Omagh Bombing Inquiry warned of confidence risk amid special advocate request

By Rebecca Black (PA)

There is a risk of damage to confidence in the Omagh Bombing Inquiry if the bereaved families are refused their request for a special advocate for closed hearings, it has been argued.

The families say a special advocate will be able to represent their interests in closed hearings where evidence is deemed sensitive, including in terms of national security.

The probe is examining whether the 1998 atrocity in the Co Tyrone town could have been prevented.

Some 29 people, including a woman pregnant with twins, were killed when the Real IRA exploded a car bomb on a busy Saturday afternoon in Omagh.

The inquiry is sitting this week in Belfast to hear arguments over the application for special advocates for the survivors and bereaved families.

Hugh Southey KC, acting for a number of survivors and bereaved families, also contended former chief constable Sir Ronnie Flanagan would appear to be at “an advantage” over them.

He also raised that counsel for the inquiry would “have to look after the interests of a number of people who are excluded from the closed proceedings, who have potentially quite conflicting interests”.

“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.

“They would normally be able to do that in one sense, by attending, by viewing, by making sure that they see what questions are asked.

“They can follow the process and then have confidence in the outcome, when things go into closed they they can’t do that.

“But 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.”

Ian Skelt KC, acting for Sir Ronnie, said his client is “entirely sympathetic” to the requests of the families and acknowledges why they seek and why they feel that there is a need for the appointment of special advocates.

He said Sir Ronnie 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 Sir Ronnie 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”.