Review of army veterans' case urged after claims of IRA gunfire

Counsel for one of three retired soldiers facing criminal proceedings also claimed a potential breach of a previous promise he would not be prosecuted.

The ex-servicemen were all members of an undercover unit known as the Military Reaction Force (MRF) which operated in the city at the start of the Troubles.

They have now been charged in connection with two incidents back in May 1972.

Patrick McVeigh, a father of six, was shot at the junction of Finaghy Road North and Riverdale Park South.

He had reportedly stopped to speak to those manning a civilian checkpoint when the gunfire began. Four other men were shot and wounded in the incident.

One of the defendants, referred to as Soldier F, is accused of murdering Mr McVeigh and four counts of attempted murder. He has been assessed as being medically unfit to participate in a preliminary pre-trial process.

Two of his former military colleagues, Soldiers B and D, are jointly charged with the attempted murder of two other men at Slievegallion Drive in west Belfast.

Public Prosecution Service (PPS) representatives took the decision in 2024 after examining evidence gathered during a police investigation into MRF activity.

Members of the plain-clothes army unit used unmarked cars to patrol parts of the city before being disbanded in 1973 amid controversy over its tactics.

The case against the veterans remains at an early stage amid ongoing debate about whether they should stand trial.

Lawyers representing Soldier B have urged the PPS to review the decision based on the contents of disclosed documents.

At Belfast Magistrates’ Court today Mark Mulholland KC indicated the charges related to claims of shooting at a barricade in the Slievegallion Drive area.

“The case made at interviews by several of the accused was they were fired upon,” he said. “An Armalite rifle had been found shortly after this incident adjacent to this barricade.”

The barrister went on: “There is now a reference to up to five IRA individuals either (being) there at the time or shortly thereafter.”

Claiming Soldier B previously received a letter stating he would not be prosecuted, he confirmed plans to attempt to have the case stayed.

“At one point we were (told) ‘there are two different incidents and that non-prosecution letter related to one of two, not to both’,” the barrister added.

“This is all to ground a stay application we plan to bring before this court on grounds of breach of promise and abuse of process.”

Counsel for Soldiers D and F, Ian Turkington KC, also submitted that the proceedings against them should be withdrawn.

A PPS barrister indicated that a future response will be made to some of the issues raised on behalf of Soldier B.

“We don’t, of course, accept everything… in the points made,” he added.

Deputy District Judge Liam McStay adjourned the case until May 18.