Anger as ex-para faces Bloody Sunday trial
Concerns over how former soldier can be treated fairly as relatives of victims call for further legal action
The prosecution of a former paratrooper for murder on Bloody Sunday provoked a storm of protest last night over fears he cannot get a fair trial and amid warnings of further legal action against veterans. The soldier, in his 70s, was told yesterday he would be charged with the murder of two protesters who were shot and killed in Londonderry 47 years ago. Lt Col Derek Wilford, who commanded 1 Para at the time, said: “He is being used as a scapegoat.”
‘It is all stacked against him. They want to make an example of him. They want to show they are doing their job’
THE prosecution of a former paratrooper for murder on Bloody Sunday provoked a storm of protest last night over fears he cannot get a fair trial and amid warnings of further legal action against veterans.
The soldier, a grandfather in his 70s, was told yesterday he will be charged with the murder of two protesters who were shot and killed in Londonderry 47 years ago. Families of victims clamoured to have the veteran – known only as Soldier F – stripped of the anonymity, which was granted 20 years ago over concern of possible reprisals.
Prosecutors in Northern Ireland said a further 16 veterans implicated in Bloody Sunday would not be charged due to insufficient evidence. But they now face a separate, lengthy investigation into claims of perjury, while bereaved families pledged to overturn the prosecutors’ decision in the courts.
Solicitors for the family of William Nash, who died aged 19, called on the attorney general for Northern Ireland to investigate Gavin Williamson, the Defence Secretary, for possibly jeopardising the chances of a fair trial.
Mr Williamson had said he wanted to ensure veterans were not “unfairly treated” in the future. But Mr Nash’s family’s lawyers said Mr Williamson had “threatened the fairness of the judicial process” and “also shown a blatant disregard for our client and the other families”.
One source said the trial was likely to take five years, meaning more than half a century will have passed since 13 civil rights marchers were killed and 15 injured on Jan 30 1972. It will require several months just to serve Soldier F with legal papers before he even appears in court, at which point anonymity could be lifted.
A fellow paratrooper involved in Bloody Sunday, Sergeant O, who is 77, told The Daily Telegraph last night: “He can’t get a fair trial in Northern Ireland.
“They should at least let him be tried here but the Irish won’t allow it. It is all stacked against him. They want to make an example of him. They want to show they are doing their job. But this is rubbish; it really is. I am not happy; the lads are not happy.”
Lt Col Derek Wilford, now 86, who was the commander in charge of 1 Para on Bloody Sunday, said: “There is a sense of sadness because he is being used as a scapegoat for the rest of us.”
The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) requested there be no “commentary or sharing of information from other parties which could in any way prejudice the proceedings”. However, the Bloody Sunday families yesterday appeared in Londonderry and declared Soldier F a “state killer” and a “multiple murderer”.
Families told of their “terrible disappointment” that only one soldier would be prosecuted for two murders – of James Wray and William Mckinney – and the attempted murder of four protesters Joseph Friel, Michael Quinn, Joe Mahon and Patrick O’donnell.
The relatives’ lawyers will now begin a judicial review to force the prosecution of at least some of the 16 veterans. Ciaran Shiels, solicitor for the families, said: “Soldier F’s anonymity should be stripped. There’s no legal precedent for anyone being protected in the criminal courts by a cipher.”
Testimony given to the £200million Bloody Sunday inquiry, which ran for 12 years, was deemed inadmissible because soldiers were not allowed to be prosecuted for evidence that could self-incriminate them. Soldier F told the inquiry in 2003 that he had fired 13 rounds but insisted he had killed “gunmen and bombers”.
It has not yet been decided whether he will face a jury or a judge-led trial, or where.
A source at the PPS said the decision will be “influenced” by the case of Dennis Hutchings, a former soldier due to be tried for attempted murder in 1974, who yesterday began an appeal at the Supreme Court against a decision to try him in a “Diplock Court”, with no jury. Mr Hutchings, 77, told The Telegraph yesterday: “If I can’t have a trial with a jury, then the trial should be moved from Northern Ireland to here. And that should be the case for Soldier F too.” Lord West of Spithead, a former First Sea Lord, said: “This poor man was under severe threat and had to make decisions in a matter of seconds. That may be forgotten in a court room.” Mr Williamson said: “The Government will urgently reform the system for dealing with legacy issues. Our serving and former personnel cannot live in constant fear of prosecution.”
In a lecture in 2006, the late Lord Bingham of Cornhill, perhaps the greatest jurist of his generation, set out eight principles that underpin the Rule of Law. The third of these is that the laws of the land “should apply equally to all”.
What, then, would he have made of the decision to prosecute a former member of the Parachute Regiment for murder arising from the so-called Bloody Sunday incident in Londonderry 47 years ago? There is no statute of limitations on murder, and nor should there be. Society requires justice for taking a life unlawfully, however much time has passed. But it also expects such crimes to be dealt with equally.
Was any attempt ever made to seek the prosecution of Martin Mcguinness? The Saville Inquiry into the shootings concluded that he was “probably” armed that day with a machine gun. As the chief of staff of the IRA, Mcguinness ordered bombings and killings, yet was never charged with anything. He later became deputy first minister of Northern Ireland and dined with the Queen at Windsor Castle.
One reason why he was not pursued is that Mcguinness was seen by the state as instrumental in delivering peace to Northern Ireland. But that means the law was put aside for a secondary purpose.
How is it just to hound soldiers who were doing their duty, while never contemplating the prosecution of the leader of the terrorists they were required to confront? The Saville Inquiry was supposed to draw a line under this tragedy when it reported nine years ago, but the families say they still want justice. Scapegoating a septuagenarian former soldier does not provide it.