header-logo header-logo

18 June 2010
Issue: 7422 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Bloody Sunday Inquiry

No justification for shootings, states Saville Report

The Bloody Sunday shooting in Derry was “unjustified”, the Saville Report has concluded after a 38-year campaign for justice.

The 5,000-page report published this week after a 12-year inquiry exonerated the victims of the tragedy, concluding some of the soldiers had lied to the inquiry. There is now a possibility that legal action may be brought against the former soldiers, many of whom are now in their 60s.

Lord Saville concluded that none of the 14 civilians killed was carrying a gun, no warnings were given, and the troops were the first to open fire.
The civilians were shot dead during a civil rights march in Derry on 30 January 1972. Lord Saville, a Supreme Court judge, found there was no justification for the shooting. The first report into the shootings, by Lord Widgery in 1972, accused the marchers of firing weapons, and has since been discredited.

Prime Minister David Cameron issued a public apology on behalf of the British state. “What happened was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong,” he said.

The Northern Ireland director of public prosecutions, Sir Alasdair Fraser QC, is considering whether prosecutions for murder, perjury or perverting the course of justice could arise from the report.

Kingsley Napley partner Stephen Pollard, who represents some of the soldiers involved, said in an interview with the BBC, that “Saville’s conclusions fly in the face of the evidence”.

“He cherry-picked the evidence. Other than two instances, how does he know whose bullets killed the men? The evidence can be cut whichever way you want. The situation was confused.

“We’ve accepted that none of those who were killed or injured did anything to warrant their shooting. We accepted that right at the beginning of the report. What was at issue at the beginning of the investigation is the threat that the soldiers were facing.”

Pollard said that, after 12 years and £191m, Lord Saville “was under pressure” to “give very clear findings”.

 

Issue: 7422 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll