The M.E.N., victims and leading politicians are making a joint demand for justice 20 years after the IRA devastated Manchester city centre.

Despite the appalling human and financial cost of the blast, the anniversary of which is on Wednesday, no suspects have ever even been questioned by police over the attack – even though they believed at the time that they knew who had carried it out.

We believe that amounts to a bitter miscarriage of justice – and today we make our call as police confirm they are taking a fresh look at the case.

Thousands fled in terror as the biggest bomb to explode on mainland Britain outside of wartime tore through the centre of this city on June 15, 1996, causing horrific injury, wrecking livelihoods and triggering a multi-million pound rebuild operation. Although the IRA blew apart Manchester’s heart, it couldn’t destroy its soul and the city rose again from the ashes.

But the fact nobody was ever arrested – apart from the M.E.N. journalist who revealed the name of the prime suspect, plus a man wrongly accused of being his source – means Manchester has unfinished business.

Video Loading Video Unavailable Click to play Tap to play The video will start in 8 Cancel Play now

Five questions that must now be answered about the IRA bomb

1. Why were no suspects arrested at the time?

Police in the late 1990s believed they knew who the bombers were.

So much so, that in the file passed to prosecutors at the time, GMP said of the prime suspect that they felt ‘a substantial case to answer exists against him. It should be made abundantly clear that GMP would not consider arresting him if there were not good reasons to do so’.

And yet they didn’t.

The document went on: “It is the opinion of the investigating officers of GMP that there is sufficient evidence to charge him with being a party in a conspiracy to cause explosions in the United Kingdom.”

But no charge was ever made, despite a wealth of evidence including key phone numbers with a connection to him and the discovery of bank notes with close serial numbers to the ones used in the purchase of the van that blew up the Arndale.

He was even allowed to visit Manchester after the blast, survey the wreckage – all the time under police surveillance – and return to Ireland, without being questioned, arrested or charged.

So why, when police were so certain, was he never even brought in?

2. Was it because of the peace process?

At the time of the police investigation, the delicate negotiations that led to the Good Friday agreement were in their final stages.

Later many IRA prisoners – including those who had blown up Canary Wharf a few months before the Arndale bombing – would be released under the terms of the deal, brokered by the Blair government between sectarian groups in Northern Ireland, including Sinn Fein.

Many leading politicians in Manchester have always believed the investigation was a casualty of that process.

Further to that, when GMP looked again at the case in 2006 ahead of the tenth anniversary of the blast, again nothing materialised.

Again, negotiations at that time between the Blair government and Northern Ireland’s bitterly-divided political leaders were at a perilously fragile point. A deal was finally struck in 2007.

Meanwhile, the Manchester case once more went nowhere, with GMP stating that they had concluded ‘in consultation with the CPS’ that there was no realistic prospect of prosecution.

Yet in 1998, the police had seemed pretty clear that there was a case to answer.

Did politicians put pressure on those investigating once – or maybe even twice, a decade on – not to proceed?

3. Did the police go and see the prime suspect in Ireland when they reopened the case?

When GMP reopened the investigation in 2006, it is unclear how far they went in reviewing the evidence.

Given that the prime suspect had been clearly identified a decade before that, it raises the question: what did GMP actually do in 2006 to investigate a second time?

The prime suspect is still alive. They know where he is.

Did they pay him a visit? And if not, why not?

In addition there are many former members of the Provincial IRA who are increasingly willing to publicly discuss the bombing campaign of the early to mid 1990s – as well as earlier attacks such as the deadly blasts in Birmingham in 1974, recently made subject to a fresh inquest.

What was the scope of the investigation a decade ago – and was there at any point any fresh evidence?

4. Did he – and other suspects – receive a ‘comfort letter’?

Following the peace process negotiations, hundreds of IRA fugitives suspected of being involved with bombings before the 1998 agreement were sent so-called ‘comfort letters’ by the authorities.

These letters essentially said they would be immune from prosecution, the result of secret negotiations between the Blair government and Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams.

Is that what happened in Manchester’s case?

The letters have been more than a little controversial and only emerged in 2014 during the trial of a man accused of the 1982 Hyde Park bombings.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland later clarified they had been issued to IRA suspects linked to around 200 incidents between the 1960s and 1998, reportedly including major blasts on the British mainland including the Brighton bombings. After their existence emerged, the then Northern Ireland secretary, Theresa Villiers, told MPs fugitives could no longer rely on the letters.

And last year a cross-party committee of MPs decreed they may have been illegal.

So – did our suspects get sent them? And given that they don’t appear to be worth the paper they were written on, what are the implications for the latest case review?

5. Is the latest investigation simply about PR?

When the M.E.N. asked GMP earlier this week about the investigation and subsequent reviews, it did not say that it would be reviewing the case.

It said simply that if any new evidence came to light, it would be ‘considered’ and that speculation about the suspects identified 20 years ago was unhelpful.

Yet 48 hours later the force – quoting the same senior officer, Detective Chief Superintendent Tony Mole, head of the north west counter-terror unit – said: “As the 20th anniversary of the incident approaches, it is now the right time for another assessment of the case in order to identify and explore any possible potential investigative opportunities.”

That would appear to be a big turnaround in the space of a couple of days.

Given that the force had also looked at this inquiry ten years ago but has never provided any information about its conclusions – including whether it identified any further suspects or evidence as a result – the question remains: is this review taking place to deflect looming criticism, particularly as major cases such as Hillsborough and the Birmingham bombings have recently made major retrospective breakthroughs in the quest for justice?