Bomb inquiry’s rejection of status for British spy ‘high handed’

A FORMER British Army agent who infiltrated republican terrorist ranks was refused key status at the Omagh bomb inquiry without any proper explanation, the High Court has heard.

Counsel for Peter Keeley claimed the decision to reject his application had been arbitrary and “high handed”.

Ronan Lavery KC submitted, “It’s a bit like ‘The Da Vinci Code’ in trying to divine the reason for refusal.” Mr Keeley, an ex-spy who uses the pseudonym Kevin Fulton, is taking legal action after being denied core participant status at the public inquiry set up to establish if the Omagh bombing could have been prevented.

A total of 31 people, including a woman pregnant with twins, were killed in the Real IRA atrocity on August 15, 1998.

Mr Keeley has claimed he warned his Special Branch handler about dissident republican plans in the days before the explosion.

Anyone granted core participant status at the inquiry chaired by Lord Turnbull would be entitled to legal representation and able to cross-examine witnesses.

Mr Lavery argued that his client’s allegations were central to the issues being examined by the tribunal.

“There is no question about the significance of his involvement in this inquiry, which is all about preventability,” the barrister said.

He also cited the “war of words” between former Chief Constable Sir Ronnie Flanagan and the spy when the allegations first emerged.

“Mr Keeley is a very key player in all of this,” counsel submitted.

“(Another) core participant could make swinging criticisms about him and there is no opportunity to respond.”

Mr Justice Humphreys was told that no proper explanation was given for denying him the requested status.

“It is classically arbitrary, lacks transparency and where it says ‘we have a broad discretion’ seems high handed,” Mr Lavery added.

Counsel for the Inquiry, Paul Greaney KC, confirmed the determination reached was that Mr Keeley should have the status as a witness.

“A careful and faithful process has been adopted by the chairman (and) the court should be particularly slow to interfere with it,” he submitted.

“The procedure adopted in relation to this decision was conspicuously fair and went beyond what was strictly required.”

Reserving judgment in the judicial review challenge, Mr Justice Humphreys pledged to give a ruling as soon as possible.