The Inquiry Chairman's directions: 17.11.2009

1)      Oral closing submissions should principally respond to other parties’ written submissions. It should not be necessary to repeat written submissions. If parties wish to add to their own written submissions during the oral closings they should make clear to which sections of the written submissions their oral submissions relate.

2)      The order of Oral closings is to be: the family; BIRW/CAJ; those subject to little criticism; Interested Parties. The legal teams of groups of “those subject to little criticism” and “Interested Parties” are invited to agree the running order amongst themselves. In the event that there is a failure to agree, the Chairman will rule on the sequence of submissions. Replies will be at the discretion of the Chairman, and in principle will not be permitted where the matter sought to be addressed should have been foreseen and dealt with in the main submission.

3)      The medical opinion included in the written closing submissions of BIRW/CAJ, Professor McEvoy’s report and the second statement of Paul Donnelly are taken to have been introduced as evidence. During oral submissions advocates should provide the Inquiry with page references of any part of those documents that they wish the panel to take into account and should identify the purpose of any such reference.

4)      The Post Mortem photographs of Robert Hamill will be made available to the panel and the relevant legal teams but will not be put on the public system.

5)     a) The following guidance about whether an issue is within the terms of reference will be applied:

In a number of the submissions we have received the allegation is made that a certain act, for example, participation in the attack on Robert Hamill, has been established.  However, the submission has not gone on to explain how such a finding, were it to be made, is relevant to the working out of our terms of reference. No allegation of this nature is to be made in any oral submission unless the oral submission made in support of it goes on to explain how a finding that the allegation is made out is relevant to the working out of our terms of reference. In the absence of such an explanation which satisfies the Panel of its validity, we shall take no account of the allegation and make no finding about it. The making of the allegation will not be published on the Inquiry's website unless and until the Panel is satisfied by the explanation offered of its relevance. If any applications are made to allow further submissions to be made against the validity of such explanation, the Panel will consider them individually on their merits.

b) The Office of the DPP is within the terms of reference only in relation to due diligence. The Inquiry is not to consider the merits of any prosecutorial decision, and it will not hear submissions to the effect that any act or omission on the part of the ODPP was simply wrong.

c) The written closing submissions will not be placed on the Inquiry website.

6)      The Inquiry will apply the civil standard of proof to findings of fact as explained by the House of Lords in Doherty. This entails the general standard of proof being the balance of probabilities. The more serious the accusation, the more cogent the evidence must be before the panel will make the relevant finding of fact.  There is no burden of proof.

7)      Any likenesses of Marc Hobson and another suspect which may be advanced on behalf of Mr Hobson will be made available to the Panel and to the legal teams for any other witness or interested party affected, but will not be made public.