The families of the British victims of a terror attack at a beach in Tunisia have been left “unable to rest or move on”, they said on Tuesday, as they vowed to sue the tour operator they hold responsible for their loss.

Speaking at the end of the seven-week inquest into the 2015 mass shooting at the Imperial Marhaba hotel in Sousse, the relatives of 22 of the victims urged Thomson Holidays’ owner Tui to put “safety before a sale” after the coroner ruled that their relatives were unlawfully killed – but said he could not rule that neglect by the tour operator played a part.



The attack led to the greatest loss of British life in a single incident since the 7/7 bombings in London. Tui, with which all 30 Britons who were killed booked their holidays, came under significant scrutiny during the inquest over its handling of Foreign Office travel advice for Tunisia as well as security deficiencies at the hotel. Judge Nicholas Loraine-Smith also described the response of police called to the scene as “at best shambolic, at worst cowardly”.

But he added that it was impossible to say what difference better security would have made. And as family members listened in a packed courtroom, he said the laws around neglect did not cover tourists choosing to go on holiday because travel companies and the authorities did not have a formal duty of care.



The widow and son of John Stollery, a soldier-turned-social worker killed in the attack, said afterwards they regretted that the legal framework did not allow the coroner to draw the “right conclusion”. Cheryl and Matt Stollery added that the case was “unique ... Therefore the findings and outcomes should reflect this uniqueness.”

They said: “Disappointingly, we still believe questions have been left unanswered and responsibilities have not been accepted, so we are not able to rest or move on.”



Suzanne Richards, who lost her eldest son, Joel, her father, Charles Evans, and her brother Adrian Evans in the attack, said: “The travel industry process of booking and giving travel advice needs to be reviewed, by implementing robust travel advice and security audits before and during all holidays to safeguard the customer and the industry – safety before a sale.”



She added: “My family placed their trust in the fact that Tui, with all their knowledge and expertise, would not allow my family to travel to a hotel or destination where their safety was not the first priority – and yet ... they received no advice or warning.”

Summing up the inquest on Tuesday morning, the coroner:

Found that Tui did not inform customers about where to find advice after a prior attack on the Bardo National Museum in the Tunisian capital, Tunis, that killed 22 people.

Said that customers believed they had been reassured by Tui after the Bardo attack that it was safe to travel to Tunisia, although this was disputed by Tui.



Concluded that delays in security authorities attending the scene were “deliberate and unjustifiable”.

Praised the families of the victims for “a quiet dignity of which your loved ones would be proud”.

After the inquest concluded, with a group of relatives standing behind her on the steps of the Royal Courts of Justice, Kylie Hutchison, a solicitor at Irwin Mitchell, confirmed legal action would be taken against Tui, which in the year to September made an underlying profit of €1bn (£866m).

“It is now crucial that the whole travel industry learns from what happened in Sousse to reduce the risk of similar catastrophic incidents in the future,” she said.

Speaking outside the court, Tui’s UK managing director, Nick Longman, said the company was “so very sorry” for the “pain and loss those affected have suffered”. He added: “As an industry we have adapted and we will need to continue to do so.”



Hundreds of tourists were sunbathing outside the Imperial Marhaba on 26 June 2015 when jihadi Seifeddine Rezgui opened fire with a Kalashnikov assault rifle, killing 38 people, 30 of them British, in an attack that lasted about 30 minutes. Rezgui was shot dead by Tunisian authorities as he ran from the hotel.



The attack came three months after Islamist militants attacked the Bardo in Tunis. They killed 21 people – mostly European tourists – on the spot, and another victim died 10 days later.



Lawyers representing the families of the British Sousse victims had urged the coroner to rule that neglect played a part in their relatives’ deaths, in part because of a failure to provide adequate warnings. One holidaymaker said his wife had discussed the Bardo attack with a travel agent, who said it was a “one-off” and that Sousse was “100% safe”.



But Loraine-Smith told the inquest that legal precedents prevented inquests from applying that conclusion to tourists on holiday because they were not “dependent” on the travel company or hotel. Referring to existing precedents, he said: “They very substantially limit the circumstances in which neglect can feature in the conclusions.”Loraine-Smith added that there were a lot of “what-ifs” around the case, and better hotel security may simply have meant that more people died on the beach instead.

He added: “The simple but tragic truth in this case is that a gunman armed with a gun and grenades went to that hotel intending to kill as many tourists as he could.”



Sousse survivor: 'I popped my head up out of the water. I could see a massacre' Read more

But he painted a different picture of the response of police and military, including the guard who took off his shirt to hide the fact he was an officer. He said with the exception of two marine guards, no police entered the hotel grounds until the gunman had killed all 38 tourists.

The judge also referred to a unit that stopped off to pick up more weapons instead of going straight to the scene. “They had everything they required to confront the gunman and could have been at the scene within minutes,” he said, adding: “The delay was deliberate and unjustifiable.”



In a statement issued at the close of the inquest, Andrew Ritchie QC, who represented the families, acknowledged that the law restricted the coroner’s ability to ascribe blame and said the families had found that structure “both helpful and frustrating”.



Longman said this company and the travel industry in general “must now take some time to further reflect”.