SAS: 1992 shooting of IRA men was 'unjustified' says inquest – BBC News

The use of lethal force by SAS soldiers was unjustified when they opened fire killing four IRA men in an ambush at Clonoe in County Tyrone, an inquest has ruled.

Kevin Barry O'Donnell, 21, Sean O'Farrell, 22, Peter Clancy, 21, and Patrick Vincent, 20, died in February 1992, minutes after they had carried out a gun attack on Coalisland police station.

The soldiers opened fire as the men arrived at St Patrick's Church car park in a hijacked lorry which had a heavy machine gun welded to its tailgate.

Security forces had intelligence the car park would be used and 12 soldiers were in position behind a hedgerow.

Lethal force 'cannot have been reasonable'

They opened fire without warning when the lorry drove in – firing more than 500 rounds.

In statements at the time, the soldiers stated the use of lethal force was justified to protect their lives and those of their colleagues from the danger the IRA unit presented.

However, coroner Mr Justice Michael Humphreys found the use of lethal force cannot have been reasonable.

He said there was no attempt to arrest the four IRA men, even as they lay wounded.

The coroner said the operation "was not planned and controlled in such a way as to minimise to the greatest extent possible the need for recourse to lethal force."

Mr Justice Humphreys added that state agencies had "perpetuated falsehoods" about the incident, having claimed at the time there had been a gun battle.

In fact, the IRA men had not fired on the soldiers.

He referred to a Ministry of Defence document which had mentioned the operation as "an excellent security forces success".

'Prospect of prosecutions'

After the ruling, Patrick Vincent's sister Marian said: "It has been the entirety of my life that this process has been ongoing.

"It's hard to say you're delighted at a finding over your family member's death.

"We're overwhelmed and we're delighted with the result, but we're also very aware at a huge expense to us, as families."

Solicitor Niall Murphy said: "Anyone who sat through those months of hearings, the inescapable conclusion, the only conclusion is the verdict the judge has found today.

"Whereas truth has been excavated and published today, justice has not.

"We're going to carefully consider this verdict with regards to any prospect of prosecutions."

by threebodysolution

38 comments

  2. If they just admit it was a war then it all makes a little more sense.

  4. SAS in Ireland were an absolute loose cannon, although there’s an element of FAFO in this case.

  5. They will never say how many SAS were killed in Ireland, but I remember Germany having to say their roads weren’t that bad as so many died in car crashes there.

  8. 20-20 hindsight with some virtue signaling by armchair coaches.

  9. Why didn’t they just ask them to put their guns down instead of shooting them, I’m sure they’d have complied, right?

  10. Imagine being in army you see people give been told are the enemy with a stolen truck with a big feck off machine gun on it an torr told not to do owt, if they’d seen the soldiers in sure they would have shot

  11. They found out real fast.

    The shameful part is that the IRA leadership put 4 young men up to this, knowing the risks. Four lives lost for what? So that the same leadership could get big payouts, build bigger houses and sip their champagne? They come out once a year to ‘remember’ those they put up to attacks like this. That goes for both sides.

    The SAS were right to open fire on these men. No judge opinion will change that fact in the eyes of the vast majority of Northern Ireland.

  12. British couldn’t have it both ways, either it was a war as the IRA said or as the British said , the IRA were just criminal terrorists there by subject to the criminal law. In the case of being criminals, they could and should have been arrested at anytime with the obvious prior knowledge the British had of this operation. People opposed to the IRA don’t like to hear that but it’s the truth., even ‘terrorists’ are protected by the laws of the land.

  13. So.. they were supposed to wait until fired upon.. by a lorry with a HMG at the back end, thus increasing the risk to themselves…and likely increasing the British fatality rate, mere minutes after those said gunmen opened fire on a Police station.. am I understanding correctly? If I am.. then there’s zero reason for the SAS to hold their fire here. They know their targets are live, armed, dangerous, and willing to open fire on perceived hostiles. Maybe don’t execute them when they’re down and wounded, but that’s like saying our boys in afghan had to~ oh wait… and look at the fatalities from afghan… Id live to do some reading into the case material here, just to get a glimpse of why the judge ruled the way they did

  14. I think it was justified.

    Why would anyone care what one judge thinks

  15. Lmao at the attitude difference on this thread vs the one on r/ireland

  16. I really want to read the report. Cos in my mind a machine gun welded to a truck that’s just been used poses a risk.

    Tho the mention that they didn’t try and arrest them once wounded does lend to the idea that it may have been a situation where the justification changed during the engagement.

  17. Woke nonsense. The Ra wouldn’t have given the soldiers a chance to lay their guns down. Fully justified.

  19. Whole thing was a set up. That’s the big issue here imo. If the army just happened to be there and saw the ra men armed to the teeth, the army would be more than justified to fire on them. But the army had intelligence on where to be to ambush the Ra mem. They probably had enough intelligence to stop the events before they happened and didn’t act on them, choosing to kill them instead of arresting them.

  20. They want to declare war and shoot at British security forces but also be shocked that the soldiers shoot back. Its bizarre.
    It’s the same for republicans shock and protests of the existence of a shoot to kill policy. They want to ambush soldiers but complain when the soldiers ambush them!

  22. I understand the families motivations, and i understand for the IRA its just politics and a way to hold britain to account using its own laws but fuck me its deeply hypocritical and makes them look like a bunch of whiney little bitches.

    “OMG!!! WE WERE TRYING TO DO A WAR AND THE ENEMY SHOT US…SO UNFAIR”

    The fact these events get so much focus over the actions of the MRF in the early 70s when innocent people were murdered because they had the same moustache as a RA man, disgusts me.

    Youll not find a single diehard provo with genuine sympathy for the UDR/RUC man shot to bits in front of his screaming family. Shoot to kill was REAL but also fair enough if you were in the RA, suck it up.

  23. Ohh no, did the people trying to kill other people get killed?

  24. >Two of those killed, Mr O’Donnell and Mr O’Farrell, were shot in the back while running away and had bullets fired into their faces as they lay on the ground.

    You have to laugh at how this was put. They executed them after they already had been shot.

  25. “We just shot up a police station with a machine gun, how dare anyone fire back at us”

    Wasn’t it meant to be a war? I mean the getting fired upon is kind of part and parcel of that. Pretty sure that every real soldier knows that.

    During Vietnam some U.S aircraft were bombing ground targets when some soldier got on the radio and in a panic announced to the pilots that the Vietnamese were firing back. The pilot just responded with “that’s kind of fair to be honest”.

  28. So shooting at policemen is fine, but shooting at the shooters isn’t?

    Make it make sense

  29. 4 of them dead? Seems like a good enough result to me. Play with fire, yiz gonna get burned

  30. It was war. That’s what happens. The IRA killed plenty in a similar fashion. The only people I give a shit about are innocent civilians who got killed. Everyone else made a choice.

  31. You take up arms against the state, what do you expect?

  32. The reason the conflict here wasn’t called a war is because the Brits didn’t want the scrutiny of the Hague etc al. The amount of innocent civilians that were murdered by soldiers is shocking. This and the collusion and controlling of loyalists via MI5 and FRU, shows the British were also engaging in terrorism.

  33. Anyone who lifts a gun or mounts one on the back of a lorry to attack anything/anyone deserves the death they get. You can’t carry out acts like that and expect to get away with a slap on the wrists. One minute act like hard men ,next minute snivelling cowards. Live by the sword die by the sword

  34. Live by the gun or bomb and die by it. I don’t care if you are a republican or loyalist terrorist.
    These were hardly innocent victims regardless of a breach in rules of engagement by the SAS .

  35. Heavy machine gun

    Hmm

    Seems it’s only a war when it suits eh

  36. If you play with fire, you get burnt, or if you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

  37. They got what was coming. They wanted to live by the sword, they died by it

  38. This is all about the Brits trying to have their cake and eat it.

    I’ve no problem with them murdering IRA men as such, but to do it in this manner then they have to recognise it was a war and the people they killed were active combatants. The refusal to do that, and insistence that they were simply criminals, means that what they did in this case was indeed a crime.

Comments are closed.