The High Court has ordered the Registrar of the Special Criminal Court to provide the Minister for Justice with specified judgments and sentencing remarks for the Chair of the Omagh Bombing Inquiry.
In a ruling delivered on 28 May 2025, Mr Justice David Barniville, President of the High Court, said the records were judgments and sentencing remarks delivered in open court. He found their production necessary for doing justice and concluded it would cause no relevant legal prejudice to other parties.
The Minister had applied for the records so they could be provided to Lord Turnbull, chair of the independent statutory inquiry established to investigate whether the 1998 Omagh bombing could reasonably have been prevented by UK state authorities. The requested records relate to the conviction and sentencing of individuals associated with dissident terrorism in or around 1997 and 1998.
The application was narrowed after enquiries established that some records were held by the Special Criminal Court, some by the Director of Public Prosecutions and some could not be found there. The order concerns items listed 1 to 14(c) in a revised schedule. The court specified that items 11 and 12, a judgment and sentencing remarks from May 2004 and October 2001, respectively, were to be provided “if and when available”; they had been requested from storage and were not then physically held by the Registrar.
The judge applied the principle in the Supreme Court’s decision in Breslin v McKenna: material may be provided with High Court permission where it is necessary for doing justice and there is no relevant legal prejudice. He said doing justice could extend to the Omagh victims and their families, as well as the work of the inquiry. The Director of Public Prosecutions had confirmed there was no relevant legal prejudice, and the judge had previously ruled that the people concerned did not need to be put on notice because the records were made in open court.
The court also granted liberty to apply if issues arise with the documents or further relevant records emerge. The ruling did not order production of records outside the revised schedule.