27 May 1999 Edition
MoD seeks judicial review over Bloody Sunday
By Padraig MacDabhaid
The anonymity row which is plaguing the Bloody Sunday inquiry has taken another twist after it was disclosed that the British soldiers who have been refused anonymity by Lord Saville now intend to judicially review the decision not to grant anonymity, further delaying the inquiry.
This latest twist comes as the British media is beginning to build up a campaign against the quest for the truth by attacking the inquiry and discrediting those who were murdered on the day, and members of the Parachute regiment are threatening to withhold evidence from the inquiry.
Angela Ritchie, of solicitors Madden and Finucane explained that the Inquiry made a ruling on 7 May 1999, ``in which it refused to grant all the soldiers anonymity. Instead the Inquiry ruled that any individual soldier who had a specific fear or threat could make, what the Inquiry described as, a special reasons application.
``To date we have not been informed that any soldier has chosen to avail of this step and make a special reasons application as to why he should be anonymous''.
While British soldiers who served in Derry during the massacre are claiming that to reveal their names would endanger their lives, the media is beginning a campaign which is reminiscent of the campaigns to have both Lee Clegg and the killers of Peter McBride released.
A Daily Telegraph editorial was particularly scathing of those who seek truth and justice, labelling the inquiry as merely a political ``gesture of goodwill and appeasement to the IRA''. It goes on to peddle the myth that the original Widgery Inquiry was adequate and that there is no need for another one.
The British campaign ignores important facts. Fourteen unarmed people were shot and killed by British soldiers at a civil rights march. The original Widgery inquiry was far from adequate and did not have the same evidence at its disposal then as the Saville inquiry has now. New evidence such as the revelation that another British regiment, the Anglicans, deployed on Derry's Wall's on 30 January 1972, fired on and possibly killed a number of the marchers.
As Major Hubert O'Neill, the coroner said at the time: ``It strikes me that the army ran amok that day and shot without thinking what they were doing. They were shooting innocent people... it was sheer, unadulterated murder''.
It is clear that the establishment media are now beginning a demonisation process against those who were murdered and, indeed, their families by insinuating that some of those killed were involved in rioting or armed activity on the day, a claim which has been proved to be false on countless occasions.
Patricia Coyle of Madden and Finucane Solicitors, acting on behalf of the majority of the relatives of those killed on Bloody Sunday and the wounded, has said that the editorial in the Daily Telegraph has raised serious concerns.
``Our clients will be writing to the Bloody Sunday inquiry asking them to address the following matters immediately:- (1)That military witnesses are intending to withhold evidence from the Inquiry unless anonymity is granted. (2) That the Daily Telegraph has what are described as `full accounts' made by these military witnesses'', she said.
She continued saying, ``our clients will be formally requesting the Bloody Sunday Inquiry to immediately interview the journalist Toby Harnden and to compel both him and the Daily Telegraph to produce all notes and records of interviews and details of sources to the Inquiry''.
Highlighting the media involvement in trying to build up a momentum for a campaign in favour of the Paras she said: ``Our clients believe that the soldiers in speaking to the Daily Telegraph in this manner are ignoring the due process and attempting to manipulate the media for their own purposes''.
She concluded by saying: ``Our clients are dismayed at the suggestion that the granting of this Inquiry was merely a `political gesture of goodwill and appeasement to the IRA'. Our clients have campaigned for a full judicial inquiry. The evidence examined by the Prime Minister was of such importance that he took the unprecedented step of setting up a new judicial inquiry to establish the facts and the truth of what happened on Bloody Sunday. Our clients believe that this editorial is reckless and irresponsible in the extreme''.
The anonymity row which is plaguing the Bloody Sunday inquiry has taken another twist after it was disclosed that the British soldiers who have been refused anonymity by Lord Saville now intend to judicially review the decision not to grant anonymity, further delaying the inquiry.
This latest twist comes as the British media is beginning to build up a campaign against the quest for the truth by attacking the inquiry and discrediting those who were murdered on the day, and members of the Parachute regiment are threatening to withhold evidence from the inquiry.
Angela Ritchie, of solicitors Madden and Finucane explained that the Inquiry made a ruling on 7 May 1999, ``in which it refused to grant all the soldiers anonymity. Instead the Inquiry ruled that any individual soldier who had a specific fear or threat could make, what the Inquiry described as, a special reasons application.
``To date we have not been informed that any soldier has chosen to avail of this step and make a special reasons application as to why he should be anonymous''.
While British soldiers who served in Derry during the massacre are claiming that to reveal their names would endanger their lives, the media is beginning a campaign which is reminiscent of the campaigns to have both Lee Clegg and the killers of Peter McBride released.
A Daily Telegraph editorial was particularly scathing of those who seek truth and justice, labelling the inquiry as merely a political ``gesture of goodwill and appeasement to the IRA''. It goes on to peddle the myth that the original Widgery Inquiry was adequate and that there is no need for another one.
The British campaign ignores important facts. Fourteen unarmed people were shot and killed by British soldiers at a civil rights march. The original Widgery inquiry was far from adequate and did not have the same evidence at its disposal then as the Saville inquiry has now. New evidence such as the revelation that another British regiment, the Anglicans, deployed on Derry's Wall's on 30 January 1972, fired on and possibly killed a number of the marchers.
As Major Hubert O'Neill, the coroner said at the time: ``It strikes me that the army ran amok that day and shot without thinking what they were doing. They were shooting innocent people... it was sheer, unadulterated murder''.
It is clear that the establishment media are now beginning a demonisation process against those who were murdered and, indeed, their families by insinuating that some of those killed were involved in rioting or armed activity on the day, a claim which has been proved to be false on countless occasions.
Patricia Coyle of Madden and Finucane Solicitors, acting on behalf of the majority of the relatives of those killed on Bloody Sunday and the wounded, has said that the editorial in the Daily Telegraph has raised serious concerns.
``Our clients will be writing to the Bloody Sunday inquiry asking them to address the following matters immediately:- (1)That military witnesses are intending to withhold evidence from the Inquiry unless anonymity is granted. (2) That the Daily Telegraph has what are described as `full accounts' made by these military witnesses'', she said.
She continued saying, ``our clients will be formally requesting the Bloody Sunday Inquiry to immediately interview the journalist Toby Harnden and to compel both him and the Daily Telegraph to produce all notes and records of interviews and details of sources to the Inquiry''.
Highlighting the media involvement in trying to build up a momentum for a campaign in favour of the Paras she said: ``Our clients believe that the soldiers in speaking to the Daily Telegraph in this manner are ignoring the due process and attempting to manipulate the media for their own purposes''.
She concluded by saying: ``Our clients are dismayed at the suggestion that the granting of this Inquiry was merely a `political gesture of goodwill and appeasement to the IRA'. Our clients have campaigned for a full judicial inquiry. The evidence examined by the Prime Minister was of such importance that he took the unprecedented step of setting up a new judicial inquiry to establish the facts and the truth of what happened on Bloody Sunday. Our clients believe that this editorial is reckless and irresponsible in the extreme''.