The Saville tribunal yesterday dismissed an application asking it not to circulate a document that contains an account of shots allegedly fired by a person or persons other than British soldiers on Bloody Sunday.
It also rejected an application for the redaction, or editing out, of substantial sections of the document, and it refused to grant anonymity to the applicant, who is said to be a potential witness in regard to non-military fire on the day.
Lawyers for the applicant, identified only as PIN 437, sought to have the document withheld on the basis that his personal safety might be compromised and that he could be at risk from republican or loyalist paramilitaries.
The inquiry held an interlocutory session, breaking temporarily from the prolonged opening statement by its counsel, Mr Christopher Clarke QC.
For the inquiry, Mr Alan Roxburgh said the document contained an account of certain events on Bloody Sunday including some information about alleged firing by persons other than the army.
Its terms suggested that PIN 437 was likely to be in a position to give evidence about this, but so far he had not agreed to be interviewed by solicitors on behalf of the inquiry. He also sought anonymity and permission to give evidence from behind a screen, if he were called as a witness.
Mr Roxburgh said that, in counter-submissions on behalf of families of the victims, it was argued that the applicant was well known "in the context of the firing of a non-military shot".
It was also pointed out that others, such as Bishop Edward Daly, had given evidence about the firing of shots at the army and that they had not been criticised or attacked for doing so. Counsel said a threat assessment in relation to the applicant by the RUC stated that there was no current, recent or past intelligence that would indicate a specific threat, but that if the document were published the possibility of a threat might become a reality.
Many factors would have a bearing on the level of threat, the RUC said, "including the degree of sensationalism created following exposure." Mr Roxburgh suggested it was difficult to see how adopting the measures could not impede the tribunal in its search for the truth.
If all the measures proposed to protect the identity of PIN 437 were adopted, it was difficult to see what questions it would be possible to ask him.
Counsel for the applicant, Mr Brian Fee, said his client believed that because of the information concerning him that was alleged in the document, and because of the nature of his work and the fact that he lived and worked in Northern Ireland, there were reasonable grounds for genuine fears.
When the tribunal chairman, Lord Saville, suggested that the applicant, if he had these fears, could apply to be assisted by the Witness Protection Programme, Mr Fee replied that that option was "not . . . practically open".
After an adjournment, Lord Saville said the tribunal was of the view that the document contained matters of such central and great importance to the inquiry that they would be in breach of their duty if they were to withhold it. They considered that there were compelling reasons for the publication of this document.
Ruling against the application, the chairman said that if Mr Fee's client indicated within 24 hours that he would give a statement to the tribunal, they would withhold the document until both it and his statement could be published together.