Soldier could be charged 30 years after shooting / Daughter 'doesn't want prosecution'

Lawyers for Mrs Thompson applied for a judicial review of the failure of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to provide "full and sufficient" reasons for the decision not to prosecute Soldier D, who admitted firing 18 shots during a midnight raid.

A legal source said that if the application is upheld, pressure will mount for a fresh investigation by the PSNI which could result in Soldier D being charged with murder. The court action is the second relating to Mrs Thompson's killing. Last year a judge held that the authorities had failed to hold a proper investigation into her death. That hearing was told that after the killing, Soldier D and the other three members of his patrol were interviewed by the Royal Military Police (RMP) - not the then RUC.

The soldiers claimed self-defence and said they heard a single shot, probably fired from a .22 rifle, which appeared to come from the rear of Mrs Thompson's home. The manner of the interviews led to the judge, Sir Brian Kerr - now the Lord Chief Justice - declaring: "In my view it was not open to them (the RUC) to delegate that critical responsibility to another agency such as the Royal Military Police.

"By any standards the investigation was not effective."

In the latest case, Seamus Treacy QC, on behalf of Mrs Thompson's daughter Mary Louise, said the circumstantial evidence surrounding the shooting overwhelmingly point-ed to Soldier D as being responsible. Mr Treacy said Soldier D told the RMP to the effect that he shot an SLR (self-loading rifle) twice into the rear garden where Mrs Thompson was killed and never suggested that someone other than he was responsible for shooting her.

"It is absurd, in the light of the totality of the evidence, for anyone to conclude there was insufficient evidence to afford a reasonable prospect of identifying Soldier D as the shooter,"

Mr Treacy said.

"Such a suggestion is unsustainable and offensive to the intelligence of the family of the deceased. The decision not to prosecute on this ground was wrong in 1972 and it remains so. The passage of time cannot rescue the decision.

"Prosecutors must protect the public interest, act with objectivity, take proper account of the position of the suspect and the victim and pay attention to all relevant circumstances, irrespective of whether they are to the advantage or disadvantage of the suspect."

Mr Treacy submitted that if the DPP's approach had been followed in cases such as Thain, Clegg, Fisher and Wright - those soldiers would never have been prosecuted.

Mr Justice Girvan reserved judgment.

Daughter 'doesn't want prosecution'

A daughter of Kathleen Thompson last night said she had no desire to see the soldier responsible for her mother's death prosecuted. Patricia Thompson said her family knew a prosecution was unlikely, but the main aim of the legal challenge was to have the DPP admit that it was wrong.

"When Hugh Orde listed the unsolved murders (of the Troubles), my mother's name was not even on it,"

she said.

Ms Thompson said she had no desire to see Soldier D taken away from his family, but felt he should be named to help bring closure to her family after almost 34 years. She said that for most of that time, her mother had been treated as a "non-person" and by seeking the judicial review, her family was "humanising" their mother again.

"He (Soldier D) was blatant. He admitted firing the shots and nothing was done. It was as if my mother didn't matter,"

she said.