The coroner hearing the Omagh bombing inquests, Mr John Leckey, yesterday excluded the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (HRC) from participation in argument about the scope of the inquests and the extent to which RUC witnesses may be cross-examined.
Mr Leckey ruled that the commission had no statutory power to intervene in the inquest process. However, he later added that should he be wrong in his interpretation of the legal position, he would be willing to accept and consider a written submission from the commission in advance of senior RUC officers' evidence next week.
In advance of yesterday's hearing, the HRC, in common with a number of counsel representing families of Omagh victims, had submitted skeleton arguments to the coroner on the issue of the remit of the inquest - whether police officers could be questioned on the RUC response to the bomb warnings and the manner in which the evacuation operation was conducted.
However, at the outset yesterday, Mr Leckey said an issue had arisen in relation to the status of the HRC at the hearing. He said he had become aware the previous day of a judgment by the Northern Ireland Lord Chief Justice, Sir Robert Carswell, last May.
In that case, Sir Robert had said that leave for third-party intervention should be given sparingly, and only when there was an issue of sufficient consequence which could not be adequately dealt with by the immediate parties. Leave should be restricted to a written submission which the judge could assess to determine if another party should be added to the proceedings.
Mr Leckey said the HRC had asserted it had a common law power to intervene as a third party. He understood this to mean that it believed itself to have this power irrespective of the views of an individual judge or coroner, while his impression from the Carswell ruling was that it was a matter of judicial discretion.
He took the view that the HRC was a creature of statute and no express power to intervene was conferred on it.
Ms Karen Quinlivan, counsel for the HRC, pointed out that the commission had been invited last August to make submissions on the issue of pre-inquest disclosure of documents to counsel and families. This had implied a recognition of the commission's role on human rights aspects of the inquest.
Mr Leckey said at that time he was in ignorance of the Lord Chief Justice's comments. She said it was the commission's duty to keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness of law and practice in Northern Ireland in respect of human rights and since its inception last year, it had taken on a role of intervening in such cases.
Mr Leckey ruled against HRC intervention and said if this was challenged and clarified, "I'll be happy to follow any course a higher court gives me".
In a submission on the scope of the inquest, Mr Michael Mansfield QC, representing the next-of-kin of Elizabeth Rush, said the inquest process would be merely an academic exercise if it did not look at the immediate circumstances of her death. This would involve asking a number of factual questions about procedures and protocols adopted during the bomb alert.
Counsel said Mrs Rush's husband wished to make it clear there was no suggestion, in asking questions, that one was impugning any single police officer. There was never any suggestion that the primary responsibility did not lie with those who had planted the bomb.
He said questions arising included whether the police on the ground had been aware of the RUC code which had been outlined by a senior officer last week; who was the officer in charge on the ground; how was the danger zone assessed in the light of the information, and how was the danger zone managed.
Counsel also said it was important to ask whether there had been any changes in the RUC code, or any changes at local level in the management plans for this sort of situation.
The hearing resumes this morning.