Gallagher, Application for Judicial Review (Re Omagh Bombing Inquiry) (Rev1) [2026] NIKB 32 (26 June 2026)

Executive summary

The High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland considered Michael Gallagher’s application for leave to seek judicial review of Lord Turnbull’s 17 November 2025 ruling on whether special advocates could be appointed to the Omagh Bombing Inquiry. The judgment frames the dispute around whether the Inquiries Act 2005 permits special advocates and, if not, whether their absence would prevent the Inquiry from meeting article 2 ECHR procedural fairness requirements.

Key points

• Applicant: Michael Gallagher; challenge to a ruling by Lord Turnbull, chair of the Omagh Bombing Inquiry
• Issue: whether the Inquiries Act 2005 allows appointment of special advocates for closed material in the Inquiry
• Reasoning: the court treats the Inquiry as an inquisitorial, not adversarial, statutory process focused on fact-finding and truth recovery
• Reasoning: it emphasizes section 3 Human Rights Act 1998 and asks whether article 2 ECHR compliance would require special advocates
• Context: the judgment distinguishes the Inquiry from the earlier judicial review in Re Gallagher [2021] NIQB 85, which had open and closed elements with special advocates
• Sanctions/export-control angle: none apparent on the face of the judgment; the decision is about closed material procedure in a terrorism-related public inquiry

Why it matters

The case matters for national-security and legacy-inquiry practice because it addresses how closed material is handled in an inquiry into a terrorist atrocity and whether procedural safeguards must mirror adversarial litigation. That can affect how sensitive intelligence and security material is presented in future public-law processes.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the judgment signals that parties should not assume inquiry procedure will replicate judicial-review closed material models; the chair’s inquisitorial framework is central. It also means arguments about article 2 fairness and statutory interpretation will be decisive when seeking or resisting special advocate appointments in security-sensitive inquiries.