Colleagues:

Apart from the findings of fact and their obvious political implications, there are a couple of other features of the Omagh bombing judgment of Morgan J in the NI High Court today that seem interesting. According to a number of news reports, inc the BBC:

1. He ordered punitive damages. Now, as far as I can see this case can't have come within the Rookes v Barnard criteria of either (a) oppressive action by the state, or (b) a tort committed with a view to profit. If so it may be that the point left open by Browne-Wilkinson in Kuddus -- i.e. whether these restrictions remain after the removal of the "cause of action" rule -- has been dealt with.

2. He seems to have awarded damages against the Real IRA as well as against the individual Fenians. This outfit presumably is an unincorporated organisation (the mind boggles at a memorandum of association saying Purposes of company -- terrorism and murder): I'd be fascinated to know on what theory he allowed an organisation to be sued that in law doesn't exist.

No doubt we'll have to wait for further elucidation until we see the text. Or does anyone in the Group have it?

Best (and now back to the grading).

Andrew