Northern Ireland's Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal brought by the daughter of Anthony (Tony) Doris, who was shot dead on 3 June 1991 in Coagh, County Tyrone, by a member of a specialist military unit known as Soldier B. The court upheld an earlier refusal to grant leave to apply for judicial review of coroner's findings from an inquest into his death.

Doris was killed during an attempted Provisional IRA active service unit operation to murder an off-duty Ulster Defence Regiment soldier. The inquest found that the use of lethal force by the army was justified, while also making certain criticisms relating to planning, control and operation of the military action.

Roisin Nugent, daughter of Tony Doris, challenged specific findings of the coroner relating to Soldier B, seeking to quash parts of the ruling and obtain declarations that the force used was unlawful, breached the Yellow Card rules of engagement, and failed to comply with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A High Court judge had previously refused leave, finding no arguable case with a realistic prospect of success.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Lady Chief Justice Keegan, Lord Justice Colton and Mr Justice Fowler, considered five grounds of appeal. These included arguments that the coroner failed to apply heightened Article 2 obligations applicable to trained firearms officers, failed to provide adequate reasons for his findings on Soldier B's justification for firing, erred in finding the shooting of the unarmed driver absolutely necessary, wrongly found compliance with the Yellow Card, and improperly assessed the four soldiers' actions collectively rather than individually.

The court rejected each ground in turn. On the question of trained firearms officers and the Strasbourg case of Bennett v UK, the court found that the correct legal standard had been applied and that requiring discrete justification for each individual shot fired within a one-to-two-second interval was artificial and inconsistent with operational reality. On the adequacy of the coroner's reasoning, the court found the ruling detailed and its conclusions clear when read as a whole.

On the remaining grounds, the court found that the coroner had properly applied the absolute necessity standard under Article 2, had treated the Yellow Card as a relevant but non-determinative guide, and had not improperly conflated the roles of the four soldiers. The court noted that where findings were expressed collectively, this reflected the fact that all four soldiers faced the same immediate threat within the same seconds-long timeframe. It further found that the coroner had expressly engaged with Soldier B's individual evidence and made clear findings about the continuing threat posed by all three occupants of the vehicle.

The court stated that the coroner's finding - that Soldier B honestly believed the entire active service unit, including the driver, constituted a unified and immediate threat to life, and that firing eight rounds over one to two seconds was a proportionate response - was open to the coroner and was supported not only by Soldier B's subjective belief but also by an objective view of the evidence.

In dismissing the appeal, the court concluded that no arguable legal error had emerged with a reasonable prospect of success. It also noted that granting leave and subsequently dismissing the case on its merits would risk prejudicing the position of the families of two other individuals who died in the same incident and who had not challenged the inquest findings. The panel indicated that the challenge amounted to a disagreement with the coroner's conclusions rather than a proper basis for judicial review.