Two IRA men were shot dead as they lay wounded after being confronted by SAS troops who had been keeping them under surveillance, it was claimed at an inquest today.
Karen Quinlivan, a barrister representing the families of the two republicans, challenged soldiers’ claims that they opened fire to protect themselves against armed terrorists in 1990 near farm outbuildings in Co Armagh.
She alleged: “You make sure the wounded man is no longer wounded, he is dead.”
Dessie Grew (37) and Martin McCaughey (23) died in a hail of 72 bullets near the farm buildings in October 1990.
Special forces had been monitoring the mushroom shed near Loughgall because they suspected a stolen vehicle inside was to be used for terrorism.
While soldiers argued that care had to be taken that suspects could no longer harm them, Ms Quinlivan asked whether they could have disarmed and arrested the two men.
She told a soldier witness at the Belfast inquest: “After the two men had fallen to the ground in circumstances where they were clearly wounded by high-velocity rounds which you will acknowledge are extremely damaging, Soldier D fired two shots into Dessie Grew as he lay face down lying on the ground and it appears also fired a third shot into Martin McCaughey’s head, the fatal shot into Martin McCaughey’s head, as he lay on his back on the ground.”
This is day three of the inquest. Soldiers who will appear later are expected to argue that their lives were endangered, Ms Quinlivan said. Evidence already before the inquest jury from a doctor who examined the dead IRA men said they were lying near guns and ammunition.
Soldier J, an expert in training SAS soldiers but who was not involved in the Loughgall operation, said servicemen may still be under threat even if their target is wounded.
Ms Quinlivan said: “You seem to be suggesting that it is soldiers’ practice to finish off wounded men?”
Soldier J responded: “It is in the soldier’s mind that if he is approaching someone that may be wounded, may be still armed, may have something that could harm him, it is his responsibility to
Soldier J referred to cases during the Falklands War when the white flag was flown by apparently injured Argentinians to lure in the British.
Ms Quinlivan responded: “This is not the Falklands, this is soldiers acting in place of a civil power, taking the place of police officers, it is not the practice of police to shoot wounded men on the ground but apparently it is okay for soldiers.”
The inquest is one of several so-called security force “shoot-to-kill” incidents which have sparked controversy and a series of official investigations. The officer commanding at the time of the present matter, Soldier K, has denied there was a policy of shoot-to-kill.
The inquest also heard how another British soldier at the scene was not aware of intelligence that a terrorist operation was imminent. Soldier E was hidden near a laneway to the shed which was expected to be the main means of accessing it.
He said there may have been a communications failure.
“From my point of view, as being on the ground, I was not aware of this intelligence and was just acting on my instructions,” he said.
He added he did not remember hearing a pause after the main gunfire as Soldier D allegedly went to the two wounded men and finished them off.
Ms Quinlivan asked Soldier E, a corporal, if he was simply trying to distance himself.
“It is difficult to understand how you could have missed it given your location, your proximity and the attention you were paying to the incident,” she said.
Soldier E responded: “I do not recollect it occurring.”
The inquest continues.