Final submissions in Omagh trial

Sean Hoey did not give evidence at his trial

The Omagh bomb trial has been hearing prosecution and defence lawyers giving closing submissions.

Sean Hoey, 37, from Jonesborough, County Armagh, denies a total of 56 charges, including 29 counts of murder as a result of the Omagh bombing.

The trial has now heard from hundreds of witnesses at Belfast Crown Court. A judgement is not expected for several weeks.

Mr Hoey's lawyer said it would be "a travesty" if he was convicted.

Defence QC Orlando Pownall said the case against Mr Hoey could not survive the taint of having witnesses "beef up their evidence, exhibits being interfered with and prosecution witnesses undermining one another".

'Not give evidence'

During the trial, two charges against Mr Hoey were effectively dropped.

The prosecution has said it believes that Mr Hoey was involved not only in making bomb timers but in wiring up the bombs themselves for attacks in 1998.

They said forensic evidence proves that.

Inference should also be drawn from the fact Mr Hoey did not give evidence on his own behalf, the prosecution said.

The issue of low copy number DNA - the key part of the prosecution's forensic case - was also raised.

The judge asked the prosecution why two of its witnesses "were not on the same" page about the issue.

Compensation case

The defence have said there are a number of doubts they want to raise about the case.

Incontrovertible evidence that Mr Hoey was involved in the Omagh bombing "was always a mirage" they said.

The two charges which were dropped, came after prosecution lawyers accepted there was no case to answer.

The charges were connected to a car bombing and an explosives find just weeks before the 1998 Omagh atrocity.

Meanwhile, the government's decision to fund the Omagh bomb multi-million pound compensation case has been challenged in the High Court by two of the four men being sued.

Colm Murphy and Seamus Daly were partially successful in their application to see classified documents relating to their case.

They are seeking a judicial review of decisions by the Lord Chancellor and the Legal Services Commission to assist the claimants with £860,000.