Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
October-November 2025 15
T
he Omagh Bombing Inquiry will face
problems with disclosure from the
security forces and British
Government. That is clear even
before hearings begin in March
next year on the substantive issue: whether
the security services could have prevented
the atrocity of August 1998. Some hearings
of the Inquiry will be closed, for national
security reasons. Even relatives will be unable
to attend these.
The Inquiry is already dealing with British
Government applications to redact names of
junior civil servants from documentation
rather than, say, identify them as ‘Civil
Servant A’. This is not minor. Names allow
email and WhatsApp chains to be understood.
Also, the importance of names may only
emerge during the Inquiry.
Opening the latest procedural hearing in
July, Solicitor for the Inquiry Paul Greaney said
it will examine evidence that is sensitive on
national security and other grounds. “That in
turn, means that it’s inevitable that the State
Core Participants will, in due course, make
applications under Section 19 of the Act
which, if successful, would have the eect of
excluding the public, some Core Participants
including the bereaved families and survivors,
and their legal representatives from some
evidential hearings, namely the closed
hearings”, Greaney said.
For those hearings, communication
intercepts will clearly be an issue. The security
services were intercepting Real IRA telephone
calls. Interception is only legal if carried out
with a warrant. Inquiry Chair Lord Alan
Turnbull explained a resulting diculty: “But
intercept-related conduct could only feature
in the Inquiry if a Restricted Proceedings order
was made...”.
The July hearings dealt with applications
from a number of families for the appointment
of a Special Advocate. The Advocate can
attend closed sessions, and read closed
material. While representing excluded
relatives, Advocates do not take instructions.
They have discretion to take any decision they
consider in the best interests of an excluded
party. They cannot communicate what they
have seen or read, except in very narrow
circumstances.
Several barristers addressed the
procedural hearing. Michael Mansfield’s
contribution was most impressive. The
English human rights lawyer represents the
family of the late Libbi Rush, killed in the
bomb. Mansfield said the Rush family is not
seeking a Special Advocate.
Addressing the Inquiry Chairman, he said
“the problem that the Rush family would like
you to consider alongside — I’m sure you will
— is the question of delay… In the light of Mr
Kane’s (barrister Allan Kane) submission,
there may be a multiplicity of [Special
Advocates] because certain families will feel
they need separate Special Advocates to the
ones representing other families”.
Mansfield said further delay was inevitable
because of the appointment process. Then
premises would have to be found for the work.
Then the Advocates would have to read the
evidence. Mansfield said hybrid hearings had
been used in other cases involving national
security. He asked questions, and the Chair
Omagh Bomb Inquiry grinds on
By Anton McCabe
ruled whether these could be answered.
He said “as much material as possible
should be held in open, for obvious reasons”.
Further, he did not see how material from
almost 30 years ago could risk current
national security. However, he expected
diculties with disclosure.
The Inquiry also illustrates that no such
body as ‘the Omagh families’ exists. Six
dierent legal firms represent families of the
deceased, and of those of the injured who are
taking part.
Barrister Alan Kane put this well at the
procedural hearing. He represents some
families and injured. Kane said “bereaved
families and survivors have been and will
always remain united in grief, but we all have
to acknowledge that there are dierences that
have emerged over the past number of years,
and those dierences have evolved as to
emphasis, priorities and concerns regarding
certain matters”. Those Kane represents have
particular concerns regarding the role of the
Irish authorities.
Inquiry Chair Lord Turnbull is a Scottish
Supreme Court judge. To date, he has made a
good impression. He has made sure his sta
have regular breaks. He made clear he was
unimpressed with the approach of the
Government’s barrister.
At the end of July’s hearing, Turnbull said
he did not know when he would be giving his
ruling regarding the Special Advocates.
Another procedural hearing is due in
November. So we must wait and see.
NEWS
There are problems with disclosure from
the security forces and British Government
even before hearings begin in March on the
inquiry into whether the security services
could have prevented the bombing
Procedural issues and differences
of emphasis among the relatives are
delaying the substantive hearings
