Inquiry urged to examine Heath's role

The Bloody Sunday inquiry has been urged to examine the level of responsibility of former British prime minister Sir Edward Heath…

The Bloody Sunday inquiry has been urged to examine the level of responsibility of former British prime minister Sir Edward Heath in the killings of 13 civilians and the woundings of 14 others by paratroopers in the Bogside area of Derry on January 30th, 1972.

Barrister Lord Gifford told the inquiry yesterday that Sir Edward, who was the British prime minister on Bloody Sunday, and who had taken a close personal interest in Northern Ireland, had, in the days immediately before the planned civil rights march in Derry, a choice to treat the marchers as either law-breakers or as peaceful protesters.

"In the making of that choice, the prime minister played a decisive role," Lord Gifford said.

"This is the heart of the matter. We say it was plainly obvious that if you authorise the army to be resolute in confronting a march of 8,000 to 12,000 citizens, confronting them with 20 companies of troops, you are risking bloodshed on a potentially large scale," he said.

READ MORE

"Taking off the kid gloves, which Sir Edward Heath clearly authorised, and applying the law with rigour, as he clearly intended, was something which had a price, and the risk was deliberately run," Lord Gifford added.

In his final submission to the hearing, which has so far lasted 431 days, Lord Gifford said the dispositions Sir Edward approved gave no quarter to the marchers. He said that the inquiry's three judges had to examine the level of political responsibility, including that of Sir Edward, for the killings and shootings.

"This is a very serious part of the inquiry's remit. It is serious for the reputation of the men who have held the highest offices of state. It is important for the families also that you should pronounce up to what level, military and political, you hold responsible for the acts of the soldiers on Bloody Sunday," he said.

"He [Sir Edward] did not urge restraint. He felt no need because he had made a choice that the law should be observed, if necessary, at the cost of damage to the marchers at the hands of the army. He could have advised a different decision, but he did not," Lord Gifford added.

The inquiry continues.