Families of eight victims of the 1972 massacre requested formal reviews of the decisions not to prosecute eight former soldiers — known as Soldiers F, H, J, M, P, S, U and V — for potential offences of perjury or perverting the course of justice.

The potential offences arose from allegations that the suspects deliberately provided false evidence to the Bloody Sunday inquiry or in formal accounts provided in 1972.

In April 2024, after careful consideration of all available evidence, decisions were taken not to prosecute 16 individuals because of insufficient admissible evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction.

An internal review has now reached a similar conclusion to the original decision.

A key aspect of the reasoning was that much of the evidence that was relied upon by the Bloody Sunday inquiry, including in particular key accounts provided by soldiers in 1972, would not be admissible in any prosecution of the soldiers for perjury or perverting the course of justice.

This was because they had been obtained in circumstances that had been found by previous courts to amount to oppression and in which fundamental legal safeguards had been denied to the soldiers.

The admission of such accounts, even to prove that they were untrue, would likely be considered by a court to be unfair, the PPS said.

The prosecution’s position was not altered by the comments made by the trial judge in relation to one of the soldiers when acquitting Soldier F of charges of murder and attempted murder.

Those findings relied upon evidence that had been admitted for a different purpose in the context of that particular trial, but which would not be admissible against the soldier concerned if he were to be prosecuted.

A PPS spokesperson said: “The review of this legally complex matter is now complete.

“After a careful analysis of all available evidence and the legal submissions made by the family legal representatives, it has been concluded that the evidential threshold to proceed with a prosecution has not been met.

“The standard of proof required to obtain a conviction in a criminal prosecution is high. The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the commission of a criminal offence by an identified individual.

“Prosecutors must make an independent assessment of the prospects of conviction based upon the evidence that would be admissible in criminal proceedings.”

They continued: “It is recognised that this outcome does not reflect the hopes and expectations of the Bloody Sunday families, and that it will come as another deeply disappointing day after decades of seeking justice for their loved ones.

“A detailed written explanation has been provided to the families to assist them in understanding our decision.

“We would further emphasise that today’s decisions in no way diminish the findings by the Bloody Sunday inquiry.

“A public inquiry and a criminal trial are very different processes and much of the material upon which the inquiry could rely would not be available to the prosecution having regard to the rules of evidence that apply to criminal proceedings.”