Evidence that could have cleared soldier on trial for Troubles killing was ‘lost by police’

POLICE have been accused of losing forensic evidence which could have proved the late Dennis Hutchings did not kill a 27-year-old man in Northern Ireland at the height of the Troubles.

They have been condemned by lawyers of the former British soldier’s family over an “abuse of process” for allegedly failing to disclose information which could have exonerated him.

Hutchings died last month aged 80 after contracting Covid-19 during his trial over the shooting of John Patrick Cunningham, who was shot in the back as he ran across a field on June 15 1974.

He always maintained that another man, known as Soldier B and who has since died, had confessed to firing the fatal shots.

Prosecutors brought a charge of attempted murder against Hutchings, claiming there was no forensic evidence to identify which soldier fired the bullet that killed Mr Cunningham.

However, in a letter to the Police Ombudsman and Public Prosecution Service (PPS) in Northern Ireland, Hutchings’s solicitors say that was incorrect.

“It has always been the case that the police could and should have known which soldier fired at Mr Cunningham and killed him,” the letter, stated.

“If, as seems likely, the police had lost the key evidence by which this could be determined, that should have been disclosed and the case withdrawn.”

During the trial, the court was told that Soldier B had fired two bright tracer rounds using bullets containing strontium. If a tracer round comes into contact with a surface or person, it is likely to leave a chemical marker.

However, any evidence of strontium contained on the bandages applied to Mr Cunningham’s wounds was not collected by the police, the letter alleges.

Hutchings always said he had fired warning shots into the air using standard ammunition and not tracer rounds.

The solicitor’s letter states: “By preserving the evidence, as is the duty of the police, it would have been possible to have said who shot Mr Cunningham.

“It is unacceptable that the police and PPS sat on the key forensic evidence for 47 years,” the letter states. “Facts must not be made up.

“The failure to disclose ... key evidence was an abuse of process.

“The PPS should have withdrawn the case as soon as they were aware of this.”

A PPS spokesman said the service would respond to the letter fully in due course but “did not accept a number of matters raised”.