Public confidence in the new Bloody Sunday inquiry could be deeply undermined if hundreds of security force witnesses were allowed to give evidence anonymously, it was asserted at a sitting in Derry's Guildhall yesterday.
Counsel for the families of various Bloody Sunday victims also argued that the public investigative function of the inquiry, and its claim to be an open search for truth, would be damaged if blanket anonymity was granted to soldier witnesses.
The anonymity issue is one of the key procedural and legal matters to be decided at this week's hearings, which are chaired by Lord Saville.
The Court of Appeal in London earlier this year granted the right of anonymity to the small group of Parachute Regiment soldiers so far known to have fired shots in Derry on January 30th, 1972. In doing so, it overturned an earlier ruling by Lord Saville.
The inquiry began considering yesterday whether the Appeal Court's ruling had any bearing on the level of anonymity to be accorded to the many other soldiers who were on duty but did not fire shots.
Mr Edwin Glasgow QC, representing a large number of military witnesses who have been traced by the inquiry team, submitted that those soldiers should also be entitled to be identified only by a letter or number.
If, as the Court of Appeal appeared to have held, there was no compelling justification for naming "those whose conduct lies at the heart of this inquiry", he could not see a more compelling reason for naming those who were less central.
Mr Glasgow argued that the role of many soldiers had been so peripheral it was difficult to see that there could be any compelling reason for naming them. The effect of identifying them, while not naming central figures, would move them "up the scale" of danger or threat of terrorist reprisal.
Moreover, many individual soldiers had been told by the original Widgery inquiry that they would enjoy anonymity, and they had done so for 27 years. "At this stage their anonymity should be continued, at least until the tribunal has had an opportunity to consider the role they might have played," Mr Glasgow said.
This application was strongly opposed by counsel for the victims' families. Lord Gifford QC said the more witnesses were anonymous, the greater the danger that the search for truth would be hampered.
He submitted there was a major difference in the degree of risk faced by those who had fired live rounds and those who had not. Somewhere, a line must be drawn between those who might be said to have a reasonable fear of danger, and those who did not.
Up to 500 military witnesses might be called. If they were all allowed to use code names there would be confusion, the public and counsel would find it difficult or impossible to follow the evidence, and the openness of the inquiry as well as its investigative function would be affected.
Mr Michael Mansfield QC said the application by counsel for the military was non-specific. It was of crucial importance to be able to authenticate military witnesses.
Mr Reg Weir QC said that the need to command public support and confidence was at the centre of the inquiry. To concede a blanket application for anonymity on the "fatuous basis" that had been raised would do nothing to enhance the status of the inquiry.
Legal argument on this issue will continue today. Earlier yesterday counsel to the tribunal, Mr Christopher Clarke QC, said that 683 civilian witnesses had been interviewed by the inquiry's solicitors. Documentation amounting to some 60,000 pages had been received.
The inquiry had traced 1,878 soldiers, of whom 157 had given evidence to Lord Widgery. Some soldiers were unwilling to co-operate, but the vast majority had been willing to help.
Lord Saville noted that the inquiry had not yet received a requested assurance from lawyers representing the soldiers and the Ministry of Defence that all relevant material had been disclosed.