Inquest of Westport Marine records "unlawful killing"

Inquest on Marine records ‘unlawful killing’


Anton McNulty

THE inquest into the death of a Westport man who died while serving in the Royal Marines in Afghanistan last November has recorded a verdict of unlaw-ful killing.Westport man Robert McKib-ben died along with his col-league Neil Dunstan when the Jackal vehicle in which they were traveling was hit by a Taliban explosion, in the Garm-sir district of southern Helmand Province on November 12 Inquest on Marine records ‘unlawful killing’last.The inquest on Mr McKibben, the son of GrΡinne McKibben, of Carnalurgan, Westport was held in Wiltshire in England and the coroner David Ridley noted helmets would not have saved the lives of the two sol-diers - who were wearing body armour - from the 25kg roadside explosive.The men were killed after driving over a pressure plate while on an intelligence mis-sion with British Reconnais-sance Force (BEF). Both were pronounced dead at the scene and a post-mortem revealed that both died of multiple blast injuries.He recorded a verdict of unlawful killing after hearing that no intelligence reports suggested the area was high risk and noted that the Taliban members will be charged if they are ever caught.Robert McKibben, who was driving, had been given full training in the Jackal vehicle and in IEDs (improvised explo-sives). The men were working as part of the intelligence gath-ering mission, Operation Brehnaa Sheen, that involved mixing with Afghan locals.Staff Sgt David Spamer, who was also travelling in the con-voy that day, said all the men selected for the intelligence team ‘would have to stand head and shoulders above their coun-terparts - they were high cali-bre’.When the vehicle was found it was upside down and another injured soldier had to be pulled from underneath it.Dr Nicholas Hunt, who car-ried out the post-mortem exam-inations on the men said that body armour and helmets would have been unable to prevent ‘most if not all of these inju-ries’.Mr Ridley said in conclusion: “The area was not considered to be vulnerable and as such helmets were not being worn, although full body armour was being worn.”He recorded the unlawful kill-ing verdict ‘on the basis that this was a device left by the enemy forces and on the basis that if any charge were levelled at any individual it would be murder.