Amnesty looks further away than ever if Bloody Sunday comes to trial. Despite the inevitable political rows, even this weakest of governments will not be able to duck further action

Suddenly, over historic cases stretching back  almost half a century, legal developments   are emerging that inject a new – and to me unexpected – momentum into dealing with the past. The hard pressed PSNI,  so eager to hand over its role in historic cases to  the proposed Historic Investigations Unit, has done its controversial  job over Bloody Sunday and John Downey.

Inevitably in Northern Ireland, reaction to this fresh impetus could overtake Brexit as a divisive issue – at least if a soft outcome is finally agreed.  Storms from left and right, unionist and nationalist are guaranteed, but they will not be decisive. At Westminster, pressure for a selective army amnesty will increase and will rouse again the Conservative right including the Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson who as chief whip negotiated the Conservative – DUP deal. But the challenge delivered by the Supreme Court over Finucane surely renders such a one- sided response legally – and politically – impossible.  The present British government may want to play Pontius Pilate; but as is sometimes its way after decades and in a completely uncoordinated fashion, it is the justice system of the police, the prosecutors and the courts that will dictate the pace of change.

In a report labelled “exclusive,” the Daily Telegraph reports Army veterans are expected to be charged with murder within a fortnight over the deaths of Bloody Sunday protesters during the Troubles 47 years ago.

Well-placed sources have suggested that four ex-paratroopers, now in their 60s and 70s, fear being told on March 14 they will face murder charges in connection with the notorious shootings in Londonderry in 1972.

The partial victory in the Supreme Court decision on the Pat Finucane murder guarantees further action not only over the case itself but the range of collusion claims.   In the light of the judgment, how can the government deny a transparent inquiry with witnesses being interrogated, despite the claims of MI5 and other reservations?

From the UKSC’s summary of the judgment delivered by Lord Kerr the former NI Lord Chief Justice.

The Supreme Court holds that Mrs Finucane did have a legitimate expectation that there would be a public inquiry into Mr Finucane’s death, but that Mrs Finucane has not shown that the government’s decision not to fulfil this promise was made in bad faith or that it was not based on genuine policy grounds. The Supreme Court makes a declaration that there has not been an Article 2 compliant inquiry into the death of Mr Finucane.

If political issues overtake a promise given by the government and a decision is taken in good faith and on genuine policy grounds not to adhere to the original promise, it will be difficult for a person who holds a legitimate expectation to enforce compliance with it [76]. Mrs Finucane’s argument that the process was a sham and the outcome was fixed is a serious charge which would require clear evidence before this could be accepted [77 – 78]. There is no sustainable evidence to this effect, so this part of Mrs Finucane’s appeal fails

Brian Kerr chose not to identify – or perhaps to discover – what the “political issues” were. From the Independent’s report  

Delivering judgement, Lord Kerr concluded “an effective investigation… has not occurred” in accordance with Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights because the senior barrister had failed to persuade witnesses to testify.

“If [Sir Desmond] had been able to compel witnesses; if he had been able to probe their accounts; if he had been given the chance to press those whose testimony might have led to identification of those involved in targeting Mr Finucane… [then] one might have concluded that all means possible to identify those involved had been deployed,” the five justices of the court wrote in their unanimous verdict.

But the court did not order a new public inquiry be carried out, returning responsibility for the case to the government, a source of bitter frustration to the deceased’s widow Geraldine Finucane, who has pursued the case for 30 years and said afterwards the state had unlawfully “reneged” on its promise to hold a hearing rather than a review.

But the ruling means Geraldine Finucane’s pursuit of answers will be ongoing.

For their part, the legally expert Finucane family might consider lessons from the sequence leading  to the Hillsborough  trial in which allegations of police  incompetence and cover up are being remorselessly exposed.

John Downey who escaped prosecution over the Hyde Park bomb attack in 1982 over the “on the runs” affair will at last be extradited to the North on a different charge.

Meanwhile the inquest into the Birmingham bombs, delayed from 1974, is not the only one of its kind on either side of the water. And police bail for the journalists who reported collusion allegations over the Loughinisland massacre in 1994, is another reviving process that guarantees that the place of the justice system in legacy horrors is very much active. The insistent question of policy is whether the UK government will continue to hide behind the failure of the local parties to agree on the reform of legacy justice, while at the same time sympathising with the high powered campaign for a security forces amnesty.  How long can Theresa May keep kicking this particular can down the road?