Decision not to prosecute British soldier for murder of 15-year-old boy Daniel Hegary ‘deeply flawed’, High Court told

Counsel for the family of Daniel Hegarty claimed the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) wrongly formed the view that the ex-serviceman’s statement to investigators would be legally inadmissible.

Fifteen-year-old Daniel was shot twice in the head after the British Army moved into the Creggan Heights area of the city in the early hours of July 31, 1972.

The killing occurred during the British Army’s Operation Motorman, when troops were deployed to clear so-called no-go areas set up at the height of the Troubles.

In 2011 an inquest jury unanimously found that the youth posed no risk and that he had been shot without warning.

A British Army veteran, referred to as Soldier B, was to be prosecuted for Daniel’s murder and the intentional wounding of his 17-year-old cousin, Christopher Hegarty, in the same incident.

But in 2021 the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) announced that the charges against Soldier B were being dropped.

The decision was reached after the trial of two former paratroopers accused of another Troubles-era killing collapsed.

Soldiers A and C were acquitted of the murder of Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA) man Joe McCann in the Markets area of Belfast in April 1972 after evidence deemed central to the prosecution was ruled to be inadmissible.

Deficiencies were identified in statements originally given to Royal Military Police (RMP) in 1972 and to detectives from a legacy unit in 2010, including a failure to interview them under caution.

Daniel’s sister, Margaret Brady, is challenging the lawfulness of the decision to halt the prosecution of Soldier B.

Her barrister argued that different circumstances applied to the process carried out with the veteran in 2006.

Michael Mansfield, King’s Counsel, told the court: “Soldier B and those who represented him knew perfectly well what was going on.

“This wasn’t an inquiry into shoplifting or something else he may have done back in the day, it’s the question of the shooting itself.”

Mr Mansfield submitted: “The decision not to prosecute, or to discontinue, was seriously and deeply flawed.”

During exchanges it was put to him that Soldier B had never been cautioned that he was to be interviewed on suspicion of murder.

However, the Mrs. Brady’s barrister contended that there was a strong inference that was what the process was about.

Tony McGleenan, King’s Counsel, for the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), insisted that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) took specialist legal advice as part of a careful decision-making process.

“It’s not the case as suggested here that there was some naive consideration,” he told the court.

Mr. McGleenan maintained: “The 2006 statement is impermissible because there was no caution in respect of any offence before the statement was taken.”

The hearing at the High Court continues.