Omagh victims intend to use public inquiry to ‘heap shame' on Irish Government
Victims of the Omagh bombing intend to use a public inquiry to 'heap shame' on the Irish Government for its failings over the atrocity, a barrister has said.
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.
Speaking in Dublin, Taoiseach Micheal Martin said any claim that his Government had not co-operated with the inquiry was 'not fair comment'.
He said a memorandum of understanding had been agreed with the chair of the inquiry, and the Government was 'very, very committed to co-operating fully with the inquiry and making material available to the inquiry'.
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 Herald Scotland
40 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Top civil servant told to ‘get on it' after ruling on gender
Mr Griffin insisted the Scottish Government was 'taking action where we think that is appropriate and possible', pending a further update from regulators at the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). But with two women's rights groups – For Women Scotland and Sex Matters – now threatening further legal action against the Scottish Government, Ms Thomson told the top civil servant he should 'get on it'. She challenged the Permanent Secretary on the issue in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling back in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. That judgment came about after a challenge to the Scottish Government by For Women Scotland – with ministers, including First Minister John Swinney, making clear that while they accept that, they are waiting for further guidance from the EHRC before acting. The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body made changes to its policy on the use of toilet facilities in the Holyrood building in May (Image: Jane Barlow/PA) Ms Thomson however pointed out that at Holyrood the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has ruled that the use of toilet facilities designated as either male or female will be based on biological sex – preventing trans people from using the toilet of their preferred gender. Mr Griffin insisted there is a 'range of action we have been taking already', adding that Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville had tasked him with leading a short life working group 'to take stock of the actions we need to take'. Speaking as he gave evidence to MSPs on the Finance and Public Administration Committee, Mr Griffin said: 'These are the actions we are taking while we wait for the end of the EHRC process to review their statutory guidance. 'Once that is finalised we will then be able to take a further series of actions.' He added: 'We are taking action where we think that is appropriate and possible, pending the finalisation of the EHRC guidance.' READ MORE: When Ms Thomson then demanded to know what action had been taken 'beyond talking about taking action', Mr Griffin told her: 'Specific actions, I can't give you that right now.' But he insisted the work being done was looking to 'prepare the ground' so that the government is ready to implement changes once the EHRC guidance is finalised. The Permanent Secretary said: 'We in the Scottish Government are in a very similar position to the UK Government and the Welsh Government in our understanding of our responsibility being we need to wait for the guidance for the implementation of some actions.' Michelle Thomson insisted Scotland's most senior civil servant needs to 'get on it' and act after a landmark Supreme Court ruling (Image: Andrew Milligan/PA) But with two potential further legal challenges that Ms Thomson said could potentially result in a 'significant loss of public money', the SNP MSP told him she was 'staggered why you are not acting now'. Mr Griffin said the advice he was given 'remains nevertheless that we should wait for the statutory regulator to finalise their guidance'. He added: 'I am assured that the advice that I've got is the correct advice. 'We find ourselves in a very similar position to our colleagues at Westminster and in Cardiff.' But Ms Thomson told him: 'I think my firm advice to you would be to look afresh at that. It is no justification under law, frankly, to say: 'Ah well, that's what everybody else was doing.' 'The Supreme Court judgment was compellingly clear, there is a threat of two further legal actions. My firm advice to you, Permanent Secretary, would be to get on it, because I think you are ultimately the accountable officer responsible for ensuring the Scottish Government upholds the law. 'And regardless of your view in this matter, I personally think it is a very poor look that we're 10 weeks later and we haven't done anything about it.'
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Starmer's directionless national security strategy fools no one
Sometimes it feels as if the government's approach to defence and security could be summed up by the venerable punchline of the Irish farmer, 'I wouldn't have started from here'. Despite having had more than four years as Leader of the Opposition to prepare, Sir Keir Starmer never quite seems able to seize the initiative as Prime Minister, often being left puce and blinking. Yesterday saw the publication of the UK's national security strategy (NSS) 2025, Security for the British people in a dangerous world. It had been announced in February and promised before this week's Nato summit (in fact, it was released on the summit's first day). The Prime Minister argued it would pull together a number of extant reviews: the Strategic Defence Review, the AUKUS review, the Defence Industrial Strategy, the China audit, the FCDO's three internal reviews and the strategy for countering state threats, among others. The danger is that if everything is 'national security', then nothing is It was obvious at the time that this sequencing was nonsensical. The UK's first national security strategy, Security in an interdependent world, was a product of Gordon Brown's government, issued in 2008, and it was genuinely innovative. It was meant to conceptualise 'national security' in a new and broad way, taking in not just traditional elements like military operations, diplomacy, intelligence and counter-terrorism, but 'threats to individual citizens and to our way of life, as well as to the integrity and interests of the state'. Brown billed it as 'a single, overarching strategy bringing together the objectives and plans of all departments, agencies and forces involved in protecting our national security' From it flowed a number of discrete tasks and policies. The approach was not complicated: determine the big picture, then decide how to support it in practical terms. Starmer's national security strategy has done almost the opposite (though that ascribes to it too much coherence). We have seen the Strategic Defence Review setting out the future shape and tasks of the armed forces, three internal FCDO reviews have reported to the Foreign Secretary (but not released) and as much of the China audit as we will see is in the National Security Strategy. Meanwhile the Defence Industrial Strategy is a work in progress, and the AUKUS review risks being made irrelevant by the Trump administration's own re-examination. So it is neither top-down, nor bottom-up, but rather lacking any direction at all. I wouldn't have started from here. One important element of the NSS is an announcement on expenditure. The Nato summit is expected to agree a spending target of 5 per cent of GDP, made up of 3.5 per cent on core defence capabilities and 1.5 per cent on 'resilience and security'. The NSS contains an 'historic commitment to spend 5 per cent of GDP on national security', which is encouraging, but the detail is teeming with devils. First, the date by which the UK is expected to meet this level of spending is 2035. That is at least two general elections away; Vladimir Putin will turn 83 and Donald Trump will be 89, if either is spared. Meanwhile, the Royal Navy's Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines will be coming out of service. It is a long time away, and it remains a target without any practical steps to reach it. The NSS also widens the scope of 'national security' further than ever before. Including energy policy may seem defensible, but attaching the label to 'green growth', 'inequality' or 'stripping out red tape' starts to stretch credibility. The interdepartmental nature of the 'national security' umbrella is vital – but the danger is that if everything is 'national security', then nothing is. This matters because if the government simply moves spending from one column on its mother of all spreadsheets to another, it does not acquire a new capability. Equally, there is no deterrent effect on Russia or China, or 'Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm' – as Elizabeth I once so neatly put it. If the Prime Minister designates Border Security Command as a 'national security' asset, that is £150 million he had already earmarked, not new investment. The 2008 national security strategy was a serious and systematic attempt, supervised and delivered by Robert Hannigan and Patrick Turner, to design an overarching framework for the defence of the UK and its interests, then develop policies to support that framework. Its 2025 successor does not –by its nature and timing cannot – achieve that same goal. The national security strategy is not all bad; it comes in large part from the pen of the formidable Professor John Bew, who spent five years in Downing Street as foreign policy adviser to four successive prime ministers. But he has been asked to change the tyres on a moving car, creating a strategy around half a dozen other reviews in various stages of progress. There must be very serious concerns now that it is little more than a centripetal instrument for pulling in enough government expenditure nominally to meet our Nato obligations. Our allies are unlikely to be fooled, and our enemies will certainly not be.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Tory peer Liam Booth-Smith takes job at AI firm he encountered at No 10
A former chief of staff to Rishi Sunak who was made a Conservative peer has taken a job as 'external affairs' chief at an artificial intelligence company that he encountered while working at No 10. Liam Booth-Smith, who entered the House of Lords last year, has joined Anthropic, which recently signed a memorandum of understanding about working with the government on AI. His former boss Sunak was a supporter of the UK leading on AI during his time as prime minister, and hosted a meeting where Anthropic was present in May 2023 – which was attended by Booth-Smith as an observer. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) said Booth-Smith should not engage in any lobbying on behalf of Anthropic for at least two years after leaving the government. Anthropic confirmed to Acoba his role would not involve lobbying and that it would abide by its terms. The committee said that Booth-Smith had not had any role in commercial or contractual decisions relating to Anthropic but noted that No 10 had overall oversight of AI policy. But it added: 'The committee's view is that there remains a risk associated with Lord Booth Smith's influence in government, particularly as he seeks to take up a role in external affairs. Anthropic is currently developing a UK presence to promote its services with a wide range of applications, including with and across the UK government. 'Lord Booth-Smith must avoid engaging in activity that could reasonably be seen as seeking to influence government decisions, including approaching the government, whether special advisers, other officials or ministers about its approach or policy on Anthropic's behalf. If he was to initiate contact with the UK government it would be difficult to manage the risk that this is seen as lobbying.' In addition to a two-year lobbying ban, it advised that Booth-Smith should not draw on any privileged information available to him from his time in government, make use of any contacts made in government to influence policy, or provide advice to Anthropic on any policy he had specific involvement in or responsibility for as chief of staff at No 10 for two years. As a peer, Lord Booth-Smith is already banned from lobbying the government on any subject. Gabe Winn, the chief executive of Blakeney, a lobbying firm, who is campaigning against peers being paid to offer political advice to companies, questioned whether Booth-Smith should be doing the external affairs role for an AI company as well as being a legislator. An Anthropic spokesperson said: 'Liam Booth-Smith is following all applicable Acoba guidance and the House of Lords Code of Conduct in his role.' Booth-Smith has been approached for comment.
