Britain's Ministry of Defence yesterday appeared to wash its hands of responsibility for the actions of soldiers on Bloody Sunday, arguing it has no case to answer.
Rejecting criticism of the fact that the MoD is not formally represented as an interested party, Mr Ian Burnett QC, for the ministry, said its position had been misunderstood.
"There has been a continuing and to some extent understandable, confusion between the MoD, as department of state which has responsibility for the army, and the interests of the soldiers and commanders who were present on Bloody Sunday," he said.
The MoD had arranged for the soldiers to be provided with legal assistance and these legal teams were entirely independent of the ministry and of the government. Such support was provided in accordance with routine arrangements to provide legal assistance to public servants involved in inquiries or litigation arising from their service.
This representation ensured those in the command structure on Bloody Sunday in 1972 had a full voice before the inquiry.
Counsel said the MoD maintained a permanent presence of civil servants from its special Bloody Sunday inquiry unit at the inquiry, and that counsel also attended when invited to do so. He added, however: "The MoD of today has no case to put to, or to advance before this tribunal, nor does it have a position to defend."
Mr Burnett dismissed suggestions that what occurred on Bloody Sunday was the result of a conspiracy involving top-level politicians and military commanders or civil servants. The foundation of the allegations was documentation provided by the MoD itself, he said, and careful analysis of that material by counsel to the tribunal, Mr Christopher Clarke QC, had led him to conclude there was no evidence to support the conspiracy theories.
Counsel said that in opening statements for some of the bereaved and injured, "the good faith of the government in general and the Ministry of Defence in particular, in their dealings with this inquiry, was called into question". Some had gone so far as to suggest the MoD was actively obstructing the inquiry's work. Such suggestions were absurd. The five full-time civil servants in the MoD's Bloody Sunday unit were constantly assisting the inquiry. The Prime Minister, Mr Blair, had given an assurance to parliament that his government would give the fullest possible co-operation to the inquiry. Mr Burnett admitted that, because of "normal administrative processes designed to reduce the volume of paperwork preserved", the great majority of documentary material in MoD files concerning the period of Bloody Sunday had been destroyed. As photographs were not, in the 1970s, afforded the status of documentary material, it was likely also that the vast bulk of military photographs and film had been destroyed in 1972 or shortly thereafter "on the ground that it was of no further use".
Counsel added: "We are not concerned to speculate on why photographs, which it can be inferred were taken, were not, it would seem, provided to Lord Widgery (who chaired the 1972 inquiry). We are concerned with efforts made recently to locate them."
He again expressed regret on behalf of the MoD that two rifles, thought to have been used by soldiers on Bloody Sunday, had been destroyed in January last year. Those responsible had been the subject of "an intense and uncomfortable police investigation", the outcome of which remained uncertain.
The inquiry has postponed a ruling on applications to have sensitive British Intelligence material kept secret until it investigates reports casting doubts on the reliability of the source of the material.
Mr Michael Mansfield QC, representing next-of-kin of several Bloody Sunday victims, yesterday referred to newspaper reports in relation to the security service agent codenamed Infliction, who was said to have alleged that Mr Martin McGuinness had admitted firing a shot on the day. A former British security service agent, Mr David Shayler, wrote in the Observer that Infliction's reliability had been discredited and MI5 had concluded he was not to be trusted.
Tribunal chairman Lord Saville said these matters were being investigated by the inquiry, and a ruling on Public Interest Immunity applications by the Home Secretary and the Defence Secretary was now likely to be delayed for a week or two at least.