OUTRAGE AS COURT RULES SAS WERE WRONG TO STOP IRA TERRORISTS.
The so-called ‘peace process’ increasingly resembles a one-way street, where the real victims—the British public and those who defended them—are left behind says Jamie Bryson.
In the latest example of the perverse outcomes being yielded by the coronial system—one that has been manipulated and financially exploited by nationalist legacy activists and their politically motivated representatives—it was ruled on Thursday that it was unjustified for the SAS to eliminate four IRA terrorists who were, to use the IRA’s own terminology, on so-called ‘active service’.
To ordinary people, this means they were heavily armed IRA operatives setting out to murder and maim defenceless and innocent civilians.
There has always been a morally perverse shamelessness at the heart of republican legacy activism. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the absurd public spectacles outside our courts, where IRA terrorists stand shoulder to shoulder with legacy activists—individuals who, without irony, present themselves as victims’ campaigners while simultaneously endorsing IRA terrorism. They brandish ‘Time for Truth’ banners, which in reality means pushing the IRA’s version of the truth while airbrushing their atrocities from history.
The IRA called themselves an ‘army’ and claimed they were waging a war against the so-called ‘Crown forces’. But let’s examine their rules of ‘war’: sneaking around to shoot soldiers and police officers in the back of the head, planting indiscriminate bombs to murder civilians, launching cowardly ambushes to kill as many people as possible. And yet, when British forces engaged them, when the SAS detected these terrorists while they were armed and operational, we are now expected to believe that our soldiers should have simply let them escape unchallenged?
This ruling, and the broader legal quagmire that enables such distortions of justice, reflects the deeply imbalanced nature of the so-called ‘peace process’. Like every other concession made under the Belfast Agreement, republicans demand it all their own way.
A Warped Standard of Justice
These are the same people who demand the prosecution of brave British soldiers—like Soldier F and the late Dennis Hutchings—through political show trials, while at the same time IRA terrorists enjoy de facto immunity through letters of comfort and Royal Pardons.
They do not seek true justice; they want their own version of justice, one that re-writes the past and weaponises legal mechanisms to cement their status as perpetual victims. The Northern Ireland media, in particular, have facilitated this narrative, offering little scrutiny of republican hypocrisy and the contradictions of their activist groups and lawyers. Some outlets, in fact, have become de facto campaigners, openly promoting the republican revisionist agenda.
A Grave Legal Misjudgment
The decision by Mr Justice Humphreys to side with this morally dubious campaign is deeply disappointing. Among legal circles in Northern Ireland, Justice Humphreys is widely respected—one of the brightest legal minds and fairest judges on the bench. It was expected that some judges might capitulate to this politically motivated legal strategy, but for Justice Humphreys to take this stance has come as a significant shock.
There is no credible legal argument, no matter how creatively dressed up in ‘human rights’ law, that can conceal the fundamental fact: these men were heavily armed IRA terrorists, preparing to unleash violence. If lethal force is not justified in such circumstances, when would it ever be?
Robert Jenrick: “These men were not victims”
Former Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick has rightly condemned the ruling, stating:
“These men were not victims, they were IRA terrorists heavily armed with machine guns and an anti-aircraft gun. The British soldiers involved must not live in fear of prosecution 33 years after serving their country in the most challenging circumstances. The government should make that clear immediately. Constant lawfare against our armed forces needs to end. We should protect them, as they protected us.”
Jenrick’s statement cuts to the heart of the issue: British troops should not be subjected to endless legal warfare while those who engaged in terrorism are granted immunity, protection, and sympathy.
The Ultimate Hypocrisy
One cannot ignore the sheer irony of IRA supporters now running to British courts, pleading before British judges to deliver a verdict that benefits IRA terrorists. These are the very same IRA terrorists who, during their so-called ‘war’, would have viewed Mr Justice Humphreys and his judicial colleagues as “legitimate targets” for assassination.
Perhaps, in one sense, this demonstrates the ultimate failure of the IRA’s campaign—that they are now reliant on the very institutions they once tried to destroy. But that does not make the coronial ruling any more justifiable.
Conclusion: Justice Denied
The coronial ruling has failed both truth and justice. The decision undermines the rule of law and casts doubt on the right of British forces to defend the innocent from terror.
But ultimately, perhaps true justice was already served—in the moment when the SAS eliminated four heavily armed terrorists before they could unleash their barbaric violence on innocent people. And that, above all else, is what should be remembered.
Jamie Bryson works in public relations and law. He is Director of Policy for Unionist Voice Policy Studies and NI Director for the Centre for the Union. Follow Jamie Bryson on Twitter / X here.
Main Image: For illustration purposes only. Image created with Grok.
