Former SAS soldiers challenge the Troubles Bill and legacy narrative

Senior veterans argued that the proposed legislation may reduce some criminal prosecution risk, but does not end the wider process burden of inquiries, inquests and civil actions.

In November 2025, a group of former SAS soldiers and senior veterans wrote to the Financial Times after reporting on the Troubles legacy legislation and the acquittal of Soldier F.

Their central argument was clear: government assurances that the Bill would reduce the risk of veterans being dragged through the courts did not address the wider burden of legacy process. They argued that the legislation might reduce the risk of fresh criminal prosecutions, but would not stop what they described as the “conveyor-belt of inquiries, inquests and civil actions”. (Justice for Veterans)

That distinction matters.

Public debate often focuses on prosecutions.

Veterans often focus on process.

A veteran may never be convicted.

A case may never reach trial.

But prolonged legal exposure can still impose serious costs: uncertainty, legal expense, reputational pressure, family strain and repeated return to events from decades earlier.

The letter also challenged the way parts of the Troubles are framed in public debate.

The signatories argued that some reporting treats “truth and justice” as though all parties mean the same thing by those words. Their concern was that paramilitary violence, witness intimidation and republican narrative control are too often underplayed, while state actors remain under intense and repeated scrutiny. (Justice for Veterans)

That is a serious point, but it should be handled carefully.

The argument is not that families’ grief should be dismissed.

Nor that state action should never be scrutinised.

The issue is whether scrutiny is proportionate, complete and honest about the wider environment in which Operation Banner took place.

The original letter pointed to evidence and context around Bloody Sunday, including claims about weapons, Martin McGuinness’s admitted possession of a Thompson submachine gun, and concerns about intimidation of witnesses ahead of the Saville Inquiry. The purpose was not to excuse deaths or diminish grief, but to challenge simplified moral narratives that remove paramilitary activity from the frame. (Justice for Veterans)

For JFV, this piece belongs in the archive because it captures three recurring themes.

First, process can become punishment.

Second, legacy is also a battle over narrative.

Third, veterans’ concerns are not confined to prosecution risk, but include inquests, civil claims, investigations and reputational exposure.

The signatories asked a practical question that remains central:

If officials claim veterans now face less jeopardy, what mechanisms actually end civil claims, halt repeated coronial processes, and prevent re-litigation by other means?

That question remains the heart of the issue.

Not immunity.

Not avoidance of accountability.

But fairness, proportionality, finality and truth told in full.

DOWNLOAD A PDF VERSION OF THIS PAGE