Court rules on unjustified use of lethal force by soldiers

Background of the Case

The Northern Ireland High Court recently delivered a significant ruling regarding the use of lethal force by soldiers during an incident at Clonoe, Co Tyrone, on 16 February 1992. The case was brought forward by the families of Kevin Barry O’Donnell, Patrick Vincent, Peter Clancy, and Sean O’Farrell, who were shot dead by soldiers from the Special Military Unit (SMU) during a planned operation against the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA).

The Incident

The incident occurred when the PIRA operatives, armed with a heavy machine gun, were returning to the Clonoe chapel car park after an attack on Coalisland RUC station. The SMU soldiers, positioned in the car park, opened fire on the operatives without issuing a warning, resulting in the deaths of the four men. The court examined whether the soldiers had an honest belief that lethal force was necessary to protect themselves or others from unlawful violence.

Key Findings

Justice Treacy, who presided over the case, found that the soldiers did not have an honest belief that the use of force was necessary. The court noted that none of the soldiers testified at the inquest, and their police statements, made months after the incident, could not be challenged due to the invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination. The court drew adverse inferences from the soldiers' refusal to testify, concluding that their evidence would likely have been unhelpful to the defence.

Analysis of the Use of Force

The court found that the soldiers fired indiscriminately, using automatic fire and aimed shots, without any of the PIRA operatives firing at them. The court rejected the soldiers' claims that they perceived a threat, noting that the operatives were unarmed and attempting to flee when they were shot. The court also highlighted that the soldiers made no attempt to arrest the operatives, even when they were incapacitated.

Planning and Execution of the Operation

The court criticised the planning and execution of the operation, noting that crucial intelligence information was not shared with the SMU. The plan relied on surprising the PIRA unit and effecting arrests, but there was no contingency plan if the operatives arrived with the machine gun already mounted. The court found that the operation was not planned to minimise the use of lethal force and questioned whether it was intended as an arrest operation at all.

Conclusions

The court concluded that the use of lethal force was not justified and that the soldiers did not have an honest belief that it was necessary to prevent loss of life. The court found that the operation was not controlled in a manner that minimised the need for lethal force, and the soldiers' actions were not reasonable in the circumstances they believed existed.

Impact and Implications

This ruling has significant implications for the accountability of military operations and the use of lethal force in conflict situations. It underscores the importance of proper planning and intelligence sharing in military operations and highlights the need for accountability when state agencies perpetuate falsehoods about such incidents.

Learn More

For more information on military operations and the use of force, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.