The families of those killed on Bloody Sunday do not want to co-operate "in any shape or form" with the inquiry until they are "absolutely satisfied that it is going to be fair and impartial," their lawyer, Mr Peter Madden, has said.
A preliminary hearing of the inquiry opened yesterday in Derry and was mainly taken up with arguments over the level of legal representation for the families.
Lawyers acting for the families said yesterday that important information, including the names of some 400 witnesses, would not be handed over to the inquiry until "the key issue" of legal representation was resolved.
The chairman of the inquiry, Lord Saville, said he believed the information was being used "as a sort of bargaining chip". He believed "the world as a whole" might wonder why it was not being made available.
Mr Madden represents 12 of the 13 men killed on Bloody Sunday and 13 people who were injured. He responded to Lord Saville's comments at a press conference after the tribunal adjourned yesterday evening, saying the families did not want to co-operate "until they are absolutely satisfied that it is going to be fair and impartial and it is absolutely certain that there will be a level playing field".
Earlier, counsel for the families, Mr Seamus Treacy, spoke of the need to "obliterate the spectre of Widgery". He said one of the failings of the Widgery inquiry, which was carried out after the killings on January 30th, 1972, was that the families were not allowed adequate legal representation.
Mr Treacy argued that as a minimum the families of those killed should be represented by three senior and three junior counsel, and the wounded by two senior and two junior counsel. In a provisional ruling, the tribunal has said that it believes one senior and two junior counsel would be sufficient to represent all the families.
Mr Treacy argued that each family had the right to individual representation, and they were being disadvantaged because of the "happy coincidence" that they had decided to use the same firm of solicitors.
Lord Saville said the legal representation sought by the families raised "important and fundamental" questions about the nature of the inquiry. He said it would not be conducted in an adversarial, but an inquisitorial, fashion. "We are absolutely committed to a level playing field".
Unlike the situation at the Widgery inquiry, he said, it was the intention that counsel for the tribunal would "feature very large and very centrally in the cross-examination of all witnesses".
Mr Treacy said no attempt was being made to limit the resources available to the British Ministry of Defence. Lord Saville said it was important not to "fall into the trap" of an adversarial contest because, even if the families were given 100 counsel, they "wouldn't have the resources to fight those of the British government".
Mr Treacy referred to the recent Lawrence inquiry in England, where one family was allowed three counsel. He said there was nothing inconsistent with his argument for a greater level of representation and the fact that the inquiry would be conducted as an inquisitorial process. "One almost feels one is coming cap-in-hand . . . to ask for a legal team of a particular size," Mr Treacy said.
The preliminary hearing will conclude today. It is thought likely Lord Saville - assisted by Sir Edward Sommers, a former New Zealand appeal court judge, and Mr Justice William Hoyt, former chief justice of New Brunswick province in Canada - will reserve judgment on the question of legal representation.
The full public hearing begins in February.