PPS upholds decision not to prosecute former soldiers over Bloody Sunday false evidence allegations

The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) confirmed on Wednesday that an internal review of its decisions not to prosecute eight former soldiers in relation to allegations of giving false evidence relating to the events of Bloody Sunday has resulted in those decisions being upheld.

The families of Bloody Sunday victims had requested formal reviews of the 2024 decisions not to prosecute for potential offences of perjury or perverting the course of justice.

These potential offences arose from allegations that the suspects deliberately provided false evidence to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry or in formal accounts provided in 1972.

In April 2024, decisions were taken not to prosecute 16 individuals because of insufficient admissible evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction.

The PPS subsequently received a request on behalf of the families of eight victims to review the decisions taken in relation to former soldiers known as Soldiers F, H, J, M, P, S, U and V.

The PPS said that in line with the review process set out by the PPS Code for Prosecutors, the reviewing lawyer “applied the Test for Prosecution afresh to the large volume of complex evidence and information considered by the original PPS decision-maker in order to reach new decisions”.

"Detailed legal submissions received on behalf of the families were also considered in the course of the reviews,” a PPS spokesperson said, adding that the review reached a similar conclusion to the original decision.

A key aspect of the reasoning was that much of the evidence that was relied upon by the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, including in particular key accounts provided by soldiers in 1972, would not be admissible in any prosecution of the soldiers for perjury or perverting the course of justice.

A PPS spokesperson said: “The review of this legally complex matter is now complete. After a careful analysis of all available evidence and the legal submissions made by the family legal representatives, it has been concluded that the evidential threshold to proceed with a prosecution has not been met.

“The standard of proof required to obtain a conviction in a criminal prosecution is high. The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the commission of a criminal offence by an identified individual. Prosecutors must make an independent assessment of the prospects of conviction based upon the evidence that would be admissible in criminal proceedings.

“It is recognised that this outcome does not reflect the hopes and expectations of the Bloody Sunday families, and that it will come as another deeply disappointing day after decades of seeking justice for their loved ones. A detailed written explanation has been provided to the families to assist them in understanding our decision.

“We would further emphasise that today’s decisions in no way diminish the findings by the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. A public inquiry and a criminal trial are very different processes and much of the material upon which the Inquiry could rely would not be available to the prosecution having regard to the rules of evidence that apply to criminal proceedings.”

Reacting to the decision, Mickey McKinney, brother of William McKinney said: “Today’s decision comes as no surprise to any of the victims of Bloody Sunday.

“Each and every soldier who gave evidence to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry had the protection of an unequivocal assurance from the Attorney General that any truthful evidence that they gave on Oath to the Inquiry, to enable that Inquiry to find the truth of what happened on Bloody Sunday, could not be used against them in subsequent criminal proceedings."

Mr McKinney added: “More than 15 years have passed since detailed submissions were served on the PPS by our lawyers following their consideration of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry’s findings. The delay in investigating the false evidence given and in arriving at today’s decision has been outrageous.

“Today we have instructed our lawyers to consider this decision with the view to commencing yet another legal challenge to today’s decision.”

Foyle SDLP MP Colum Eastwood expressed meanwhile has expressed his “deep disappointment that once again Bloody Sunday families have been let down by the State”.

Mr McKinney and Mr Eastwood both pointed to conclusions reached by Mr Justice Lynch that a number of soldiers had been ‘serially untruthful’ about events on Bloody Sunday.

Mr Eastwood said that an unbelievable burden had been placed on the families of the dead and injured on Bloody Sunday to fight institutions of the state for justice for more than fifty years.

“It’s impossible to overstate the scale of the burden that has been placed on the families of the dead and injured on Bloody Sunday. For more than fifty years, they have had to fight every conceivable institution of the state for truth, justice and accountability. Today, again, they have been badly let down by the incredible decision not to prosecute soldiers for perjury during the Widgery and Saville Inquiries.

“It is an incredible decision because during the trial of Soldier F last year, whose defence cost the public more than £4.3m, Mr Justice Lynch was clear that individual soldiers had been ‘serially untruthful’ and that they had ‘committed perjury’. It is not unreasonable to expect that there would be some consequence for those actions.

“As I always have, and as the people of Derry always have, we will fully support the Bloody Sunday families in the days and weeks ahead. These families are leaving no stone unturned in their pursuit of justice and we’re with them every step of the way.”