Application to drop prosecution against Soldier F adjourned

The prosecution in the case of Soldier F have referred a number of matters regarding the anonymity of the former soldier to the Attorney General for consideration.
The courthouse at Bishop Street, Derry.The courthouse at Bishop Street, Derry.
The courthouse at Bishop Street, Derry.

Prosecuting counsel Louis Mably QC told Derry Magistrate’s Court that the prosecution ‘has become aware of a number of potential contempts of court’ in relation to the anonymity order granted to Soldier F, the only soldier to be charged in connection with Bloody Sunday.

He said that as a result the prosecution has ‘referred certain matters to the Attorney General for consideration’.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

District Judge Ted Magill said he endorsed this course of action and said it was ‘quite right and proper it is referred to the Attorney General’.

An application to withdraw the charges against Soldier F has been adjourned until October 1.

Mr Mably told the court that following a review, the PPS concluded that the evidential test was no longer satisfied and they had intended to terminate the proceedings against the former paratrooper today.

However, he said this decision is now subject to judicial review proceedings which have been listed for hearing in September.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Mr Mably applied to adjourn the proceedings in the magistrate’s court pending that hearing.

Defence counsel, Mark Mulholland QC, said that in other circumstances Soldier F would ‘seek to be discharged on foot of the indication given by the PPS’.

He agreed to the application, however the barrister added ‘this remains a live issue and we are keen to ensure the time frame is kept to a minimum’.

Soldier F, who is charged with the murder of William McKinney and James Wray and the attempted murder of five others on January 30, 1972, was not present for the brief hearing.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Granting the application, Judge Magill said it was ‘regrettable and will undoubtedly create anxiety, not just for the injured party’s, but the next of kin of the deceased and no less the defendant and his family.’