With the evidence completed this week, the Clonoe inquest reaches the final stage before the guillotine date of the Legacy Act of Shame shuts down all ECHR Article 2 compliant mechanisms. The evidence heard during the inquest provides hope that some truth will soon be uncovered, providing much-needed answers for the relatives of Kevin Barry O’Donnell, Peter Clancy, Patrick Vincent and Sean O’Farrell, as well as the wider public. This is a significant milestone, as it is the first-ever investigation into the case conducted in compliance with international human rights standards.
The evidence in the Clonoe inquest concluded on Wednesday of this week with the remote attendance of Soldier F and Colonel A, two of the key military witnesses responsible for the deaths of the four young men at Clonoe Chapel in County Tyrone on February 16, 1992. Despite invoking their privilege against self-incrimination to avoid answering questions about the fatal shooting, the former members of the Specialist Military Unit (SMU) of the British Army were unable to evade questioning – they were challenged in their inconsistencies and silence by barristers representing the bereaved families.
The ex-serviceman known to this inquest as Soldier F – who is not the same person as the men known by the same cypher name in other proceedings – was a team leader within the British Army’s SMU and a member of its reactive sub-unit. This sub-unit was primarily tasked with supporting the RUC in so-called anti-terrorist operations such as hard arrests, in which the police lacked the powers, adequate training and weaponry to carry out the operation. The immediate superior of Soldier F was Captain A, although it was Soldier A who acted as his tactical superior during operations such as the one in Clonoe. As one of the leaders of the unit, Soldier F assisted Soldier A in at least one reconnaissance operation prior to the ambush in the chapel.
Soldier F is believed to have fired the first shots in the ambush. He is also believed to have been the individual who shot and killed Kevin Barry O’Donnell and Peter Clancy and also fired at Patrick Vincent as he lay in the cabin of the lorry. This is supported by evidence from pathology and ballistics experts who testified during the inquest earlier this year, as well as the original statement attributed to Soldier F in 1992, which he declined to adopt as part of his evidence following legal advice. This is not surprising since the individual identified as Soldier F in 1992 told the RUC that he believed he fired first, and the people in the lorry did not fire at him. Soldier F also declined to adopt this piece of evidence, namely the transcript of a police interview recorded in Gough Barracks three days after the ambush. It is believed that the SMU covert unit riddled the lorry in which the IRA men were travelling with a hail of gunfire from behind a hedgerow – a clear tactic of suppressive fire. Soldier F then allegedly led the SMU unit closer to the lorry, where we believe three of the four men were executed. Although already injured, Sean O’Farrell had attempted to flee the scene and managed to cross the road on the other side of the chapel, where he was eventually shot dead, too.
The evidence suggests that Kevin Barry O’Donnell had his back to the lorry when Soldier F shot him from the rear of the vehicle, and Peter Clancy had his arms raised when Soldier F allegedly shot him from the same spot. A pathology expert stated earlier in the inquest that Clancy was likely surrendering at the time he was shot, kneeling on the ground with his arms up. According to the transcript of the police interview with Soldier F, he felt the two men posed a threat because they had their weapons “within reach”. However, the photographs of the scene display that neither weapon was actually within arm’s reach of the young men, which disproves this possibility.
Counsel for the O’Donnell family asked Soldier F whether he shot their loved one in the back, as the evidence suggests, and if he shot him again in the head from a closer range. Soldier F declined to answer, invoking his privilege against self-incrimination. Counsel for the Clancy family asked the witness whether he fired at Peter while he had his hands raised, and whether Clancy actually had his weapon within reach or if Soldier F said that to justify shooting Clancy again. Once more, the former SMU leader chose to remain silent by invoking his privilege against self-incrimination.
Soldier A, the tactical leader responsible for the operation’s planning, adopted the same strategy when giving evidence last month. Several witnesses have indicated that it was he who gave the briefing to the SMU reactive sub-unit, and he said he attended at least one meeting with the RUC Special Branch Tasking and Co-Ordination Group (TCG) in preparation for the operation. According to Soldier A’s testimony, however, he was not aware of the intelligence detail that the TCG appears to be in possession of, which would have been critical to carry out the alleged plan to arrest the IRA men. This seems either unlikely or flawed in essence. Did the RUC Special Branch or Captain A withhold crucial information from the operational planner, further endangering lives? Or was Soldier A not telling the truth?
Counsel for the next of kin highlighted numerous inconsistencies and flaws in the operation, leading to doubts regarding its alleged purpose of arresting the IRA men. The witness’s answers seemed unclear and ambiguous. A barrister for the Vincent family then asked him whether what happened on the ground was, in fact, what had been planned all along. Soldier A chose to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination instead of adhering to his previous theory of an arrest operation.
Colonel A was the Lieutenant Colonel in the SMU and as such, he would have been in charge of the military plan in support of the RUC. His evidence covered general information regarding military career, hierarchies and the operational work of the SMU. Colonel A also gave evidence about the military plan and operation in Clonoe, addressing some of its details that revealed serious defects. The barristers acting on behalf of the families suggested that it was an “utterly implausible arrest operation” given the inconsistencies and flaws. According to their observations, the SMU deployed suppressive fire before attacking the IRA members, which would suggest that their primary goal was to retrieve the heavy machine gun that the IRA was in possession of, with little to no concern for any potential loss of life. Colonel A acknowledged that the DShK heavy machine gun posed a significant threat to the British Army, as they were prohibited from using anti-tank weaponry in the North of Ireland, but insisted that the operation was intended for the purpose of carrying out arrests.
All in all, the rest of former military personnel who were involved in the ambush and attended the inquest repeatedly invoked the privilege against self-incrimination instead of trying to justify their actions, following legal advice.
Once the evidence was completed, coroner Mr Justice Humphreys invited the Properly Interested Persons (PIPs) in the inquest to make written submissions by 24 April. He also indicated he intends to deliver the findings by the end of June. In doing so, the Presiding Coroner will seek to ascertain key aspects surrounding the deaths of Kevin Barry O’Donnell, Sean O’Farrell, Patrick Vincent and Peter Clancy, such as how, when and where they came by their deaths; the purpose of the military operation; the intelligence available to the RUC and the SMU; any failures on the part of the RUC or the SMU; the planning and control of the operation; the nature and degree of the force used; and, ultimately, whether the use of lethal force was justified.
Whatever the outcome, the Clonoe families are owed a debt of gratitude for their unwavering commitment to uncovering the truth and achieving justice for their loved ones. After 32 years, we await the findings, hoping they shed light on the fatal incident that occurred on that night in 1992.
