Legal challenge over Omagh bomb inquiry to be heard

Amid continued concerns over progress in a wider catalogue of so-called legacy litigation, Mr Justice McCloskey set aside three days to hear the case being mounted by the father of one of those killed in the August 1998 Real IRA attack.

He described a plan where proceedings would “limp” towards preliminary battles over disclosure as wholly unacceptable.

Referring to a judicial initiative aimed at speeding up legacy challenges, he said: “The court cannot permit this to be undermined and dismantled by the kind of timetabling proposal put forward in the present case.”

Michael Gallagher, whose son Aiden was among 29 people murdered in the Omagh bombing, is taking legal action over former Northern Ireland Secretary of State Theresa Villiers’ refusal to order a public inquiry.

The case centres on claims that a range of intelligence from British security agents, MI5 and RUC officers could have been drawn together to prevent the outrage.

Mr Gallagher launched his legal action after Ms Villiers rejected calls for a public investigation in September 2013.

She decided instead that a probe by Police Ombudsman Michael Maguire was the best way to address any outstanding issues surrounding the atrocity.

In October 2014 Dr Maguire published a report where he found RUC Special Branch withheld some intelligence information from detectives hunting the bombers.

No one has ever been convicted of carrying out the attack.

Proceedings have been caught up in arguments over holding partially closed hearings amid fears the disclosure of sensitive material could damage national security.

Mr Justice McCloskey is overseeing more than 40 judicial reviews into incidents from Northern Ireland’s troubled past.

He pointed out that proceedings issued by Mr Gallagher are now of four years vintage.

“One of the most telling considerations is that the court has not been addressed, orally or in writing, by any party or any other agency concerning the timetabling of the hearing of the substantive judicial review application,” he said.

“This neglect is startling, given the circumstances highlighted above.”

Listing the substantive hearing for three days in June, he added about the time allocation: “Hopefully an over-estimate.”