Rights, Freedoms and Repression Woman whose soup run fed 250 homeless in Dublin told to cease or face €300k fine 21:35 Feb 07 2 comments Germany cannot give up it's Nazi past - Germany orders Holocaust survivor institutionalized over Cov... 23:31 Jan 14 1 comments Crisis in America: Deaths Up 40% Among Those Aged 18-64 Based on Life Insurance Claims for 2021 Afte... 23:16 Jan 06 0 comments Protests over post-vaccination deaths spread across South Korea 23:18 Dec 26 0 comments Chris Hedges: The execution of Julian Assange 22:19 Dec 19 1 comments more >>Blog Feeds
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Alternative Copy of thesaker.is site is available Thu May 25, 2023 14:38 | Ice-Saker-V6bKu3nz
The Saker blog is now frozen Tue Feb 28, 2023 23:55 | The Saker
What do you make of the Russia and China Partnership? Tue Feb 28, 2023 16:26 | The Saker
Moveable Feast Cafe 2023/02/27 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 27, 2023 19:00 | cafe-uploader
The stage is set for Hybrid World War III Mon Feb 27, 2023 15:50 | The Saker
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail supporter? Anthony Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony Waiting for SIPO Anthony
Human Rights in IrelandIndymedia Ireland is a volunteer-run non-commercial open publishing website for local and international news, opinion & analysis, press releases and events. Its main objective is to enable the public to participate in reporting and analysis of the news and other important events and aspects of our daily lives and thereby give a voice to people.Julian Assange is finally free ! Tue Jun 25, 2024 21:11 | indy Stand With Palestine: Workplace Day of Action on Naksa Day Thu May 30, 2024 21:55 | indy It is Chemtrails Month and Time to Visit this Topic Thu May 30, 2024 00:01 | indy Hamburg 14.05. "Rote" Flora Reoccupied By Internationalists Wed May 15, 2024 15:49 | Internationalist left Eddie Hobbs Breaks the Silence Exposing the Hidden Agenda Behind the WHO Treaty Sat May 11, 2024 22:41 | indy
Lockdown Skeptics
Huw Edwards Charged With Making Indecent Images of Children Mon Jul 29, 2024 19:00 | Will Jones
Lying About the Olympic Last Supper Mon Jul 29, 2024 17:00 | Rebekah Barnett
Britain ?Runs Real Risk? with Wind Power, Says British Gas Boss Mon Jul 29, 2024 15:00 | Will Jones
The Girling of the Boy Scouts Erases Men Mon Jul 29, 2024 13:00 | Will Jones
With Her Brutal Slaying of the Freedom of Speech Act, Bridget Phillipson Has Shown the Tories How to... Mon Jul 29, 2024 11:12 | Toby Young |
Unconvincing Omagh Judgment
national |
rights, freedoms and repression |
news report
Friday June 26, 2009 19:08 by I.Greene
On 8 June 2009 Mr Justice (Sir) Declan Morgan delivered the judgment in the marathon Omagh civil case. The judgment delivery ended the year long hearing leaving more questions unanswered than answered with its content less than convincing. The burden of proof in civil cases is based on the laws of probability and in this case Mr. Justice Morgan stretched the probability rule well outside the boundaries. The judgment in its entirety contained multiple ambiguities and inevitably the defendants will appeal. One can only assume that Mr Morgan is a highly intelligent man by the very fact that he has recently been elevated to the office of Lord Chief Justice, however this particular judgment may come back to haunt him. On 8 June 2009 Mr Justice (Sir) Declan Morgan delivered the judgment in the marathon Omagh civil case. The judgment delivery ended the year long hearing leaving more questions unanswered than answered with its content less than convincing. The burden of proof in civil cases is based on the laws of probability and in this case Mr. Justice Morgan stretched the probability rule well outside the boundaries. The judgment in its entirety contained multiple ambiguities and inevitably the defendants will appeal. One can only assume that Mr Morgan is a highly intelligent man by the very fact that he has recently been elevated to the office of Lord Chief Justice, however this particular judgment may come back to haunt him. |
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (4 of 4)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4You say:
"Before the civil case got under way both MI5 and the PSNI made it clear that they would not participate in the hearing. It is difficult to understand why there was such reluctance by those bodies to face cross-examination. Included in any normal court of law, we have a defence a cross-examination of witnesses however; the Omagh civil case denied McKevitt’s defence team such an opportunity."
.. but the defendants could have called them as witnesses and allow the court to infer matters from their evidence or lack of same. The defendants seemingly wanted as little to do with the case as possible. On balance the case had to be brought and it will have brought some closure to some. Be realistic, how many of us have stood up and said that Omagh was a good thing?
Calling MI5 or PSNI as witnesses for the defence is a naive suggestion. In the first instance they would be hostile witnesses and in the second instance, they would hide behind the convenient mantra of “in the interest of national security” to avoid answering any pertinent questions.
To state that the “The defendants seemingly wanted as little to do with the case as possible...” is untrue in Michael McKevitt’s case. It ignores the fact that Michael McKevitt, who was disadvantaged from the outset by the denial of legal aid and at various times in the latter stages with very limited legal aid, strove to secure his right to a proper defence and a fair trial. Michael McKevitt stated from the outset when presented with the papers by H20 that he would be challenging the case. He wrote several times directly to Justice Morgan in the early stages of the case protesting at the unfair denial of legal aid that prevented him from preparing his case, which in turn denied him the right to a fair trial. Furthermore, he challenged the legality of the British government’s decision to fund the Omagh families. This cannot be described as wanting “as little to do with the case as possible.” The fact that Michael McKevitt has instructed his legal team to lodge an appeal is in itself evidence of a man who wants very much to continue with this case and ultimately uncover the truth behind the Omagh conspiracy.
The Omagh bombing was horrific but turned out to be most useful to those who wanted to see the Good Friday Agreement supporters progress and the GFA's opponents knocked back. From a publicity point of view it helped discredit any Republican 'dissidents' who wanted to continue an armed struggle. From a moral point of view it helped justify the pairs of "enforcers" from the Provisionals who called on houses across the nation in the following days to threaten 'dissident' activists that they should cease their activities fortwith, whether political or military.
There were many unanswered questions about the bombing and events before and after it. The decision for the British Government to fund the civil case was extremely concerning and the refusal until almost the last minute to grant McKevitt legal aid while he is also in prison was disgraceful and militated against an effective defence. There are serious questions about the conduct of the civil case by the judge.
Perhaps in years to come the truth will come out but it certainly has not done so as a result of this civil case. Unfortunately many people seem to believe that 'dissident' Republicans are 'beyond the Pale' and either deserve what is coming to them or are so repulsive that decent people can't bring themselves to object to their mistreatment. What people of that kind don't realise is that injustice may start by being applied to unpopular targets but once established lashes out at a great many other people in society.
"Unfortunately many people seem to believe that 'dissident' Republicans are 'beyond the Pale' and either deserve what is coming to them or are so repulsive that decent people can't bring themselves to object to their mistreatment. ."
Repulsive. People who ruthlessly plan, build, transport and then plant bombs in heavily populated areas at a time when activity is at a peak and knowing full well the potential damage their actions will cause. No. Repulsive doesn't even begin to describe the feeling any decent person would have for the kind of sick individuals who would either do this or who would try and justify their actions or downplay it and make them look like victims. No amount of spin or propaganda will ever change that.