Unraveling the Bloody Sunday Inquiries

Introduction

Aiken (2015) has observed that the Bloody Sunday report, associated with the massacre of 13 protestors on 30th January, 1972 by the British Army, formally performed through two different phase as Widgery (1972) and Saville (1998-2010) Inquiries, has been reflective of the resolution by the House of Commons of 29th January, 1998, which, outlined the expediency of establishment of a tribunal for the purpose of inquiring into the events with occurred during 30th January, 1972, Sunday which resulted in the loss of lives of 14 unarmed protestors (13 mortalities on the day of the shooting and one mortality after one month had lapsed since the day of the shooting from wounds sustained during the shooting by the British forces) in connection to the procession organised at Londonderry on the day of the massacre. The emphasis had been on the inclusion of new information which has been proven to be relevant to the events which had taken place on that day. The corresponding study has delved into the long term implications of both the inquiries undertaken, at first, by Lord Widgery and then by Lord Saville in context of the incident under consideration. If you need Law Dissertation Help, consider analyzing the implications and legal ramifications of these inquiries and resolutions within the context of British law.

Discussions

As has been mentioned previously, two investigations had been conducted by subsequent British governments. According to Bell (2010), the Widgery Tribunal was conducted during the immediate aftermath of the incident at Londonderry. This tribunal had mostly cleared the British soldiers as well as the authorities from the culpability of the massacre perpetrated on that day. The tribunal had described the shooting conducted by the soldiers as bordering on recklessness, however, the tribunal had also accepted the claims that the soldiers had fired at the protesters who were bearing weapons and explosives. Bennett (2013) had claimed that the general notion about the Widgery Tribunal had been dismissive and the conclusions of the tribunal were attempts to whitewash the responsibilities of murders perpetrated by the British authorities on that day. On the other hand, the Saville Inquiry had been chaired by Lord Saville of Newdigate when the investigation was commenced during 1998 and this inquiry lasted till 2010, when the report of the investigation under Lord Saville was published. This report had concluded that the shootings and resultant killings had been both unjustifiable and unjustified.

In terms of the long term effects of the published report of the Saville Inquiry, according to Blom-Cooper (2017), the impacts on the families of the deceased protestors could be expected to be a welcomed one. However, the legal establishment of Ireland is not expected to be of appreciative of the communicated conclusions of the report pertaining to the opening fire by the British troops at Londonderry 48 years earlier. The reason has been perceived by Brooke (2018) to be the prevalent notion within the legal establishment that the inquiry performed by Lord Saville into the event of that fateful day in 1972 constitutes nothing else than an embarrassing failure of the entire judicial processes.

Campbell (2013) has opined that no scope of disagreement exists on the ubiquitous perception that the Widgery Tribunal, as the first judicial inquiry concerning the events of January 12th, 1972, was nothing else but a perfunctory effort on part of the judiciary. The tribunal formed the investigation conclusions within only 2 and a half months since the day when 13 of the civil rights marching demonstrators had been shot to death and many others had been injured through arbitrary firing of the British paratroopers at Londonderry with occurrence of another mortality of another protestor from sustained injuries after one month of the incident. As has been researched by Carnevali (2014), the tribunal was formulated following the passing of the relevant resolutions during 1st February 1972, within both of the Houses of the Parliament at Westminster in conjunction with both of the Houses of the Parliament at Northern Ireland. Lord Widgery, the incumbent Lord Chief Justice of the UK, was appointed as the chief executive of the Tribunal to conduct the inquiry under the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. Lord Widgery constituted the singular member of the entire Tribunal.

According to Conway (2010), the Widgery Tribunal published the report of the conducted investigations which constituted only 39 pages of official statement which, in most of the measures, exonerated the soldiers from culpability of mass murder with the levelling of the accusations relating to the perceived recklessness of the troops in their conduct on that eventful day. Furthermore, the contention and the public outrage regarding the primary conclusions formulated by the Widgery Tribunal had bordered on the travesty of justice which had become apparent after the publication of the tribunal reports. This has been illustrated by Conway (2010) to be associated with the observations made by the former Lord Chief Justice that while none of the deceased or the injured could be implicated in having indulged in attacking the British troops with the utilisation of firearms or explosives (such as nail bombs), a pervasive suspicion could be lend credence that some of the protestors had utilised firearms or explosives during the course of confrontation with the security forces at that afternoon on 12th January, 1972.

From an ethical perspective, such unspecified allegations have been observed by Dawson (2010) to be completely based on assumptions and thus, not possible to be substantiated as definitive evidence which could be established with incontrovertible proof at the court of law. Thus, such assumptions could not be permitted to stand in the long terms unless such allegations could be justifiably proven. There are two aspects to the entire terrible incident of the Bloody Sunday and these have been outlined by Edwards (2016) to be the necessity to identify the soldiers who could have behaved in a reckless manner, as per the suppositions of Lord Widgery, so as to exonerate those who did not open fire or who could have behaved as per the stipulations of the Army Code of Conduct. On the other hand, it is also necessary to demonstrate the evidence which could establish the accusation and the supposition of the former Lord Chief of Justice that the demonstrators/protestors had been wielding firearms or explosives so as to identify such miscreants to exonerate those who had desisted, at least at the hypothetical level, from delving into such armed resistance against the authorities on that day (Watson, Somerville and Purcell, 2011)

On the other hand, Edwards and Luckie (2014) have brought into focus the significance of the second inquiry into the Bloody Sunday events. This inquiry has the common nomenclature of the Saville Inquiry which had become the longest of all of the legal proceedings which have been undertaken by the British or the Irish judiciary in history. According to Farrell (2019), Lord Saville along with fellow judges of his named William Hoyt (from Canada) and John Toohey (from Australia) had conducted the second inquiry after the original Judge Edward Somers, who had been from New Zealand, had retired on account of health complications. Filardo-Llamas (2019) has outlined that the inquiry had involved hearing of testimonies from at least 921 personnel concerning the events of Bloody Sunday and the process also considered statements gathered from 1500 other personnel who had been associated with the event, the administration, the security forces and the deceased. At the culmination of the inquiry, the entire report of the findings and investigations amounted to in excess of 5000 pages.

According to Fitzpatrick (2018), the report of the inquiry performed by Lord Saville was published on 15th June, 2010. The primary findings outlined that each of the deceased and injured had been absolutely innocent of all of the allegations levelled against them. Such proclamations had been vociferously welcomed by the thousands of the supporters of the deceased and wounded of the Bloody Sunday who had congregated at the Guildhall Square. Ganderup (2010) has observed that the representatives of the families had demonstrated two particular orientations of opinions in terms of providing their response to the publication of the findings of the Saville Inquiry report. Gribbin and Turtle (2014) have identified the first one as the definitive euphoria regarding the apparent vindication of the victims of the mass shootings. According to Howell (2011), the second one has been the contentment of the representatives of the victims pertaining to the apparent disgrace of the Parachute Regiment through the legal assertion of the actual truth of events which had taken place on 12th January, 1972. Ultimately, the Saville Inquiry had established the absolute mendacity associated with the Widgery Tribunal.

According to Hoyt and Toohey (2010), such effects have been corroborated by the apology offered by David Cameroon, the incumbent British Prime Minister in the manner of provisioning of the declaration that the events of Bloody Sunday, including the mortification of a total of 14 protestors and the conduct of the British paratroopers, were both unjustified and unjustifiable. However, Hughes (2012) has concluded that the Saville Inquiry report has not been bereft of all criticisms or problems. Jackson et al (2011) have outlined that many of the representatives of the victims and the surviving injured personnel have expressed their dismay that the blame had been ring-fenced around the officer Derek Wilford only as well as around a handful of soldiers. On the other hand, the Saville Inquiry report has conclusively exonerated the political and military elite. This observation has been lent credence by the arguments of McCleery (2016) that the military adjutant of the events of the Bloody Sunday as well as the architect of the subsequent cover up attempted to suppress the culpability of the military and political elite responsible for the mortification and reception of injury of so many personnel on that day, General Sir Michael Jackson, had been completely let off from the hook, so as to speak, by the report of the Saville report. It has been of particular significance, from the perspectives of McGrattan (2013), since Sir Michael Jackson had been promoted to the rank of the most senior officer within the hierarchy of British Armed Forces. To this effect, this person never received any credible and scathing criticism in spite of the fact that he had been the only witness who had been able to recall, during the discourse of the inquiry, the events pertaining to the stand of the British Forces on that day.

Furthermore, McGuigan and Shevlin (2010) have pointed out that the Saville report has been incorrect on several accounts, especially in terms of the findings about Gerald Donaghey, which state that he had been, probably, bearing explosives such as nail bombs when he had been shot by the troopers. This assertion in the report had been met with extensive dismay and to some extent, even abject shock on part of the relatives and representatives of the deceased victims of the Bloody Sunday. This has been the case though the report had specified that such a probability could not be justified as the means of shooting Gerald Donaghey by the paratroopers. However, McLaughlin and Baker (2015) have brought forth the information that the available circumstantial evidence has been pointing to the generally accepted notion that the nail bombs, which had been recovered from the scene of the shootings, had been surreptitiously planted on the corpse of the deceased by the agents of the security forces or by the members of the armed forces. Thus, such an indictment mentioned in the Saville Inquiry report has been specifically, and with particular logic, interpreted by the family members of the Gerald Donaghey as a partial, though tainted, qualification of the innocence of that young man. Evidently, as has been observed by McLaughlin and Baker (2016), such an assertion has left the family members and friends of the deceased without gaining the complete measure of relief which they have required through absolute disclosure of the entire truth of what had transpired on that sanguineous day at Londonderry.

However, McNeill, Lyons and Pehrson (2014) have emphasised on the general sense of vindication of truth and achievement for the families and friends of the deceased after 38 years of continuous struggle of them against the entire British official establishment as well as the Army, pertaining to their efforts of clearing the names and identities of their relatives and loved ones from the enforced disgrace which the British government of that era as well as the Army had attempted to impose on the victimised protestors. It has been, from the perspectives of Moffat (2010), another instance of forcing the disclosure of the truth at the legislative and administrative levels, about the incidents of the Bloody Sunday. Thus, Moi (2011) has specified that the long campaign undertaken by the representatives and family members of the 14 deceased and many wounded personnel of that day have finally achieved the coveted objective and this sense of vindication could be envisaged to be the ultimate long term effect for such individuals, at the collective and community level, pertaining to the Saville report, especially when the conclusions of the report could be compared and contrasted with the travesty of justice which had been undertaken by the previously performed Widgery Tribunal report.

This apparent clash and contradiction in between both the investigations carried out on the events of Bloody Sunday have been the point of inflection which has been outlined in the research of Monks (2013) pertaining to the future course of the effects which had emanated from the disclosures of the findings of the Saville Inquiry reports and the associated reactions of the Government of David Cameroon to tender an official apology to the affected families and to the communities in a collective manner. The emphasis has been on the overturning of the assertions of the first investigation report submitted by the tribunal of Lord Widgery in 1972, by the Saville report (2010). According to Norton-Taylor (2012) , the conclusion by the Widgery report that many of the protestors who had received bullet injuries and who had died on that day at the hands of British paratroopers were terrorist bombers and were armed with firearms, had constituted an outright affront to the relatives of the deceased. The long term effect of the Saville report would be that it has cleared the protestors from the larch of such malicious characterisation.

Furthermore, Ó Dochartaigh (2010) has also emphasised on the utter rejection of the Saville report of the assertions in the Widgery report that the apportioning of the blame of the killings and injuries sustained by the totality of 27 protestors on the Bloody Sunday on the Paratroopers was unjustified since they had acted according to the code of conduct of the Army as per the stipulations involving situations where the troops could open fire in self-defence. According to Pötzsch (2012), the Saville report has established without any form of contradiction or ambiguity that none of those casualties had been armed at all or were engaged seriously in an form of aggression which could have jeopardised the security of the Paratroopers. On the contrary, the report has endorsed the claims forwarded by the eyewitnesses of that event that many of the deceased and wounded were attempting to flee from the scene of the shooting or were endeavouring to assist their injured or dead compatriots. Such revelations are expected, as per the opinion of Rigney (2015), to foster the pervasive notion within the communities at Northern Ireland that the governmental and administrative authorities of UK have been inescapably affected by a dearth of candour as far as propriety and justice could be concerned.

In this context, Rolston (2010) has determined the effect of the Saville report to be responsible to prompt the Office of the Prime Minister to issue the declaration that the Paratrooper company on duty at Londonderry on 12th January, 1972, had either forgotten or had ignored the instructions which had been issued to them as well as had disregarded the training provided to them and such dereliction of duty had culminated in the loss of fire discipline on part of the Paras with severe consequences for the protestors.

Conclusion

The Nationalist Derry had demonstrated a profound sense of delight combined with jubilation and relief. However, the publication of the Saville report has only been considered on part of the members of the Nationalist Derry to be one step towards final reconciliation since the unequivocal conclusion of the report has been a milestone, for both the republicans and the nationalists, towards achievement of truth.

Take a deeper dive into Unlawful Detention and Inadequate Legal Representation with our additional resources.

Reference List

Aiken, N.T., 2015. The bloody sunday inquiry: transitional justice and postconflict reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Journal of Human Rights, 14(1), pp.101-123.

Bell, C., 2010. Bloody Sunday'Set the Truth Free'Campaign. Transitional Justice Institute Research Paper, (10-06).

Bennett, H., 2013. ‘Smoke Without Fire’? Allegations Against the British Army in Northern Ireland, 1972–5. Twentieth Century British History, 24(2), pp.275-304.

Blom-Cooper, L., 2017. Public inquiries: wrong route on Bloody Sunday. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Brooke, N., 2018. Fuel on the Fire: The State Response to Nationalist Action. In Terrorism and Nationalism in the United Kingdom (pp. 155-176). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Campbell, J., 2013. Setting the Truth Free: Inside the Bloody Sunday Justice Campaign. Liberties Press.

Carnevali, C., 2014. The Bloody Sunday families and the Saville Inquiry: changing identities, memory and the past (Doctoral dissertation, Queen's University Belfast).

Conway, B., 2010. Bloody Sunday in Historical Perspective. In Commemoration and Bloody Sunday (pp. 23-40). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Conway, B., 2010. Commemoration and bloody sunday: Pathways of memory. Springer.

Dawson, G., 2010. Trauma, Postmemory, Place: Bloody Sunday, Derry, 1972-2003.

Edwards, A., 2016. ‘Truth recovery’and the role of the security forces in the Northern Ireland Troubles. In The Northern Ireland Troubles in Britain. Manchester University Press.

Edwards, J.A. and Luckie, A., 2014. British Prime Minister David Cameron’s apology for Bloody Sunday. Let’s talk politics: New essays on deliberative rhetoric, 6, p.115.

Farrell, J., 2019. Butcher's dozen: The crimes of bloody sunday 47 years on. Guardian (Sydney), (1862), p.6.

Filardo-Llamas, L., 2019. From Ireland to the States: The re-contextualisation of U2’s “Sunday, Bloody Sunday” in different political contexts. Journal of Language and Politics, 18(4), pp.509-525.

Fitzpatrick, L., 2018. The Politics of Performance: Theatre in and about Northern Ireland. In The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Irish Theatre and Performance (pp. 51-67). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Ganderup, S., 2010. How White Was the Wash?: Bloody Sunday, 1972, and Memory in the Creation of the Widgery Report. Voces Novae, 2(1), p.10.

Gribbin, N. and Turtle, R., 2014. Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland: Analysis of the Response. In Responses to Terrorism (pp. 115-131). Routledge.

Howell, J.H., 2011. Waiting for the truth: a re-examination of four representations of Bloody Sunday after the Saville Inquiry.

Hoyt, W. and Toohey, J., 2010. Principal conclusions and overall assessment of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry (Vol. 30). The Stationery Office.

Hughes, J., 2012. Bloody Sunday is almost universally recognised as ‘unjustified and unjustifiable’. But lessons must be drawn for peace in Northern Ireland, and for counterinsurgency more generally. British Politics and Policy at LSE.

Jackson, L., Russell, S., Ogle, S., Goodwin, R. and Schaeffer, A., 2011. Bloody Sunday. Canadian Theatre Review, 147(147), pp.91-93.

McCleery, M.J., 2016. Randall Collins’ forward panic pathway to violence and the 1972 Bloody Sunday killings in Northern Ireland. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 18(4), pp.966-980.

McGrattan, C., 2013. Irrevocable Futures: Tracing the Dynamics of Conflict, Bloody Sunday and Bloody Friday. In Memory, Politics and Identity (pp. 64-80). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

McGuigan, K. and Shevlin, M., 2010. Longitudinal changes in posttraumatic stress in relation to political violence (Bloody Sunday). Traumatology, 16(1), pp.1-6.

McLaughlin, G. and Baker, S. eds., 2015. The British Media and Bloody Sunday. Intellect Books.

McLaughlin, G. and Baker, S., 2016. ‘Every man an emperor’: The British press, Bloody Sunday and the image of the British Army. In The Northern Ireland Troubles in Britain. Manchester University Press.

McNeill, A., Lyons, E. and Pehrson, S., 2014. Reconstructing apology: David Cameron's Bloody Sunday apology in the press. British journal of social psychology, 53(4), pp.656-674.

Moffat, R., 2010. Principle Conclusions and Overall Assessment of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry.

Moi, R., 2011. ‘In a ghostly pool of blood/a crumpled phantom hugged the mud’: Spectropoetic Presentations of Bloody Sunday and the Crisis of Northern Ireland. In Crisis and Contemporary Poetry (pp. 61-81). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Monks, A., 2013. ‘This Painful Chapter’: performing the law in Bloody Sunday: scenes from the Saville Inquiry. Contemporary Theatre Review, 23(3), pp.345-356.

Norton-Taylor, R., 2012. Bloody Sunday: Scenes from the Saville Inquiry: Scenes from the Saville Inquiry. Oberon Books.

Ó Dochartaigh, N., 2010. Bloody Sunday: Error or Design?. Contemporary British History, 24(1), pp.89-108.

Pötzsch, H., 2012. Renegotiating difficult pasts: Two documentary dramas on Bloody Sunday, Derry 1972. Memory Studies, 5(2), pp.206-222.

Rigney, A., 2015. Do Apologies End Events? Bloody Sunday, 1972–2010. In Afterlife of Events (pp. 242-261). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Rolston, B., 2010. ‘Unjustified and unjustifiable’: vindication for the victims of Bloody Sunday: Bill Rolston reflects on the Saville Inquiry and the PM's apology. Criminal Justice Matters, 82(1), pp.12-13.

Watson, T., Somerville, I. and Purcell, A., 2011. A history of Republican public relations in Northern Ireland from “Bloody Sunday” to the “Good Friday Agreement”. Journal of Communication Management.