SAS soldiers threaten legal action over Labour’s Troubles Bill

As published by the Telegraph

SAS soldiers have threatened Labour with legal action over its Troubles Bill.

The Special Air Service Regimental Association, which represents serving and former special forces troops, has sent a letter to Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland Secretary, warning that the legislation does not provide adequate safeguards for veterans.

Labour axed plans to implement the former Conservative government’s Legacy Act, which granted immunity to Northern Ireland veterans.

Its new plan includes a commission to investigate Troubles-related killings, which critics have warned will expose veterans to “vexatious” legal claims and could result in elderly former soldiers hounded through the courts.

Last month, a former paratrooper in his 70s, known as Soldier F, was cleared of murdering civilians on Bloody Sunday after a judge ruled the evidence against him fell “well short”.

The association’s letter, drafted by London legal firm Sidley Austin, and seen by the Telegraph, said its “clients” were gearing up to “challenge” the Government over the Bill.

It also warned: “We should make it clear … that our clients’ current position is that if the Bill is enacted in anything like its current state, it will be subject to challenge.”

The Government insists veterans will have six key protections under their new plan, which would include anonymity and ensuring no veteran is forced to travel to Northern Ireland to give evidence.

Ministers have also added new rules which will allow inquests to take place into the deaths of hundreds of British soldiers killed during the conflict.

But critics say the shift could open the door for former IRA members to “rewrite history” by altering historic versions of events to fit their “narrative”.

The Special Air Service Regimental Association said the Bill is “manifestly deficient in the protections it offers to former service personnel, police officers, and members of the security services”.

The letter added: “Repeated reassurances have been given by the Government that veterans be supplied with specific protections in law to mitigate the effect of the repeal of the conditional immunities provided by the Legacy Act… [but] in fact, the Bill contains almost no protection beyond those which already exist in law.”

Mark Francois, the shadow Armed Forces minister, said: “Call me old fashioned but the SAS traditionally protect the Government, rather than trying to sue them. After the recent letter from the ‘nine senior generals’ – calling Labour’s legacy plans ‘a direct threat to national security’ this further action, by the SAS Regimental Association, shows just how angry veterans and particularly former special forces soldiers are, about Hilary Benn’s extremely dangerous proposals. Perhaps this will be a case of Who Sues Wins?”

Last week, nine of Britain’s top retired military chiefs launched an unprecedented attack against Sir Keir Starmer, telling him special forces troops were quitting amid fears they could be hauled into court decades down the line for missions carried out on the Government’s behalf.

Raising their concerns, the group also warned that “lawfare” had become a “direct threat to national security”.

Commenting on the claims at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Tory MP Sir David Davis – a former SAS reservist – said: “The most acute damage is being felt by the Special Air Service; it is already affecting their recruitment, retention, morale, and operational effectiveness.

“As a result, lawyers acting for the SAS Regimental Association have sent a letter before action to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.”

Labour’s Bill comfortably passed to the next stage following a vote on Tuesday evening. It won the backing of 320 MPs and was opposed by 105.

Asked about the military chiefs’ claims the Bill was a national security threat during the three-hour debate, Mr Benn told MPs: “I don’t agree with that assessment.”

He insisted there was “nothing in this Bill that can be described as a direct threat to national security”.