It has come to light that the UK Government spent more than £4 million of public money defending Soldier F, the former paratrooper who stood trial for murder and attempted murder during the Bloody Sunday events in Derry in 1972. The legal fees, currently standing at £4.3 million, cover a lengthy six-year period of legal battles, culminating last week in Soldier F’s acquittal on all charges by a judge-only court in Belfast, according to multiple sources including BBC News NI, DonegalLive.ie, and The Irish News.
Soldier F, whose identity remains protected for legal reasons, was accused of the murders of James Wray, 22, and William McKinney, 26, as well as five counts of attempted murder. The charges stemmed from the events of January 30, 1972, when soldiers from the Parachute Regiment opened fire on a civil rights demonstration in the Bogside area of Londonderry. That day, known ever since as Bloody Sunday, left thirteen people dead and at least fifteen more injured—a tragedy that has cast a long shadow over Northern Ireland’s history.
The £4.3 million figure was revealed in response to a parliamentary question by Foyle MP Colum Eastwood, a vocal advocate for the Bloody Sunday families. Veterans minister Alistair Carns (alternatively referred to as Alistair Cairns in some reports) confirmed that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) was "committed to supporting veterans," explaining that the legal and welfare support provided to Soldier F was funded entirely at public expense. The expenditure dates back to March 2019, when Soldier F was first charged, and includes costs associated with judicial reviews—most notably, a review that led the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) to recommence proceedings in 2022.
In a written answer, Carns stated, "The legal fees associated with these proceedings (including associated judicial reviews) amount to £4.3 million, which may rise marginally once final bills are received." He added, "Legal representation has been provided by the same experienced legal team since the Saville Inquiry, supplemented by leading solicitors and barristers, including King’s Counsel, based in Northern Ireland." Other costs, such as pastoral care, travel, and accommodation, have been covered by a central budget, though the MoD says it is impossible to calculate these precisely due to the involvement of various employees.
Soldier F’s legal journey has been lengthy and complex. He was initially charged in March 2019, decades after the events of Bloody Sunday. The legal fees include not only the trial itself but also the costs of judicial review proceedings. According to DonegalLive.ie, the same legal team has represented Soldier F since the high-profile Saville Inquiry, which investigated the events of Bloody Sunday in depth.
Last week, Judge Patrick Lynch, presiding over the trial at Belfast Crown Court, found that the evidence against Soldier F fell "well short" of what was required for conviction. As a result, the veteran was found not guilty of two murders and five attempted murders. The verdict has reignited fierce debate over justice, accountability, and the use of public funds in Northern Ireland’s most sensitive historical cases.
Reactions to the government’s expenditure have been swift and deeply divided. Foyle MP Colum Eastwood condemned the spending, calling it a "double injustice" for the families of those killed on Bloody Sunday. He stated, "In spite of the clear conclusions of Lord Saville, the British Government has spent £4.3m of our money to defend Soldier F over the last six years. The premium that is placed on defending soldiers is an insult to victims who are left to fight for truth and justice alone. It is sick." Eastwood also posted on social media, "The government may have left these victims to fight on their own but the people of Derry never will. We’re proud of them and we’ll keep fighting their corner."
Solicitor Ciaran Shiels, representing some of the Bloody Sunday families, was equally scathing, describing the amount spent as "obscene." He contrasted the government’s generous support for Soldier F with the reality faced by victims’ families, who have often had to fund their own legal challenges. Shiels’s comments, echoed across several media outlets, reflect a deep sense of injustice among those who lost loved ones in 1972 and have spent decades campaigning for accountability.
Eastwood’s criticism was particularly pointed. In a statement reported by The Irish News, he said, "He is a self-confessed killer and yet for more than 50 years, he has been a protected species in the eyes of the British Government, able and enabled to go about his life while his actions subjected good, innocent people in our city to decades of heartache and hurt." Eastwood also noted that the millions were spent despite the conclusions of the Saville Inquiry, which found that those killed on Bloody Sunday were innocent.
For its part, the Ministry of Defence has maintained that it is "committed to supporting veterans and their families." In his parliamentary answer, Carns emphasized, "As part of this, Soldier F has received legal and welfare support throughout his legal proceedings at public expense." The MoD’s stance reflects a longstanding policy of providing legal and welfare support to service personnel facing prosecution for actions taken while on duty, a policy that has been both defended and criticized in equal measure.
Soldier F’s case has become emblematic of the broader tensions surrounding legacy investigations from the Troubles. For many in the nationalist community, the acquittal and the government’s financial support for Soldier F are seen as evidence of a system that continues to prioritize the protection of former soldiers over justice for victims. For others, particularly among veterans’ groups and some politicians, the government’s actions are viewed as necessary to ensure that those who served are not left vulnerable to what they see as politically motivated prosecutions decades after the events in question.
The controversy over the legal costs is unlikely to fade quickly. With the final bills for Soldier F’s defence still to be settled, the total may yet rise. Meanwhile, the families of those killed and wounded on Bloody Sunday continue their campaign for recognition, accountability, and justice—a struggle that, as Eastwood put it, has not ended with this verdict or this expenditure.
The legacy of Bloody Sunday remains deeply contested, a reminder of the enduring pain and political complexities that still shape Northern Ireland’s present as much as its past.
