SAS Shooting of Four IRA Men in 1992 Ruled Unjustified

[Social Media]

 

An inquest has determined that the use of lethal force by SAS soldiers in the 1992 ambush that killed four IRA members in Clonoe, County Tyrone, was unjustified. Kevin Barry O'Donnell, 21, Sean O'Farrell, 22, Peter Clancy, 21, and Patrick Vincent, 20, were shot dead minutes after carrying out a gun attack on Coalisland police station.  

 

The men had arrived at St Patrick’s Church car park in a hijacked lorry fitted with a heavy machine gun welded to the tailgate when SAS soldiers, who had been lying in wait behind a hedgerow, opened fire. Security forces had intelligence that the car park would be used, and 12 soldiers were in position before the men arrived.  

 

 

Following the ruling, Downing Street stated, "Addressing the issues of the past must be done in a way that commands the support of families, survivors and, importantly, the families of those killed serving the state." A spokesperson added that "any veteran who served during the Troubles is provided legal support where appropriate."  

 

 

The IRA unit had fired 60 shots at Coalisland police station about 20 minutes before they were killed, though no one was injured in the attack. When the lorry drove into the car park, SAS soldiers opened fire without warning, discharging more than 500 rounds. The soldiers later stated that their actions were justified to protect their own lives and those of their colleagues.  

 

 

However, coroner Mr Justice Michael Humphreys ruled that the use of lethal force "cannot have been reasonable," noting that there was no attempt to arrest the men, even after they were wounded. He stated that the soldiers would have known the IRA members would need to dismount the machine gun, which would have improved the possibility of an arrest. "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," he said.  

 

Mr Justice Humphreys also criticised state agencies for "perpetuating falsehoods" about the incident, as it had been described at the time as a gun battle, despite the IRA men not having fired on the soldiers. A Ministry of Defence document even referred to the operation as "an excellent security forces success."  

 

Solicitor Niall Murphy responded to the ruling by saying, "Anyone who sat through those months of hearings, the inescapable conclusion, the only conclusion is the verdict the judge has found today." He added, "Whereas truth has been excavated and published today, justice has not." Murphy indicated that legal options would be considered, stating, "We're going to carefully consider this verdict with regards to any prospect of prosecutions."  

Speaking to BBC News NI, Murphy suggested that "the families will expect a file to be prepared for submission to the Public Prosecution Service." Sinn Féin MP Cathal Mallaghan welcomed the decision, calling on the British government to "fully repeal and replace the Legacy Act." He said the ruling "confirms what many in our community knew for a long time; that these four men were executed by the SAS without justification."  

 

However, Ulster Unionist Party justice spokesperson Doug Beattie dismissed the ruling, calling it "ludicrous." He argued, "Instead of dead police officers, civilians and lawful military personnel, four PIRA terrorists were killed. It is ludicrous to say that the shooting was unjustified."

 

Based on a report by BBC 2025-02-08

 

 

[ukrules]

This is an outrage. Every one of those terrorist <deleted>bags deserved to burn.

[rocketboy2]

The lads went there in that truck to kill people.

But they died instead.

Oh dear never mind.

 

[Smokey and the Bandit]

"Mr Justice Humphreys also criticised state agencies for "perpetuating falsehoods" about the incident, as it had been described at the time as a gun battle, despite the IRA men not having fired on the soldiers"

 

The fact that the IRA had guns, means they were prepared to use them, they didn't have a chance to fire , so it was a win win for the SAS!

[Bannoi]

Unjustified my arse

[newbee2022]

9 hours ago, Social Media said:

Justice Humphreys also criticised state agencies for "perpetuating falsehoods" about the incident, as it had been described at the time as a gun battle, despite the IRA men not having fired on the soldiers. A Ministry of Defence document even referred to the operation as "an excellent security forces success.

Thank you for your statement and decision.👍

[Lung Mark]

Rewriting history according to the current ultra-liberal climate. Terrorists were dealt with appropriately.

[klauskunkel]

9 hours ago, Social Media said:

Justice Michael Humphreys ruled that the use of lethal force "cannot have been reasonable," noting that there was no attempt to arrest the men

I'm confused. Is the SAS a police force, trained and empowered to legally arrest people? Would they also have had the duty to read them their rights?

In essence, if you wanna arrest people for a later trial, use the police. If you are not interested for these people to stand trial, use soldiers. 

But the wording that this was "unjustified" puts the blame on the soldiers, while it should be on the agencies who selected the soldiers for the task.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, klauskunkel said:

I'm confused. Is the SAS a police force, trained and empowered to legally arrest people? Would they also have had the duty to read them their rights?

In essence, if you wanna arrest people for a later trial, use the police. If you are not interested for these people to stand trial, use soldiers. 

But the wording that this was "unjustified" puts the blame on the soldiers, while it should be on the agencies who selected the soldiers for the task.

The SAS were not police, but neither were they judge and jury.

 

Clearly they were executioners

But you are correct:

 

“But the wording that this was "unjustified" puts the blame on the soldiers, while it should be on the agencies who selected the soldiers for the task.”

[Purdey]

War does have consequences. The size of the gun welded on the back of the truck tells us they were going to continue the war. Perhaps asking them to surrender was never going to happen but that is the consequence of thinking you are hard men.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Purdey said:

War does have consequences. The size of the gun welded on the back of the truck tells us they were going to continue the war. Perhaps asking them to surrender was never going to happen but that is the consequence of thinking you are hard men.

 

These events did not occur during a war, civil law was still in place. 
 

 

[Bkk Brian]

So just minutes after they had carried out a terror attack as active service members of the IRA, trying to kill police they then get shot and killed themselves by the SAS. Som nam na.

 

Jeremy Corbyn will be pleased with this result. 

 

Absolute farce

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, klauskunkel said:

'm confused. Is the SAS a police force, trained and empowered to legally arrest people?

Yes, they had the power of detention.

[BusyB]

41 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yes, they had the power of detention.

 

I don't know about the SAS, but I do know from personal experience that virtually all army training at the time was tailored to 'IS', or Internal Security. It was essentially police training, months of it before deployment, basic law including arrest grounds and techniques, riot control and so on. All under the motto of 'minimum force required to do the job'. I can honestly say that in '74 my unit lived by that. 

 

I'm not denying by any means that there were many awful egregious and deadly failures on the part of the army on the ground and policy makers. Maybe that's an inevitable side effect  in civil conflicts like that where deadly force is being used on both sides.

 

I also understood back then that if I'd been a young catholic man brought up on the Falls Road, I'd have been looking down the sights of a rifle in exactly the opposite direction to the sights I was looking down as a young Brit soldier. That's what these young guys were doing.

 

It looks like arrests were possible after a lot of experts have had the chance to sift through all the evidence for months on end. I'm sure none of them wanted to come to unfair conclusions and were interested only in the truth of the situation. It has nothing to do with 'woke' or any such garbage. I don't think the SAS is a gang of executioners. I have known some.

 

The article doesn't say but if those guys were carrying small arms as well as that .50 sized monster then I can't guarantee I would have attempted an arrest either.

 

At least those PIRA operatives were acting like soldiers and must have been aware of the risks. I respect that even if I basically don't like the idea of people running around blasting off on Somali type 'technicals'.

 

My deepest consuming hatred and contempt is most definitely reserved for those who plant bombs in public places.