High Court: Court orders production of Special Criminal Court documents to assist Omagh Bombing Inquiry

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IEHC 612
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice David Barniville

Delivering an ex tempore judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice David Barniville accepted that “the interest of doing justice was not necessarily confined to other existing legal proceedings, and that it can and does have a wider meaning and can extend to the concept of doing justice for those who were cruelly murdered in the Omagh Bombing attack and also for their families.”

Background

In 2024, the Irish Government formally decided to assist the Omagh Bombing Inquiry with its work, in recognition of its importance for the victims and survivors of the bombing attack in Omagh in August 1998.

This decision led to a Memorandum of Understanding being entered into between the Minister for Justice and the Chair of the Inquiry, Lord Turnbull, on 15 April 2025.

Thereafter, the International Co-operation (Omagh Bombing Inquiry) Act 2026 was enacted, providing a formal system for cooperation with the Inquiry, including making provision for the giving of evidence in this jurisdiction to a nominated judge for the purpose of assisting the Inquiry.

In 2026, the Minister issued three sets of proceedings as against the seeking orders directing the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Registrar of the Special Criminal Court to produce copy books of evidence, transcripts, rulings and other miscellaneous evidence relating to the prosecutions of various individuals involved in dissident terrorism in 1997-1998, for onward provision to the Inquiry.

The matters came before Mr Justice Barniville, who agreed to proceed with the hearing of the first and third set of proceedings only in circumstances where the individual relevant to the second set of proceedings had not been placed on notice of the application. The second set of proceedings was adjourned to 4 September 2026.

The High Court

Mr Justice Barniville recognised that while these were not the first applications of this type in relation to the Inquiry, they went beyond the materials sought in earlier proceedings dealt with in May 2025, namely judgments and transcripts of sentencing remarks made by the Special Criminal Court in open court.

The court accepted that it was a significant matter of public interest, and also in the interests of justice, that all efforts would be made by the Government here to assist the inquiry in its work and that the production of the materials sought would form part of the necessary work of “reconciling the legacy of the past”, a position strengthened by the enactment of the 2026 Act.

Mr Justice Barniville proceeded to address the relevant legal principles as set out by the Supreme Court in Breslin v McKenna [2009] 1 I.R. 298, which concluded that there is no prohibition on the provision of transcripts and books of evidence if necessary for the purpose of doing justice and if there is no consequential legal prejudice to any other party, and that the courts should accept any finding of a court in another jurisdiction that documents are necessary, unless there is reason to believe that the production of the documents could lead to a fundamental injustice.

Noting that “Those principles apply equally on these applications”, Mr Justice Barniville accepted that “the interest of doing justice was not necessarily confined to other existing legal proceedings, and that it can and does have a wider meaning and can extend to the concept of doing justice for those who were cruelly murdered in the Omagh Bombing attack and also for their families.”

The President of the High Court further expressed that the phrase used in Breslin, “namely, that the documents could be provided “for the purposes of doing justice”, could extend to the provision of material sought by the Chair of the Inquiry so that that Inquiry can do its very important work.”

Finding it inconceivable that any relevant legal prejudice would be caused to any party as a result of the provision of the materials sought, the court observed that “This is not a case where material is being sought in the middle of a trial, or where persons are facing a trial or a potential trial or re-trial who could conceivably raise an objection that they would be prejudiced as a result of the production of the material sought.”

The court acknowledged that if there were to be any future criminal trial involving any of the individuals concerned, it would be for the trial judge to ensure that any such trial was fair and that any defendant would not be prejudiced by the production of material on foot of the proposed orders.

Highlighting that there was no objection to the production of the documents from either defendant, the court was persuaded to grant the orders sought pursuant to the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court ordered the production of the documents sought in the first and third sets of proceedings, and made no order as to costs.

Upon the return of the second set of proceedings on 4 September 2026, the High Court ordered the production of the documents sought therein in circumstances where the relevant individual had been placed on notice of the application, the outcome of the other two sets of proceedings and of the adjourned date.

Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration v The Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor [2026] IEHC 612