Soldiers due to be called as witnesses before the Bloody Sunday Inquiry are to make an application for their evidence to be heard in London, rather than Derry, a preliminary hearing in the Guild Hall in Derry was told yesterday. Mr Edwin Glasgow QC confirmed his clients would be applying for a change of venue for the hearings which are set to begin next March.
The chairman of the inquiry, Lord Saville of Newdigate, said the tribunal felt it best to leave a decision on the venue for the soldiers' evidence until the last moment, probably as late as next February, so that the tribunal could get the most up-to-date security assessment.
Lord Gifford QC, said it was of utmost importance to all the victims' families, whom he represented, that the inquiry should be held in Derry, so that they, their relatives and friends could attend and listen.
Earlier, Mr Declan Morgan QC, representing two families, made his submission on the issue of anonymity for the remaining soldiers not dealt with by the recent Court of Appeal judgment which granted anonymity to soldiers who fired shots in the Bogside on January 30th, 1972.
He said there were negative perceptions among the families of the victims and the public that the anonymity granted to paratroopers who fired shots on Bloody Sunday was abused by them at the original tribunal, chaired by Lord Widgery.
There was a perception that the Widgery tribunal either "would not or could not" deal with this abuse and that the search for truth was consequently impaired. He feared the present application for blanket anonymity could create an opportunity for further abuse and that this tribunal's search for truth might be materially undermined.
Counsel for the tribunal, Mr Christopher Clarke QC, suggested that the Court of Appeal in its judgment had not really considered the question of anonymity as a whole - but just in relation to the soldiers who had fired shots on that day.
Preserving the anonymity of all the soldiers would be quite a substantial undertaking for the tribunal and would require a complex form of coding in all documentation. He pointed out that the statements already taken from soldiers had been in their own names.
He said oral evidence to the tribunal would also be made more complex if overall anonymity was granted. Individual soldiers would have to refer to their comrades by a number or letter and in cross-examination they could only be questioned about other soldiers by their letter or number.
Mr Clarke said the tribunal should reserve the power to withdraw anonymity in individual instances if it impedes the inquiry. "Of course, anonymity will have to be removed if it is necessary to ascertain the truth," he added.
He also suggested that Lord Widgery had decided at his inquiry that officers of the rank of Lt Col and above should give evidence in their own name, though only a certain number had done so.
When the issue of anonymity for a number of police officers was raised, counsel for the RUC, Mr Stephen Ritchie, said applications by two officers, "E" and "F", were to be withdrawn. A report by a consultant psychiatrist was awaited to support the application of officer D.
Three officers have previously been granted screening if they are called to give evidence to the tribunal.
Lord Gifford said the difference between the RUC officers and the soldiers was that they were not seeking to withhold their names as they were already on their statements, rather their application was to have their faces concealed.
"We are in danger of accepting a culture of secrecy. Where openness can be maintained it should be," he said.