|
|
24 - 25 APRIL 2002
This week had originally been set aside for interlocutory hearings. However, since the Court of Appeal has yet to hand down its judgment regarding screening for 20 RUC officers, applications for screening on behalf of Soldiers H and 108 were not heard.
Instead, the Inquiry heard evidence from three media witnesses including, David Green who was told on the day that the IRA had gone to get their guns. John Cooke from the Press Association was taken to a house in the Bogside where he was given copies of a number of photographs taken on the day of the dead and wounded.
The Inquiry also heard from two civilian witnesses, including Marie Cregan, whose father was grazed by a live bullet on Bloody Sunday. Willie Barrett lived in Glenfada Park South on Bloody Sunday and returned home on the day after hearing live gun fire from the army. He saw two soldiers in the Glenfada Park and Abbey Park areas on the day.
OTHER ISSUES
Legal representatives for five anonymous Official IRA (OIRA) members and Mr Reg Tester (OIRA) made an application on their behalf for full legal representation at the Inquiry. This application was denied by Lord Saville.
Legal representatives for Dr John Martin, retired forensic scientist, applied for screening on his behalf, under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. The Tribunal has yet to pronounce its ruling on this matter.
A full transcript of the proceedings is available at http://www.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org.uk.
1. david green’s evidence
Mr Green was a soundman for the American news channel CBS in 1972. However was sent to Derry to act as cameraman for journalist Jack Lawrence on Bloody Sunday.
1.1 questions on behalf of the tribunal
1.1.1 Barrier 14
Mr Green walked at the head of the march from the beginning of the march until it arrived in William Street. He then went down to Barrier 14 where he was soaked by the army water cannon. He did not recall hearing any shots prior to his arrival at Barrier 14, nor could he recollect gas in the air whilst he was at the barrier. Since it was a cold day, he returned to the City Hotel to change out of his wet clothes. At this stage, no soldiers had entered the Bogside.
1.1.2 Contact at the City Hotel
Within five minutes of his returning to the hotel, he was approached by a hotel staff member who had acted as a contact for CBS in the past. This man, whose name he could not recall, told him that the IRA had gone to get their guns. Mr Green told the Inquiry that, prior to this incident, he had heard no rumours that there would be IRA gunmen present on the march.
1.1.3 Chamberlain Street / Rossville Flats car park
Mr Green returned promptly to the Bogside where he found the Paratroopers already in the area, one of whom told him to ‘fuck off’. He made his way to the bottom end of Chamberlain Street where he took shelter from the live fire.
1.1.4 Jackie Duddy
He saw Fr Daly and a group of men carrying the body of Jackie Duddy from the car park into Chamberlain Street, and, for safety’s sake, decided to follow them. He later overtook them and took some photographs.
1.1.5 Father Daly’s gunman
Mr Green said that, whilst at the top of Chamberlain Street, he had not seen Father Daly’s gunman, nor had he heard people shouting at the said gunman. He told the Inquiry that he saw nobody with a handgun on the day.
1.2 questions on behalf of the families and wounded
1.2.1 Shots heard
In a television interview in 1997, Mr Green said that all the shooting he had heard on Bloody Sunday appeared to be coming from the army. Mr Green told the Inquiry that this was a conclusion he had reached after the events. On the day in question, he had been unable to tell where the shooting was coming from.
1.3 questions on behalf of the soldiers
1.3.1 Father Daly’s gunman
Mr Green confirmed that he had not seen Father Daly’s gunman, and added that, had he seen any civilian gunmen on Bloody Sunday, he would have reported it to the authorities. However, he had not seen any civilian with a weapon.
1.3.2 Contact at the City Hotel
Mr Green said that he could no longer recall the name of the CBS contact at the City Hotel who had told him that the IRA had gone to get their weapons. He was able to confirm that the man in question was not an employee of the hotel, but rather an established contact whom he had met on a number of previous occasions in Derry.
2. marie cregan’s evidence
Ms Cregan (née Brolly) was 17 on Bloody Sunday. She attended the march with a group of 10 friends, including Marie McPhilips (née Shiels), Anne McNutt (now deceased) and Margaret Begley.
2.1 questions on behalf of the tribunal
2.1.1 Barney McGuigan
When the shooting started, Ms Cregan took shelter in the telephone box at the gable end of Block 1 of the flats. When she left the area, she passed the body of man she later found out to be Barney McGuigan. She also found out that her father had been with him on the march, but that they had separated at an earlier stage.
2.1.2 Glenfada Park
Ms Cregan and her friend Margaret ran across Rossville Street and dived into the gardens to the front of Glenfada Park South. People in the flats were shouting at them to stay on the ground. Eventually, they got up and ran into the flats where they noticed that Margaret had been wounded in the knee, presumably by having fallen on the ground.
Ms Cregan was asked whether Margaret might have been the young woman with an injured leg, described by Mr Kelly in his testimony before the Tribunal. Ms Cregan did not believe so as there were a number of discrepancies between Margaret’s description and that provided by Mr Kelly: Margaret was 17, not 30, was wearing a skirt, not trousers, and was not tended to by a Knight of Malta, but by the woman in whose house they took shelter.
2.1.3 Mother’s statement to the Inquiry
Ms Cregan’s mother (Mrs Brolly) provided a statement to the Inquiry in which she suggested that she had met her daughter, Ms Cregan, in Kathleen Cunningham’s flat on Bloody Sunday. Mrs Brolly also said that her daughter had been with William Nash when he was shot. Ms Cregan said that this account was not accurate. She explained that her mother had suffered a stroke since Bloody Sunday and that she often got mixed up about times and places.
2.1.4 Father’s statement
Ms Cregan’s father, Mr Brolly, was grazed on the head by a live bullet on Bloody Sunday and had to be taken to hospital. He shared an ambulance with Alanna Burke, a red-bearded man and the body of Barney McGuigan. He provided a statement to the Inquiry, but has since passed away. Ms Cregan was asked whether she could provide further information concerning her father’s statement, particularly with regard to a red-bearded man who had apparently got out of the ambulance at John Street.
Ms Cregan confirmed that her father had told her the story and had often puzzled over the identity of the young man. However, she could shed no further light on the incident.
2.2 questions on behalf of the soldiers
2.2.1 Red-bearded man
It was Mrs Brolly’s evidence that the red-bearded man in the ambulance was injured. Ms Cregan said that she had never heard her father say that the man in question had been injured, but did recall her father thinking it was strange that the man had got out of the ambulance prior to arriving at the hospital.
3. William Barrett
Mr Barrett lived in Glenfada Park South at the time of Bloody Sunday. He explained that he had witnessed the shooting of Seamus Cusack prior to Bloody Sunday and had assisted at the Inquiry investigating this death. It was his ill-treatment at the hands of that inquiry that had led to his reluctance to give his evidence before the Bloody Sunday Inquiry.
3.1 questions on behalf of the tribunal
3.1.1 Man with machine gun around time of Bloody Sunday
Mr Barrett told the Inquiry that there was a man who used to fire a machine gun towards the army post on the Embassy Ballroom. He said that it was ‘for show’ more than anything else, as he would not have been able to hit the top of the Embassy from his usual firing positions. He described the incidents as a ‘pantomime type’ affair, with people following him like the pied piper.
Mr Barrett said that it was a fairly regular occurrence, and that the man often fired from inside the square of Glenfada Park North. He believed that it had happened fairly early in the Troubles, possibly prior to Bloody Sunday. He thought that the man in question might have been a member of the OIRA.
3.1.2 Glenfada Park
Mr Barrett was standing talking to friends by Block 1 of the Rossville Flats when he heard a few loud shots. He ran over the rubble barricade and into his flat in Glenfada Park South, followed by a number of other people. He saw approximately 50 people lying in the courtyard, afraid to run towards Lisfannon Park as they believed some of the shooting was coming from the city Walls. None of them were armed.
Mr Barrett also saw a black soldier in the northeast corner of Glenfada Park South, looking from side to side. In his contemporaneous statement, Mr Barrett said that he saw the soldier fire two or three shots into the courtyard. Although he did not mention seeing the soldier fire in his statement to the Inquiry, Mr Barrett was adamant that he would not have said it at the time if it had not happened.
Mr Barrett then went to the rear of his house and looked out of the window overlooking the passageway between Glenfada Park and Abbey Park. He saw a different soldier fire from the northwest corner of Glenfada Park North, in the direction of the Old Bog Road. The soldier raised his gun and fired at least two separate rounds. Mr Barrett saw a man lying on the steps at the top end of Abbey Park. The man appeared to be fairly young, wearing a white shirt. He assumed that the first shot fired by the soldier had hit the young man.
Mr Barrett also saw John Porter, standing in front of the O’Riley’s house in Abbey Park. He knew Mr Porter who was a Quartermaster Sergeant in the Irish Army.
He then saw a young, female Knight of Malta run towards the body. Another shot rang out and she fell. He assumed that she had been shot by the same soldier.
Mr Barrett could no longer recall having seen a further two men being shot. He said that, since he had said this at the time, he would stand by his original account, but he could not recollect it with any certainty now, as his memory on this particular matter might be tainted by reports he had read about the incident: he would not know whether he was actually recalling seeing the two bodies, or whether he was recalling seeing it on the television, for example.
3.2 questions on behalf of the soldiers
3.2.1 Remembering Bloody Sunday
Mr Barrett, referring to the shooting of Alexander Nash, wrote: “I did not see it although this is in my mind from what I have heard and read since.” Mr Glasgow suggested to him that he, like many of the civilian witnesses before the Inquiry, might be in fact ‘recalling’ events that they had not seen but had merely heard about.
3.2.2 John Porter
Mr Barrett met Mr Porter shortly after Bloody Sunday and asked him why he had not taken cover when the second soldier was shooting towards the Old Bog Road. Mr Porter had responded that, had the soldier wanted to shoot him, he would have had to stop and aim and fire directly at him, and he would have had the time to get out of the way.
Mr Barrett confirmed that he had not seen another soldier who is purported to have fired from the gap between Glenfada Park North and South and agreed that some of the shooting he heard might have come from this other soldier rather than from the soldier at the northeast corner of Glenfada Park North.
3.2.3 Shots from the City Walls
Mr Barrett had not seen shots being fired from the City Walls, but had heard people saying that they had been fired upon from that direction. He had gone back to the Old Bog Road after Bloody Sunday to check for any signs of bullets. Although he had not seen anything, Mr Barrett added that he had not actually known what to look for at the time.
3.2.4 Black soldier
Mr Barrett agreed that he had only got a fleeting glimpse of the soldier he described as being black. He further agreed that he could no longer be certain of whether this soldier had actually fired, although his contemporaneous statement suggested that he had.
4. John Cooke’s evidence
In 1972, Mr Cooke was a staff reporter for the Press Association (PA), based in London. He arrived in Northern Ireland a few days before Bloody Sunday.
4.1 questions on behalf of the Tribunal
4.1.1 Photographs obtained from the IRA
Mr Cooke did not believe that he had attended the OIRA press briefing or had received the PIRA (Provisional IRA) statement regarding the events of Bloody Sunday. However, he had spoken to a member of staff at the City Hotel whom he thought had contact with the PIRA and had asked him to put the word out that the PA was looking for photographs of what happened on the day.
He said that this employee acted as a kind of mail man for him in getting messages out to the relevant people, and that he had only met the man in question on or shortly after Bloody Sunday.
He told the Inquiry that he was aware that the civil rights activists had there own photographers, ready to take pictures of police and army brutality on such marches, and he wanted to find out whether any such photographs had been taken on the day and whether he could get hold of them. His reason for approaching the IRA to get these photographs was that he deemed them to be the authority in the Bogside at the time. He added that he possibly also approached the civil rights movement directly.
He had received a call to say that photographs would be put at his disposition, and had gone to meet a contact at around midnight at Free Derry Corner. He had been blindfolded and taken on foot to a house where he was shown upwards of 20 photographs, almost all of which were shooting victims. One of the photographs was of the dying Hugh Gilmore receiving First Aid.
He had spoken to the photographer in the house who had assured him that none of the people in the photographs had been carrying weapons. Also present was a man known as the ‘unofficial mayor of the Bogside’, whose name he could not recall. He did remember that the man had a white beard.
4.1.2 Wiring the photographs to the PA
Mr Cooke was allowed to take the photograph prints for publication, and was anxious to get them to London as soon as possible. However, the PA did not have a wire team in Derry. He made a deal with Harry Arnold from The Sun, who allowed him to use his wire.
There was some confusion as to when this happened and when Mr Cooke actually obtained the photographs from the IRA, although this was not resolved.
4.2 questions on behalf of the families
4.2.1 William Street
Whilst in William Street, Mr Cooke heard a Para shout that he had seen a sniper. Two Paras took up firing positions beside an army personnel carrier, pointing their weapons towards the location where the supposed sniper had been sighted, aiming in the general direction of where Mr Cooke was situated. Mr Cooke dived for cover.
Mr Cooke was told that an officer from one of the other regiments present on Bloody Sunday had written in his statement to the Inquiry of a Para running forward and pointing up at the Embassy Building where he said he had seen a sniper. The officer in question had run up to the Para and dissuaded him from shooting his gun at what was in actual fact an army position. Mr Cooke could not confirm with any certainty that this was the incident he himself had witnessed.
4.3 questions on behalf of the soldiers
4.3.1 PA article
Mr Cooke confirmed that he had not attended the press conference given by the OIRA following Bloody Sunday, and had not been responsible for writing up the ensuing article. He was not able to elucidate on the question of why a segment of the conference relating to the wounding of a member of the OIRA had been omitted from the PA article.
4.3.2 Photographs obtained from the IRA
Mr Cooke told the Inquiry that one of the key things that had struck him about the photographs was that the exit wounds on the majority of the bodies appeared to be in the front of the bodies, suggesting that they had been shot in their backs. He denied that the people present had attempted to put this suggestion into his head or that there had been any ‘spin’ put on what he had been told by the photographer or by those present. He said that he had gone with a neutral approach and had come to his conclusion about people being shot in the back of his own accord, without any steering from those present.
4.3.3 William Street
Mr Cooke remained near Barrier 14 for quite some time, until he saw a line of approximately 30 arrestees being marched along Rossville Street. In all that time, he did not recall hearing any live fire, nor did he recall soldiers being brutal with the arrestees.
4.3.4 Evidence given to the Widgery Inquiry
Mr Cooke was asked why he had not mentioned being taken blindfolded to look at photographs in his original statement to the Widgery Inquiry. He responded that he had never been asked about it and had been specifically directed to confine his comments to his eye-witness account of what he had seen and heard during the actual events of Bloody Sunday.
5. application for full legal representation for six members of the OIRA
The Inquiry heard the application for full legal representation on behalf of five anonymous witnesses and Mr Reg Tester, all of whom were members of the OIRA in 1972. The applicants sought representation and attendance by a solicitor and two counsel before the Tribunal and the provision of access to the full statements and exhibits in order to allow equality of representation.
5.1 submissions on behalf of the oira
Mr O’Donovan told the Inquiry that his clients were concerned that suggestions were being made alleging that they had been involved in proactive paramilitary activity on Bloody Sunday. Mr O’Donovan argued that quasi-parte status should apply to his clients, whereby their interests would be looked after in all areas before the Inquiry that touch on their own conduct and on their view of the conduct of the security forces on the day.
Mr O’Donovan argued that, having come forward voluntarily to assist the Inquiry, his clients should be afforded the opportunity of challenging those who dispute their version of events, or they would be being denied equality of arms to defend their position against those whom they would say are misrepresenting the true facts to the Inquiry.
He said that, at present, the legal team for these members of the OIRA were ‘handicapped’ in their defence as they did not have access to the totality of evidence that might touch upon their case. He argued that the current rules in place in the Inquiry, whereby individual witnesses must have sufficient advance warning if they are to be accused of anything, was not sufficient to safeguard justice and fairness within the Tribunal.
5.2 Tribunal’s ruling
Lord Saville said that this application was made on behalf of a group of individuals as opposed to the OIRA as a body. Due to this fact, he said that he was not persuaded that justice and fairness dictated that the six witnesses should be provided full representation. It was his belief that the current rulings and directions of the Tribunal, laying out that if allegations are to be made against individuals, they must be made well in advance so that the individual can deal with the allegation, afforded sufficient protection to the six OIRA witnesses.
Whist the OIRA members will be allowed representation by counsel and solicitors whilst they give their evidence, Lord Saville rejected the application for full legal representation. He agreed to review this decision in the future, were circumstances to change dramatically.
6. application for screening on behalf of dr martin
Dr Martin was a forensic scientist at the time of Bloody Sunday and was responsible for carrying out tests on the bodies of the deceased to check for contamination from live ammunition or explosives.
6.1 submissions on behalf of dr martin
6.1.1 Nature of the application
Mr Richie made his application on behalf of Dr Martin under section 6 of the Human Rights Act and Article 2 of the ECHR governing the right to life. He submitted that Dr Martin has a reasonable and genuine fear for his personal safety.
6.1.2 Lateness of the application
With regard to the lateness of the application, Mr Richie said that Dr Martin was first made aware of the danger to him in May 2000, following the results of a security assessment obtained from the Inquiry, dated 21st April 2000. The assessment came at a time where there was some controversy in the press concerning Dr Martin’s evidence, and indicated that he would be at a significant level of threat were he to testify before the Inquiry.
Dr Martin did not apply for screening immediately following this assessment as he hoped that he would not be called to give evidence. In such circumstances, making an application for screening would only have served to draw attention to himself when he might never have been called to give evidence.
Furthermore, it was argued that it was difficult to make a screening application well in advance when the relevant time for a security assessment to be made is around the time a witness is due to give evidence, as opposed to months or years in advance.
6.1.3 Risk and the application of the Philips test
Mr Richie argued that the appropriate test for the Tribunal to apply when considering this application was that laid out by Lord Justice Philips in the Court of Appeal in the case regarding the venue of the Tribunal for hearing the soldiers’ evidence.
6.1.3.1 Existence of risk
He submitted that there was no distinction to be drawn between risk and concern arising from the fact that a person is called to give evidence and a risk arising from the very nature of the evidence that a witness is giving, arguing that a risk to life is a risk to life whatever the reason for it.
Mr Richie said that to provide his evidence unscreened would increase the risk to his person and infringe his Article 2 rights, due to the contentious nature of his evidence. If his photograph were to be taken, he would be come known to all, entailing a clear risk to his life, a danger from which the Tribunal is duty-bound to protect him. He argued that he was in exactly the same position as the RUC officers who have applied for screening.
Lord Saville rejected the comparison with the situation of the RUC officers, stating that police officers were and continue to be a target group for paramilitary organisations, whereas forensic scientists were not. However, whilst agreeing with the distinction, Mr Richie submitted that there would remain a threat to Dr Martin’s life, due to the nature of his evidence, relating to the presence of firearms discharge on the clothing of the deceased.
6.1.3.2 Genuine nature of fears
A recent intelligence assessment, conducted on 3rd April 2002, assessed Dr Martin as being at a moderate level of threat, with potential to increase. In the face of such an assessment, Mr Richie argued that anybody would entertain genuine fears for their personal safety.
6.1.3.3 Screening as remedy
Mr Richie submitted that the reasonable fears of his client would be alleviated to come extent by screening facilities. He told the Inquiry that Dr Martin’s primary fear was that some maliciously minded person might attend public galleries in the Guildhall to take a careful note of what Dr Martin look like and then seek to find him to cause him harm.
However, Lord Saville said that, given the fact that upwards of 1.5 million people live in Northern Ireland, it would be very difficult for this suggested maliciously minded person to actually find Mr Richie, even were he to go round the province, armed with a detailed description of his physical appearance.
Mr Richie argued that this was exactly the same situation for the RUC officers who had applied for screening, six of whom have already been granted it.
6.1.3.4 Balancing act: screening versus open justice
The Court of Appeal in its ruling on venue required that the effect of screening or change of venue be balanced against any adverse consequences on the principles of open justice and the Article 2 procedural rights of the families and wounded. Mr Richie submitted that the families’ and wounded’s rights are procedural rights and, as such, subordinate to the substantive rights of his client.
He also argued that the granting of screening would not prevent the Inquiry from conducting an effective investigation, and said that the venue case had in fact increased the protection afforded to witnesses under Article 2 of the ECHR, surpassing that protection laid down by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Osman and has lowered the level of risk required before Article 2 rights are engaged.
6.1.4 Screening from the families and wounded
Mr Richie argued that it would be impractical for the families and wounded to be able to see the witness, and therefore submitted that Dr Martin should be screened from their view.
6.2 Submissions on behalf of the families and wounded
6.2.1 Video transmissions of Dr Martin’s testimony
Mr Treacy told the Inquiry that the families would have no objection to the suggestion by Lord Saville earlier in the day that Dr Martin’s fears could potentially be remedied by limiting the live video transmission links to the Guildhall proper and to the family room in the Guildhall building.
6.2.2 Decreased risk brought about by screening
Mr Treacy rejected the suggestion that screening would bring about an alleviation of Dr Martin’s fears and a decreased risk to his safety. Furthermore he added that there was nothing in the two threat assessments concerning Dr Martin to indicate the actual threat to Dr Martin nor to suggest that any such threat that might exist is in any way connected to the events of Bloody Sunday.
6.2.3 Screening for forensic scientists
Mr Treacy reminded the Tribunal that Dr Martin had given his evidence to the Widgery Inquiry unscreened. He further added that, to the best of his knowledge. No forensic scientist had ever made an application for screening in Northern Ireland, even when participating in many of the major trials involving paramilitaries.
6.3 further submissions on behalf of dr martin
6.3.1 Threat assessments
Mr Richie agreed that the second threat assessment did not deal with the question of whether or not the risk to Dr Martin would be increased were he to give his evidence unscreened before the Tribunal, and asked the Tribunal to request a further assessment to deal with this lacuna. However, he said that the first threat assessment concerning Dr Martin had been requested by the Tribunal, without his knowledge, suggesting that there was a recognised need to obtain a threat assessment concerning this particular witness.
6.3.2 Screening for forensic scientists
Mr Richie also agreed that no other forensic scientist in the history of the Troubles had ever applied for screening. However, he said that it was also unusual for police officers to apply for screening, and cited a case where two photographers had been granted screening during their testimony at a case concerning the murder of two soldiers in West Belfast in the 1980s.
He submitted that, although his client’s application might be unusual, the Tribunal was duty bound to follow the precedent set down by the Court of Appeal in the venue case and to grant screening to his client.
6.3.3 Tribunal ruling
Lord Saville will provide his ruling on this matter at an unspecified later date.
SUMMARY OF
PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday 24th: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5:
Thursday 25th: Paragraphs 4 and 6
For Peace Justice & Human Rights
