Relatives of the Omagh bomb victims have begun an action in the Special Criminal Court in Dublin seeking documentation to help their £10 million (€15 million) claim against those suspected of carrying out the 1998 atrocity.
Lawyers for the relatives yesterday applied for transcripts and books of evidence relating to recent trials at the court involving men named in the Belfast High Court action.
The relatives are taking action against Michael McKevitt, Liam Campbell, Colm Murphy, Séamus Daly and another man awaiting trial on explosives charges and the "Real IRA".
The Belfast action should open next January and former FBI agent Mr David Rupert, who gave evidence in the trial of "Real IRA" leader Michael McKevitt in Dublin last year, will be called by the relatives' legal team.
The Omagh bombing - claimed by the "Real IRA" - killed 29 people, including a woman pregnant with twins, and injured more than 300 in August 1998. It was the worst single terrorist atrocity in the 30 years of the Troubles.
Yesterday Lord Brennan QC, on behalf of the Omagh relatives, told the court that McKevitt and Campbell were being sued on their own behalf and as representing the "Real IRA". He said Murphy, Daly and the other man were being sued individually.
He said: "This is a most unusual application. The civil claim in the North is possibly unique. This is a totally unique case that merits an exception approach by the court." Lord Brennan said a trial date in the North had been fixed for January 17th next year.
Mr James McGuill, solicitor, for McKevitt, Campbell and Daly, said the question of the court's jurisdiction to deal with the application arose. He said the Special Criminal Court was a "creature of statute" and entertaining third-party applications was not part of its jurisdiction.
He said McKevitt's appeal was pending and he would be very concerned that anything would occur in the application that could compromise that appeal.
Mr Michael Farrell, solicitor for Murphy, said he was "somewhat surprised" to find himself in court as a similar application for the trial transcript had been made at the end of the Murphy trial and had been turned down. He said Murphy's appeal was expected to be heard in the next law term.
Mr Farrell and Mr McGuill applied for an adjournment to allow counsel to be briefed and to allow applications for legal aid.
Mr Justice Johnson, presiding, said it would be "invidious to proceed in a situation where persons whose future could be adversely affected" were denied access to counsel.
He adjourned the application until tomorrow when the court will hear further submissions on legal representation and legal aid and when the court would be in a better position to fix a date for hearing the application.