Bloody Sunday soldiers shielded from public view

Relatives of Bloody Sunday victims tonight hit out at a ruling which will shield two soldiers from public view before they testify at an inquiry into the atrocity.

A new row erupted after it was warned national security could be threatened if one of the men was identified.

Referring to confidential documents tribunal chairman Lord Saville spoke of ‘‘compelling reasons’’ for keeping both Soldiers B and J hidden behind screens.

But the families of those shot dead by paratroopers during the civil rights march in Londonderry in January 1972 launched a furious attack on his decision not to reveal more details.

John Kelly, whose 17-year-old brother Michael was among the 13 killed on the day, said: ‘‘We are talking about the openness and transparency of the inquiry.

‘‘This is another example of non-disclosure of documentation and the families have been cut out once again.’’

All military witnesses due to give evidence to the tribunal when it moves to London in September have been assured their names will not be disclosed.

The first of its kind, Lord Saville’s ruling today means the soldiers will not be seen by the public, media or relatives of those killed and injured.

They will be taken into the inquiry amid top secrecy and visible only to lawyers, staff and Ministry of Defence officials.

Speculation was rife in Derry tonight about the possible identity of Soldier B, who was the subject of a Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate application.

Thought to be one of the first paratroopers to open fire on Bloody Sunday, British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon had urged the inquiry to allow his ‘‘physical identity’’ to remain hidden.

If it was revealed there could be a threat to the national security, he claimed.

According to Mr Hoon Soldier B gave controversial evidence to the original Widgery Tribunal in 1972 where he claimed to have come under attack from a nail bomber.

His account was that he fired three shots at the assailant because he feared for the safety of himself and his colleagues. The man fell and was carried away.

Mr Hoon said: ‘‘I have unequivocally concluded that it would be damaging to the public interest for Soldier B to give evidence unscreened because of the serious harm that it would do to national security.’’

Legal submissions for both men also claimed they feared being exposed to terrorist attack if they gave their evidence unscreened.

Lord Saville insisted the national security issue had not been considered because the other argument for safeguarding the men’s right to life under European law was so strong.

Although reluctant to conduct any part of the inquiry behind closed doors, he said: ‘‘There is, to our minds at least, absolutely no doubt that the openness of this inquiry must give way to the extent necessary to protect the human rights of individuals.’’

However, Mr Kelly voiced dismay at Lord Saville’s decision and warned that it could open the floodgates to a wave of similar applications.

With lawyers for the families uncertain whether they can appeal against the decision, he said: ‘‘We are very disappointed that he’s taken this stance.

‘‘We see it as a precedent for further screening applications from soldiers, this is just the beginning.’’