Summary of findings - Thomas Friel
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Neutral Citation | Summary of findings - Thomas Friel |
| Court | Court of Judicature (NI) |
| Date | 01 December 2021 |
Judicial Communications Office
1
1 December 2021
FINDINGS INTO THE DEATH OF THOMAS FRIEL
Summary of Findings
The Coroner, Mr Joseph McCrisken, today delivered his findings into the death of Thomas Friel who
died in the Creggan area of Derry from a head injury which he sustained on 18 May 1973. He found
that the fracture to Thomas Friel’s skull which caused his death was most likely caused by a fall onto
a hard surface and not by a rubber baton round fired by soldiers.
The Coroner reached the following conclusions on the evidence presented at the inquest:
“Events of 17/18 May 1973 – Thomas Friel
[181] I am satisfied on balance that there had been considerable rioting in the
Creggan area of Derry during the afternoon of 17 May 1973. Military logs record that
the Army had discharged a large quantity of rubber baton rounds and CS Spray. Cars
were hijacked, barricades built and crowds of mostly young people were engaged in
rioting on the streets. The situation settled into the evening so that by around 23:00 the
area was mostly quiet. The military logs indicate that although barricades still existed
at certain locations the plan was that they would be removed in the early hours of 18
May 1973.
[182] During the course of the day Thomas Friel and his brother, Seamus Friel,
consumed a large quantity of alcohol in the Telstar Public House, located on Central
Drive, Creggan. Sometime around midnight Thomas and Seamus Friel exited the
Telstar Public House. The evidence as it exists does not allow me to be any more
specific about events concerning Thomas and Seamus Friel on 17 and 18 May 1973.
Only two eye witnesses, Seamus Friel and Patrick Curran, describe the movements of
Thomas Friel up until he arrived at Hugh Deehan’s house
1
. I am content to say that, by
virtue of the quantity of alcohol h e had consumed, I consider the account presented by
Seamus Friel to be inherently unreliable. That is not to say that I consider Seamus Friel
to have been dishonest when he provided his written account
2
. It is entirely
conceivable that Seamus Friel was recalling what he genuinely thought he saw and
heard. However, his recall and perception is highly likely to have been adversely
affected by alcohol as well as the chaotic conditions relating to the events he was trying
to recall. As I will explain below, I do consider that Seamus Friel was not being truthful
when he told the first aid, ambulance and initial medical personnel that Thomas Friel
had sustained his injuries as a result of having fallen down stairs.
1
Mr Deehan was on duty on 17 May 1973 in a part time capacity with the Order of Saint La zarus providing
first aid. His house was being used as a first aid post.
2
Seamus Friel’s initial account was that his brother had fallen down the stairs as he did not want the army
going to the hospital to “lift him” for something he didn’t do. In his subsequent statement to t he RUC he
stated that Thomas had been struck by a rubber bullet, though accepted he had not see n the bullet strike his
brother.
To continue reading
Request your trial