ANALYSIS:THE OMAGH case is a civil case where plaintiffs are seeking damages from those they claim are responsible for their injury and loss, writes Dr Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Editor
At the heart of it is the claim that the five defendants, including the Real IRA, committed mass murder. If the plaintiffs win, the defendants will be branded as mass murderers, even if the sanctions imposed are financial rather than penal.
It was clear from the opening day of the trial that this is the intention of the families, given their understandable frustration that no one has been successfully prosecuted for the bombing. They are looking for exemplary damages as well as both compensatory and aggravated damages, "to punish the defendants for their anti-social behaviour towards the victims", according to their counsel Lord Brennan QC.
He said that as no one had been or was likely to be successfully prosecuted in Northern Ireland, a decision on exemplary damages would not impinge upon a criminal case in that jurisdiction.
The case is being run according to the rules of a civil trial, as was repeatedly mentioned. Therefore, the rules of evidence as well as the burden of proof are different from those in a criminal trial. There are likely to be numerous legal challenges relating to the admissibility of evidence.
An early objection came from one of the counsel for the defendants to the listing of the men's previous convictions.
However, Lord Brennan said that he was reciting what was known, and as this was a civil trial it was admissible as a matter of law. Mr Justice Morgan said he would allow him to make his case, but reminded those present that this was not being stated as evidence at this stage.
Later Lord Brennan described the documentary evidence, in the form of e-mails from FBI double agent David Rupert, that would be submitted as evidence. He read passages from a number of e-mails, describing alleged meetings between Rupert and one of the defendants, Michael McKevitt. Rupert will not be giving evidence.
Before reading them, he told the court that hearsay evidence was admissible in a civil trial if it is relevant, having considered whether it was reasonable or practical to produce the maker of the evidence, and if the original statements being admitted were made contemporaneously.
Michael O'Higgins SC, counsel for McKevitt, objected, saying that as Rupert was not coming to court to give evidence and face cross-examination, such evidence was not admissible.
He would be making submissions on its admissibility in due course.
McKevitt is currently serving a 20-year sentence in the Republic for directing terrorist activities for the Real IRA.
Mr Justice Morgan asked if the cross-examination of Rupert in the Special Criminal Court in Dublin during the trial of McKevitt had been ruled admissible, and O'Higgins said it had been at lunch-time on Friday last.
This contains several days' cross-examination of Rupert on issues relating to his credibility. Mr Justice Morgan permitted Lord Brennan to continue.
Lord Brennan said all the evidence he wanted to bring forward, including forensic evidence on the bomb, evidence of the movement of mobile phones, the Rupert evidence, and evidence from the Garda - would all hang together to prove the responsibility of the Real IRA and the named individuals, according to the civil burden of proof, the balance of probabilities.