Omagh victims intend to use public inquiry to ‘heap shame' on Irish Government
The inquiry also heard that victims are 'sick and tired of platitudes, false assurances and broken promises' from Dublin over the bombing.
The Omagh Bombing Inquiry, chaired by Lord Turnbull, is hearing opening statements from core participants. On Tuesday the focus moved to statements from the legal representatives of bereaved families.
The Real IRA bomb in the Co Tyrone town in August 1998 killed 29 people, including a woman who was pregnant with twins, in the worst single atrocity in the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
The public inquiry was set up by the previous government to examine whether the explosion could have been prevented by the UK authorities.
Barrister Alan Kane KC delivered a statement on behalf of the families of Omagh victims represented by solicitor John McBurney.
These include the families of Debra-Anne Cartwright, Olive Hawkes, Julia Hughes, Philomena Skelton, Samantha McFarland, Alan Radford, Lorraine Wilson, who were all killed in the massacre, as well as several other people who were injured.
He told the inquiry: 'It is important that we always keep in focus that it was republican terrorists under the name Real IRA who planned and planted the Omagh bomb. They alone are responsible for the loss and hurt caused by it.
'On hearing the accounts of so many at the commemorative hearings, it beggars all belief as to what else was intended other than murderous carnage by leaving a bomb in a peaceful town's main street on a busy sunny Saturday afternoon where so many innocent women, children and men were likely to be.
'The preventability of the murders and injuries was at all times within the absolute control of the Real IRA.'
He added: 'Our clients are of the clear belief that whatever aspects of preventability may lie at the door of the UK state authorities, blame, to a greater or lesser extent, rests with the state authorities in the Republic of Ireland.
'Our clients again renew their call for a parallel inquiry to be immediately established by the Government of the Republic of Ireland, a call that they should not be required to repeat.
'Our clients remain greatly disappointed at the lack of any commitment of the authorities in the Republic of Ireland to meaningfully assist this inquiry.
'They regard the memorandum of understanding, agreed with the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Ireland as wholly unsatisfactory.
'Our clients wish to use this inquiry to heap shame on the Government of the Republic of Ireland for their failures.'
Mr Kane said there was a 'moral, human and legal imperative' on the Dublin Government to set up its own inquiry.
He said: 'As a country with a professed European inclination, it is extremely regrettable that the Republic of Ireland continues to be in breach of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights in failing to ensure there has ever been any effective investigation into the death of the people to whom they owe that duty.
'There are preventability issues which clearly arise from the territorial origin of the Omagh bomb, and the cowardly refuge which its perpetrators enjoyed within the boundaries of the Republic of Ireland.'
The barrister said his clients had likened the work of the public inquiry to an MOT vehicle test.
He said: 'To their disbelief, they are told only the engine can be inspected, all that exists beyond the engine, including the body, the suspension, the brakes, the contents of the boot, cannot be examined.
'Such an MOT would clearly be unfit for purpose.
'This inquiry can only examine the parts of the car made in the UK as it were, the preventability, it cannot examine the rest of the car where the terrorists sat, or the boot area where the deadly bomb was hidden.
'If this inquiry could examine the whole car then it would also be able to examine any preventability issues which fall on the Republic of Ireland state authorities and all the faults and defects in the vehicle could be identified.'
The barrister referred to comments from former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern that no stone would be left unturned to bring those responsible for the 1998 atrocity to justice.
He said: 'That is a promise which has significance only for the ignoring and disregarding of it which has taken place over the almost 27 years which has passed since the Omagh bombing.'
Mr Kane added: 'I have the authority of those I represent to say they are sick and tired of platitudes, false assurances, broken promises and grand but empty words from the state authorities of the Republic of Ireland.
'Their resolute refusal to institute a parallel inquiry and their ongoing failure to provide real and meaningful cooperation with this inquiry speaks far louder than their words.'
The barrister referred to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) agreed between the inquiry and the Irish Government to allow access to material held in Dublin.
Mr Kane said the MOU is 'redundant' due to the terms of how it was drafted.
He said: 'First because the assessment of relevance is in the power of the Republic of Ireland, secondly because it only relates to relevance concerning preventability by the UK state authorities.
'This is an unacceptable yet significant escape clause for the Republic of Ireland.
'Under the memorandum the Republic of Ireland state authorities, and therefore any information which reflects badly on them, could be determined by them to be irrelevant.'
He added: 'This voluntary statement of participation by the Government of the Republic of Ireland lacks any degree of real commitment and does nothing to give our clients any degree of confidence in it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Western Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Starmer: No tax rises on working people to reach 5% defence spending pledge
The Prime Minister is meeting leaders of other Nato member countries in The Hague, where they are expected to formally agree the target, made up of 3.5% on 'core defence' and another 1.5% on 'resilience and security'. He rejected that tax rises would be needed to pay for higher defence spending. 'Every time we've set out our defence spending commitments, so when we went to 2.5% in 2027/28, we set out precisely how we would pay for it, that didn't involve tax rises. 'Clearly we've got commitments in our manifesto about not making tax rises on working people and we will stick to our manifesto commitments,' the Prime Minister told reporters in the Netherlands. Sir Keir Starmer said tax rises would not be needed to pay for higher defence spending (Kin Cheung/PA) He said the current commitment to get defence spending up to 2.5% of GDP by 2027/8 was not coming at the expense of welfare, but rather from cuts to overseas development aid. 'So, it's a misdescription to suggest that the defence spending commitment we've made is at the expense of money on welfare.' Donald Trump is among the world leaders at the summit, and told reporters on the way to the Netherlands that it would depend 'on your definition' when asked if he would commit to Nato's Article 5, which requires members to defend each other from attack. At a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning, Sir Keir underscored that national security is the 'first duty' of Government. His trip comes as the Government publishes its national security strategy, setting out plans to make the UK 'more resilient to future threats'. Downing Street has described the 5% goal as 'a projected target' that allies will review in 2029 when Nato carries out its next capability assessment. It is a significant jump from the current 2% Nato target, and from the UK Government's aim of spending 2.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) on defence from 2027 and 3% at some point after the next election. But the figure is in line with the demands of US President Donald Trump, who has called for Nato allies to shoulder more of the burden of European defence. The Government expects to spend 1.5% of GDP on resilience and security by 2027. The Prime Minister is meeting leaders of other Nato member countries in The Hague (Ben Stansall/PA) The details of what counts towards that target are due to be set out during this week's summit, but it is likely to include spending on energy and border security as well as intelligence agencies. But increasing core defence spending to 3.5% will not happen until 2035, with at least two elections likely to take place before then. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that an increase in core defence spending from 2.6% to 3.5% would cost around £30 billion more a year. It noted however that the plans concern spending far in the future – due in 10 years' time – and therefore may not affect the Government's spending review or autumn budget decisions, but prompt the chancellor to revise plans at the 2027 spending review. Spending 3.5% of national income on defence is 'certainly not unprecedented' but much more is now spent on health than in the past, IFS researcher Bee Boileau noted. Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel said the Government had not been clear enough about how it would reach the core defence spending goal, claiming ministers had only offered 'smoke and mirrors'. She added: 'So, when will he actually deliver a plan to get to 2%, and why won't he heed our calls to hit 3% by the end of this Parliament, which would be vital, and a vital stepping stone on the way to that higher defence spending that he is seeking.' The Nato gathering comes amid the backdrop of escalating Middle East tensions and the ongoing war in Ukraine. Sir Keir has urged Israel and Iran to get back to the fragile ceasefire brokered by Donald Trump. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at 10 Downing Street (Jeff Moore/PA) Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is expected to attend the summit, but not take part in the main discussions of the North Atlantic Council. Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte described the move to spend more on defence as a 'quantum leap' that would make the organisation 'a stronger, a fairer and a more lethal alliance'. But it was reported on Sunday that Spain had reached a deal that would see it exempted from the 5% target. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said that Spain would be able to keep its commitments to the 32-nation military alliance by spending 2.1% of GDP on defence needs.
The Herald Scotland
43 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Starmer: No tax rises on working people to reach 5% defence spending pledge
He rejected that tax rises would be needed to pay for higher defence spending. 'Every time we've set out our defence spending commitments, so when we went to 2.5% in 2027/28, we set out precisely how we would pay for it, that didn't involve tax rises. 'Clearly we've got commitments in our manifesto about not making tax rises on working people and we will stick to our manifesto commitments,' the Prime Minister told reporters in the Netherlands. Sir Keir Starmer said tax rises would not be needed to pay for higher defence spending (Kin Cheung/PA) He said the current commitment to get defence spending up to 2.5% of GDP by 2027/8 was not coming at the expense of welfare, but rather from cuts to overseas development aid. 'So, it's a misdescription to suggest that the defence spending commitment we've made is at the expense of money on welfare.' Donald Trump is among the world leaders at the summit, and told reporters on the way to the Netherlands that it would depend 'on your definition' when asked if he would commit to Nato's Article 5, which requires members to defend each other from attack. At a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning, Sir Keir underscored that national security is the 'first duty' of Government. His trip comes as the Government publishes its national security strategy, setting out plans to make the UK 'more resilient to future threats'. Downing Street has described the 5% goal as 'a projected target' that allies will review in 2029 when Nato carries out its next capability assessment. It is a significant jump from the current 2% Nato target, and from the UK Government's aim of spending 2.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) on defence from 2027 and 3% at some point after the next election. But the figure is in line with the demands of US President Donald Trump, who has called for Nato allies to shoulder more of the burden of European defence. The Government expects to spend 1.5% of GDP on resilience and security by 2027. The Prime Minister is meeting leaders of other Nato member countries in The Hague (Ben Stansall/PA) The details of what counts towards that target are due to be set out during this week's summit, but it is likely to include spending on energy and border security as well as intelligence agencies. But increasing core defence spending to 3.5% will not happen until 2035, with at least two elections likely to take place before then. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that an increase in core defence spending from 2.6% to 3.5% would cost around £30 billion more a year. It noted however that the plans concern spending far in the future – due in 10 years' time – and therefore may not affect the Government's spending review or autumn budget decisions, but prompt the chancellor to revise plans at the 2027 spending review. Spending 3.5% of national income on defence is 'certainly not unprecedented' but much more is now spent on health than in the past, IFS researcher Bee Boileau noted. Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel said the Government had not been clear enough about how it would reach the core defence spending goal, claiming ministers had only offered 'smoke and mirrors'. She added: 'So, when will he actually deliver a plan to get to 2%, and why won't he heed our calls to hit 3% by the end of this Parliament, which would be vital, and a vital stepping stone on the way to that higher defence spending that he is seeking.' The Nato gathering comes amid the backdrop of escalating Middle East tensions and the ongoing war in Ukraine. Sir Keir has urged Israel and Iran to get back to the fragile ceasefire brokered by Donald Trump. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at 10 Downing Street (Jeff Moore/PA) Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is expected to attend the summit, but not take part in the main discussions of the North Atlantic Council. Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte described the move to spend more on defence as a 'quantum leap' that would make the organisation 'a stronger, a fairer and a more lethal alliance'. But it was reported on Sunday that Spain had reached a deal that would see it exempted from the 5% target. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said that Spain would be able to keep its commitments to the 32-nation military alliance by spending 2.1% of GDP on defence needs.
The Sun
44 minutes ago
- The Sun
Blatant law-breaking of illegal migrant delivery riders is scam Del Boy would be proud of… I have five ways to stop it
I CONFESS my initial reaction to yesterday's report on The Sun's investigation into asylum seekers working illegally as food delivery drivers was a combination of frustration, disbelief and anger. Frustration because it seems the Government is no nearer to achieving its goal of tackling English Channel crossings than it was on July 5 last year. 4 Since coming into power, more than 41,500 small boat migrants have arrived — and that is just those we know about. Take a look at Migration Watch's Channel Tracker ( which monitors the number of illegal arrivals. I find it very difficult to believe that ministers do not see the connection between the ease with which traffickers can get migrants here, with a helping hand from Border Force and the RNLI. Migrants are even seen on their way with a cheery wave by the French authorities assembled on the beach. Having arrived on our shores and after a cursory check they are on their way to free accommodation, £40-plus pocket money a week and, now it seems, a job in one of the fastest-growing sectors in the economy. It beggars belief They earn money delivering food, to pay off their traffickers and to send cash home to their family so that they can eventually join them in the UK. What makes me and most ordinary, hard-working, taxpaying and fair-minded citizens angry is that the Government seems to think this is acceptable. After a year in office and abandoning the only possible deterrent, the Rwanda scheme — I make no apology for mentioning it again — and doing away with the legal requirement for the Home Secretary to remove illegal arrivals, the Government has done nothing to discourage migrants and traffickers. On the contrary, its actions, or rather inaction, has simply encouraged crossings. That's why, by the end of the year, I expect there to have been more than 50,000 illegal arrivals. Channel migrants queue for cash in hand jobs as secrets of UK's £260bn illegal economy revealed In fact, the total for the year so far stands at 18,400, which is almost 50 per cent higher than the number of small boat migrants who had crossed at this point in 2024. At this rate, could we see more than 60,000 arriving? I wouldn't rule it out. It seems the gig economy — Deliveroo, Just Eat and UberEats included — need not worry about a shortage of deliverers. I confess, The Sun's report yesterday almost made me smile. How could you not laugh at the description of the scene outside a hotel in Peckham where 'the entire courtyard was filled with bikes and bags surrounding a replica of the Only Fools And Horses [Reliant] three-wheeler'? 4 4 This scam, for that is what it is, would have made Del Boy proud. As for the reaction of ministers. It beggars belief. Policing Minister Dame Diana Johnson, who, in fairness to her, commended The Sun's report, said: 'The Sun investigation is right to highlight this illegal working racket, which undermines honest business and undercuts local wages.' No kidding, minister. While Dame Angela Eagle, the Border Security and Asylum Minister, 'is meeting delivery companies next week, to help tackle illegal working in this sector.' I find that exasperating. This is the minister who sought to cast me a racist when I gave evidence to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, to explain that repealing the Safety of Rwanda Act would 'encourage illegal immigration'. I was right, it has. She brushed this aside by asking what Migration Watch meant by the word 'indigenous' on its website. She now, it seems, is committing to talking to gig economy companies about what they intend to do to stop the illegal migrant workers, who are helping them make huge profits. The real question is, what are you going to do about it Minister? May I suggest that, if you are serious about stopping blatant law-breaking and removing one of the major incentives for migrants to make their way to the UK, you should: Ban the likes of Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat from permitting their drivers to rent out their accounts. Impose punitive fines on the companies that turn a blind eye to this dangerous practice. Make clear that migrants found to be working illegally while awaiting a decision on their asylum application will not be granted asylum. Require the companies to control and monitor the issue of licences. Applicants for these accounts must be properly vetted to ensure they have the right to work, but also ensure they do not pose a danger to those they deliver to — especially women and the elderly. The business model for these companies thrives on easy-to-hire deliverers. While that may serve their interests and those of migrants and trafficking gangs, it does nothing for the taxpayer. Hard-working Brits are effectively subsidising the practice, by providing free accommodation and benefits to the migrants, who are, after all, people who have broken into our country and then been housed and looked after. They have to be stopped.
