In May 2012, two-year-old triplets, Jackson,
Lillie, and Willsher Weekes, were killed in a fire in the Villaggio Mall in Doha. The three New Zealand toddlers were among 19 people who died in the fire: 13 children, four staff members of the nursery the children were in, and two firefighters. Original convictions for involuntary manslaughter, against the Mall’s owners and managers, were overturned by the Qatari Appeal Court, after a hearing that left families confused, distressed and angry. Today, the Appeals Court’s decision has been overturned. Another appeal seems almost certain, but Martin and Jane Weekes won’t give up until someone is held responsible for the deaths.
Let’s look at the interview they provided to RNZ.
Martin: It’s not just Lillie and Jackson who are affected; also included in this are their ten friends and any other New Zealanders living in Qatar. We don’t want anyone to experience this; we don’t want people to believe that there is no justice and that no one is watching out for them.
The reporter: “Can we talk about what the appeals court decided? I think the most fascinating—and I’m not saying this about you— but most horrifying aspect was the evidence that they excluded. What did the appeals court rule was inadmissible…?”
Martin: The entire case hinged on the fact that the nursery was a nursery, which we proved with all of our documentation signed by the defendants; without that, they were able to stand up and say it was not a nursery. The other thing which was really
disturbing was that the judge threw out the evidence submitted by
civil attorneys; this was because we could not be plaintiffs as well as victims. I’m still confused to figure out why.
Reporter: “Yet, it was the case that there were flammable paints and flammable mouldings”
Martin: “I received a document and I can actually prove this because I have the supporting documents.”
Reporter: “Thus, in spite of losing your triplets and experiencing circumstances that are too horrible to even consider, even the most basic of justice was not served.”
Martin: “It was being contested, and the judge’s perspective was that the defendants had more privileges than the victims. As a result, he effectively excluded the victims’ voices, leaving the defendants free to make whatever arguments they needed to in order to reverse the decision.”
Reporter: “And nearly everything you said and the individuals speaking on behalf of the children said was excluded while everything they said was accepted, admitted, and upheld. (?)”
Martin: “We were not permitted to speak, and neither were we permitted to submit any of our written evidence, including that from the initial trial.”
Reporter: This is truly heart-breaking information. Jane:” very much so”
Reporter: “You haven’t even had an apology”
Jane: “no”
Reporter: “Fire exits blocked(?)” Jane: “mm-hmm”
Reporter: “Flammable materials used(?)”
Martin: “which are still present the mall hasn’t replaced the paint or flammable materials, which are still present.”
Reporter: “What do you hope for now after all of this, after the exhaustion and then, I suppose, the relief of obtaining Parker and Poppy, and after the tenacity and singularity, especially Martin, of your pursuit of justice…?”
Martin: “I suppose we do hope for some measure of justice, but we never expected even if a verdict or sentence were handed down, we didn’t expect them to spend time in jail. I guess at least having a verdict that states, “You are accountable, you are responsible,” is what I would like to see. Whether that results in some sort of punishment aren’t really a concern for me; I just want that someone is held responsible and that they receive some sort of punishment. I hope that someone is held accountable and that the public comes to terms with the fact that they can’t do it, that these structures must be made safe, and that it won’t happen again.”
The reporter highlights the presence of flammable paints and mouldings in the nursery, to which Martin presents supporting documents. Jane reveals that they have not even received an apology and that the mall hasn’t replaced the flammable materials used in the nursery. Martin expresses his hope that someone is held accountable, and a verdict stating responsibility is announced.
They expressed their disappointment and frustration with the appeals court’s decision in their case. The court ruled that evidence submitted by civil attorneys was inadmissible and that the defendants had more privileges than the victims, effectively excluding the victims’ voices from the proceedings.
Martin explained that the case hinged on proving that the nursery was indeed a nursery, which they had done with documentation signed by the defendants. However, the judge threw out the evidence submitted by civil attorneys, leaving the defendants free to make whatever arguments they needed to in order to reverse the decision.
Jane expressed disappointment that they had not received an apology for the loss of their children and that the mall had not replaced the flammable paints and materials that were present at the time of the fire. Martin said that while they did hope for some measure of justice, they did not expect the defendants to spend time in jail.
Rather, they wanted someone to be held responsible and for the public to come to terms with the fact that these structures must be made safe so that such a tragedy does not happen again.
The couple’s story is a tragic reminder of the importance of safety regulations and the need for accountability in cases of negligence.
The conversation revolves around the tragic incident of a fire that occurred in a nursery in Qatar, where Martin and Jane lost their triplets. Martin expressed his concern that not only Lillie and Jackson but also their ten friends and other New Zealanders living in Qatar were affected by the incident. The reporter asks about the appeals court’s decision and the inadmissible evidence, to which Martin explains that the entire case hinged on proving the nursery was a nursery. The judge threw out evidence submitted by civil attorneys because they could not be plaintiffs as well as victims.
Overall, the conversation highlights the lack of justice and accountability in the incident, leaving victims and their families with no closure. It also emphasizes the need for safety measures to be taken in public spaces, ensuring that such tragedies are prevented in the future.
They said: “Last night we received devastating news from the court in Qatar. Not one person has taken responsibility for this crime. The charge has now been reduced to corporate manslaughter. This is a travesty of justice.
Our local lawyer has told us(sic): ‘For the nursery and Villaggio the judgment made many mistakes in facts and law and make it to appear no justice has been applied and you hope that the attorney general will appeal it with the cassation court.”
“The pain for all of the families is indescribable. Today we remember the 19 innocent lives lost, including 13 beautiful children. We are grieving for our beautiful children. And we are angry.
“Qatar likes to position itself as a forward- looking member of the international community. Its actions today show just how far it has to go.”
“Qatar is a country wanting to be an international tourist destination hosting major sporting tournaments and other international events. But they cannot even guarantee public safety with basic protections. How can anything go ahead in these circumstances? Their safety standards are third world. Their judicial system is not fit for purpose. It is one rule for Qataris and another rule for all others,” the family added in a strongly worded statement.
The Weekes’ have asked the New Zealand government to protect their interests and demand justice from the Qatari court.
“This government has to take action to remind [all New Zealanders currently living in Qatar] that this is an unsafe place to live, work and visit.
“Our prime minister John Key met with the Emir of Qatar earlier this year and we were assured by both of them that our children would have justice. This isn’t the justice we were hoping for.”
“Now is the time for the international community and especially New Zealand to remind the Qatari government of their responsibilities to our family and the other families affected for justice to be done.”
On social media, other members of the public criticised the decision, with one local tweeting: “After this verdict, we no longer feel safe that our children can go to malls because the state hasn’t penalised those who caused the fire.”
They described the decision as a “travesty of justice,” and criticised Qatar’s record on public safety.
The irresponsibility of Qatar in implementing safety measures in the buildings should be called into question. They don’t even want to care for their own citizens or foreign visitors; all they want is international recognition. A saying that we frequently heard went, “All that glitters is not gold, and the same is true of people who believe that Qatar is heaven. “We don’t need a lot of fabricated accomplishments. It simply requires recognising and upholding each person’s inherent worth and dignity, regardless of their background, culture, or beliefs. It involves treating people with respect and dignity while being considerate of their needs and feelings. Maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that everyone has a voice in justice.
We can see that in Qatar, a lack of respect to these basic principles keeps killing many innocent lives.
