Soldier F anonymity hearing 'parked' until May

A High Court challenge over Soldier F’s anonymity has been ‘parked’ to allow the District Judge in charge of Committal proceedings to deal with the issue in May.

Soldier F is charged with murdering Jim Wray and William McKinney on January 30, 1972. 

He's also charged with attempting to murder Patrick O'Donnell, Joseph Friel, Joe Mahon and Michael Quinn, as well as attempting to murder a number of persons unknown.

The first phase of his Committal hearing at Derry Magistrate’s Court has concluded.

Margaret Wray, a sister of Jim Wray challenged a decision to grant soldier F anonymity and screening during proceedings.

At the start of that hearing, District Judge Ted Magill decided to extend an interim anonymity order first made on September 18, 2019.

Instructed by Madden and Finucane Solicitors, Ms Fiona Doherty QC, disputed the decision to uphold the anonymity order saying that no proper formal application or evidence was submitted.

She also contended that no formal application for screening has been advanced by Soldier F, who gave evidence unscreened from the public over two days at the Saville Inquiry in October 2003 and before Widgery in 1972.

The High Court challenge was adjourned to March 29 for mention.

On Monday, March 29, the court heard that there is now a ‘firm road map’ to a substantive anonymity hearing.

Representing the NI Court Service Mr Paul McLaughlin QC said it has been scheduled for May 17.

The issue of standing will be dealt with ­- that is whether the families have ‘standing’ to get involved in the proceedings or whether it should be a matter between the crown and the defendant.

Thereafter, anonymity and screening will be addressed.

All parties agreed that the ‘sensible approach’ was to ‘park’ the challenge.

Presiding High Court Judge Mr Justice Colton said ‘significant progress’ has been made and it was unnecessary for the High Court to intervene.

A decision would be left to the District Judge with regards to granting anonymity or screening the defendant.

“I’m very hopeful it will be resolved,” he added.

To avoid a scenario where further judicial reviews are mounted, he said, the challenge would be adjourned.

It will be left for review ‘at request only’, the court heard.

Mr Justice Colton concluded: “Not disposing should be seen as no criticism of the District Judge who has responded appropriately to the application that was brought.”