OBJECTIONABLE QUIZZING OF POLICE TURNING INQUEST INTO WITCHHUNT
Objectionable' quizzing of police turning inquest into witchhunt - lawyer claims
THE lawyer representing the RUC Chief Constable at the Omagh Inquest, Mr. Stephen Ritchie, has appealed for the inquest into the deaths from the August 15 bombing in the town not to become a "witch-hunt" of the RUC.
His comments have been echoed by local solicitor, Mr. Ken Duncan, who also told the Inquest that those he represented perceived the manner in which some questions had been put to individual policemen as objectionable.
On two occasions in four days of the Coroner's Court both men have aired concerns on behalf of their clients about the nature of questioning posed to members of the RUC by Mr. Michael Mansfield QC, who appears in respect of the late Mrs. Libby Rush and her next of kin, and Mr. Barry Fox, who is instructed by the next of kin of Miss Esther Gibson, Mrs. Avril Monaghan and her daughter, Maura, and unborn twins.
Speaking on Monday, Mr. Duncan said his clients, the next of kin for Miss Deborah Ann Cartwright, Messrs. Fred and Brian White and Miss Lorraine Wilson, were in agreement with comments previously made by Mr. Ritchie about the course of questioning some of the legal representatives were following.
Speaking at the proceedings late last week, Mr. Ritchie alleged that it appeared a number of legal representatives for the bereaved were using the hearing to try and impugn the conduct of the police which he reiterated to the Coroner on Monday.
Addressing the coroner on Friday, Mr. Ritchie said that the chief constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, had instructed him to make an application spelling out clearly the precise scope of the inquest.
He said it was with some regret that he had been asked to make the application, which was due to the turn of events during Wednesday's and Thursday's questioning of the police.
He said he felt that the point had already been reached with some of the RUC witnesses where the line had been crossed over what was felt relevant to the the inquest and "how" those who had died had met their deaths.
Impugn
He said the line of questioning being taken by Mr. Fox and Mr. Mansfield allowed some insight into the line they were taking, and one of those lines was to impugn the conduct of the RUC who dealt with the aftermath of the bombing-He told the coroner that his instructions from the Chief Constable were to ask Mr. Leckey for a ruling on the scope of the Inquest in the context of the enquiry.
The coroner told Mr. Ritchie that he was not going to make a retrospective ruling on any issues already raised, and he told counsel to resubmit his application if and when he felt the questioning was again reaching the stage of impugning the police.
Mrs. Gemma Loughran, who is presenting the evidence on behalf of the Coroner, told the Inquest on Monday that it had been made known that the issue of the scope of the inquest was still troubling the Chief Constable, and in light of that she proposed to alter the appearance of witnesses.
Mr. Duncan again addressed the Coroner's Court saying his clients had "grave misgivings" about the manner of questioning.
He added that they also deplored any attempt to have the proceedings descend into a witchhunt of the police and allow the focus of blame to shift from those who placed the bomb to those who tried to prevent the loss of life and damage to property.
He told Mr. Leckey that the families looked to the coroner to ensure that this was so.
Responding, Mr. Leckey said that part of his function was to retrieve evidence that was relevant to the inquest.
Mr. Duncan told the coroner that what his clients found objectionable was, for instance, the questioning of one police officer, who had 26 years of experience, who was quite unnecessarily reminded that he was under oath. Mr. Duncan said that the .implication of what had been said was clear, and it had also been reported in the national press the following day.
Objectionable
"That is what my clients find objectionable," he told the coroner.
Mr. Ritchie said that he agreed with a suggestion by Mr. John Coyle (who also appears for the next of kin for Libby Rush) that skeleton written submissions be submitted in respect of the scope of the inquest which could be ruled on either later this week or early next week.
"The line of questioning is clearly designed to impugn and I have given notice of my intention to make an application. It may become a personal matter for each police officer.
"One would not blame them for seeking individual legal advice and some have done so," Mr. Ritchie said.
Mr. Martin Wolfe, BL, who had been instructed by the Police Federation to appear on behalf of individual officers giving evidence, told the Inquest that his role came about in light of what had happened last week, and due to the treatment of officers in the witness box.
"I am here to provide advice to those officer as to how they present themselves in the witness box and I will be anxious to object if I see a need," he said.
He went on to say that it had been his intention hitherto to have dealt with the issues involved as the need arose, but if the issue was to be opened by way of written submissions, he said he felt he ought to make a contribution.
He went on to tell the inquest that each of the officers listed to give evidence intended and were determined to do so.
"There is no suggestion that they want to narrow the parameters of the inquest," he said, adding that the police wanted to give their evidence in an honest fashion and were determined to do so.
Mr. Fox said that he was in agreement with the suggestion to submit skeleton arguments, and said he would abide by whatever decision the coroner reached.
THE lawyer representing the RUC Chief Constable at the Omagh Inquest, Mr. Stephen Ritchie, has appealed for the inquest into the deaths from the August 15 bombing in the town not to become a "witch-hunt" of the RUC.
His comments have been echoed by local solicitor, Mr. Ken Duncan, who also told the Inquest that those he represented perceived the manner in which some questions had been put to individual policemen as objectionable.
On two occasions in four days of the Coroner's Court both men have aired concerns on behalf of their clients about the nature of questioning posed to members of the RUC by Mr. Michael Mansfield QC, who appears in respect of the late Mrs. Libby Rush and her next of kin, and Mr. Barry Fox, who is instructed by the next of kin of Miss Esther Gibson, Mrs. Avril Monaghan and her daughter, Maura, and unborn twins.
Speaking on Monday, Mr. Duncan said his clients, the next of kin for Miss Deborah Ann Cartwright, Messrs. Fred and Brian White and Miss Lorraine Wilson, were in agreement with comments previously made by Mr. Ritchie about the course of questioning some of the legal representatives were following.
Speaking at the proceedings late last week, Mr. Ritchie alleged that it appeared a number of legal representatives for the bereaved were using the hearing to try and impugn the conduct of the police which he reiterated to the Coroner on Monday.
Addressing the coroner on Friday, Mr. Ritchie said that the chief constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, had instructed him to make an application spelling out clearly the precise scope of the inquest.
He said it was with some regret that he had been asked to make the application, which was due to the turn of events during Wednesday's and Thursday's questioning of the police.
He said he felt that the point had already been reached with some of the RUC witnesses where the line had been crossed over what was felt relevant to the the inquest and "how" those who had died had met their deaths.
Impugn
He said the line of questioning being taken by Mr. Fox and Mr. Mansfield allowed some insight into the line they were taking, and one of those lines was to impugn the conduct of the RUC who dealt with the aftermath of the bombing-He told the coroner that his instructions from the Chief Constable were to ask Mr. Leckey for a ruling on the scope of the Inquest in the context of the enquiry.
The coroner told Mr. Ritchie that he was not going to make a retrospective ruling on any issues already raised, and he told counsel to resubmit his application if and when he felt the questioning was again reaching the stage of impugning the police.
Mrs. Gemma Loughran, who is presenting the evidence on behalf of the Coroner, told the Inquest on Monday that it had been made known that the issue of the scope of the inquest was still troubling the Chief Constable, and in light of that she proposed to alter the appearance of witnesses.
Mr. Duncan again addressed the Coroner's Court saying his clients had "grave misgivings" about the manner of questioning.
He added that they also deplored any attempt to have the proceedings descend into a witchhunt of the police and allow the focus of blame to shift from those who placed the bomb to those who tried to prevent the loss of life and damage to property.
He told Mr. Leckey that the families looked to the coroner to ensure that this was so.
Responding, Mr. Leckey said that part of his function was to retrieve evidence that was relevant to the inquest.
Mr. Duncan told the coroner that what his clients found objectionable was, for instance, the questioning of one police officer, who had 26 years of experience, who was quite unnecessarily reminded that he was under oath. Mr. Duncan said that the .implication of what had been said was clear, and it had also been reported in the national press the following day.
Objectionable
"That is what my clients find objectionable," he told the coroner.
Mr. Ritchie said that he agreed with a suggestion by Mr. John Coyle (who also appears for the next of kin for Libby Rush) that skeleton written submissions be submitted in respect of the scope of the inquest which could be ruled on either later this week or early next week.
"The line of questioning is clearly designed to impugn and I have given notice of my intention to make an application. It may become a personal matter for each police officer.
"One would not blame them for seeking individual legal advice and some have done so," Mr. Ritchie said.
Mr. Martin Wolfe, BL, who had been instructed by the Police Federation to appear on behalf of individual officers giving evidence, told the Inquest that his role came about in light of what had happened last week, and due to the treatment of officers in the witness box.
"I am here to provide advice to those officer as to how they present themselves in the witness box and I will be anxious to object if I see a need," he said.
He went on to say that it had been his intention hitherto to have dealt with the issues involved as the need arose, but if the issue was to be opened by way of written submissions, he said he felt he ought to make a contribution.
He went on to tell the inquest that each of the officers listed to give evidence intended and were determined to do so.
"There is no suggestion that they want to narrow the parameters of the inquest," he said, adding that the police wanted to give their evidence in an honest fashion and were determined to do so.
Mr. Fox said that he was in agreement with the suggestion to submit skeleton arguments, and said he would abide by whatever decision the coroner reached.
Further Information
Publisher: TYRONE CONSTITUTION
Ref: TC/1524
Published Date: 14-Sep-00
Related Images
