Verdict that SAS killing of four IRA men was not justified is ‘illegal and irrational’

Both the UK government and military veterans involved in the 1992 operation are seeking to have findings from an inquest quashed, claiming a failure to properly consider the potential threat they posed

An inquest verdict that SAS soldiers were not justified in opening fire and killing four IRA men in a Co Tyrone village was illegal and irrational, the High Court heard today.

The coroner failed to carry out the correct assessment before ruling that the use of lethal force at Clonoe in February 1992 was unreasonable, a judge was told.

Kevin Barry O’Donnell, 21, Sean O’Farrell, 22, Peter Clancy, 21, and Patrick Vincent, 20, died in the ambush just minutes after they had carried out a gun attack on Coalisland police station.

Both the UK government and military veterans involved in the operation are seeking to have the inquest findings quashed, claiming a failure to properly consider the potential threat they posed.

Joseph Aiken KC, representing the Secretary of State for Defence, argued: “The terrorists that the soldiers expected they would have to confront were among the most ruthless and dangerous members of a highly effective terrorist organisation.”

Members of a specialist military unit opened fire when the men arrived at a church car park in a hijacked lorry with a heavy machine gun welded onto the back.

Twelve soldiers were in position and waiting for them at the scene.

At the time the SAS men insisted the use of lethal force was justified to protect their lives and those of their colleagues from the danger posed by the IRA Active Service Unit.

However, in February last year, coroner Mr Justice Humphreys found that their actions were not reasonable or justified.

He identified no attempt made to arrest the four IRA men, even as they lay wounded.

According to the coroner, experienced soldiers lying in wait at the church would have known the IRA men needed to dismount the machine gun – improving the chances of making arrests.

And in that scenario the ability to arrest them would have improved.

Amid criticism from unionist and Conservative politicians at the findings, judicial review challenges have been brought against the outcome reached.

Opening a case listed for a two-week hearing, Mr Aiken claimed the coroner’s approach involved “a significant legal error” in assessing the central issue of the Article 2 justification for opening fire.

Based on that alleged mistake, he contended the verdict was illegal, irrational, wrongly took some factors into account and did not properly consider other relevant issues.

It was unreasonable to suggest the soldiers did not honestly believe their lives were in danger when they confronted members of an IRA unit which had just fired an anti-aircraft machine gun and other weapons, the court heard.

Opening a case listed for a two-week hearing, Mr Aiken suggested a failure to “stand in the shoes” of the SAS men who used force at the scene.

Instead, he argued, the legal test for self-defence and justification when faced with heavily-armed terrorists was incorrectly applied.

Mr Justice McAlinden was told events which led to the four men’s deaths unfolded in the space of two minutes.

Along with the 12 soldiers, there were also at least 10 IRA men, a lorry with a mounted anti-aircraft gun and other vehicles all at the scene.

“If you are assessing the express belief of a soldier and their decision-making… then you have to take into account exactly what else was happening at the point that decision was made,” Mr Aiken submitted.

“There is an absence of consideration about the nature of the terrorist threat that the specialist military unit was dealing with on that night.”

Describing the attack on Coalisland RUC Station as part of a wider, sustained campaign of terrorism, the barrister insisted the incident was unlike other law enforcement scenarios.

“Given the opportunity, the terrorists involved would have tried to kill the soldiers,” he added.

“If we are right on any of these legal errors on the Article 2 justification assessment, then the (inquest) findings and verdict must be quashed.”

The case continues.

For all the latest news, visit the Belfast Live homepage here and sign up to our daily newsletter