OMAGH: REAL IRA TO BLAME NOT THE POLICE
Omagh: Real IRA to blame, not the police
BY ALAN ERWIN
newsdesk@newsletter.co.uk
THE High Court yesterday struck out a damages claim brought by the husband of one of the Omagh bomb victims.
Laurence Rush, whose wife Elizabeth was among 29 people killed in the atrocity, was suing the Chief Constable and Secretary of State for failures in the apprehension, detection and pre-emptive arrest of the Real IRA men responsible.
The widower, who also claimed for loss and damages, alleged police failed to act upon information received on the August 1998 bomb plot, failed to give adequate warnings and implement sufficient evacuation procedures.
The defendants sought to have Mr Rush's case struck out on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, or that it was frivolous or vexatious.
Granting their application, Master Bell, sitting in the High Court, ruled that the claim was unsustainable and without the potential for success.
He said: "Those who committed the civil wrong against Mr Rush, as a result of which he tragically lost his wife, were the members of the Real IRA who organised and carried out the Omagh bombing. It was not the police or the Secretary of State."
Mr Rush brought his action separately from the landmark compensation claim brought by the families of other victims.
In that case, the High Court held four men liable for the massacre and ordered more than �1.6 million in damages to be paid out to 12 relatives.
Mr Rush now has the option of mounting an appeal to the judgment against him.
Master Bell had reviewed the case law setting out the duty of care owed by the police, in the course of carrying out its functions of investigating, controlling and preventing the incidence of crime.
The principle established by the leading cases is that, in general, a duty of care is not imposed upon police officers in respect of their activities when investigating suspected crimes.
During arguments against striking the case out, counsel for Mr Rush identified a number of factors which he considered led to the case being exceptional.
He claimed the Omagh bombing was a unique and distinct crime; the police had information about the threat but failed to act upon it; and the police had sufficient experience with bomb attacks to either have taken action to prevent the bomb reaching Omagh or to have evacuated the area.
However, Master Bell concluded none of these factors were capable of classifying the claim as exceptional and there was therefore no reasonable cause of action.
BY ALAN ERWIN
newsdesk@newsletter.co.uk
THE High Court yesterday struck out a damages claim brought by the husband of one of the Omagh bomb victims.
Laurence Rush, whose wife Elizabeth was among 29 people killed in the atrocity, was suing the Chief Constable and Secretary of State for failures in the apprehension, detection and pre-emptive arrest of the Real IRA men responsible.
The widower, who also claimed for loss and damages, alleged police failed to act upon information received on the August 1998 bomb plot, failed to give adequate warnings and implement sufficient evacuation procedures.
The defendants sought to have Mr Rush's case struck out on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, or that it was frivolous or vexatious.
Granting their application, Master Bell, sitting in the High Court, ruled that the claim was unsustainable and without the potential for success.
He said: "Those who committed the civil wrong against Mr Rush, as a result of which he tragically lost his wife, were the members of the Real IRA who organised and carried out the Omagh bombing. It was not the police or the Secretary of State."
Mr Rush brought his action separately from the landmark compensation claim brought by the families of other victims.
In that case, the High Court held four men liable for the massacre and ordered more than �1.6 million in damages to be paid out to 12 relatives.
Mr Rush now has the option of mounting an appeal to the judgment against him.
Master Bell had reviewed the case law setting out the duty of care owed by the police, in the course of carrying out its functions of investigating, controlling and preventing the incidence of crime.
The principle established by the leading cases is that, in general, a duty of care is not imposed upon police officers in respect of their activities when investigating suspected crimes.
During arguments against striking the case out, counsel for Mr Rush identified a number of factors which he considered led to the case being exceptional.
He claimed the Omagh bombing was a unique and distinct crime; the police had information about the threat but failed to act upon it; and the police had sufficient experience with bomb attacks to either have taken action to prevent the bomb reaching Omagh or to have evacuated the area.
However, Master Bell concluded none of these factors were capable of classifying the claim as exceptional and there was therefore no reasonable cause of action.
Further Information
Publisher: NEWS LETTER
Ref: NL/809
Published Date: 19-May-10
Related Images
There have been no images archived for this article.