Bloody Sunday murder trial set for September 15
The trial of a former paratrooper accused of the murder of two men on Bloody Sunday is to start on September 15.
Soldier F, who cannot be identified, is accused of murdering James Wray and William McKinney when members of the Parachute Regiment shot dead 13 civil rights protesters on the streets of Londonderry on January 30 1972.
He is also charged with five attempted murders during the incident in Derry's Bogside area.
He has pleaded not guilty to the seven counts.
Judge Mr Justice Fowler fixed the date for the trial during a brief mention hearing at Belfast Crown Court on Friday afternoon.
Soldier F was not in court for the hearing, instead appearing remotely by videolink.
The court also heard that a separate judge has been appointed to deal with issues related to the disclosure of evidence before the trial.
Mark Mulholland KC, representing Soldier F, noted that Mr Justice Fowler had previously expressed concern about fixing a date until he was confident the disclosure issues would be resolved before the trial.
Mr Mulholland said: 'We would be confident that all matters can be dealt with well before the summer.
'In fact, I'd like to have all these dealt with in the next eight weeks, so that there's a clear run into this case.'
Sam Magee KC, on behalf of the prosecution, described the disclosure issues as 'complex'.
'This isn't entirely straightforward,' he said.
Mr Justice Fowler scheduled another mention hearing for April 11 to fix dates for the completion of legal position papers on the disclosure issues.
'We'll fix the trial date for 15 September,' he added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Veterans slam Trump's ‘political' deployment of Marines and National Guard to LA: ‘Citizens are not enemy combatants'
Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles is a thinly veiled 'authoritarian' and politically motivated attempt to inflame protests and crush dissent, veterans and legal experts warn. Trump is relying on federal law that allows the president to call up the National Guard to respond to domestic unrest, an action known commonly as federalizing the normally state-authorized Guard. Even then, those troops have only a limited mission in supporting federal law enforcement agents and federal buildings at the center of protests against the administration's mass deportation agenda. But now, with his National Guard deployment combined with sending some 700 Marines to L.A., veterans groups, military law experts and Democratic officials fear the president is testing the limits of his authority to send active-duty military into American streets — and violating service members' commitments to stay out of domestic politics. 'When I joined the Marine Corps, I swore an oath — not to a person, not to a party, but to the Constitution,' said Marine veteran Janessa Goldbeck, CEO of the Vet Voice Foundation, a national nonpartisan advocacy group. 'What we're seeing now is a deliberate effort to turn the military into a political prop,' she told The Independent. Trump is not deploying troops for national defense but 'domestic intimidation,' she added. 'That's not just just politicizing the military — it's crossing a dangerous line,' Goldbeck told The Independent. Trump's military threats are 'how authoritarian regimes take power' and signal the president's wider ambitions for 'the weaponization of the military for political gain,' according to veterans advocacy group Common Defense. 'The militarized response to protests in Los Angeles is a dangerous escalation that undermines civil rights and betrays the principles we swore to uphold,' Army veteran and Common Defense political director Naveed Shah said. 'The idea that Marines would be deployed to suppress the very people we're meant to protect is a disgrace. It's un-American,' Marine Corps veteran and Common Defense organizer Jojo Sweatt added. The last time a president federalized the National Guard against the will of a state governor was in 1965, when then-President Lyndon Johnson deployed troops to protect civil rights advocates marching from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery — two weeks after the violence of 'Bloody Sunday' on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Johnson did so after Alabama's segregationist Gov. George Wallace told the president that his state 'refuses to provide for the safety and welfare' of the marchers, according to Johnson's proclamation. But 60 years later, Trump is deploying troops not to defend civil rights activists but to protect law enforcement and federal property. Activating troops against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom'is bad for all Americans concerned about freedom of speech and states' rights,' retired Major Gen. Randy Manner said in a statement to Fox News. 'There are over a million badged and trained members of law enforcement in this country for the governor to ask for help if he needs it,' he added. 'While this is presently a legal order, it tramples the governor's rights and obligations to protect his people. This is an inappropriate use of the National Guard and is not warranted.' Trump's open-ended memo invoking military deployment does not single out Los Angeles or even California. It empowers the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth 'to employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary.' Carrie A. Lee, a former associate professor at the U.S. Army War College, called Trump's actions 'massive overreach' and 'crazy broad,' seemingly paving the way for the administration 'to use military force against protestors on American soil anywhere they want.' Invoking 'protective power' authority without any geographical limits effectively creates an unprecedented and 'dangerous' nationwide order, according to Lee. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, though the president and administration officials have repeatedly labeled protesters 'insurrectionists' and 'seditionists' — sparking fears that the president is laying the groundwork for mass deployment of military assets across the country. Instead, Trump is currently relying on a far more limited statute that taps his 'protective power' authority, which does not allow the military to conduct law enforcement activities — unlike the Insurrection Act, which is excluded from federal statute that bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. 'The public must be laser focused on seeing the extent to which Secretary Hegseth adheres to these historically recognized limitations,' according to University of Houston Law Center professor Chris Mirasola, a former attorney-advisor at the Department of Defense Office of General Counsel. If troops are pulled into violent confrontations, Trump could use those incidents to justify invoking the Insurrection Act, opening the door for active-duty military to face off against Americans not just in the streets of Los Angeles but across the country. 'This is an unnecessary, unprecedented and predictable misuse of military power against American citizens,' according to Army veteran Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. 'And Trump has now thrust our troops into the middle of the most explosive issue in America,' he added. 'And this is likely just the start. We could see a clash and crisis between Trump and governors and mayors across America like we've never seen.' A lawsuit from watchdog group American Oversight called the deployment 'an opening salvo in a coordinated national strategy and not simply an isolated incident.' The lawsuit is seeking records from the Trump administration regarding the use of military assets in immigration enforcement and 'potential authorities his administration would invoke to authorize federalizing law enforcement.' 'Deploying the military to quash protests over the administration's inhumane and legally dubious immigration policies — especially over the objection of elected state leaders — is a dangerous, though unfortunately predictable, escalation by the Trump administration,' according to American Oversight executive director Chioma Chukwu. 'If left unchecked, this abuse of power under thin legal pretense can be readily replicated across other states in the future,' he said in a statement. 'Americans have a right to know who authorized it, what rationale was offered, and not just whether the government crossed a line — but by how much that line has been obliterated.'
San Francisco Chronicle
6 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's National Guard deployment in L.A. is a move last seen in Civil Rights era
The last time a president deployed the National Guard without a request from a governor was an entirely different era in American history. President Donald Trump's order of 2,000 National Guard troops to quell what his administration described as 'insurrectionists' in Los Angeles drew strenuous objections from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. 'It's very much outside our constitutional norms and traditions for the military to be deployed under federal control in the United States,' said Laura Dickinson, a George Washington University Law School professor who specializes in armed conflict. 'It's particularly rare when a governor objects.' Sixty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson deployed the Alabama National Guard to protect a march led by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. from Selma to Montgomery, the state's capital, after George Wallace, Alabama's segregationist governor, declined to provide Guard protection. The march followed 'Bloody Sunday' — March 7, 1965 — when Alabama state troopers brutally attacked marchers attempting to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma. They used clubs and gas canisters to force marchers, who had planned to walk to Montgomery, back to Selma. The marchers had been galvanized by the slaying of a young Black man from Alabama, Jimmie Lee Jackson, who had been shot as he attempted to prevent his mother from being further beaten by police. The civil rights era also saw numerous other instances of the federalization of the National Guard — to protect Black students integrating Southern schools and to quell unrest. On Sunday, the California National Guard began to arrive in Los Angeles after protests over wide-scale arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in recent days. Dickinson noted that what the federalized Guard will be doing is 'unclear': Will the troops be doing direct law enforcement, or will they be in a supportive role? What are their rules of engagement, and will they use force? It's also unclear how much training they have received, she noted. 'If they were to use force, this really could risk politicizing the military, which historically has enjoyed broad bipartisan support,' Dickinson said. It could also, she said, bring liability concerns. Newsom has called for calm, and, indeed, reports from Los Angeles suggested that the streets were quiet Sunday morning. 'Trump is sending 2,000 National Guard troops into LA County — not to meet an unmet need, but to manufacture a crisis,' Newsom wrote on social media. 'He's hoping for chaos so he can justify more crackdowns, more fear, more control. Stay calm. Never use violence. Stay peaceful.'
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Yahoo
Soldiers on alert over ‘Lee Rigby-style' threat to behead paratrooper
Military staff at an Army base have been put on alert over a 'Lee Rigby-style' threat to behead a paratrooper. Security has been tightened at the Colchester garrison, where Parachute Regiment battalions are located, after online threats were intercepted by Nottinghamshire police. All military staff at the base have been warned not to wear any uniforms or clothing outside the camp which would identify them as military personnel. The families of service members have also been sent warnings. Police are investigating the online threats, which come 12 years after the beheading of Fusilier Lee Rigby stunned Britain. Fusilier Rigby was murdered by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale on May 22 2013, outside the Royal Artillery barracks in Woolwich, south London, after he was seen wearing a Help for Heroes hoodie, which was popular with troops. The alert sent to families and service personnel at Colchester Garrison, where 3,500 troops and 750 civilian workers are based, says: 'Urgent. All, please disseminate to all your people in camp. 'We have received a warning that a man has made threats against members of the Para Regt and wants to carry out a 'Lee Rigby' style attack. 'The SCC [Security Control Centre] and main gate have been informed but ensure no Para Regt/military clothing is worn outside camp and remain vigilant.' The messages specifically named the suspect and stated other identifying details. It is not known whether he has yet been apprehended. The Ministry of Defence said: 'The safety and wellbeing of our personnel is our top priority. We are aware of an online threat, which is being investigated by the civilian police. 'Personnel are always advised to remain vigilant and report anything suspicious to the Royal Military Police.' Colchester's military history dates back to the late 18th century when the first barracks were built in the city. The garrison is the home of 16 Air Assault Brigade and troops from the Parachute Regiment's second and third battalions, alongside other infantry and aviation units and supporting detachments such as logistics and medical personnel. Airborne forces are notorious for wearing regimental clothing outside working hours, particularly distinctive maroon-coloured T-shirts and fleeces, most often worn with tight jeans and desert boots, a tradition that goes back many decades. Fusilier Rigby was a father of one from Middleton, Greater Manchester, and had served in Afghanistan. At the time of his death, he was working in army recruitment. He was a trained machine-gunner and a regimental drummer. He was given a military funeral at Bury parish church on July 12 2013. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
