Members of a specialist British military unit who shot dead four IRA men in an ambush in Co Tyrone in 1992 used lethal force which was not justified, a coroner has ruled.
Northern Ireland's presiding coroner, Mr Justice Michael Humphreys, found that the SAS soldiers did not have an honest belief in the necessity of using lethal force and that it was unjustified and not reasonable.
Four Provisional IRA members - Kevin Barry O’Donnell, 21, Sean O’Farrell, 23, Peter Clancy, 19, and Patrick Vincent, 20 - were shot dead by the soldiers minutes after they had carried out a gun attack on Coalisland RUC station.
The special forces opened fire as the men arrived at St Patrick’s Church car park in a stolen lorry they had used in the police station attack.
An inquest into the circumstances of the killings, which opened in 2023, found that up to 570 rounds were fired by the soldiers.
A total of 514 spent cartridges from army guns were recovered at the scene.
In his findings, Mr Justice Humphreys, who is also a High Court judge, said the use of force in the ambush was not justified and that the soldiers did not have an honest belief that it was necessary in order to prevent loss of life.
In statements made by the soldiers at the time, they claimed that the use of lethal force was justified to protect their lives and others from the IRA unit.
However, Mr Justice Humphreys said the use of force by the soldiers was, in the circumstances they believed them to be, "not reasonable".
He said no attempt was made by the soldiers to arrest any of the members of the IRA unit, even as they lay seriously injured and incapacitated either on the ground or in the cab of the lorry.
The judge was also critical of the operation, saying it was not planned and controlled in a way to minimise to the "greatest extent possible" the need to use lethal force.
He also rejected the soldiers’ claims that the IRA members opened fire in the car park, saying they were "demonstrably untrue".
Mr Justice Humphreys went on to say that reports created by the SAS and the police force in the aftermath, including those provided to government ministers, referred to simultaneous firing and a firefight.
He said these statements were "demonstrably untrue and must have been known to be untrue".
"The reasons for putting forward such false justifications for the actions of the soldiers are obvious," he added.
"This, coupled with any lack of proper challenge of their accounts by the RUC investigators ensured there would be no actual accountability."
He said the attitude of states to the ambush in Clonoe was summarised in a Ministry of Defence (MoD) document as "an excellent Security Forces success".
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
State 'perpetuated falsehoods' about Clonoe events
The inquest also found that state agencies "perpetuated falsehoods" about the events, having claimed in a press release that there was an "exchange of gunfire".
This, he said, ensured this was the narrative conveyed by the media.
"No steps were taken to rectify this and ensure that the public were made aware of a true account of events," Mr Justice Humphreys added.
"Indeed, in submissions made to the inquest, wholly implausible attempts continue to be made to assert that members of the PIRA unit opened fire at the car park. This demonstrably did not happen."
He also noted that despite evidence given by Colonel A that ambushes were not carried out in Northern Ireland, the terminology "ambush" appears frequently in both PSNI and MoD documents created after the event.
The inquest was told that each of the men died shortly before 11pm on 16 February 1992.
Mr Justice Humphreys said that, in his statement, Soldier F claimed he opened fire when he believed those in the lorry were about to open fire on the patrol.
However, he found that the IRA members were attempting to descend the lorry and run away and they could not have posed as a threat.
It found that Mr O’Donnell was shot in the back whilst attempting to flee and then again in the face whilst lying incapacitated on the ground.
Mr Justice Humphreys rejected claims by Soldiers F and H that they had an honest belief they needed to use force and said it "must have been obvious to them" that Mr O’Donnell presented no viable threat.
Mr Clancy was shot whilst attempting to run away and then repeatedly whilst in a crouched or kneeling position on the ground.
Mr Vincent was shot whilst seated in the cab of the lorry and then again when lying incapacitated across the seat of the lorry through its open doors, while Mr O’Farrell was shot in the back whilst running away and then in the face whilst lying on the ground incapacitated.
'I don't know if 514 bullets are ever warranted' - sister
Marian Vincent, the sister of Mr Vincent, said the families had always maintained that arrests could have been made instead.
"I don't know if 514 bullets are ever warranted. Especially if you’re saying potentially that there could have been an arrest.
"You don’t go from an arrest situation to 514 bullets for four people."
She said the families also maintained that a false narrative was circulated following the incident and that it was "so monumental" for that to be confirmed in the court.
"It makes a big difference to how we feel about it. It means that there's dignity given back to them as human beings, as siblings, as sons. And for us it has went a long way to helping us to heal."
Ms Vincent said the families were "completely overwhelmed" by the ruling.
"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," she said.
