THE PSNI and the North’s Public Prosecution Service (PPS) are separately re-examining evidence from the Omagh bomb civil case.
This is with a view to seeing whether there are grounds for bringing new criminal proceedings over the 1998 bombing.
Asst chief constable Drew Harris told the policing board yesterday that police were carrying out a review to establish whether there were any new evidential opportunities to prompt a retrial of south Armagh man Seán Hoey, who was acquitted of involvement in the bombing. In December 2007 Mr Hoey was cleared of involvement in the Real IRA bombing of August 1998 that killed 29 people, including a woman pregnant with twins, and of involvement in other Real IRA attacks around that period.
Trial judge Mr Justice Reg Weir in his judgment was highly critical of the evidence provided by two PSNI scene-of-crime officers, accusing them of misleading the court under oath. However, in February this year police ombudsman Al Hutchinson found that the judge was wrong in his criticism and cleared the two officers of deliberate deception.
“After the ombudsman reports of February this year we have revisited all of the evidence again, not only in respect of the Omagh bombing but other bombing attacks around that time involving the Real IRA,” said Mr Harris.
He told reporters after the meeting that he was not saying police were reopening the Omagh trial. But Mr Hoey’s criminal trial and the Omagh civil case – in which Michael McKevitt, Liam Campbell, Colm Murphy and Séamus Daly were judged to have been involved in the bombing – were being examined.
“We are revisiting all of those cases that we presented at the Omagh trial,” said Mr Harris. “We are revisiting all of those investigations to make sure no evidential opportunities have been lost. And part of that has been reviewing the Omagh trial itself and the recent civil action as well.”
Mr Harris said police would discuss a possible retrial with the PPS “if we feel we have sufficient evidence . . . we can ask the PPS then for advice on new evidence that we would find. We have to review what we have and try and obtain new evidence”.
Mr Hoey’s solicitor Kevin Winter said there was now a danger of his client being subjected to trial by media. “He is an innocent man. There are no grounds for a retrial. Any suggestion to the contrary amounts to an abuse of process.”
