The Independent, on UK Politics, 26 October 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

Inside

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.5 findings

Become an Independent member to bookmark this article Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Membership today. Join today Already a member? Log in T he officer who led the SAS operation in which three IRA men were killed in Co Tyrone has revealed intricate details of how the ambush unfolded — as the daughter of the unarmed driver involved presses a fresh legal challenge over his death 35 years ago.

The former SAS major, responsible for planning , describes how his men had less than two seconds to decide whether to open fire on an IRA unit preparing an assassination. Three members of the IRA’s East Tyrone Brigade — , Lawrence McNally and — were killed by British soldiers in the village of Coagh on June 3, 1991. Listen to the full sixth episode of SAS: The Shadow War here , or become an Independent Member for exclusive access to all eight episodes: Now, more than three decades later, the case is heading towards Britain’s highest court after Doris’s daughter, Roisin Nugent, lodged an application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Her lawyers argue that Doris, who was driving the IRA car but was himself unarmed, should not have been shot. The former SAS officer who commanded the operation, identified here as David, told The Independent’s podcast SAS: The Shadow War that Special Branch intelligence indicated an IRA active service unit was preparing to murder an off-duty member of the Ulster Defence Regiment as he waited for a lift to work. David, then a captain, says his orders were not to kill the IRA men but to intercept and arrest them.

“The purpose was to arrest terrorists in the act of committing a serious offence,” he says. “The risk was that people were going to get hurt. Everyone knew that.” He had about 48 hours to devise a plan that would be sanctioned by the police and military hierarchy and, ultimately, the prime minister. The plan had mortal danger baked in. The intended IRA victim was secretly removed and replaced by an SAS soldier of similar build and age, dressed to look like him.

The decoy would stand in Hanover Square in the town and apparently wait for a lift. British intelligence, which had deeply penetrated the IRA, believed the original target was going to be shot dead by a paramilitary team as he waited at the pickup spot for his ride to work. open image in gallery SAS recruits trek to the top of a mountain peak with 45lb backpacks on as part of an endurance exercise in the 1980s ( PA ) As part of the plan, about a dozen soldiers concealed nearby would rush forward and make arrests.

Four more formed a heavily armed “cover group”, hidden inside a flatbed builders’ lorry carrying scaffolding. A side of the lorry could be dropped in seconds, giving them a clear field of fire across the square if they believed the IRA team was going to open fire. The substitute target knew exactly what he was volunteering for. “He put his life on the line, literally,” David says. The operation was first slated to run on Friday May 31.

The IRA did not arrive. The operation was reset for a few days later. Shortly before 7.30am on Monday June 3, a covert observation post reported a red Vauxhall Cavalier travelling towards Coagh with three men inside. Seconds later the car stopped beside the intended victim, and a man in the back seat rose up with an AK-type assault rifle and aimed it directly towards the decoy. The covert SAS team got the order: “Go, go, go.” The decoy threw himself backwards over a wall to avoid getting shot by the IRA.

The side of the scaffolding lorry crashed down, and the arrest team began running towards the IRA car. There has been 35 years of legal argument over what happened next, and why three men were killed. “Car stops, weapons are shown, weapons are pointed at the soldier, the ‘go’ is given, the foot team start to deploy. The side of the lorry drops,” says David. open image in gallery The burnt-out car where three Provisional IRA members, Lawrence McNally (38), Peter Ryan (37), and Tony Doris (21), were shot dead in Coagh, County Tyrone, in 1991 ( ITN ) The soldiers had to decide whether the gunman was about to kill their colleague standing roughly 20 metres away.

“At that point shots were fired because, in their judgment — and I’m sure they were right — there was an imminent threat to the life of the soldier.” David says the whole shooting incident took “probably less than two seconds”. The car lurched forward, travelled across the square and crashed into a parked vehicle. The other two IRA men emerged, armed, and were shot dead. The 2024 inquest established that the driver Doris was unarmed. It also found that no member of the IRA unit actually fired a weapon during the encounter.

Two AK-type rifles were subsequently recovered. That distinction — between Doris and the armed men alongside him — has become the central battleground in his family’s case. The shootings were immediately investigated by the local police. But an inquest did not finally deliver its conclusions until April 2024. Mr Justice Humphreys reached what initially appeared to be contradictory findings in what many supporters of the British special forces believe has fuelled what they call “lawfare” against soldiers.

He ruled that the individual soldiers were justified in opening fire. They genuinely believed lives were in immediate danger. But he was critical of the way the operation had been designed. On top of that, the coroner found that the Royal Ulster Constabulary investigation into the killings was “woefully inadequate”. open image in gallery Irish Republican Army officers in May 1922 ( Getty Images ) The arrest team had been positioned sufficiently far away that it had little realistic chance of reaching the IRA unit before the cover group had to shoot to protect the decoy, the inquest finding said.

His final verdict was unequivocal on both sides of the argument: the shootings themselves were justified, but the operation “was not planned and controlled in such a way as to minimise to the greatest extent possible the need for recourse to lethal force”. That finding echoes one of the most persistent allegations made against British Special Forces during the Troubles: that operations presented as arrest missions were in reality designed to kill.

. The Doris family has argued that Soldier B did not need to have fired so many shots at the IRA driver, eight in all. The coroner found that Soldier B could not have known Doris was unarmed and was entitled to regard all three occupants of the vehicle as members of one armed terrorist team posing a collective threat. The court subsequently refused permission for judicial review of the coroner’s findings in October 2025.

The judge in that case ruled that the application for review was “utterly divorced from reality” of the circumstances faced by the SAS soldier. The Doris family continued their legal fight - and the case then went to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. In April this year, Lady Chief Justice Dame Siobhan Keegan found that: “Mr Doris was part of the threat to life in this fast-moving situation”. The appeal was dismissed. But the case is not over.

Nugent has now lodged her Supreme Court application and . Listen to the first five instalments of SAS: The Shadow War now, or become an Independent Member for exclusive early access to the entire series. Available on Apple Podcasts and Spotify

Read the original article on independent.co.uk (opens in a new tab)
What we found (5)

The Independent tells the Coagh killings largely through the SAS officer who planned them, while the daughter of the unarmed man killed is never quoted. It gets the dead men's details wrong against its own caption. It calls an ambush in which no IRA man fired a 'clash' and ends by adopting the soldiers' supporters' word 'lawfare' for her appeal.

  1. Makes a false claim

    Serious

    “Michael Ryan”

    Why this matters
    The Independent names one of the three dead men as "Michael Ryan".
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes one of the men killed at Coagh was called Michael Ryan.
    The context
    The article's own photo caption names him as Peter Ryan, aged 37. The article cannot have both right, and it gets the name of a dead man wrong in one of the two places.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Lawrence McNally (38), Peter Ryan (37), and Tony Doris (21), were shot dead”

    Show it in the article

    “22-year-old Tony Doris”

    Why this matters
    The Independent gives Tony Doris's age as 22.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes the unarmed driver at the centre of the legal case was 22 when he was killed.
    The context
    The article's own caption gives his age as 21. The man whose death is the subject of the Supreme Court application has two different ages in the same piece.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“and Tony Doris (21), were shot dead”

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Three members of the IRA's East Tyrone Brigade, Peter Ryan, 37, Lawrence McNally, 38, and Tony Doris, 21, were killed by British soldiers in Coagh on June 3, 1991, as the article's own caption gives them.

  2. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “one of the most controversial lethal clashes of the Troubles”

    Why this matters
    In its own voice The Independent calls the shooting a "lethal clash".
    The impression it gives
    A reader pictures an exchange of fire between two armed sides.
    The context
    The article itself reports that the inquest found no member of the IRA unit fired a weapon, that the driver was unarmed, and it calls the operation an ambush. A clash is not what its own facts describe.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“no member of the IRA unit actually fired a weapon during the encounter”
    • Elsewhere in the article“established that the driver Doris was unarmed”

    Show it in the article

  3. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “the row over lawfare continues”

    Why this matters
    The Independent closes the article by calling the daughter's Supreme Court application part of a row over "lawfare", with no quotation marks and no attribution.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes it as the outlet's own judgment that the family's case is an abuse of the courts against soldiers.
    The context
    Earlier the article attributes the word to supporters of the special forces. In the last line it becomes the outlet's own description of a lawful appeal over a killing the coroner found was not planned to minimise lethal force.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“many supporters of the British special forces believe has fuelled what they call”
    • Elsewhere in the article“was not planned and controlled in such a way as to minimise”

    Show it in the article

  4. Headline goes beyond the article

    Minor

    “the most controversial SAS killings in Northern Ireland”

    Why this matters
    The headline calls Coagh the most controversial SAS killings in Northern Ireland.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes the article establishes this as the single most controversial SAS operation there.
    The context
    The body says only that it was one of the most controversial, and offers no comparison to support a ranking.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“one of the most controversial lethal clashes”

    Show it in the article

  5. One side gets the space

    Minor

    “David rejects that allegation and has campaigned against attempts to re-litigate old cases without new evidence”

    Why this matters
    The Independent sets the long-standing allegation that arrest missions were designed to kill against the rebuttal of the officer who planned the operation, and gives the family no reply.
    The impression it gives
    A reader hears the commander's account in detail and in his own words, while the family's case reaches them only in one paraphrased line.
    The context
    Roisin Nugent, whose appeal is the news peg, is never quoted. Her lawyers' argument gets a single sentence of paraphrase, against many sentences of David speaking directly.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Her lawyers argue that Doris”

    Show it in the article

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The Independent

  1. 26 OctBedbugs, disease outbreaks and asbestos leave prison cells empty3.0
  2. 26 OctBurnham rules out rejoining the EU within this Parliament0.0
  3. 26 OctBurnham rules out rejoining EU within this Parliament0.0
  4. 26 OctBurnham’s first 100 days: Enough gimmicks and Gogglebox, now deliver0.0
  5. 26 OctBurnham to host rough sleeping summit ahead of Budget cash boost0.0

Everything we scored from The Independent