JUDGE TO RULE ON DEFENCE BID TO HAVE OMAGH BOMB CASE DROPPED
Judge to rule on defence bid to have Omagh bomb case dropped
THE judge in the Omagh bomb trial is expected to rule today (Thursday) on a defence bid to have the case against South Armagh man, Sean Hoey, thrown out.
Belfast Crown Court was told on Tuesday that Hoey will definitely be cleared of at least one of the dozens of charges against him, after the Crown accepted there was no evidence to convict him.
The electrician, from Molly Road in Jonesborough, denies a total of 58 charges linked to dissident republican activity, including the murders of the 29 people -including a woman pregnant with twins - killed in the Omagh bomb atrocity, as well as other bomb, mortar and hoax bomb attacks across the north in 1998.
Replying to the defence application, Gordon Kerr QC, prosecuting, said it was accepted that in relation to a car bomb in Banbridge, County Down in August 1998 there was no case to answer.
Later, the barrister also said that with regard to a conspiracy to murder charge dated between May and July 1998, following the discovery of a bomb in a trailer on the Blackwatertown Road, County Armagh, there may not be evidence to support the charge.
However, Mr Kerr said that in relation to other car bombs and mortar bombs, including the 1998 Omagh atrocity, the Crown still contended that a properly directed jury could convict Hoey.
After taking each incident and device in turn, Mr Kerr said that, in general, apart from the devices at Blackwatertown Road and the car bomb in Banbridge: "We submit... that the combination of DNA, construction and fibres link the defendant to the offences and it has been established, at this stage of the case, to place the matters before the notional jury."
The prosecution case had come to a close after three months on Thursday last, and was immediately followed by the defence bid to have it thrown out.
During the 47 days in which evidence was presented, Mr Justice Weir -sitting without a jury - has heard from dozens of witnesses, and seen close to 500 exhibits.
Orlando Pownall QC, defending, in claiming that Hoey has no case to answer, initially attacked DNA evidence presented against the South Armagh man.
He told Mr Justice Weir: "If My Lord finds force in the submissions we make, then the DNA evidence -the foundation stone of the prosecution case - can no longer be brought to bear, and in its absence there is no evidence to support the contention that Sean Hoey was involved in any of the 58 counts against him."
Mr Pownall claimed there was no fibre evidence to connect Hoey with any of the devices.
He said the thrust of the Crown case was that each was 'manufactured by the same hand' and therefore the same person was responsible for the Omagh bomb. The lawyer claimed that while his approach was made out of 'understandable desperation' to catch those responsible for the Omagh atrocity, it was 'fundamentally flawed'.
Mr Pownall said 'for tragic reasons', little or nothing of the bomb used was recovered from Omagh.
"So we submit that the Crown argument is significantly flawed. It involves a chain of logic, not substantiated by the evidence," he said.
Attacking DNA evidence submitted by the Forensic Science Services (FSS) in England, Mr Pownall said the important question was one of 'validation' for the techniques involved.
He contrasted evidence from FSS experts Dr Peter Gill, the inventor of the Low Copy Number DNA system, and Dr. Jonathon Whitaker, who produced the DNA evidence, saying the 'account of one lies uncomfortably with the other'.
Mr Pownall said while it was accepted that Low Copy Number was still a 'developing science', there was no worldwide consensus on its operation and the American FBI used it only for intelligence, not in court.
He said in the absence of such validation or scientific consensus, the court could not rely upon the DNA evidence presented.
Answering the defence call to have the trial aborted, and for Hoey to be acquitted of all 58 charges, prosecuting QC Mr Kerr said the republican dissidents who bombed the heart out of Omagh meant to kill.
The lawyer told judge, Mr Justice Weir, that the warnings given were vague, misleading, inaccurate and wrong, unlike the warnings given for other bombings in 1998.
Mr Kerr claimed the motive behind those issuing the warning was calculated to mislead the police and so cause the carriage it did that August.
The lawyer began by contrasting the warnings given at earlier attacks, starting with Lisburn in April that year. He demonstrated that the 10 warnings given for Lisburn were concise and accurate, setting out not only the location, bomb size, vehicle used, but also the time available before any possible explosion.
Mr Kerr said that in this case, given the number of calls made and the type of information supplied, would be hard to argue those involved intended kill.
However, when considering Omagh, Mr Kerr said nothing like this was do when the warning calls were made, and the question had to be asked why the bombers didn't.
Mr Kerr claimed the Omagh bombers had accurate information because the timing given for the explosion was correct.
The lawyer further claimed that if the bombers' intention was simply to destroy property they could have given the authorities more time, an provided them with a accurate location an description of the car bomb itself.
THE judge in the Omagh bomb trial is expected to rule today (Thursday) on a defence bid to have the case against South Armagh man, Sean Hoey, thrown out.
Belfast Crown Court was told on Tuesday that Hoey will definitely be cleared of at least one of the dozens of charges against him, after the Crown accepted there was no evidence to convict him.
The electrician, from Molly Road in Jonesborough, denies a total of 58 charges linked to dissident republican activity, including the murders of the 29 people -including a woman pregnant with twins - killed in the Omagh bomb atrocity, as well as other bomb, mortar and hoax bomb attacks across the north in 1998.
Replying to the defence application, Gordon Kerr QC, prosecuting, said it was accepted that in relation to a car bomb in Banbridge, County Down in August 1998 there was no case to answer.
Later, the barrister also said that with regard to a conspiracy to murder charge dated between May and July 1998, following the discovery of a bomb in a trailer on the Blackwatertown Road, County Armagh, there may not be evidence to support the charge.
However, Mr Kerr said that in relation to other car bombs and mortar bombs, including the 1998 Omagh atrocity, the Crown still contended that a properly directed jury could convict Hoey.
After taking each incident and device in turn, Mr Kerr said that, in general, apart from the devices at Blackwatertown Road and the car bomb in Banbridge: "We submit... that the combination of DNA, construction and fibres link the defendant to the offences and it has been established, at this stage of the case, to place the matters before the notional jury."
The prosecution case had come to a close after three months on Thursday last, and was immediately followed by the defence bid to have it thrown out.
During the 47 days in which evidence was presented, Mr Justice Weir -sitting without a jury - has heard from dozens of witnesses, and seen close to 500 exhibits.
Orlando Pownall QC, defending, in claiming that Hoey has no case to answer, initially attacked DNA evidence presented against the South Armagh man.
He told Mr Justice Weir: "If My Lord finds force in the submissions we make, then the DNA evidence -the foundation stone of the prosecution case - can no longer be brought to bear, and in its absence there is no evidence to support the contention that Sean Hoey was involved in any of the 58 counts against him."
Mr Pownall claimed there was no fibre evidence to connect Hoey with any of the devices.
He said the thrust of the Crown case was that each was 'manufactured by the same hand' and therefore the same person was responsible for the Omagh bomb. The lawyer claimed that while his approach was made out of 'understandable desperation' to catch those responsible for the Omagh atrocity, it was 'fundamentally flawed'.
Mr Pownall said 'for tragic reasons', little or nothing of the bomb used was recovered from Omagh.
"So we submit that the Crown argument is significantly flawed. It involves a chain of logic, not substantiated by the evidence," he said.
Attacking DNA evidence submitted by the Forensic Science Services (FSS) in England, Mr Pownall said the important question was one of 'validation' for the techniques involved.
He contrasted evidence from FSS experts Dr Peter Gill, the inventor of the Low Copy Number DNA system, and Dr. Jonathon Whitaker, who produced the DNA evidence, saying the 'account of one lies uncomfortably with the other'.
Mr Pownall said while it was accepted that Low Copy Number was still a 'developing science', there was no worldwide consensus on its operation and the American FBI used it only for intelligence, not in court.
He said in the absence of such validation or scientific consensus, the court could not rely upon the DNA evidence presented.
Answering the defence call to have the trial aborted, and for Hoey to be acquitted of all 58 charges, prosecuting QC Mr Kerr said the republican dissidents who bombed the heart out of Omagh meant to kill.
The lawyer told judge, Mr Justice Weir, that the warnings given were vague, misleading, inaccurate and wrong, unlike the warnings given for other bombings in 1998.
Mr Kerr claimed the motive behind those issuing the warning was calculated to mislead the police and so cause the carriage it did that August.
The lawyer began by contrasting the warnings given at earlier attacks, starting with Lisburn in April that year. He demonstrated that the 10 warnings given for Lisburn were concise and accurate, setting out not only the location, bomb size, vehicle used, but also the time available before any possible explosion.
Mr Kerr said that in this case, given the number of calls made and the type of information supplied, would be hard to argue those involved intended kill.
However, when considering Omagh, Mr Kerr said nothing like this was do when the warning calls were made, and the question had to be asked why the bombers didn't.
Mr Kerr claimed the Omagh bombers had accurate information because the timing given for the explosion was correct.
The lawyer further claimed that if the bombers' intention was simply to destroy property they could have given the authorities more time, an provided them with a accurate location an description of the car bomb itself.
Further Information
Publisher: TYRONE CONSTITUTION
Ref: TC/1861
Published Date: 21-Dec-06
Related Images
There have been no images archived for this article.