Government approach to Omagh bomb hearing ‘risks undermining public confidence’

The UK Government has risked “undermining public confidence” in its approach to a hearing of the Omagh Bombing Inquiry, its chairman has been told.

Counsel to the inquiry Paul Greaney KC told a hearing in Belfast that it was “highly unfortunate” that legal papers relating to the redaction of names were received on the evening before the public session.

Mr Greaney also said that as the hearings related to transparency, he would have thought the Government “would have been scrupulous to avoid the impression that it was behaving in a way that was procedurally unhelpful and possibly even unfair”.

The hearing was told that applications from the Government and the PSNI to redact names of junior civil servants and bombing suspects from documents released to core participants in the inquiry is “putting a brake” on its work.

The Omagh Bombing Inquiry, chaired by Lord Turnbull, is holding procedural hearings in Belfast which relate to submissions to redact information from materials.

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.

Earlier this year the inquiry heard personal statements from those affected by the massacre.

On Wednesday, Mr Greaney said there were two issues which the latest hearings would deal with.

The first relates to a Government submission that the names of junior civil servants should be redacted from documents they provide before they are released to core participants.

The second relates to a PSNI application to redact the names of suspects who have not been charged from documents.

The barrister said the inquiry would see the documents in unredacted form but the issue was whether they should be redacted before they are given to core participants.

Core participants in the inquiry include the families of those who were killed in the bombing as well as multiple people who were injured.

He said the issue of whether the names would be disclosed unredacted during oral evidence hearings would be dealt with at a future point.

He said: “The current position of HMG (His Majesty’s Government) and PSNI is putting a brake on the work of disclosure of the inquiry.”

Setting out the background, Mr Greaney said the inquiry legal team had written earlier this year to the Government, asking it to make any applications for redaction by March 14.

He said: “Even at that early stage, in March of this year, as many as 80 documents were having to be withheld from disclosure.”

The barrister said the Government made an initial application on March 31, then withdrew it and made a revised application for redactions of the names of junior civil servants on April 15.

He said the inquiry’s legal team proceeded on the basis that this was the Government’s position.

Mr Greaney added: “It was therefore with considerable surprise and some frustration that at 4pm on 20th May, so yesterday and therefore the day before the hearing was scheduled to start, and moreover in circumstances in which we suggest it ought to have been anticipated that members of the inquiry legal team and the chairman and indeed core participants and their representatives would be travelling to Belfast, in those circumstances a skeleton argument was emailed to the inquiry legal team by the Crown Solicitor’s Office on behalf of the Northern Ireland Office.

“The inquiry legal team regard the unexpected service of a skeleton argument at such a late stage as highly unfortunate.”

He added: “This inquiry is about whether the Omagh bombing could have been prevented by UK state authorities. It is also notable this hearing concerns issues that could be described as ones involving transparency.

“It might be thought that HMG would have been scrupulous to avoid the impression that it was behaving in a way that was procedurally unhelpful and possibly even unfair.

“It seems to the inquiry legal team a risk that the approach taken by HMG to this hearing will undermine public confidence in HMG’s approach to this inquiry.”

The barrister said there had seemed to be “a chaotic rush to provide materials at the very last minute”.

Later, Lord Turnbull addressed Fiona Fee, senior counsel at the inquiry for Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn.

He said he had been disappointed to receive written notes from her as he was boarding a plane to Belfast the previous evening.

Lord Turnbull added: “I should imagine you only instructed to prepare that note very recently and, if so, I would like to say that disappoints me in respect of the level of engagement with the inquiry which it implies.

“We are likely to be spending a significant amount of our professional lives in each other’s company and I would hope we could do so in a harmonious, constructive and mutually respective manner.

“But it does seem to me those aspirations are unlikely to be easily achieved if core participants, or their representatives, engage with the inquiry in a manner which appears to demonstrate a lack of prioritisation or allows an impression to be gained of a disrespectful or a disorganised attitude towards the work of the inquiry.”

Ms Fee said no discourtesy to the inquiry had been intended and it had been hoped the written note would assist its work.

She said: “We are genuinely dismayed that the service of the document has caused consternation and the fact that our attempts have had the opposite effect to that which was intended, and hoped for, is a matter for real and sincere regret and is taken extremely seriously.”

The inquiry also heard submissions from a barrister for the PSNI.

It later heard submissions from legal representatives of the office of the Police Ombudsman, bereaved families and media organisations.