The development includes a decision to withdraw proceedings against Soldier F, a former member of the military facing trial for two charges of murder and five of attempted murder on Bloody Sunday in January 1972.
Separately, proceedings will not be commenced against Soldier B who was to be prosecuted with the murder of 15-year-old Daniel Hegarty in July 1972, and of wounding with intent of his cousin Christopher Hegarty.
The decisions not to proceed with both cases were taken after careful consideration of the impact of a recent court ruling that evidence relied upon in the prosecution of two former soldiers known as Soldier A and Soldier C was inadmissible because of the circumstances in which it was obtained.
Given related evidential features across all three cases, a review of the available evidence against Soldier B and Soldier F was conducted to establish whether the Court’s ruling had any implications for the prospect of convictions in these cases.
Thousands expected to take part in 'Derry Day' this weekend
Two new arrivals in DUP camp as UUP councillor Alan Lewis defects alongside serial party-switcher Henry Reilly
Brexit: There’s a fundamental con trick being played over Liz Truss’ Northern Ireland Protocol Bill says Lord Empey
BBC political editor Enda McClafferty sees the funny side after he’s caught on camera underdressed for live TV report
Rishi Sunak’s treasury ‘no friend of ours in fight against Protocol’: Paisley
This review process involved a team of senior experienced prosecutors working with the assistance of advice from independent Senior Counsel. After considering the full written judgement delivered by Mr Justice O’Hara in the case of Soldier A and Soldier C, delivered on 30th April 2021, it was concluded that there was no longer a reasonable prospect of key evidence in proceedings against Soldier F and Soldier B being ruled admissible at their trials and without this evidence the Test for Prosecution was no longer considered met.
Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Herron, along with Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Michael Agnew, this morning hosted private meetings in Londonderry with families of the deceased and victims directly affected by the two decisions.
They were joined by Senior Counsel and other senior members of the two prosecution teams involved to outline a detailed rationale for the decisions.
The Director has today also published a detailed public statement explaining why the Test for Prosecution is no longer met on evidential grounds in both cases.
Mr Herron said: “I recognise these decisions bring further pain to victims and bereaved families who have relentlessly sought justice for almost 50 years and have faced many set-backs. It is clear to see how these devastating events in 1972, in which the families involved lost an innocent loved one, caused an enduring pain which continues to weigh heavily.
“The PPS has a duty to keep prosecution decisions under review and to take into account any change in circumstances as a case proceeds.
"The impact of this court ruling on these two cases was considered extremely carefully by my office with the assistance of advices from Senior Counsel. That led to the conclusion that a reasonable prospect of conviction no longer existed in proceedings against both Soldier B and Soldier F. In these circumstances, the prosecutions cannot proceed.
“It is the role of a prosecutor to look at evidence and complex legal matters in an independent and impartial way, as happened in these reviews. This core duty to remain objective in all decision-making does not hinder us from recognising the extreme distress caused by these decisions today. We know that deep upset extends not just to the families and survivors we met with, but also to many in the wider community. In both cases, I would like to emphasise that this outcome does not undermine previous findings that those killed and injured in these tragic incidents were entirely innocent.
“The prosecution teams appreciated the opportunity to meet with those directly affected by the discontinuance of these proceedings. As difficult as this news clearly was for them to hear, it was important to us to be there in person to explain in detail the reasons which led to the decisions.
“Legacy cases come with many challenges, particularly when they involve events which happened almost five decades ago and were not properly investigated at the time. It is particularly relevant in these two cases that contemporaneous accounts were obtained in circumstances that involved a denial of legal safeguards. The most formidable challenges in bringing modern day prosecutions in relation to legacy matters often come from issues that can be traced back to the original investigation.”
Mr Agnew said: “Along with the Director, I recognise what a painful day this is for the families and survivors we met with.
“As upsetting as this outcome is for them, I can assure the public that these decisions were taken only after a most careful consideration of all relevant
legal matters by a team of experienced and senior prosecutors. All decision making was independent, impartial and conducted fully in line with the PPS Code for Prosecutors.
“The Test for Prosecution involves a judgment as to how a prosecution will fare in the context of the adversarial trial process, and of the likely outcome. It was always recognised there were significant evidential challenges in both these cases. However, the ruling in the case of Soldiers A and C provided insight as to the way courts will view attempts to use compelled statements from 1972, or evidence in some way derived from them, in a criminal trial.
“We carefully considered how the ruling affected the analyses we previously undertook in the cases of Soldier B and Soldier F as to the prospects of conviction.
“Whilst the circumstances of the two cases were different, and they were considered individually, in both it was concluded that there was no longer any reasonable prospect of conviction, and accordingly the Test for Prosecution was no longer met.”