The Omagh bomb victims' £10 million claim against those suspected of carrying out the "Real IRA" atrocity is due to start next January. The date was fixed in the High Court in Belfast yesterday but the likelihood is that the case will be delayed by other legal proceedings.
Lord Brennan, QC, told the court that "superspy" Mr David Rupert will be a witness in the action against Michael McKevitt, Liam Campbell, Colm Murphy, Séamus McKenna, Séamus Daly and the "Real IRA".
McKevitt, Campbell, Daly and Murphy - the only one to be convicted in connection with the Omagh bombing - are serving sentences in the Republic for "Real IRA" membership. Murphy was sentenced to 14 years in 2002 for plotting the Omagh attack.
Mr Rupert, an American trucking company boss turned double agent, was a major witness when McKevitt was jailed in Dublin last summer for 20 years.
Lord Brennan referred to the massive and costly security operation when Mr Rupert appeared in court in Dublin and said it was proposed that he would give his evidence by way of a video-link with the USA.
Lord Brennan said the case had properly been described as historic, as it was the first time in the British jurisdiction that a civil claim had been made against a terrorist organisation in respect of a terrorist outrage.
He said the Omagh bombing on August 15th, 1998, killed 29 people and injured over 300. The claim against the defendants fell into four categories - intention to inflict harm, trespass to the person, conspiracy to commit trespass and conspiracy to inflict harm.
The plaintiffs were also seeking an injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with them in any way.
Lord Brennan said it was significant that not only were aggravated damages being claimed, but also exemplary damages, which were designed to reflect the gravity of wrongdoing.
"The wrongdoing in this case was represented by determined terrorism involving extreme violence and was utterly disrespectful of human life," he said.
He said if and when judgment was obtained against the defendants, it was the intention of the families to pursue them relentlessly to satisfy the decision of the court.
Mr Frank O'Donoghue QC, for McKevitt, said his legal aid had been revoked last August following his conviction in Dublin and the reasons for that were still awaited.
When the reasons were received they would be studied and, if a judicial review was required, that would take place.
"He has not the financial resources to defend himself and pay his lawyers," said Mr O'Donoghue. "If he does not get legal aid my solicitor will apply to come off record." Mr Dermot Fee QC, for Campbell, said his legal aid had been suspended pending inquiries into his financial position. "If there is no legal aid Mr Campbell has not the assets to deal with this case," he said.
A lawyer for McKenna said the position was broadly the same, although he had never been in receipt of legal aid at any time.
Lord Brennan replied: "We submit this matter of legal aid is not a sufficient reason to delay this case. If they are not to get legal aid so be it."
He said the families were opposed to judgment by default as it would be an affront to justice. "Where the allegations, as here, are of the gravest kind it seems to us that it requires the attention of the court and a decision by the court," he added.
Mr O'Donoghue said even if legal aid was reinstated it would not be possible to be ready to proceed in January.
Mr Justice Higgins said he proposed to fix a provisional date of January 17th. "There are matters of legal aid which require to be resolved, but as has been observed that should not be a barrier to this action," said the judge.
He said it was clear that if judicial reviews were to take place, the case might not go ahead in January. "I will review the matter in June when the legal aid situation should be clearer," he said.
Another review would be held in September, said the judge, when the application to have Mr Rupert's evidence heard via a video-link could be dealt with.