Three days before Bloody Sunday, a British army officer wrote a paper which suggested that the use of firearms could not be ruled out as a last resort to control illegal marches. The inquiry heard that the paper on marches was prepared by a colonel on the general staff, but had not been cleared with army headquarters Northern Ireland.
Its introduction said it had been prepared "as background to the current situation, and to try to anticipate some of the problems we may face on Monday, 31st January, if events on Sunday prove our worst fears. Shortage of time has not allowed its clearance with headquarters Northern Ireland."
The paper said it was not possible to enforce the existing ban on marches with the force levels then available. "We can only hope to deal with two or three large-scale demonstrations at any one time," it said. "In order to deal with them effectively, however, we must take stronger military measures which will inevitably lead to further accusations of `brutality and ill-treatment of non-violent demonstrators'."
Under the heading "Recommendations", the author wrote: "If we accept that the ban must continue, we are left with only two possible courses of action, besides speeding up legal proceedings: a - an extension of the ban to include all public meetings; b - additional measures for the physical control of crowds which threaten to march. The only additional measure left for physical control is the use of firearms, i.e. `disperse or we fire'. Inevitably, it would not be the gun men who would be killed, but `innocent members of the crowd'.
"This would be a harsh and final step, tantamount to saying `all else has failed' and for this reason must be rejected except in extremes. It cannot, however, be ruled out. We must await the outcome of the events planned for the weekend 29/30 January, see what effect our firmer measures have, and then if necessary, advise the Home Office to urge Mr Faulkner to use his power under the Public Order Act to ban all public meetings and speed up legal proceedings."
Mr Christopher Clarke QC, counsel to the tribunal, said it was important to note the date and tense of this paragraph. The paper had not even been cleared with headquarters "and it expressly awaits the outcome of events for the following weekend before taking matters any further".