Journalists called back to Saville Inquiry

Two journalists are expected to defend their right to protect their sources when recalled to give evidence to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry today.

Alex Thomson and Lena Ferguson, who interviewed five soldiers for a series of controversial reports for Channel 4 News in 1997 and 1998, risked jail after refusing to reveal the identity of their confidential sources when giving evidence in May 2002.

They are expected to be challenged again to reveal the identities of the soldiers when they appear at the Guildhall in Derry, where the inquiry is taking place.

Sources for ITN, which produces Channel 4 News, told PA News: “If they are asked again to reveal their sources, both Alex and Lena will certainly stick by their position that they won’t do this.”

The pair were placed in contempt by inquiry chairman Lord Saville after defying an order to hand over their interview notes.

Mr Thomson, Chief Correspondent of Channel 4 News, and Ms Ferguson, his former producer, argued that to reveal their sources to the inquiry would breach their journalistic integrity.

However, they agreed to go back to the soldiers and seek permission to reveal their names. Three of the soldiers agreed, while two remain adamant that their anonymity must be protected.

The television reports, which coincided with the 25th anniversary of the events in Derry on January 30, 1972 when 13 unarmed civilians were killed by members of the Parachute Regiment, included claims that some of the dead and injured had been struck by bullets fired from the city’s walls.

When pressed by Lord Saville in May 2002 to reveal her sources, Ms Ferguson, who is now head of political programmes for BBC Northern Ireland, said : “I made an agreement to those soldiers that I would not reveal their identity and I do not want to be persuaded to change that agreement I had with them.”

Mr Thomson told Lord Saville: “There is a clear principle which needs defending there, a principle which extends not just to Channel 4 News but to investigative journalism and its future as a whole (and if that principle needs to be defended by ultimately serving a prison sentence or whatever is required, then that is going to have to be done).”

The contempt issue also extends to ITN, which has refused to hand over taped material that might help identify the sources.

Despite repeated requests from ITN and the two journalists, the inquiry has not yet said whether it intends to proceed with a court action for contempt. This would be a criminal trial and could carry a prison sentence if the defendants are found guilty.

Lord Saville did not accept the argument from ITN and the two journalists, and placed them in contempt.

He said on May 2, 2002: “All these soldiers have given accounts which it is vital for the inquiry to investigate fully, but which it cannot do without knowing the identity of the soldiers in question.”

And he found it “difficult to accept that an order that the soldiers in question be identified to the inquiry will have the devastating effect on future disclosure of public or private wrong-doing”.

Counsel to the inquiry Christopher Clarke QC argued that without possession of all the footage and notes held by Channel 4 News, it would be impossible to obtain a full picture of the soldiers’ evidence.

Mr Clarke said the evidence the soldiers could give was “of such predominating importance as to make it necessary in the interests of justice that ITN reveal to the inquiry who they are.”