⚖️ Clonoe Inquest

• David Davis MP raised concerns about the ruling by the Northern Ireland coroner on the Clonoe incident, where four IRA members were killed by British soldiers in 1992. The coroner found the use of lethal force by the SAS to be unlawful, a decision Davis and others believe is wrong.

• Context of Operation Banner: Davis highlighted the British Army’s long and generally disciplined service in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, despite incidents like Bloody Sunday. He stressed the army’s adherence to the yellow card rules, which required soldiers to issue a challenge before using force unless it would endanger them or others.

• IRA Actions and Criminality: Davis described the IRA’s violent attacks and their criminal activities, which included extortion and smuggling. He argued that the IRA’s attempt to rewrite history ignored their terrorist and criminal actions.

• Details of the Clonoe Incident: On 16 February 1992, IRA members attacked Coalisland police station with heavy weaponry. After the attack, soldiers engaged the IRA members at the Clonoe church car park, resulting in the deaths of four IRA members. Davis criticized the coroner’s ruling, claiming it ignored the soldiers’ challenging circumstances and the IRA’s lethal intent.

• Justice and Double Standards: Davis, supported by other MPs like Jim Shannon and Sir Iain Duncan Smith, argued that soldiers are being unfairly prosecuted decades after the events, while no IRA members have faced similar scrutiny. They view this as a double standard and an attempt to rewrite history.

• Government Response: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn, acknowledged the concerns of veterans and confirmed that the Ministry of Defence is seeking a judicial review of the coroner’s findings. He emphasized the government’s commitment to repealing and replacing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 to address legacy issues fairly.

• Legacy and Reconciliation: Benn stressed the importance of finding a balanced and fair approach to the legacy of the Troubles, acknowledging the trauma faced by many families still seeking answers about their loved ones. He committed to bringing forward new legislation to address these issues when parliamentary time allows.

• Support for Veterans: MPs expressed strong support for veterans, emphasizing their service and the need to protect them from what they see as unjust persecution. They called for measures to ensure veterans are not subjected to endless legal challenges in their retirement years.

The parliamentary session on the Clonoe Inquest shows a moderate level of disagreement among the speakers, primarily centered around the legal and ethical implications of the inquest’s findings and the broader context of handling the legacy of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the disagreements observed and the reasoning for the rating given:

1. Disagreement on the Legality of the Inquest’s Findings: The main contention revolves around the ruling by Mr Justice Michael Humphreys that the use of lethal force by the SAS in the Clonoe incident was unlawful. David Davis and Jim Shannon strongly disagree with this verdict, arguing that the ruling is ‘demonstrably wrong’ and ‘ultra vires’. They assert that it ignores the operational context and the imminent threat faced by the soldiers. This contention reflects a significant disagreement on the interpretation and application of the law.

2. Double Standards and Fairness in Prosecutions: A recurring theme is the perceived double standards in handling former IRA members versus British soldiers. David Davis, supported by Sir Iain Duncan Smith and Jesse Norman, argue that no IRA member has faced prosecutions for their actions during the Troubles, while British veterans are pursued decades after their service. This disagreement focuses on the notion of fairness and equity in legal proceedings.

3. The Role of the Yellow Card and Rules of Engagement: There is disagreement on the interpretation of the yellow card system, which governed the use of force by the British Army. David Davis explains that the soldiers followed these rules under dire circumstances, suggesting that the coroner’s ruling did not consider the soldiers’ perspective adequately. This contrasts with the coroner’s view that the operation was not planned to minimize the use of lethal force, demonstrating a disagreement on the application of rules of engagement.

4. Political and Moral Support vs. Judicial Review: The Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, acknowledges the trauma faced by veterans and expresses political and moral support for them, but his hands are tied by the judiciary’s independence and the necessity of a judicial review. This creates a disagreement between what the government can do politically versus what is bound by legal processes.

5. Approach to Legacy Legislation: There is disagreement over the approach to legacy legislation from the Troubles. Sir Julian Lewis emphasizes the need for a statute of limitations coupled with a truth recovery process, citing legal experts who support this view. Hilary Benn counters by highlighting the legal issues with the previous legacy Act and the difficulties in finding a widely acceptable solution, indicating a disagreement on the best legislative path forward.

Given these points of contention, the session exhibits a moderate level of disagreement. While there are strong views expressed and some pushback, particularly on the legal and ethical fronts, the overall discourse remains relatively civil with some common ground acknowledged, such as the need to uphold justice and the importance of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, a rating of 2 seems appropriate, as it reflects a session where disagreement is evident but not overwhelming, and some areas of consensus are maintained.