A suspect in the murder of GAA official Sean Brown was believed to be a serving member of the Royal Irish Regiment (RIR), an inquest has heard.
It has also emerged that another suspect held a personal protection weapon and was regularly visited by a police officer at his home.
The 61-year-old was attacked and beaten by a LVF gang as he locked the gates at Bellaghy Wolfe Tones GAC, Co Derry, in May 1997.
After he was placed in the boot of his own car, he was taken to a country lane outside Randalstown, Co Antrim, where he was shot six times.
At an inquest hearing in Belfast on Friday it was also revealed that two suspects in the murder were stopped by police in the Randalstown area a day or two before Mr Brown was murdered.
Collusion is strongly suspected in the murder, and several of those thought to be involved are believed to be state agents.
Mr Brown’s inquest, which has involved around 40 hearings, has been held up due to PSNI disclosure delays.
Mr Brown’s family have accused state agencies of “cynically” trying to “derail” the long-delayed inquest.
It was due to resume this month, but has now been put back until March.
Under the British government’s controversial Legacy Act, inquests that have not reached their findings stage by next May will be halted.
During Friday’s hearing, barrister for the Brown family, Des Fahy KC, raised concerns about redactions to security force documents provided to the inquest.
Mr Fahy said that redactions should be “rolled back” given the “detrimental impact these redactions is having on our capacity to prepare for the resumption of the inquest”.
He also revealed that a person designated as Suspect 15 and who is described in an unredacted section as “believed to be a serving member of the Royal Irish Regiment”.
“This is wholly new information to the next of kin and the potential impact of such information is obvious I am sure to everyone involved in this inquest,” he said.
“But the vast majority of the rest of that document is redacted and I know that full attention will be given to all of the documents but that is one to which we draw particular attention in terms of redactions.”
Mr Fahy also referred to a person designated as Suspect 2.
“Again, in an unredacted section he has been described as ‘he or she legally held a personal protection weapon and was visited regularly at his home by a policeman’.
“There are clear inferences from a next of kin point of view as to circumstances as to which a person, never mind a suspect, would legally hold a personal protection weapon.
“This again is new information but there is no other detail attended to it and that is a particular aspect of the PII (public interest immunity) material which you will consider next week that we wanted to draw attention to.”
It emerged last year that a Northern Ireland Office (NIO) minister, understood to be Steve Baker, issued a Public Immunity Interest (PII) certificate in relation to material provided by The Security Service, also known as MI5.
PII certificates are used by security agencies to withhold information they do not want the public to see.
During Friday’s hearing Mr Fahy referred to security service documentation and highlighted that a particular document was “only brought to the attention of the inquest” by the coroner’s counsel, Joseph Aiken KC.
“Had he not drawn that to the attention of all of the parties we as a next of kin would never have known about it,” Mr Fahy said.
“That on any reading is an entry of huge significance because even in it’s unredacted form it indicates that two suspects, two main suspects, were stopped by the RUC in Randalstown a day or two days before the murder of Mr Brown and that their details were taken,” he said.
“The car which they were driving is also a car which is considered to be relevant in the investigation to the murder.
“We are bewildered that the security services document, the statement that we have seen, is redacted to the extent that it is.”
Mr Fahy highlighted that the security service official provided little other detail.
“But even the portions that are not redacted, the security service operative says that he does not know who the officers were to whom he spoke, he does not know if the information was disseminated upwards in the RUC and does not concede to having any notes in relation to these interactions,” he said.
“We find that incredible and the significance of an interaction with two suspects in the Randalstown area a number of days before the murder is of huge potential significance to the Brown family.”
He also asked that attention and effort be given to the “roll back of redactions” in the statement.
“Because otherwise the significance of that document is not going to play out in full when the inquest resumes because of the importance of its content,” he said.
