Decision not to prosecute soldiers questioned

Questions were raised at the inquiry yesterday about the RUC's advice in 1972 that soldiers should not be prosecuted for the …

Questions were raised at the inquiry yesterday about the RUC's advice in 1972 that soldiers should not be prosecuted for the Bloody Sunday shootings, even though evidence was available linking at least two of them to the deaths or injuring of specific victims.

A top-level RUC report forwarded to the Chief Crown Solicitor 10 weeks after the shootings acknowledged that evidence was available against two soldiers but said that the possibility of bringing criminal charges against any others was "to say the least, remote", said Mr Kevin Finnegan QC, counsel for the relatives of several Bloody Sunday victims.

He said that "strangely" one of the RUC officers concerned in preparing the report took the view that the two soldiers against whom there was evidence should not be prosecuted.

He quoted from the RUC report, dated April 12th, 1972, and signed by an RUC chief superintendent who observed: "I would also wish to point out that it would appear to be patently unreasonable to proceed against two soldiers merely because in those instances there is evidence that the bullet causing the death was fired from a rifle in possession of the soldier (sic) while 20 other soldiers fired somewhere in the region of 126 rounds of ammunition but who cannot be specifically identified as causing the death or wounding of any particular person."

READ MORE

Mr Finnegan described this as a "bizarre" conclusion, and asked whether, if one had a video of six bank robbers and only two of them could be identified, "would it be patently unreasonable to prosecute the two who could be identified because four others could not?"

Counsel pointed out that the police had the bullet that killed 17-year-old Michael Kelly at the rubble barricade in the Bogside and knew the rifle and the soldier who had shot him.

The report sent from RUC headquarters to the Crown Solicitor, which has been seen by The Irish Times, asked for "the Director's views" (presumably the DPP) on "what further police action should be taken either prior to the publication of the (Widgery) Tribunal conclusions or subsequent to that event".

The report also commented that there would be considerable difficulties in getting witnesses to give statements to the police.

The report asserted that to prepare comprehensive police files in connection with each of the dead and wounded "would undoubtedly involve the limited detective staff in Londonderry for a considerable period and they can ill afford such time at present, particularly if there is to be no result from their efforts".