The long and contentious trial of Soldier F, a former British Army paratrooper accused of murder and attempted murder during the infamous Bloody Sunday shootings in Londonderry, has drawn to a close at Belfast Crown Court. After more than five weeks of evidence, legal wrangling, and emotional testimony, Judge Patrick Lynch has reserved judgment and is set to deliver his verdict on Thursday, October 23, 2025, at 10am.
Soldier F, whose identity remains protected by an interim court order, stands accused of the murders of James Wray, 22, and William McKinney, 26. Both men were among the 13 unarmed civilians shot dead by the British Army’s Parachute Regiment on January 30, 1972, during a civil rights march in the Bogside area—a day that would become one of the most harrowing episodes of the Troubles. In addition to the murder charges, Soldier F faces five counts of attempted murder relating to Michael Quinn, Patrick O’Donnell, Joseph Friel, Joe Mahon, and another unidentified person. He has pleaded not guilty to all seven charges.
The trial, which began in September and unfolded without a jury, has been marked by high-profile legal arguments, contested witness statements, and the enduring pain of families who have waited decades for accountability. Each day, Soldier F sat behind a curtain in the courtroom, shielded from public view, while relatives of the victims and their supporters watched intently from the gallery. The proceedings also drew observers such as the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland, David Johnstone, and Paul Young from the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement, reflecting the trial’s significance for both victims’ families and military communities.
Central to the prosecution’s case were statements from two other paratroopers, known only as Soldiers G and H. Both were present with Soldier F in Glenfada Park North, where the fatal shootings occurred. The prosecution, led by barrister Louis Mably KC, argued that these statements provided direct evidence that Soldier F had opened fire on fleeing, unarmed civilians. Mably painted a stark picture in his closing remarks, asserting, “Unarmed men were shot in the back as they ran away, without justification and with the intention to kill. That is the ingredients of murder.” He further contended that “the only question in this case is whether F was one of the soldiers who participated in that shooting, either as a principal or a secondary participant.”
Mably also addressed Soldier F’s decision not to testify, suggesting the court was open to draw an “adverse inference” from his silence. “Even allowing for the passage of time, it was implausible he does not have a memory of whether he had opened fire,” Mably told the court, hinting at what he saw as a lack of candor from the accused.
But the defence, represented by Mark Mulholland KC, mounted a robust challenge to the prosecution’s narrative. Mulholland argued that the case rested precariously on the statements of Soldiers G and H, whom he described as “liars and fabricators.” He pointed out that both men had given inconsistent accounts over the years—to the Royal Military Police in 1972, to the Widgery Inquiry later that year, and to the Saville Inquiry decades afterward. Neither was available to testify in person: Soldier G is now deceased, while Soldier H exercised his right against self-incrimination. “There is no independent supporting evidence to back up their claims that Soldier F fired shots,” Mulholland maintained, urging the court to treat their testimony “with the utmost caution.”
Mulholland also highlighted the existence of eight civilian witnesses who spoke of a single soldier opening fire in Glenfada Park North, rather than multiple soldiers acting together as the prosecution suggested. This, he argued, further undermined the reliability of the soldiers’ statements and the prosecution’s version of events.
The trial’s evidentiary battles extended to forensic and medical testimony. According to The Irish News, medical experts testified that William McKinney died after being struck by a single bullet entering the right side of his back, while James Wray was hit by two bullets likely fired from the same gun. Notably, neither victim tested positive for lead or explosive residue on their hands or clothing—evidence that could have indicated they had fired a weapon themselves. This detail, the prosecution argued, reinforced the characterization of the victims as unarmed civilians.
The legal process leading to this trial has been long and fraught. Soldier F was one of 18 former soldiers reported to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) after the Saville Inquiry’s exhaustive investigation into Bloody Sunday. However, he was the only one charged. The PPS initially dropped the case in 2021 following the collapse of another related prosecution, but proceedings against Soldier F resumed after a successful legal challenge in 2022, as reported by BBC News.
Throughout the trial, the defence repeatedly challenged the admissibility and reliability of the prosecution’s key evidence. On October 16, 2025, Judge Lynch rejected a defence application to dismiss the case on the grounds that the statements from Soldiers G and H were unreliable. “I decline to direct a verdict of not guilty on this basis,” the judge ruled, stating he had listened “very carefully” to two days of legal arguments and would admit the statements as evidence. This decision paved the way for closing submissions and set the stage for the highly anticipated verdict.
As the trial concluded, the sense of anticipation and tension was palpable both inside and outside the courthouse. Families of the victims, many of whom have campaigned for justice for over fifty years, gathered with banners and photographs, symbolizing their enduring quest for accountability. For them, the trial has been more than a legal process—it is a chapter in a much larger story of loss, memory, and the search for truth.
The outcome of this case, whatever Judge Lynch’s verdict may be, is certain to resonate far beyond the walls of Belfast Crown Court. For some, the trial represents a long-overdue reckoning with one of the darkest days in Northern Ireland’s history. For others, particularly within veterans’ circles, it raises difficult questions about the prosecution of former soldiers for actions taken during the Troubles, the reliability of decades-old evidence, and the broader legacy of conflict and reconciliation.
As the city of Derry and the wider world await Judge Lynch’s decision, the specter of Bloody Sunday continues to cast a long shadow—one that this verdict, for better or worse, will help to define for a new generation.
