OMAGH BOMB DEFENCE QUERIES CLAIMS ON DEVICE
Omagh bomb defence queries claims on device
FOR the second day the defence team for south Armagh man Sean Hoey have continued their onslaught on the prosecution case against him.
Defence QC Orland Pownall told Belfast Crown Court that the evidence presented by the prosecution was full of shortcomings, was unreliable, insufficient and in some instances witnesses had lied.
In all, 37-year-old Hoey from Mollys Road, Jonesborough, faces 58 counts, including the murder of the 29 people killed in the Omagh bomb atrocity as well as other bomb, mortar and hoax bomb attacks carried out throughout Northern Ireland during that same year in 1998.
The prosecution claim that Hoey manufactured the timer power units (TPU) used in the various mortars and bombs including that used to detonate the Omagh bomb.
However, Mr Pownall told trial judge Mr Justice Weir that the prosecution had failed to show that the TPU's were made by one or more people, let alone Sean Hoey.
He contended it was of "paramount importance there is no evidence of how good, bad or indifferent Sean Hoey is at soldering or how Sean Hoey connects wires to equipment".
That, said the lawyer "demonstrates another short coming in the Crown's case". Mr Pownall argued that since it cannot be established the devices were "made by one person, still less that that person was Sean Hoey", then all of the charges not relying on DNA evidence must "fall by the wayside".
He said that even if the defence were wrong on this argument the Crown had still failed to establish his guilt on any of the murder charges.
Mr Pownall said the prosecution failed to say when or where the devices were constructed, nor could they exclude the possibility that they could have been made by the Provisional IRA. The lawyer pointed out that in one instance while giving a telephoned bomb warning the caller claimed to represent the Provisionals.
Turning to various exhibits in the case, the lawyer claimed that "what the court has heard demonstrated, at the very least, the potential for contamination" with Hoey's DNA.
Claiming the authorities displayed "a lax approach to exhibits and their storage", Mr Pownall said it was for the Crown to establish the integrity of each exhibit from the moment of seizure to forensic examination.
The trial continues on Monday.
FOR the second day the defence team for south Armagh man Sean Hoey have continued their onslaught on the prosecution case against him.
Defence QC Orland Pownall told Belfast Crown Court that the evidence presented by the prosecution was full of shortcomings, was unreliable, insufficient and in some instances witnesses had lied.
In all, 37-year-old Hoey from Mollys Road, Jonesborough, faces 58 counts, including the murder of the 29 people killed in the Omagh bomb atrocity as well as other bomb, mortar and hoax bomb attacks carried out throughout Northern Ireland during that same year in 1998.
The prosecution claim that Hoey manufactured the timer power units (TPU) used in the various mortars and bombs including that used to detonate the Omagh bomb.
However, Mr Pownall told trial judge Mr Justice Weir that the prosecution had failed to show that the TPU's were made by one or more people, let alone Sean Hoey.
He contended it was of "paramount importance there is no evidence of how good, bad or indifferent Sean Hoey is at soldering or how Sean Hoey connects wires to equipment".
That, said the lawyer "demonstrates another short coming in the Crown's case". Mr Pownall argued that since it cannot be established the devices were "made by one person, still less that that person was Sean Hoey", then all of the charges not relying on DNA evidence must "fall by the wayside".
He said that even if the defence were wrong on this argument the Crown had still failed to establish his guilt on any of the murder charges.
Mr Pownall said the prosecution failed to say when or where the devices were constructed, nor could they exclude the possibility that they could have been made by the Provisional IRA. The lawyer pointed out that in one instance while giving a telephoned bomb warning the caller claimed to represent the Provisionals.
Turning to various exhibits in the case, the lawyer claimed that "what the court has heard demonstrated, at the very least, the potential for contamination" with Hoey's DNA.
Claiming the authorities displayed "a lax approach to exhibits and their storage", Mr Pownall said it was for the Crown to establish the integrity of each exhibit from the moment of seizure to forensic examination.
The trial continues on Monday.
Further Information
Publisher: NEWS LETTER
Ref: NL/679
Published Date: 16-Dec-06
Related Images
There have been no images archived for this article.