Omagh Bombing Inqury: Survivors and families seek representation at closed hearings
Omagh bomb
have asked to be represented by a special advocate in closed hearings at the public inquiry.
Omagh bombing Inquiry
chairman Lord Turnbull is hearing arguments around various applications during dedicated hearings this week.
Paul Greaney KC, counsel to the inquiry, which is examining whether the 1998 dissident republican bomb attack could have been prevented, said it will hear some sensitive security evidence in closed hearings.
A total of 31 people, including unborn twins, died and hundreds were injured when a car bomb planted by the dissident republican group the Real IRA exploded in the centre of the
Co Tyrone
town on August 15th, 1998.
Speaking during hearings in
Belfast
on Monday, Mr Greaney said the inquiry's legal team recognises that survivors and the bereaved have spent 25 seeking the truth.
He said some may be 'suspicious or even cynical of the UK state's willingness to engage in a way that is straightforward and wholehearted with this inquiry'.
'We acknowledge too, that the idea of evidence being heard in circumstances in which the families and survivors will be excluded is one that they will find difficult to accept, to say the least, and accordingly, we regard it as entirely understandable that some, although not all, have suggested special advocates should be appointed to represent their interests in any closed hearings, and have made applications for that to occur,' he said.
Mr Greaney last month said the inquiry would not begin examining the atrocity itself until next year due to the 'pace of disclosure'.
He said chapter three of the inquiry, which 'will consider the bombing itself', would commence in March of next year.
The inquiry, which opened last year, was ordered by the UK government in the wake of a court judgment to examine whether the atrocity could reasonably have been prevented by British state authorities.
During a four-week sitting in the Strule Arts Centre in Omagh earlier this year, the inquiry heard emotional testimony from bereaved relatives who delivered pen portraits of their loved ones, as well as from the injured and first responders. – PA
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
14 hours ago
- Irish Times
Whether the abuse happens in Rathfarnham or west Belfast, the story is the same
Last weekend Máiría Cahill left a Belfast hospital bed and drove four hours to speak in the Galway Arts Festival 's First Thought series. As her interviewer, I expected moderate audience interest. It's been 15 years since she first went public in the Sunday Tribune about her alleged rape and abuse as a 16-year-old child by an IRA member and the heinous IRA 'investigation' which forced her to confront her abuser. Eleven years since a pivotal Spotlight BBC documentary on her case. Ten years since the former DPP for England and Wales, Keir Starmer, was asked to review the case and said he was sorry the Public Prosecution Service had let her down, soon followed by the NI Chief Constable's public apology to her and the other two victims after a shambolic trial. Seven years since the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman revealed how as far back as 2000 CID and Special Branch had intelligence that her alleged abuser, Martin Morris - who had denied all wrongdoing - was abusing children and the IRA were investigating it. READ MORE Two years almost, since her book, Rough Beast: My Story and the Reality of Sinn Féin – described as 'shocking, important and unputdownable' by Roddy Doyle – was published. Yet such was the power of her quiet, measured, devastating delivery to a packed theatre on Saturday that the audience, visibly stunned, rose at the end to give her a thunderous standing ovation. To any other speaker, that visceral response would have been energising, but backstage she was drained to the point of speechlessness. It was a telling insight into the price that abuse victims continue to pay. Part of what continues to make her story so compelling after all this time, of course, is the involvement in that so-called 'investigation' of people with high status in the national political mainstream since that smart, funny 16-year-old girl was groomed, violated, isolated and often terrified for her life. She continues because she believes Sinn Féin leaders have never properly addressed the brutality of those investigations nor the generational reach of that savage misogynistic culture into the communities they ruled. But a larger part of her story is common to almost every case of abuse. It's in the context and the detail. The physical pain, confusion and humiliation, the gaslighting, the sudden shocking hostility of the family or tribe or institution closing ranks to protect itself, the urge to save other potential victims, the sense of a young, innocent mind and body being tested almost to destruction. One of the most agonising elements for any listener is the isolation invariably forced on the victims. No one is coming to help. It wasn't Cahill herself, but women – older Republican women – who 'reported' her complaints to the paramilitaries, despite the fact that they must have known the repercussions for her. Cahill – whose great uncle Joe Cahill founded the Provisional IRA – herself knew what happened to people who gave evidence against the IRA. The resulting sense of isolation for such a child is unimaginable, the damage unfathomable. How such children endure is a mystery. The case of the three remarkable Brennan sisters , Catherine Wrightstone, Paula Fay and Yvonne Crist, finally reached an endpoint in the criminal courts last week when the second of their brothers, Richard Brennan, was jailed for sexual offences against them in the 1970s and 1980s . They describe a childhood of suffocating fear: fear of unstable and violent parents, of their two abusive brothers, of revealing their terrible secrets to outsiders and not only jeopardising the family's reputation but Richard's aspirations for the priesthood, and fear of a wrathful God. In Máiría Cahill's case, her isolation was not rooted in fear of her parents – who still can't bring themselves to read her book – but rational terror of the larger tribe's vengeance. For the Brennan sisters in leafy Rathfarnham, Dublin, their isolation was about protecting reputations. When they tried to advocate for themselves they were failed at every level – by their parents, by the school, by the failure of state bodies to follow up. In 1984, when 12-year-old Catherine disclosed her abuse at Richard's hands to a trusted school connection, her parents were informed and raged at the child in disbelief. Family therapy meetings, organised following a referral by a hospital unable to diagnose the source of Catherine's lower limb disorder, were cut short by the parents. Lash marks on her body were noted by a teacher, but nothing was done. A poignant detail of the sisters' story all these years later is the harrowing internal battle common to many abuse survivors; that they should have found a way to speak out to protect others, even in the face of conditioning from the cradle. How do they endure? In that context it's important to remember the hundreds, maybe thousands, of vulnerable abused girls who are now no more than pawns in the Maga civil war over the Jeffrey Epstein files. Virginia Giuffre , the most prominent Epstein survivor who turned vocal anti-sex trafficking activist, was first abused by a family friend at the age of seven. Then at 15 while working a summer job at Mar-a-Lago was spotted by Ghislaine Maxwell and 'passed around like a platter of fruit' among her and Epstein's friends. Giuffre's multimillion dollar payouts from Prince Andrew, Maxwell and the Epstein estate brought no closure. Amid accusations of mental instability from her estranged husband – whom she accused of violent possessiveness – Giuffre lost custody of their children. She was just 41 when she took her own life in April. And of the long list of names associated with Epstein, Maxwell happens to be the only one serving time.
Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
Omagh bombing survivor wants High Court to compel State to hold public inquiry into atrocity
Two people directly affected by the Omagh bombing want the High Court to compel the Irish government to establish a public inquiry into the atrocity. Emmet Tunney, who survived the 1998 dissident republican bombing, says the Government is obliged to establish a public inquiry in circumstances where state authorities allegedly held 'actionable intelligence' relating to the attack. Mr Tunney's case states that a public inquiry is required to ensure an effective investigation of the atrocity. He alleges the State's failure to hold such an inquiry is a breach of his rights under the Constitution and under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). According to Mr Tunney's court documents, article two of the ECHR requires an 'effective, independent, prompt, and public' investigation in circumstances where state agents knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to life. READ MORE Articles 40 and 41 of the Constitution require effective investigations of deaths involving potential state failures, his papers say. Shawneen Conway, whose 18-year-old brother Gareth was killed in the bombing, is seeking to bring an action similar to Mr Tunney's, the High Court heard on Tuesday. A total of 29 people, including a mother pregnant with twins, died and hundreds were injured when a car bomb planted by the Real IRA exploded in the centre of the Co Tyrone town on August 15th, 1998. An independent inquiry into the bombing established by the UK government opened in Omagh in January and is continuing. That inquiry is examining whether the atrocity could have been prevented by UK authorities. In the High Court on Tuesday, Ruaidhrí Giblin, for Mr Tunney, sought an early date for his application seeking the court's permission to bring the case. Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said she would hear Mr Tunney's and Ms Conway's applications for court permission next week. Mr Tunney, from Omagh, Co Tyrone, is seeking an order compelling the Government to establish a public inquiry into the bombing and he wants a court declaration that the Government's failure to establish such an inquiry to date is in breach of his rights. He wants to bring his case against the Government, Ireland and the Attorney General. His case claims some of the perpetrators of the bombing are believed to have operated within the Republic of Ireland. He alleges there were failures in intelligence sharing and co-operation between Irish and UK authorities before the bombing. Authorities in the Republic may have had prior knowledge of the Real IRA's planning, his documents claim. Mr Tunney also argues an Irish government inquiry is required in circumstances where there are limitations on the jurisdiction of the UK government's inquiry. For example, he says, the UK government cannot make findings as to whether Irish authorities are culpable for a failure to supply information relating to the bombing. In the UK Omagh bombing inquiry, its chairman, Lord Turnbull, heard arguments over the last two days regarding applications from some survivor and family groups seeking to be represented by special advocates. They said their interests should be represented in closed hearings and they raised a risk of damage to confidence in the inquiry if they were not. However, a lawyer for the UK government said no statutory public inquiry has had special advocates to date and there was no justification to have them in this case. Katherine Grange KC also contended no provision was made for such appointments in the 2005 Inquiries Act and she cautioned around avoiding unnecessary costs. At the conclusion of the hearings around special advocates on Tuesday, Lord Turnbull said the issue raised is 'important and interesting'. He will provide a written decision 'in due course'. – Additional reporting PA
Irish Examiner
a day ago
- Irish Examiner
‘No justification' for special advocates for families in Omagh closed hearings
There is 'no justification' for special advocates for survivors and bereaved families in closed hearings during the Omagh Bombing Inquiry, it has been contended. It is expected that some hearings during the inquiry, which is probing whether the 1998 dissident republican atrocity could have been prevented, will be closed due to sensitive evidence and national security. Twenty nine people, including a woman pregnant with twins, were killed when the Real IRA exploded a car bomb in the Co Tyrone town. The aftermath of the Omagh bomb in 1998. (PA Archive) Inquiry chairman Lord Turnbull heard arguments over the last two days around applications from some of the family groups for special advocates. They said their interests should be represented in closed hearings, and raised a risk of damage to confidence in the inquiry if they are not. However a lawyer for the Government said no statutory public inquiry has had special advocates to date, and there was no justification to have them in this case. Katherine Grange KC also contended no provision was made for such appointments in the 2005 Inquiries Act, and cautioned around avoiding unnecessary costs. She described the Saville Inquiry into the Bloody Sunday atrocity, which lasted for 12 years and cost £195 million, as the background of that Act. 'The language of the statutory scheme, the purpose and the context of the legislation and Parliament's intention, as demonstrated in subsequent legislations all strongly suggest that no such power exists (to appoint a special advocate),' she said. 'Alternatively, we submit that even if such a power existed, it would not be necessary or appropriate for the chair to make any such appointment in this inquiry. 'No inquiry has taken that step to date, even inquiries with a very substantial closed national security element to them, and there is no justification from departing from that approach.' The hearing room at the Silverbirch Hotel in Omagh (PA) She added: 'Words that come to mind in the last two days are, it's about reassurance, confidence, robustness. 'One can understand, on a human level, why those points are being made but ultimately, you have to have faith in your own appointment, your independence and the skill of your counsel to your inquiry.' Earlier, Hugh Southey KC, representing a group of survivors and bereaved families, said the state parties would be felt to have an advantage. 'Everybody thinks that the inquiry is capable of doing a good job. Everybody thinks the counsel to the inquiry are experienced in this field. Everybody thinks they're very well qualified. Everybody thinks they're very diligent, but we need the second tier of representation,' he added. 'Everyone recognises that large key parts of this process are likely to be closed …. it's frustrating for the individuals, because they want to know the truth. They want to know that whatever findings may be made are reliable. 'If they have someone who they have confidence in, who is present, who is, effectively, saying there is no problem here, that adds to confidence in the process, particularly in circumstances where, as I say, the state parties are present, the state parties will have that advantage.' Alan Kane KC, representing another group of survivors and bereaved families, said they would like their own special advocate for closed hearings. 'Their wish would be to see all the relevant evidence after 26 years, however if there must be closed material, then we say that it should, where possible, be kept to a minimum, and if judgments are to be made then close calls must fall on the side of disclosure rather than being hidden from our families' view,' he said. 'They view a special advocate not as some special bonus or as a challenge to the inquiry legal team but as something that should be granted as they see it, as an additional assistance to them in shining light on any material which is withheld as closed by the state authorities. 'They have that legitimate interest we say, and that certainly is a matter of not only public confidence but in particular the confidence of the families.' Fintan McAleer, who represents another group of survivors and bereaved families, said they endorsed the submissions made so far. Lord Turnbull asked Mr McAleer about a point made in written submissions that the 'deep mistrust and suspicion of the state that exists in this country will never be fully allayed unless it's confirmed that every single document and piece of information is placed into the open'. Mr McAleer responded saying they respect the powers and the processes of the inquiry, but they wanted to reflect the effect of scepticism based on experience. 'The series of revelations over the years since the bomb have served to undermine their trust in the state,' he added. 'We're simply trying to convey the aspiration of the core participants we represent is that this inquiry should be in public in everything that it does, we accept there is a limitation on that, and that paragraph is an attempt to address that.' Meanwhile, Michael Mansfield KC, who represents the family of the late campaigner Laurence Rush – whose wife Elizabeth was killed in the bomb, said they are not asking for a special advocate to be appointed for them. They voiced concern about the possibility of delay to proceedings. Ian Skelt KC, acting for former chief constable Ronnie Flanagan, said his client is 'entirely sympathetic' to the requests of the families and acknowledges why they seek the appointment of special advocates. He said Mr Flanagan does not seek a special advocate for himself, but acknowledged that having been chief constable at the time of the bombing, he had the authority at that time to view much of the closed material. However, Mr Skelt said if Mr Flanagan is excluded from the closed processes, he 'may have to ask for some person to represent his interest in closed process beyond the assistance that would be given by the inquiry legal team'. At the conclusion of the hearings around special advocates on Tuesday afternoon, Lord Turnbull said the issue raised is 'both important and interesting'. 'It's necessary that I take care to reflect on all of those submissions, and I will produce a written decision in due course,' he said.
