THE BLOODY SUNDAY INQUIRY: The MI5 agent who claimed to have heard Mr Martin McGuinness admit he fired a shot on Bloody Sunday will not be called to give evidence at the inquiry, it was announced by the chairman, Lord Saville, yesterday.
Counsel for Mr McGuinness claimed that, on foot of this decision, his client has been rendered "deaf, dumb and blind" in the face of a very serious allegation.
The barrister, Mr Peter Cush, pointed out that Mr McGuinness had vehemently denied having fired "the first, or indeed any shot on Bloody Sunday", He also vehemently denies making such an admission to the agent known as "Infliction" or to anyone else.
Mr Cush said: "In coming to give evidence to this tribunal, one of his strong wishes was that he would give the lie to the allegations which have been made against him. He was anxious to see where the allegation came from, to hear the evidence being given . . . and to instruct those appearing for him to cross-examine in relation to the evidence given so that he could defend his position."
Counsel said many questions arose concerning the credibility of the alleged Infliction information, and it was now clear that even open cross-examination of security witnesses was not going to provide answers to them.
"How, therefore, can the proposed scheme of things, this distorted procedure, ever produce a just and open finding in relation to this allegation?" Mr Cush asked.
The inquiry yesterday heard submissions in relation to an application by MI5 for Public Interest Immunity (PII) in relation to evidence to be given by two of its agents, A and B, and the former agent, Mr David Shayler, concerning Infliction's allegation and the background to it.
Infliction is said to have been a former prominent member of the Provisional IRA who was relocated outside the UK and given a new identity in the 1980s.
Heavily edited MI5 documents supplied to the inquiry purport that he made the allegation about Mr McGuinness in 1984, during his debriefing by Officer A. The identity of Infliction and his whereabouts are believed to have been disclosed in private to the tribunal.
MI5 and the British Home Office, to which it reports, are seeking to have evidence of Officers A and B and the whistleblower, Mr Shayler, given behind closed doors, and to have a special "time-delay" procedure applied so that the evidence can be vetted before being made public.
Lord Saville said the tribunal was satisfied that to call Infliction to give evidence would be in breach of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Counsel for MI5 and the Home Office, Mr Philip Sales, said the identity of Infliction was a very closely guarded secret, even within the Security Service.
Mr Barry MacDonald, counsel for a number of victims' families, opposed the application, pointing out that RUC officers have been granted screening, soldiers have been granted anonymity, and PII has been applied for in relation to a range of other material.
The cumulative effects of all that should not be underestimated, counsel said, "because secrecy and exclusion breed suspicion and mistrust and they erode public confidence".
Mr Michael Mansfield QC, for other families, said if the tribunal took into account evidence or replies which were not made public, it could give rise to a conundrum almost like an Alice in Wonderland situation.
Following the submissions, Lord Saville said the tribunal would give a ruling in due course.
The inquiry continues today.