‘Britain planned defence of bomb collusion claim'

British authorities planned a detailed defence against allegations that security service operatives colluded with loyalists to plant bombs in Dublin and Monaghan in 1974, killing 33 people, it was reported today.

Britain had planned to mount a defence of ‘‘sovereign immunity’’ if bereaved families and victims of the car bombs pursued legal action, the Sunday Tribune claimed.

And security service agents would have been disowned if there was evidence they colluded in the attacks which caused the single biggest loss of life of any day of the Troubles, the Dublin newspaper said.

The revelation has further entrenched the belief among families of the bomb victims that British security services colluded with the attackers, or at least had foreknowledge of the two bombs which tore through Dublin and a third which exploded in Monaghan on May 17, 1974.

Internal documents and letters were prepared in advance of legal action against the British authorities which was brought in 1999.

Relatives suspended the action when an independent judicial inquiry was established in Dublin under Mr Justice Henry Barron. He is set to report in the autumn, possibly leading to a full public tribunal of inquiry.

According to the report, Britain explored the possibility of claiming sovereign immunity if an action was brought against the state. The legal doctrine protects governments from being prosecuted for criminal acts carried out by government agencies on their behalf.

One letter, to a legal adviser at the British Foreign Office, reportedly read: ‘‘It may be that we will face an argument that the members of the security forces alleged to be involved in the bombings were not acting in accordance with ‘government policy’ and therefore cannot benefit from the (sovereign immunity) defence.

‘‘If there was evidence that members of the security forces had assisted or been involved in the 1974 bombings, we would presumably argue that such involvement was condemned by the British government and could not be regarded as an aspect of state activity.’’

One piece of case law referred to in the letter involved a situation where ‘‘relevant persons can be said to have acted on a ‘frolic of their own’.’’

Greg O’Neill, solicitor for the families, said: ‘‘This raises still more questions. The only way that such inferences of guilt can be dispelled is for public hearings.

‘‘It is a curious development given that the position of the British government has been that they basically deny any involvement.

‘‘It indicates that there is a need for openness and for a public process of inquiry and when Justice Barron reports we will have to go from that interim stage to a full tribunal of inquiry.

‘‘The British government has adopted a legal position of minimising damage. It seems to me that it could be suggested that they would rather live with the suspicion of guilt rather than the process of dispelling it.’’

A spokesman for the British Embassy in Dublin said they did not comment on alleged leaked documents.

The embassy spokesman said: ‘‘We never comment on alleged leaked documents. However, an inference in the article that Britain has something to hide is wholly untrue and unsubstantiated.

‘‘In fact, we have co-operated very fully with Justice Barron as the Taoiseach was first to acknowledge in the Dail last week.’’