A bereaved relative has lost a High Court challenge to the independence of a police investigation into the suspected involvement of British soldiers in the loyalist murders of four men at a Co Tyrone pub.
IRA members Malcolm Nugent, Dwayne O'Donnell and John Quinn were shot dead by the UVF at Boyle's Bar in Cappagh.
A fourth victim, 52-year-old civilian Thomas Armstrong, was also killed in the gun attack on March 3, 1991.
His brother, Michael Armstrong, took legal action after a report revealed three part-time UDR soldiers were arrested and questioned about the shootings but never charged.
But a judge today rejected the challenge centred on an alleged continuing failure by the PSNI to ensure effectiveness and independence in a probe now being overseen by its Legacy Investigation Branch (LIB).
Mr Justice Humphreys ruled the application for judicial review had been brought out of time and established no arguable case.
The killings form part of a series of murders in the Mid Ulster area, linked by the importation of loyalist paramilitary weapons, where security force collusion is suspected.
The alleged involvement of UDR soldiers emerged in 2012 during a review overseen at the time by the now defunct Historical Enquiries Team (HET).
In February 2020 the LIB disclosed to the Armstrong family a draft HET report which set out how three members of the army unit had been arrested and named in intelligence as involved in the murders.
The document also concluded that the original RUC investigation was comprehensive and correctly focused on the UVF.
Based on alleged collision between police, army and loyalist paramilitaries in the Boyle's Bar attack and wider Mid Ulster cases, Mr Armstrong stated that he had no trust or faith in the PSNI carrying out the probe.
His lawyers claimed the force lacked institutional and practical independence, and that any investigation it carried out would not meet the
requirements of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
With a three-month deadline in the rules for launching judicial reviews, the case was dismissed due to delay.
Mr Justice Humphreys held that the grounds for mounting a challenge first arose up to ten years ago.
Determining that most of the original inquiry took place before the Human Rights Act came into force in 2000, the judge also identified nothing to warrant further investigative obligations.
"The information in relation to the UDR suspects was known in 2012," he said.
Outside court, Mr Armstrong's solicitor indicated an intention to appeal the judgment.