Soldier B faces fresh Supreme Court appeal bid over 1991 Coagh shooting

Former SAS soldier Soldier B is facing a fresh attempt to take a long-running legal case over a 1991 shooting in Northern Ireland to the Supreme Court. Legal aid has been granted for an application for leave to appeal, according to Philip Barton, a partner at Devonshire's who represents the soldier.

Barton set out the background in an interview. He said intelligence in 1991 indicated the IRA planned to kill a civilian who stood by his car every weekday morning at about 7.30 to pick up a colleague and drive him to work in Coagh. The man could not be protected, so the soldier took his place.

According to Barton, IRA members arrived at speed in a car adapted as a fire platform. The back seats had been removed and two men in the back had rifles, with 140 rounds, plus a driver. They levelled their weapons at Soldier B, who believed he was about to be shot. Four soldiers concealed in a flatbed truck across the road opened fire. Soldier B fired eight rounds in one to two seconds.

At a coroner's inquest, Soldier B gave evidence and answered every question, Barton said. He said he fired at the driver to save the life of Soldier L, though he did not know if he hit him. All three attackers were killed. The coroner found the killing was lawful.

The driver's next of kin appealed, arguing Soldier B should not have fired at him because he had not seen that he was armed. Barton compared that to refusing to fire at a tank driver because he is not carrying a weapon. The judge who heard the argument described it as ludicrous and divorced from reality. The case was legally aided.

Barton said he wrote to the Legal Aid Board in Northern Ireland asking it not to grant further legal aid. It did, and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, with three judges including the Lady Chief Justice, dismissed the appeal unanimously. Barton said the case has continued for seven years. Five judges have found in favour of Soldier B, he said, unanimously and vociferously, yet the case continues. The next step is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, again supported by legal aid.

The decision to grant legal aid drew strong criticism during the discussion. The Legal Aid Board was described as another quango and a left-wing entity. One contributor said a bureaucrat was ignoring the rulings of senior judges by granting public money for a further appeal. Another said the case showed the rule of lawyers, not the rule of law.

The discussion linked the case to wider claims about the treatment of veterans. It played comments from a minister at the Labour Party conference on the Troubles Bill. The minister said the Bill requires candour, honesty and openness, and that veterans must not be constantly dragged through the courts unnecessarily. He said repeating a process is reliving it and there should be the highest possible bar before anyone is asked to do so. He added there is no equivalence between the lawful actions of the armed forces and the deliberate acts of terrorists.

Speakers called for a threshold in the new Troubles Bill: no new re-investigations and no actions against soldiers unless there is compelling new evidence. They argued the IRA was exonerated while soldiers were not, and said human rights law was hostile.

A spokesman for the Northern Ireland Justice Department said the Legal Services Agency does not comment on the details of individual cases. The Ministry of Defence said it welcomed the 2024 judgment.