By 
RELATIVES of Omagh bomb victims have been unlawfully denied legal representation for any closed sessions at the inquiry into the atrocity, the High Court has heard.
Counsel for the father of one of those killed in the Real IRA massacre claimed the decision not to grant permission for special advocates to act in their interests was procedurally unfair.
Michael Gallagher is seeking to judicially review a ruling by the chairman of the independent statutory inquiry set up to establish if the bombing could have been prevented by UK state authorities.
His 21-year-old son Aiden was among 29 people, including a woman pregnant with twins, killed in the August 1998 attack on Omagh.
With the inquiry examining issues around the handling of sensitive intelligence by security agencies, it is anticipated that some hearings will be held in private.
Requests
Requests were made on behalf of survivor and family core participants to have security-cleared special advocates represent their interests at any closed or secret sessions.
In November last year inquiry chairman Lord Turnbull ruled it does not have the power to authorise their participation.
Procedural obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights to carry out an effective investigation into deaths resulting from violence were held to be adequately protected.
Even if a discretionary power was available, the chairman determined special advocates would not be required to ensure fairness.
Unlawful
Mr Gallagher is now seeking to have the ruling declared unlawful and quashed.
His lawyers stressed he was making no criticism about either the work of the inquiry or the professionalism and dedication of its staff.
However, barrister Hugh Southey KC, contended that the chairman had misdirected himself in interpreting powers under the Inquiries Act 2005, procedural fairness, Article 2 requirements and the involvement of next of kin.
“Fundamentally, the reason why the power should have been exercised is because fairness and the Convention required the appointment of a special advocate,” he submitted.
The court heard Mr Gallagher’s long campaign to get to the truth about the Omagh bombing was central to the inquiry being set up.
Examination
Counsel claimed the examination of efforts by UK security agencies to disrupt dissident republican terrorists may require some hearings and ultimately a report to be kept private, without full reasons being given.
“It is very possible, perhaps even likely, that findings about whether (or not) there were failings of the state will be in closed,” Mr Southey said.
“The interest is obviously in getting to and understanding the truth of what happened in the run up to the bombing.”
Citing procedural fairness, Mr Gallagher’s legal team contended the ruling overemphasised the inquisitorial nature of the inquiry, while failing to recognise the gravity of a procedure which excluded family core participants from closed hearings.
“This is particularly so when such an outcome means they may be excluded from knowing the inquiry’s conclusions or the evidence on which its conclusions are based,” it was submitted.
The case continues.
