Omagh families need to hear whole truth about bombing
Irish News, Editorial, January 28th, 2025
THE public inquiry into the 1998 Omagh bombing gets under way in earnest today.
Over the next four weeks, relatives of those killed in one of the Troubles’ worst atrocities will have the opportunity to publicly commemorate their loved ones. The inquiry will also hear from those injured in or directly affected by the atrocity.
This will be difficult and painful for all those caught up in a heinous attack which killed 29 people and unborn twins. Justice has proved elusive and the inquiry is the latest attempt to discover the truth of what happened, in particular whether the bombing could have been prevented by “UK state authorities”.
“The relatives of the Omagh bomb victims have waited too long for the truth about what happened to their loved ones on that August day
However, it is not clear just how public the public inquiry will be in its investigation and in the publication of its findings. Its terms of reference allow it to hold closed sessions, “as the inquiry chairman shall judge appropriate”. This suggests that some evidence may be given in secret, which means that the chair can decide what the public will hear and what the inquiry’s published report will contain.
The reason behind the possible need for open and closed sessions is “the sensitive nature of the material” which may be given in evidence.
So who will decide which evidence is sensitive and which is not? Presumably that decision will rest with the “UK state authorities”, who will advise the chair as they think appropriate. Since these are the same authorities which are being investigated by the inquiry, there would appear to be a conflict of interest here. In such a conflict, truth tends to be the first casualty.
The inquiry’s terms of reference identify allegations that British intelligence chiefs did not share information with police about earlier dissident bombings that would have enabled them to disrupt the activities of the Omagh bombers.
The inquiry will also investigate allegations that information from a security force agent was not passed to the police and it will raise questions as to just how much the government knew in advance about plans for the bombing.
In view of those allegations, a full and open public inquiry should ask if the bombing could have been prevented and if so, inquire why it was not. If the explanation lies in incompetence, mistakes, oversight, or genuine human failure, then the inquiry can publish that.
If, however, the explanation lies elsewhere, possibly in the machinations of British intelligence, we are unlikely to be told.
The relatives of the Omagh bomb victims have waited too long for the truth about what happened to their loved ones on that August day. They now face another wait to see how much of that truth will be revealed.
PONI criticised over delays investigating 2021 arrest of Sean Graham shooting victim
Allison Morris, Belfast Telegraph, Belfast Telegraph, January 28th, 2025
There has been criticism of the length of time it took for the Police Ombudsman to deliver her findings after a complaint made by a Troubles victim arrested at a commemoration during lockdown.
Ombudsman Marie Anderson has made three recommendations in relation to the complaint made in 2021, saying the officers involved did not act with “sensitivity”.
The arrest of Mark Sykes, a victim of the Sean Graham bookmakers attack, caused a huge political fallout that contributed to the resignation of then Chief Constable Simon Byrne.
It came after a High Court judge ruled in 2023 that the two junior PSNI officers had been unlawfully disciplined for Mr Sykes' arrest.
Mr Justice Scoffield said the officers were disciplined to allay any threat of Sinn Féin abandoning its support for the PSNI.
Mr Sykes was shot numerous times in the February 1992 loyalist attack on the lower Ormeau Road in south Belfast, where five people, including a 15-year-old child, died in the gun attack.
Mr Sykes complained to the Police Ombudsman after he was arrested, handcuffed and placed in a police car for 90 minutes at a commemoration for those killed.
The investigation centred on allegations concerning the insensitivity of police during the memorial event, Mr Sykes' alleged wrongful arrest and the prolonged, unnecessary use of handcuffs.
Mrs Anderson said: “Given the restrictions on gatherings which were in place under the Covid Regulations at the time, I am satisfied that there was reasonable justification for PSNI to have attended the scene.
“However, after examination of all relevant evidence, including radio transmissions, body-worn video and other video footage of the incident, I was of the view that the arresting police officer had not responded to the unfolding events in line with an order to treat the gathering with sensitivity.”
Responding to the findings, Mr Sykes said: “To this day, I am the only person ever arrested by the PSNI in respect of the atrocity at Sean Graham bookmakers in 1992.”
He added that he was disappointed there were no prosecutions of the arresting officer.
“Police should not have been near our lawful and dignified commemoration on the day, and I should not have been arrested,” he said.
“The only thing that I had in my hands that day were flowers to lay at the monument.”
His solicitor Niall Murphy added: “Whereas PONI have made recommendations to improve aspects of operational policing, and that all new recruits will have improved public order training, the lack of personal accountability for actions on the day is a source of regret, given the extent of the investigation into this incident.”
A file was submitted to Public Prosecution Service (PPS) for a decision on whether two officers should be prosecuted for assault. The PPS directed no prosecution in respect of these officers.
In December the PPS announced a decision to prosecute one officer after an investigation by the PSNI's Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU).
The ACU investigation concerned an allegation that an officer was involved in a false threat report intended to support an application for an anonymity order related to the original incident.
In total the Ombudsman assessed the conduct of seven police officers, including those who were at the scene, in the control room and the senior officers involved in the decision making.
Mrs Anderson said the evidence had been sufficient to support her recommendations to the PSNI's Professional Standards Department (PSD) for disciplinary proceedings regarding one officer's conduct in relation to the man's arrest and handcuffing.
The recommendations were accepted by PSD, although this was struck out on appeal.
The report states: “The actions of two senior police officers, a Chief Inspector and Assistant Chief Constable, were therefore also investigated by the Police Ombudsman.
“The Assistant Chief Constable, having become aware of the incident and the arrest of the man, advised the Chief Inspector to assess police actions, review the necessity for the man's arrest and continued detention, and to consider whether it was appropriate to release him.
“In giving his advice he was mindful of the requirement that 'all persons in custody must be dealt with expeditiously and released as soon as the need for their detention no longer applies'.
“The Chief Inspector made an assessment and subsequently decided to release the man.”
The Ombudsman identified no evidence of a breach of the PSNI Code of Ethics by senior police officers.
Three recommendations to PSNI
However, she did make three recommendations to PSNI.
The first was that they develop a system to ensure that they are aware of Troubles-related anniversaries or commemorations.
Prior to making this policy recommendation, the PSNI had already taken steps to increase knowledge in local policing teams of possible commemorations for Troubles-related incidents with a Strategic Community Impact Assessment which covers some of the key events during the Troubles and highlights these to District Command Teams.
The second recommendation related to the then resourcing of local policing teams, at the time a large percentage of supervisors were in temporary positions.
This recommendation was partially accepted by the PSNI.
The final recommendation related to the need for improvements in public order training for new officers and, in particular, case law relevant to arrests.
This recommendation was also accepted by PSNI.
The DUP's lead Policing Board representative Trevor Clarke criticised the findings, saying the officers were “simply trying to do their job in very challenging circumstances”.
“Their reward, of course, was to be thrown to the wolves by their superiors to pander to political pressure. The Scoffield judgment demonstrated that the opinions of senior members of Sinn Féin influenced decision-making at the highest ranks of the PSNI in the aftermath of these events.
“Nothing in the Ombudsman's report can, or should, detract from this fundamental weakness in the police response. It is vital that the Chief Constable and his team put in place safeguards to ensure such mistakes are never be repeated.”
Sinn Féin MLA Deirdre Hargey has welcomed the publication of the report.
“Sinn Féin will continue to stand with Mark Sykes and all victims and survivors of the Ormeau Road bookmakers atrocity,” she added.
UUP justice spokesperson Doug Beattie criticised the length of time it took for the Ombudsman to deliver her findings, saying “the length of time it took to formulate a report, just under four years, must be of concern to us all”.
“The report lacks any form of analysis of the political interference in the police response to the commemoration.
“Without a doubt there was political interference, and that interference led to a police officer being unlawfully disciplined and ultimately led to a chief constable losing his job.”
Respectful commemoration should not be a policing or political matter
Allison Morris, Belfast Telegraph, January 28th, 2025
The arrest of Mark Sykes at a commemoration for the victims of the 1992 Sean Graham bookmakers attack was a policing issue that turned into a major political controversy.
Mr Sykes was a teenager when he was shot multiple times by loyalist gunmen, who opened fire indiscriminately, killing five people including a 15-year-old boy.
The investigation into the attack would later be subject to a damning Police Ombudsman's report.
The images of Mr Sykes being taken away in handcuffs prompted outrage from nationalist politicians.
Then Chief Constable Simon Byrne took disciplinary action against two officers, but the High Court would later rule that this was politically motivated, and the police chief resigned his job as a result.
In December, the PPS announced that one of the officers involved was to be prosecuted, but not directly in relation to the events of February 2021.
Instead, it concerned an allegation investigated by the PSNI's Anti-Corruption Unit that an officer was involved in a false threat report to support a court application for an anonymity order.
A complaint to the Ombudsman, Marie Anderson, made by Mr Sykes about his treatment has been under investigation for almost four years.
The watchdog has in the past pointed to the underfunding of her office, hindering her in dealing with the huge volume of complaints received annually. This complaint is unusual, in that it straddles both the past, in terms of why the commemoration was taking place, but also the future.
The UDA attack on the bookmakers was investigated by the RUC, but the arrest of Mr Sykes was carried out by the PSNI.
Ms Anderson has made three recommendations. One is that officers should be made aware of sensitivities that may arise in the area they are policing due to Troubles anniversaries or commemorations.
Had it been one of the survivors of the Shankill bomb arrested in similar circumstances, the political and public backlash would have likely been the same, albeit driven by a different section of society.
Lockdown placed draconian restrictions upon people, not just in Northern Ireland but across the world. Just a few years on it now seems ridiculous that a handful of people outdoors laying flowers would be considered a policing matter, but such were the restrictions of the time.
The arrest of Mr Sykes took place at a time when confidence in policing was at an all-time low, particularly amongst the nationalist community.
The images of a victim's arrest did nothing to help that.
The later High Court judgment in relation to Sinn Fein's influence on the PSNI's decision-making further dented public confidence within the unionist community.
This all happened under a different executive team; both Simon Byrne and former Deputy Chief Constable Mark Hamilton — who were both named in the High Court ruling — are no longer members of the PSNI.
There is much learning to be had from that time.
The respectful commemoration of the dead of our conflict should not be a policing or political matter but one of dignified respect.
The ombudsman has made sensible recommendations, it is now for the new PSNI top team to move forward in a way that takes the politics out of policing and restores confidence in all communities.
