Families of Bloody Sunday victims expressed anger and disappointment yesterday. This followed a Saville inquiry ruling that, for "most compelling" but undisclosed reasons, two soldiers should have the right to be screened when giving evidence to the inquiry.
A Public Interest Immunity (PII) application certified by the British Defence Minister, Mr Geoffrey Hoon, in respect of one of the soldiers, Soldier B, was not addressed, and speculation was rife in inquiry circles later as to the "national security" interests invoked by Mr Hoon to support the masking of this soldier's appearance from the public.
The tribunal made its ruling on the screening applications by Soldiers B and J without hearing any legal submissions in public on the matter. It accepted, on the basis of "confidential material" supplied to it, that to order these two soldiers to give evidence unscreened would "undoubtedly" breach their rights (to life) under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
When the matter of the applications arose, the chairman, Lord Saville, immediately said that he and his fellow judges had been supplied with confidential material in relation to both soldiers. He said: "We are satisfied that the material in question should be confidential because we are also satisfied that to disclose it would in fact defeat the very purpose of the applications."
He added that, in their judgment, these were "two quite exceptional cases in a number of respects which unfortunately are confidential". However, "that material wholly satisfies us that there are the most compelling reasons for granting the application" because not to grant screening "would undoubtedly breach the Article 2 rights of these two applicants".
In what seemed to observers to be a very pointed comment, the chairman then said: "We have not considered, and do not state any view in relation to the further ground of the application, namely, a possible damage to national security . . . The reason we have not done that is \ to our minds at least, the Article 2 position is so compelling that there is no reason to do so."
Lord Saville said he appreciated that the interested parties would be disappointed and the tribunal had, in reaching their decision, looked at submissions made in that regard.
He added: "But at the end of the day 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, particularly the Article 2 human rights, of individuals."
The evidence of Soldiers B and J will therefore be given, when the inquiry convenes in London, in the sight of lawyers acting for the interested parties, but out of the view of the public, the victims' families and the media.
Legal sources pointed out last night that by granting the screening applications for B and J on Article 2 grounds, the tribunal's ruling had precluded any discussion or submissions in open chamber on the sensitive and controversial PII application in respect of Soldier B.
It had also avoided making any decision in relation to granting or refusing this application although, in effect, it has sanctioned the practical measures sought by the Defence Minister in his PII certificate.
Commenting on Lord Saville's remarks, Mr John Kelly, whose brother Michael, then aged 17, was shot dead by paratroopers on Bloody Sunday, said last night: "We are very disappointed he's taken this stance, and we see it [the ruling\] as a precedent for further screening applications. The families have been cut out again."
Mr Michael Bridge, who was shot and wounded by a soldier on Bloody Sunday, said the non-disclosure of significant material to the victims' families was becoming the norm at the inquiry. "We can't address the issues because we don't get the information or the reasons for the ruling," he said.
Both Soldier B and Soldier J gave evidence unscreened, although anonymously, before the Widgery inquiry in 1972. Soldier B, a member of the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment, said he was one of eight soldiers stationed in a derelict building off William Street as the Civil Rights march approached.
Stones were thrown at the building and he heard two nail bombs explode on adjoining waste ground.
He said he then saw a man about 50 m away holding a "black object" that "looked like a nail bomb". The man struck a match on a wall with his other hand. Soldier B fired three shots at him and the man fell back. Soldier B, in reply to counsel, agreed that the "nail bomb" did not explode.
When it was put to him that he had fired without orders, and that "you were going to execute [this man\] without even mentioning it to your sergeant", he replied: "Yes, Sir."
Another soldier, Soldier A, had fired two shots from another window and it is believed that either he or Soldier B at this point caused the bullet wounds suffered by Damien Donaghy and John Johnston, who were both injured some 15 minutes before the main body of paratroopers stormed into the Bogside.
Speculation last night about the PII application concerning Soldier B ranged from the possibility that he has since become a public figure of some kind, to the more likely scenario that since 1972 he had become linked to MI5, perhaps as an informer in one of the paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland.