Bloody Sunday trial to include soldiers' statements, judge rules

A Belfast judge ruled Wednesday that military witness statements from the Bloody Sunday period in 1972 can be used as evidence in the trial of Soldier F, the former British paratrooper charged in connection with the killings of James Wray, 22, and William McKinney, 26, along with five counts of attempted murder. The ruling comes as the high-profile case moves through a process that has reopened questions about how evidence from that day in Londonderry is evaluated decades later.

Prosecution lawyers had argued that statements provided by two paratroopers, known in court as Soldier G and Soldier H, who were with Soldier F on Bloody Sunday, constitute the strongest evidence linking him to firing his rifle at civilians. Soldier G is deceased and Soldier H has refused to testify. The material includes statements given to the Royal Military Police in 1972 and related testimony gathered for the Widgery Inquiry conducted the same year.

Prosecution barrister Louis Mably KC told the court last week that the soldiers’ statements are the only evidence capable of proving that Soldier F fired on civilians in Glenfada Park North. Defence counsel Mark Mulholland countered that Soldier G’s statements were unreliable and demonstrated changing accounts of events on Bloody Sunday. He also raised concerns about the circumstances, safeguards, and processes used to obtain those statements in 1972, arguing that the defence has been disadvantaged by not having had the chance to test them.

In his ruling on Wednesday, Judge Patrick Lynch said he would not “give reasons for the admission of statements but will do so when necessary.” He added that the decision had been reached after careful consideration. The hearing is expected to resume at noon on Friday as the court continues to weigh the admissibility of historic military statements.

Soldier F, a former member of the Parachute Regiment, is currently unnamed in line with an interim court order protecting his identity. He was charged by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) in 2019 in connection with the killings of Wray and McKinney and five counts of attempted murder from the same day. He was one of 18 former soldiers referred to the PPS after a police inquiry following Lord Saville’s public inquiry into Bloody Sunday; he alone faced charges.

The case unfolded against the backdrop of Bloody Sunday, when 13 people were shot dead by British soldiers during a civil rights demonstration in the Bogside area of Londonderry in January 1972. The 1972 Widgery Inquiry received the initial, controversial findings, while the subsequent Saville Inquiry concluded decades later with a broader reassessment of the killings and the army’s conduct. The current trial, seen as part of a long aftermath to those events, has already required navigating a complex evidentiary landscape shaped by multiple inquiries and evolving legal standards.

The Public Prosecution Service charged Soldier F in 2019, after a long period of review following the incident and related prosecutions. He was the only one of the original 18 former soldiers to be charged; two years later, the PPS dropped the case after two other veterans’ trials collapsed. The prosecution later resumed in 2022 after a legal challenge, and the case has since proceeded through a series of procedural rulings that have kept questions about the admissibility of older evidence at the center of the proceedings.

The evolving approach to the Bloody Sunday case underscores a broader discussion about evidentiary standards for historical incidents, the reliability of witness statements gathered decades ago, and the expectations of due process in modern courts. As the Belfast Crown Court prepares to hear further arguments, the case remains a focal point for families of victims, legal scholars, and those seeking clarity about accountability for events from that era.

The World section continues to cover developments in the Soldier F proceedings, with observers watching how the court balances the weight of 1970s military testimony against modern protective measures for witnesses and the rights of the defendant. The next hearing is anticipated to address whether additional documentary and testimonial material from the era will be admitted or excluded, shaping the trajectory of a case that has persisted for years without a final verdict.