Keep ‘public accountability’ in mind on anonymity bids, Omagh bomb inquiry urged

By Claudia Savage, Press Association

The chairman of the inquiry into the Omagh bombing has been urged to keep “public accountability” in mind as legal arguments were heard in relation to the anonymity of former police officers.

A barrister for the family of a woman killed in the 1998 attack said the public would “wonder what has been the purpose of the whole exercise” if the inquiry cannot address “what was known and what wasn’t known” by state bodies.

The Real IRA bombing killed 29 people, including the mother of unborn twins.

The inquiry, chaired by Lord Turnbull, was set up following a number of legal challenges brought by campaigners, to examine whether the explosion could have been prevented by UK authorities.

On Monday, the inquiry heard applications on behalf of the PSNI in relation to anonymity for serving and former police officers who may be called to give evidence.

Lord Turnbull has previously granted an anonymity order for four retired officers referred to as 1,2,3 and 5.

In doing so he requested the parties submit a “representative sample” of anonymity applications to establish “issues of principle and fact” common across the cases.

Michael Mansfield KC, representing the family of Omagh victim Elizabeth Rush, said the submissions “should not be seen in isolation” given “what’s about to come down the track which is in fact another set of not unrelated submissions concerned with closed material”.

“The family I represent are concerned in the longer run that we may have a situation in which the families and the public are not made aware, for reasons to do with the restriction orders, not only of the identity – that’s part of the situation – but more importantly of the substance of actions that may have been taken by certain individuals,” he said.

“And in the context of this inquiry, given the gravity of the original offence and also the repercussions from that, the need for accountability and truth at the same time – that is one of the objectives we said was only obvious for the purpose of this inquiry.”

Mansfield said any potential “preventability” of the attack is “perhaps the core issue”.

“We’re concerned that preventability hinges in large measure upon one particular factor, and that is intelligence and what was known and what wasn’t known,” he said.

He added: “That’s not to say undermine every single application for that reason, but there will be some in that narrative that require public accountability.

“Otherwise, one would look back and wonder what has been the purpose of the whole exercise if those matters are not canvassed and addressed in the spirit of transparency.”

Earlier, Philip Henry KC representing the PSNI outlined the police position of the ECHR Article 2 “test”, meaning they must show at the first stage a “real and immediate risk to life” and at the second stage what is a “proportionate measure” to be put in place by the state arising from that risk.

The assessment is that giving evidence without anonymity would create a realistic possibility that the threat to those individuals will increase

Henry said, from the material provided to the inquiry, the stage 1 test of an immediate risk to life for former officers giving evidence is “satisfied”, adding “we say that test is satisfied without reference to the individual circumstance of the retired officers”.

He referred to a threat assessment prepared by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), a sub-unit within MI5.

It highlights that the terrorist threat level in Northern Ireland is deemed substantial, meaning an attack is likely and dissident Republicans are assessed as “highly likely to view officers and former officers as legitimate targets for any future attack”.

“The assessment is that giving evidence without anonymity would create a realistic possibility that the threat to those individuals will increase,” he said.

He added: “It’s on that basis that we respectfully say that the first stage of the Article Two test is satisfied on that assessment alone, if it is accepted, and we say that there is no good reason not to accept it.”

He said it is “very obvious from the wealth of legacy inquest decisions that we have and decision on others outside of the legacy inquest forum but still within Northern Ireland that frequently these kinds of applications are granted for former police officers”.

The barrister clarified he was “not suggesting the inquiry should close the door” to rejecting anonymity applications as there “may be other circumstances which warrant refusal”.

Hugh Southey KC, representing some bereaved families, said they accept in principle the inquiry reaching “generic findings” to use as a “starting point essentially when assessing individual cases” but that there still needs to be individual consideration.

He referred to the example of the head of police saying: “For accountability reasons it’s obvious the Chief Constable has to be a public figure and the Chief Constable gets provided with protection and that is something that is a proportionate response.

“All I am saying is that one shouldn’t rule out the possibility of importance being a factor, particularly in one sense it is a factor that may need to be kept under review.

“If, for example, there was something very serious that was said about a particular officer, it shouldn’t be ruled out that the fact that importance might, in those circumstances, justify naming the individual.”

The barrister also referred to the “tragic killings” of PSNI Constables Stephen Carroll and Ronan Kerr who were killed by dissident republican groups, raised as an example of the threat facing police in Northern Ireland by counsel for the PSNI.

Highlighting that the terror threat level in Northern Ireland was dropped from severe to substantial in 2024, Mr Southey said: “Mr Henry drew attention to the tragic killings of Constable Carroll and Constable Kerr.

“They, of course, occurred during that peak, and to some extent, in our submission, as a result, are of perhaps less significance than they might be, because fortunately things have improved since then, and that’s also demonstrated by, as I already indicated, the threat level now is substantial, which is a reduction.”