Family considers challenge to inquest findings

The family of Francis Bradley, who was shot dead in an SAS ambush in 1986 have been denied justice after a coroner inexplicably decided the killing was “reasonable”.

The Derry man was shot eight times from behind by the British Army unit during an undercover ambush close to an IRA arms dump.

It is widely believed he was the target of a shoot-to-kill operation by the SAS, which carried out dozens of extrajudicial killings of suspected IRA Volunteers.

During the inquest, which opened in Derry earlier this year, the coroner heard that the RUC police told Mr Bradley he would be dead before his 21st birthday.

Evidence was heard that 21 shots were fired at Mr Bradley as he inspected an arms dump containing two guns on the night he was killed.

In his ruling, Mr Irvine said he was satisfied by the evidence that when the final shots were fired, Mr Bradley was lying flat on his back on the ground.

During the inquest, the British soldier responsible for the shots, Soldier C, refused to adopt his statement made in 1986 and according to the coroner “in so doing he has effectively provided no explanation as to why he fired the shots”.

The coroner also noted that Soldier C “invoked privilege against self-incrimination” during the inquest when asked questions about the execution-style shooting.

Evidence was also heard that before Mr Bradley was killed, two undercover soldiers had identified him at a roadside, but no effort was made to detain or arrest him.

But in the end, the coroner offered an entirely contradictory conclusion, and bizarrely claimed the SAS had sought to “minimise” their “justified” gun attack.

“The use of lethal force was justified,” he said.

“Soldier C held the honest belief that it was necessary in order to prevent the loss of life.

“The use of force by the soldiers, including the use of lethal force, was both reasonable and proportionate.

“The operation was planned and controlled in such a way as to minimise to the greatest extent possible the need for recourse to lethal force.”

Lawyer Ciarán Shiels, of Madden and Finucane Solicitors, said the Bradley family were “dumbfounded” by the outcome.

“We are extremely disappointed at the findings. We are still trying to take it in.

“There is a lot of detail that we have to speak to counsel about and we have to consider whether or not to challenge these findings by way of judicial review.

“That is an option, that is something we are taking stock of. Certainly, having spoken to senior counsel the advice would be that we should be challenging these findings by way of judicial review on the grounds that they are unreasonable and irrational.

“The family are dumbfounded. Particularly in relation to the final burst of fire, in relation to the shots that were fired by Soldier C, in relation to Francis when he was on his back, looking up of no threat, he had no weapon in his hand.

“A very, very shocking finding.”

He added that the family’s view on the judgment was that it was “long on quotation, short on analysis, but purported to justify the undercover soldiers’ firing at a 20-year-old, who by the stage that the final burst of shots were fired into his body, was lying prone on the ground, facing up at his killer, unarmed, and utterly defenceless.

“Francis Bradley could easily have been arrested, instead undercover British soldiers chose to fire 21 high velocity rounds at him, striking him with eight bullets.”

Speaking afterwards, Mr Bradley’s brother, Brian Bradley, said his family felt let down.

“As a family we do not feel that we got justice here today,” he said.

“I attended Francis’s inquest for over nine weeks earlier this year and our family, friends and neighbours were never in any doubt that my brother was murdered by the British army.

“In the words of our barrister Karen Quinlivan, he was executed.”

Urgent Appeal