Opposition to ‘secrecy’ proposal at Omagh Bombing Inquiry

A PRELIMINARY hearing focusing on the potential redaction of the names suspects believed to have been involved in the 1998 Omagh Bomb has been criticised by the law firm representing bereaved families.

Two days of hearings have taken place in Belfast listening to submissions on whether those suspected of involvement, as well as junior civil servants, should be entitled to anonymity.

They have heard from legal representatives of the Omagh Bombing Inquiry, the PSNI, the Police Ombudsman, the Secretary of State and those representing core participants, including families.

If the proposal is implemented, then the names would be provided to the Bombing Inquiry, but not to those designated as core participants, including the families of the 31 people killed in the August 1998 atrocity on Market Street.

Eamon Foster, representing the Omagh-based firm of solicitors, Fox Law, said that if the names are withheld, then it would introduce a level of secrecy into the process at an early stage.

He added that any move to exclude information from them would ‘dilute’ their status as core participants, whom, he added, possessed an insight and wisdom that cannot be excluded or diluted.

Included among those represented by Fox Law is Michael Gallagher, whose son, Aiden was killed on August 15, 1998.

“This is contrary to the core participants’ expectation of overarching openness and transparency in order to have an effective investigation to ensure that there can be full and proper scrutiny,” Mr Foster continued.

“They – core participants – have status before this Inquiry, they are a participant. But it has been proposed at this early stage to exclude them and dilute that status.

“I would highlight to the Inquiry, that some of the core participants that Fox Law represent have been involved in campaigning for this public inquiry for over 20 years.

“This included the lengthy judicial review proceedings brought by Mr Gallagher following the decision in 2013 of the Secretary of State at that time not to hold a public inquiry.”

Mr Foster said that those designated as Core Participants were given that status because they possess something which is significant to the Inquiry.

He said that they had been designated to work collaboratively within the Inquiry to establish the truth about what had happened.

Mr Foster submitted that it should be remembered that there was an excessive secrecy applied in the past, and that this would imply that justifications relied upon in relation to redactions should be reviewed with the utmost care.