
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


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
9/11 victims' fund architect slams changes to New Hampshire abuse settlement program
An attorney who helped design and implement the 9/11 victims' compensation fund says New Hampshire lawmakers have eroded the fairness of a settlement program for those who were abused at the state's youth detention center. Deborah Greenspan, who served as deputy special master of the fund created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, recently submitted an affidavit in a class-action lawsuit seeking to block changes to New Hampshire's out-of-court settlement fund for abuse victims. She's among those expected to testify Wednesday at a hearing on the state's request to dismiss the case and other matters. More than 1,300 people have sued the state since 2020 alleging that they were physically or sexually abused as children while in state custody, mostly at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester. Most of them put their lawsuits on hold after lawmakers created a settlement fund in 2022 that was pitched as a 'victim-centered' and 'trauma-informed' alternative to litigation run by a neutral administrator appointed by the state Supreme Court. But the Republican-led Legislature changed that process through last-minute additions to the state budget Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed in June. The amended law gives the governor authority to hire and fire the fund's administrator and gives the attorney general — also a political appointee — veto power over settlement awards. That stands in stark contrast to other victim compensation funds, said Greenspan, who currently serves as a court-appointed special master for lawsuits related to lead-tainted water in Flint, Michigan. She said it 'strains credulity' to believe that anyone would file a claim knowing that 'the persons ultimately deciding the claim were those responsible for the claimant's injuries.' 'Such a construct would go beyond the appearance of impropriety and create a clear conflict of interest, undermining the fairness and legitimacy of the settlement process," she wrote. Ayotte and Attorney General John Formella responded by asking a judge to bar Greenspan's testimony, saying she offered 'policy preferences masquerading as expert opinions' without explaining the principles beyond her conclusions. 'Her affidavit is instead a series of non sequiturs that move from her experience to her conclusions without any of the necessary connective tissue,' they wrote. The defendants argue that the law still requires the administrator to be 'an independent, neutral attorney' and point out that the same appointment process is used for the state's judges. They said giving the attorney general the authority to accept or reject settlements is necessary to give the public a voice and ensure that the responsibility for spending millions of dollars in public funds rests with the executive branch. As of June 30, nearly 2,000 people had filed claims with the settlement fund, which caps payouts at $2.5 million. A total of 386 had been settled, with an average award of $545,000. One of the claimants says he was awarded $1.5 million award in late July, but the state hasn't finalized it yet, leaving him worried that Formella will veto it. 'I feel like the state has tricked us,' he said in an interview this week. 'We've had the rug pulled right out from underneath us.' The Associated Press does not name those who say they were sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly. The claimant, now 39, said the two years he spent at the facility as a teenager were the hardest times of his life. 'I lost my childhood. I lost things that I can't get back,' he said. 'I was broken.' Though the settlement process was overwhelming and scary at times, the assistant administrator who heard his case was kind and understanding, he said. That meeting alone was enough to lift a huge burden, he said. 'I was treated with a lot of love,' he said. 'I felt really appreciated as a victim and like I was speaking to somebody who would listen and believe my story.' Separate from the fund, the state has settled two lawsuits by agreeing to pay victims $10 million and $4.5 million. Only one lawsuit has gone to trial, resulting in a $38 million verdict, though the state is trying to slash it to $475,000. The state has also brought criminal charges against former workers, with two convictions and two mistrials so far. The 39-year-old claimant who fears his award offer will be retracted said he doesn't know if he could face testifying at a public trial. 'It's basically allowing the same people who hurt us to hurt us all over again,' he said.


Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Drunk driver who killed scooter-riding boy, 12, in hit-and-run crash had boasted about being behind the wheel without a licence for 18 years, court hears
A drunk driver who killed a 12-year-old schoolboy boasted about driving without a licence for 18 years, the High Court has heard. Just days before Lucas Trainor was fatally knocked down by Peter Milligan, 51, it is claimed he was bragging in a bar that he had no licence after being disqualified in 2007. Lucas was struck by a Skoda Fabia while riding a scooter in Portaferry, Co Down, on July 8 this year. Milligan, of Ashmount Park in Portaferry, has admitted driving the car and told police he had been drinking in two pubs prior to the crash. He faces a total of 11 charges, including causing death by dangerous driving, failing to stop or remain at an accident, and driving without insurance or a licence. Opposing bail, prosecution counsel Sarah Minford claimed the defendant should have retaken his driving test following a previous ban in 2007, the Belfast Telegraph reports. She added that a witness states 'he was bragging in a bar on July 5 that he hadn't had a licence for 18 years yet he continued to drive throughout this time'. 'It seemed to be something he took great pleasure in and was proud of,' Ms Minford told the court. Lady Chief Justice Dame Siobhan Keegan refused his application for bail, ruling that he poses a high risk of re-offending. It was heard that Lucas was found at the scene and was taken to hospital where he died after sustaining traumatic head injuries Witnesses reported the car hitting the boy and then leaving the area before the Skoda Fabia was found fifteen minutes later. Police located the vehicle after receiving a second report that it had been abandoned after hitting the wall of a property four miles away. After identifying Milligan as the owner of the car, he was found by officers the following morning, around half a mile from where the vehicle was left. The 51-year-old refused to take a preliminary breath test before he was taken to hospital for treatment of a fractured foot, the court heard. Ms Minford said that CCTV shows Milligan downing pints of beer in a bar in the town on the night Lucas was killed. Footage also showed the Skoda travelling at speed through Portaferry, where another pedestrian was almost hit before the fatal collision. Ms Minford told the court that Milligan had admitted to causing the boy's death by his driving and to being under the influence of alcohol. 'He stated he had been drinking in two bars, one in Strangford and one in Portaferry,' Ms Minford said. Milligan claimed a friend gave him a lift home and was checked on his mother before he decided to get in his car to 'go for a spin', despite knowing he had no valid licence or MOT for his car. Milligan's barrister said he had gone out on a drive to clear his head due to the pressures of caring for his mother, who suffers from advanced dementia. After the fatal collision, he panicked and drove off without knowing what he had hit, according to his account. The court heard that as police read the charges to Milligan he told them: 'I am so sorry for the death of Lucas, please give my condolences to his poor mother and father, I will regret this until the day I die'.' Lady Chief Justice questioned how Milligan avoided sitting a test following his disqualification as she denied him bail. 'I do not understand how somebody remains undetected without a licence for 18 years. Does nobody chase that?,' she said. She cotinued: 'Given the seriousness of these offences, the applicant's track record and his own behaviour, I couldn't be confident he would comply with any conditions I would set.'


The Independent
7 hours ago
- The Independent
Kneecap rapper to appear in court for alleged support of terrorist group
A member of rap group Kneecap is due to appear in court for allegedly supporting a proscribed terror organisation. Liam Og O hAnnaidh, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, is accused of displaying a flag in support of Hezbollah at a gig in November last year. Demonstrations in support of the rapper have been organised outside Westminster Magistrates' Court in London where he is due to appear on Wednesday, as well as in Dublin. The Metropolitan Police has imposed conditions limiting where the demonstration outside the court can take place on Wednesday, saying they were needed to 'prevent serious disruption'. In response the rap group described this move as a 'calculated political decision' that was 'designed to try and portray support for Kneecap as somehow troublesome' and 'asked supporters to go out of your way to be compliant with all instructions issued, irrespective of how pitiful'. O hAnnaidh received a rockstar welcome when he appeared at the same court in June, supported by fellow bandmates Naoise O Caireallain and J J O Dochartaigh. He was greeted by a festival-like atmosphere for his first court appearance, with dozens of fans waving flags, playing drums and one supporter setting off a smoke canister. The court previously heard the 27-year-old defendant is 'well within his rights' to voice his opinions on the Israel- Palestine conflict, but the alleged incident at the O2 Forum in Kentish Town, north London, was a 'wholly different thing'. O hAnnaidh is yet to enter a plea to the charge.