⚖️ Clonoe Inquest

Commons Chamber

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

The Northern Ireland Secretary, Hilary Benn, faced intense questioning in Parliament over a coroner’s ruling that the use of lethal force by soldiers in the 1992 Clonoe incident was unjustified. MPs expressed outrage, arguing that the soldiers were defending against IRA terrorists who had attacked a police station, and criticized the ruling for potentially exposing veterans to prosecution. Benn defended the government’s commitment to repealing the controversial Legacy Act, which had previously offered conditional immunity from prosecution, but faced accusations of not doing enough to protect soldiers. The session highlighted deep divisions over how to handle legacy issues from the Troubles, with MPs from various parties voicing strong opinions on justice, military support, and the impact of legal rulings on reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

Summary

  • Clonoe Inquest Ruling: On February 16, 1992, a Provisional IRA unit attacked Coalisland police station, followed by an engagement with the British Army’s SAS, resulting in the deaths of four IRA members. The inquest concluded on February 6, 2025, with the coroner ruling that the use of lethal force by the soldiers was unjustified and not planned to minimize the need for such force.

  • Government’s Response: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn, acknowledged the coroner’s findings and stated that the Ministry of Defence is seriously considering them. He stressed the importance of holding armed forces to high standards while recognizing the difficult circumstances they faced during the Troubles.

  • Veterans’ Concerns: David Davis, a Conservative MP, expressed concerns about the potential prosecution of aging soldiers who served during the Troubles, arguing that it would be shameful to pursue them and could serve the IRA’s narrative.

  • Legacy Act Debate: The session saw debates over the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which the current government plans to repeal due to widespread opposition in Northern Ireland and its incompatibility with human rights obligations. The repeal aims to address the unresolved issues from the Troubles more effectively.

  • Impact on Peace and Reconciliation: Questions were raised about how the ruling might affect peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State emphasized the importance of addressing the legacy of the Troubles, including the need for answers for families about what happened to their loved ones.

  • Judicial and Legal System Criticism: Several MPs criticized the coroner’s decision, questioning the legality and fairness of inquests in such cases, and suggested a need for possible changes to the legal framework for inquests.

  • European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): The debate touched on the role of the ECHR, with some MPs suggesting that membership complicates matters by potentially skewing the balance in favor of terrorists, a view the Secretary of State rejected, affirming the government’s commitment to the ECHR.

  • Call for Support of Soldiers: There was a strong call from various MPs for the government to support soldiers who served in Northern Ireland, emphasizing that they should not be prosecuted for actions taken in the line of duty during the Troubles.

  • Ongoing Civil Cases: It was noted that there are ongoing civil cases related to the events at Clonoe, and members were reminded not to discuss active cases due to the sub judice rule.

  • Commitment to Truth and Accountability: The Liberal Democrats and others stressed the importance of truth, justice, and accountability in dealing with the legacy of the Troubles, highlighting the need for transparent legal processes to aid reconciliation.

  • Emotional and Divisive Discussion: The session highlighted the deep emotions and divisiveness surrounding the Troubles and the Clonoe inquest, reflecting ongoing tensions in addressing the conflict’s legacy.

Divisiveness

The session displays a high level of disagreement, warranting a rating of 4 out of 5. The disagreements were evident in several instances:

  1. On the Coroner’s Findings and the Legacy Act: There was a significant contention about the coroner’s ruling in the Clonoe inquest. David Davis (Con) expressed strong opposition to the ruling, stating that it exposed soldiers to prosecution and criticized the government’s plan to repeal the Legacy Act, which he believed protected veterans. In contrast, Secretary of State Hilary Benn (Lab) defended the need to repeal the Legacy Act due to its widely recognized flaws and its incompatibility with human rights obligations.

    Example: - David Davis: “These are men who served their country with honour, heroism and skill… If the Government leave them open to persecution, it will frankly be shameful and serve only to further the IRA’s attempt to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland.” - Hilary Benn: “The legislation passed by the last Government would have given the very terrorists who were killed in the exchange of fire, if they had survived, the ability to secure immunity from prosecution.”

  2. On the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): There was disagreement over the UK’s commitment to the ECHR. Some members, like Richard Tice (Reform), suggested that leaving the ECHR was necessary to protect soldiers, whereas Hilary Benn stood firm on maintaining the UK’s commitment to the convention.

    Example: - Richard Tice: “Based on the Secretary of State’s earlier comments, is it not now clear that the Secretary of State believes the Government cannot stand behind our brave soldiers in this instance because of our membership of the European convention on human rights?” - Hilary Benn: “This is a Government who uphold the European convention on human rights.”

  3. On Military Actions and the Rule of Law: There was a disagreement on the justification of the military’s use of lethal force and how it fits into the rule of law. Members such as Alex Burghart (Con) argued that the law was an ‘ass’ if it found the military’s use of force unjustified, while others like Dr. Al Pinkerton (LD) emphasized the importance of due process and transparency.

    Example: - Alex Burghart: “Yet we are asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified… If this is the state of the law, then the law is an ass, and it is up to Parliament to change it.” - Dr. Al Pinkerton: “The findings of the Clonoe inquest highlight the importance of due process and transparency in dealing with legacy issues.”

  4. On the Role of Inquests and Judicial Rulings: There was a clear divide on the perceived role and fairness of the inquest system and judicial rulings. Some members, particularly from the DUP, were highly critical of the inquest’s outcome and the broader judicial process, seeing it as biased against security forces. Conversely, Hilary Benn defended the independence and necessity of the coroner’s findings.

    Example: - Jim Shannon (DUP): “For right-thinking people in Northern Ireland, and indeed throughout this United Kingdom, to be told that the use of lethal force was not justified flies in the face of common justice.” - Hilary Benn: “Independent coroners make those decisions in respect of individual cases.”

The session’s high level of disagreement is further highlighted by the passionate expressions of differing views and the underlying tension in discussing sensitive historical and legal matters. While the discourse did not escalate to a complete breakdown, the intensity and frequency of the disagreements lean towards a rating of 4, indicating a high, but controlled level of disagreement.