREWA
27/08/1938
Fidjien
Suva
Thomas WARD
11/05/1929
New Zealand
Auckland
Jennifer WARE
21/08/1938
British
Okehampton
Maria WARNER
09/02/1936
New Zealand
Waitakere
Terence WASHINGTON
04/12/1934
British
Macclesfield
John WATERS
26/09/1935
British
Swansea
Paul WATKIN
12/01/1940
British
Plymouth
David WATKINS
14/12/1938
British
Merthyr Tydfil
Peter WATSON
17/04/1940
Australian
Hillarys
John WATT
28/03/1936
British
North Shore City
Michael WATTS
15/08/1939
Turkish
Antalya
Arthur WEBB
13/06/1934
British
Winsford
June WELSH
06/01/1929
British
Stirling
Harry WEST
05/09/1931
Canadian
Surrey
Leonard WHISKER
09/11/1940
British
London
Lily Ann WHITE
31/05/1931
British
Alton
Roy WHITE
12/01/1938
British
Spalding
Raymond WHITEHEAD
08/05/1939
Canadian
Ontario
Joan WHITTAKER
09/12/1936
British
Edinburgh
John WHITTON
04/07/1937
Australian
Walleroo
Patrick WICKER
13/03/1938
British
Chatham
Rita WIGG
26/08/1936
British
Luton
James WIGHTMAN
05/09/1937
British
Newcastle upon Tyne
Leslie WILKINS
01/02/1938
British
Watchet
Ronald WILKINS
09/02/1938
British
Longlevens
Shirley WILKINSON
24/06/1932
British
North Shields
Avis WILLARD
02/02/1938
British
St. Leonards -on-Sea
Brian WILLIAMS
13/09/1936
British
Cardiff
Malcolm WILLIAMS
02/06/1938
British
Newport
Peter WILLIAMS
09/12/1939
British
Lincoln
Raymond WILLIAMS
11/07/1939
Australian
Mandurah
Ernest WILLIAMSON
14/11/1937
British
Kilmarnock
Hazel WILLIAMSON
25/04/1937
British
Stoke-on-Trent
Janet WILLIS
16/04/1924
British
Liverpool
Elizabeth WILSON
19/10/1933
British
Heckmondwike
Gail WILSON
27/02/1935
British
Scarborough
James WILSON
29/12/1935
British
Telford
Thomas WILSON
10/08/1932
British
Newcastle upon Tyne
Thomas WILSON
21/06/1935
British
Nottingham
David WOOD
11/12/1937
British
London
Frances WOOD
17/06/1931
British
Swindon
Sandra WOOD
15/06/1932
New Zealand
Auckland
Jack WOODGER
18/04/1935
British
Swindon
Peter WOODHAM
26/03/1928
British
Eastbourne
Patricia WOODMAN
23/05/1938
British
Gosport
Margaret WOODWARD
04/05/1936
British
Jarrow
John WOOLDRIDGE
16/05/1939
British
Fareham
Christopher WORSWICK
21/05/1935
British
Runcorn
David WRIGHT
13/10/1939
British
Bournemouth
James WRIGHT
21/01/1939
British
Victoria
Roy WRIGHT
14/07/1931
British
Cambridge
Ropate YAGOMATE
21/07/1939
Fidjien
Lautoka
Laurence YEO
30/12/1938
British
Crewe
George YOUNG
31/12/1937
British
Newcastle upon Tyne
George YOUNG
14/12/1938
New Zealand
Helensville
Mark ZEALEY
10/05/1930
British
Canterbury
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025
