Witness Timetable


Return to the list of transcripts


Hearing: 10th December 2009, day 73

Click here to download the LiveNote version






- - - - - - - - - -






- - - - - - - - - -



Held at:


20-24 York Street



on Thursday, 10th December 2009

commencing at 10.30 am


Day 73




1 Thursday, 10th December 2009

2 (10.30 am)

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr McComb?

4 Closing submissions by MR McCOMB

5 MR McCOMB: Good morning, sir, members of the Panel. I will

6 probably not be particularly long, subject of course,

7 to any questions which you may wish to ask me.

8 We are very much indebted, for a start, as my

9 colleagues have said, to the Inquiry team and

10 particularly to the very thorough preparation, which

11 enabled us to respond in a fairly succinct way, done by

12 Mr Underwood, which covers so much of the issues, most

13 of which we are in full agreement with.

14 We are grateful to you, sir, and your colleagues,

15 for giving us guidance throughout so that we have been

16 able to focus and keep our eye on the ball.

17 May I just perhaps start by saying, sir, I think any

18 one of us can have a full understanding of the grief

19 which the Hamill family must feel and which must remain

20 with them. I try to imagine what that would be like if

21 it happened to a son of mine. There must always be

22 a feeling that something more could have been done, that

23 something could emerge, some new piece of evidence,

24 which might cast light on the events. We are fully

25 cognisant of that.

1 Some assistance, I think, in trying to find out what

2 did happen may be derived from a fairly early stage, the

3 trial of Marc Hobson, where, as we know, a number of the

4 civilian witnesses gave evidence and a number of the

5 police, Messrs Neill and Atkinson.

6 There was a thorough cross-examination, certainly of

7 the police officers, because that was clearly the brief

8 of Mr Orr, who appeared for Marc Hobson. You will have

9 seen, sir, the findings of Lord Justice McCollum, where

10 he found it difficult, as I think we may still do, to

11 ascertain what exactly did happen, what the genesis of

12 this fight was, how long it lasted, when the police were

13 alerted to it.

14 I think, in fairness to the officers, he did find,

15 whatever doubts he had about that, that once they were

16 out, they did behave with some courage in trying to

17 quell the disturbance.

18 It does seem from so many people's point of view

19 that the attack was over and done with fairly quickly,

20 but, as with so many facets in this case, there is

21 always some other piece of evidence or statement which

22 seems to contradict that. A number of my colleagues

23 have already referred to the statement of P42, whenever

24 that was actually made. That does give an impression,

25 perhaps, of more going on before whatever violence

1 happened to Mr Hamill took place.

2 It, on the other hand, supports the view that there

3 were a number of people coming down shouting and there

4 was sectarian cat-calling on both sides. I know he

5 didn't use the word "cat-calling", I think.

6 Whatever the truth of that is, the relevance of it

7 is only, in my respectful submission, to the actions of

8 the police. If, as we contend, and, indeed, as has been

9 contended by Mr McGrory and others as well, the attack

10 was over and done with quickly -- and in parenthesis

11 I say that appears to have been the evidence of E and F

12 at the Hobson trial, when matters were still

13 comparatively fresh in their mind -- if that is the

14 case, it is relevant to the Inquiry's deliberations on

15 the conduct or alleged misconduct of the Land Rover

16 officers.

17 It is relevant also, perhaps, from our point of

18 view, in helping perhaps to find what exactly some of

19 the eye-witnesses might have seen. It may be helpful in

20 ascertaining the accuracy of the contents of

21 Tracey Clarke's and, to a lesser extent, but still

22 forcefully, Timothy Jameson's police statements.

23 It would be our submission that they would not have

24 had an opportunity to see things as they panned out, as

25 they actually did occur, but there again, one has a lot

1 of very conflicting evidence.

2 May I perhaps just trespass a little bit on your

3 time by going to the opinion of Gordon Kerr? It is at

4 page [37752]. If we could have that. Now it is

5 a ten-page opinion, sir, but if we may flash through it,

6 if we may go to the next page, [37753], which refers to

7 the legal basis on which criminal misconduct by a police

8 officer takes place, the Dytham case. I don't propose

9 to dwell on that. If we go on, please, [37754], he says

10 in paragraph 7:

11 "I am not concerned in this opinion about

12 potentially disciplinary offences, only criminal ones."

13 My sight is not quite up to reading this.

14 SIR JOHN EVANS: You can raise the screen.

15 MR McCOMB: That's better.

16 It is the second sentence:

17 "Given the law as stated above, it is possible

18 therefore to test the evidence to see whether it can be

19 proved that the constables or any of them saw the

20 assault taking place and failed to intervene or arguably

21 were so negligent in failing to anticipate the attack

22 that their conduct goes beyond mere non-feasance ..."

23 In paragraph 8 he says, again if we can highlight

24 that:

25 "In my original opinion, I set out ... the

1 statements of those who purported to place the police

2 intervention in sequence. Taking into account the

3 evidence at the trial, it appears that the state of the

4 evidence is as follows. E, transcript page 32, gave

5 evidence that when Mr Hamill and D were lying on the

6 ground the police had not left the Land Rover. She said

7 a police officer spoke to her, but that was 'after the

8 attack and all was over'. She said at page 35 that the

9 whole attack was over very quickly. She denied there

10 was any trouble after the attack or policemen involved

11 with the crowd."

12 That, again, appears to be the evidence which has

13 been given to this Inquiry that, once the attack was

14 over, there was no further assault, or physical attack,

15 rather, on either D or Mr Hamill.

16 She said at page 35 that:

17 "The whole attack was over very quickly."

18 Again, that does seem to be in accordance with the

19 general impression we have:

20 "The speed of the attack is confirmed in her

21 statement, page 8 complaint file, where she says they

22 were jumped on out of nowhere."

23 Indeed, we had reference at this hearing from,

24 I think it was Maureen McCoy describing it as occurring

25 as if it was a swarm of bees descending on them.

1 "F", the other lady, "at page 49 of the transcript,

2 couldn't say where the crowd came from and the attack

3 happened so quickly. She said that from the start of

4 the attack until it was over, no officer got out."

5 Again, that may well be the case, as we understand

6 it. It certainly has been the case made by Mr McGrory.

7 Again, just pausing there, it does seem consistent

8 with the view that if somebody, whoever it was, pulled

9 Constable Neill out of the Land Rover and said what he

10 did say, he was referring to something pretty serious.

11 I know at the Hobson trial I think Constable Neill said,

12 "There may have been some other attack". That was

13 treated with some scepticism by the learned trial judge:

14 "She denied seeing police officers trying to break

15 up any fights during the attack. She alleged it was

16 five or ten minutes", overleaf [37755], "or more, after

17 the attack before she went to the Land Rover."

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Just pausing there, if she is wrong about

19 that, because her evidence there conflicts with the

20 police officers' evidence.

21 MR McCOMB: Yes, it does.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Does that suggest either of two things: one,

23 that the attack began later than was suggested and after

24 the officers were all out of the car or the Land Rover,

25 or, alternatively, that the attack was not over so

1 quickly as they perhaps think?

2 MR McCOMB: Of course, sir.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: You see, the injuries required to cause death

4 could have been inflicted very quickly --

5 MR McCOMB: Yes.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: -- but it is another matter whether there was

7 there a tempting target lying on the ground at which

8 people wanted to have a go.

9 MR McCOMB: Indeed. One comes back to the early part of

10 this Inquiry when the medical evidence was given.

11 Indeed, that was dealt with fairly succinctly yesterday.

12 It is impossible, or certainly very difficult, to

13 distil from any of the medical evidence how many blows

14 or kicks there were. That again featured largely at the

15 Hobson trial. One might have expected, albeit when one

16 had trainers, had the attack had been a sustained

17 attack, as indeed Mr Prunty, and as is referred to later

18 on in Mr Kerr's opinion, had at one stage the attack

19 going on for ten minutes, that seems to fly in the face

20 of everything. One would have expected more external

21 injuries. I hope it is not too speculative to say that.

22 The attack, according to the people closest to it,

23 bearing in mind, of course, the frailties which they

24 must have had, because they were deeply concerned and

25 upset, it would appear to be that the attack was over

1 quickly. That's what they say.

2 Once it was over, what does appear to be clear from

3 those witnesses, the ones most deeply and closely

4 involved, was that there was no further attacking.

5 That again flies in the face, perhaps, of what

6 Tracey Clarke says, and is something which I refer to in

7 our written submissions, that she has Michelle Jamieson

8 kneeling beside D or Robert Hamill and at the time there

9 are kicks and I think blows, certainly kicks being

10 directed at that prostrate body. That is in

11 contradiction to what Michelle Jamieson herself said in

12 her earliest statement or action form to the police.

13 So there are pieces of evidence which tend to show

14 that the attack was a prolonged and sustained one, but,

15 on balance, I would respectfully submit that the great

16 preponderance of the evidence tends to be in

17 contradiction to that, and tends to show that, once the

18 attack had been completed, and that in a short period,

19 there was no further physical contact.

20 Now, of course, perhaps to complete my answer to

21 your question, sir, it is quite understandable that with

22 a vast melee of people it would have been possible for

23 an eye witness, somebody nearby, to think, "They are

24 kicking that man", because we do know that a lot of the

25 people were pretty close to the two lying bodies, but

1 those who were closest to them and most intimately

2 connected with them are quite clear that there was no

3 further physical contact.

4 In other words, sir, it might well have been that

5 somebody standing even quite close by, seeing a lot of

6 people running around, shouting, fighting, again because

7 that is another little part of this case, that there

8 appear to be fights going on, perhaps up to about five,

9 and we will just never know who was fighting whom. It

10 may be that there were more people from the Nationalist

11 community who were involved. Again, as Mr McGrory has

12 pointed out, it is likely that there were other people

13 coming down Thomas Street from St Pat's, he would

14 suggest, after the group, Robert Hamill's group, had

15 reached the bottom or approached the bottom of

16 Thomas Street.

17 That again is perhaps supported by the evidence of

18 Anthony Byrne, whom we heard, who was a taxi driver who

19 gave evidence the same day or days after 132 and 133.

20 The gist of that was there were a large number of

21 people, perhaps over a hundred, waiting for taxis. The

22 likelihood is a number of those said, "Let's just go

23 down the road and walk home", because, again, as we have

24 heard, people did walk home from St Pat's on previous

25 nights to get across the main street down under the

1 tunnel into Woodhouse Street or Woodhouse Street and to

2 the tunnel.

3 So again, we have many conflicting approaches to

4 what exactly happened, how the fight started, and unless

5 you wish me to, sir, I would not propose to dwell on

6 that. We have heard extensive evidence and very

7 conflicting evidence about who was there, who was saying

8 what to whom, if anything, whether the attack was sudden

9 and unprovoked, and I could speculate, but I think it is

10 only speculation, but in my written submissions we

11 thought there must have been something which was

12 specific. Something happened. I don't know what. It

13 might have been a blow to young Woods, although I know

14 Mr McGrory would say that that had nothing to do with

15 any of the people in whom he is interested. It may have

16 happened that way. We just don't know.

17 Again, as I say, once it was over, that was the end

18 of it, and there was no further violence done to

19 Mr Hamill.

20 Again, just perhaps to digress, even what I would

21 have thought was an independent witness, if I may call

22 him that, Mr Mallon, who gave evidence early on, and you

23 will recall, sir, that his evidence was that, after

24 flagging down the Land Rover, he was approached by

25 two -- perhaps more than two people, but he was speaking

1 to two, one of whom had a bottle of wine. I don't

2 intend to rehearse all that, but they were not

3 aggressive towards him. He felt apprehensive,

4 obviously, beforehand, put his hands out, and they, in

5 fact, just chatted to him for a while. He went on his

6 way.

7 Now, he says that he saw Mr Hull coming up the way

8 from the tunnel area towards the centre of town as he

9 was going along Woodhouse Street. That, of course, is

10 flatly contradicted by Mr Hull, who claims he was coming

11 from Thomas Street direction. Whatever the truth of

12 that is, it is curious that Mr Mallon, both in his

13 evidence-in-chief and when he was being cross-examined,

14 I think by Mrs Dinsmore, maintained quite clearly that,

15 when he looked back, having gone a couple of hundred

16 yards down Woodhouse Street, he turned round and he saw

17 a police officer, one police officer, male, standing

18 outside the Land Rover talking to these two chaps.

19 Whether that's right or not, one just does not know.

20 It does not seem to tally with any of the other

21 evidence, certainly the evidence that, when somebody

22 pulled Constable Neill out, the four officers descended

23 from the Land Rover at the same time. One just cannot

24 tell.

25 There are pointers which sometimes one thinks, "Ah,

1 it must have gone on much longer than I thought", but

2 one comes back always, in my respectful submission, to

3 the evidence of those who were closest to the events at

4 the time.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: We may have to consider whether the man whom

6 Mallon saw, the police officer, was, in fact, Neill, who

7 had just been pulled out of the Land Rover in maybe only

8 seconds before the others got out.

9 MR McCOMB: Indeed, one will consider that, but while doing

10 that, one, I think, has the evidence surely that, by the

11 time that Neill was pulled out -- I am not certain about

12 that -- whether Bridgett and Forbes were still shouting

13 to Cornett. I think they may well have been. That's

14 quite right.

15 One has the other little vignette, the evidence of

16 Reserve Constable Atkinson at the Hobson trial, that he

17 was sure the man who pulled Constable Neill out was the

18 same man who had been talking to the two boys; in other

19 words, Mr Mallon. Mr Mallon, of course, flatly denies

20 that. There again, even yesterday, we heard the action

21 form of Colin Hull. We have the strange material, which

22 Mr Hull refutes, that Mr Keys, who took the statement or

23 material from him, recorded that it was he who had

24 shouted at the police officers.

25 So we just don't know. We just don't know who

1 pulled Constable Neill out of the Land Rover. We can

2 speculate, but we just don't know. Nobody has ever

3 said, "It was myself". Again, there is such a shortage

4 of evidence from both sides, and we have been through

5 that many a time, that efforts to obtain evidence, P39

6 and all the others, met with a fair amount of silence.

7 Again, I hope it is not speculation, but I would

8 infer or suggest it is a reasonable inference that there

9 were more people from the Catholic community who could

10 have given evidence, who could have described, even if

11 they didn't know the names of people, something more if

12 they had been willing to do so.

13 There again, just in that context, when Mr Irwin

14 started his work on the investigation, he prepared what

15 we heard was a sequence of events, and I cross-examined

16 him about that, where there was a reference to a man

17 with a ponytail who was described by Ryanne Hamill, at

18 secondhand, as having been seen at the scene and being

19 one of the ringleaders.

20 In answer to me, I think Mr Irwin thought that might

21 have been Marc Hobson. I respectfully submit that is

22 clearly not the case. Hobson was seen by a number of

23 people. He was always described as having short hair

24 and a goatee beard. One would have expected a pigtail

25 or a ponytail to have been spotted by at least one or

1 two of the witnesses, police officers or others who saw

2 Hobson there.

3 So there were other people, in my respectful

4 submission, who could have given help from both sides.

5 It is unsatisfactory for the family of Robert Hamill,

6 who themselves were not there, who have been given

7 perhaps so much secondhand or speculative information as

8 the years have gone by.

9 I come back to that. It is highly unsatisfactory.

10 I know that the Panel will do its very best to resolve

11 things insofar as relevant to the terms of reference.

12 It has been frustrating, I am sure, for all of us who

13 have tried to get to grips with what indeed did happen.

14 That is perhaps a rather convoluted way of answering

15 your question, sir, but when one has those two

16 possibilities -- at some stage, one reads something and

17 says, "Ah, that's what it was". Immediately, one finds

18 something which contradicts that.

19 If I may just trespass again slightly on your time

20 in relation to Mr Prunty, because I know I did in our

21 written submissions refer to Mr Prunty, perhaps rather

22 shortly, saying that his evidence was inconsistent.

23 I can go through this now, sir, if you like, or perhaps

24 I could invite to you take it as read

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Please take your own course, Mr McComb.

1 MR McCOMB: I will try to do it as briefly as possible.

2 There are two or three pages:

3 "She went to the Land Rover. She was banging on the

4 side of it. At page 54, she denied seeing police

5 officers involved with a crowd at any stage. At

6 page 57, in answer to the judge, she could not say if

7 there were any occupants in the Land Rover when she went

8 over. It all happened so fast."

9 He then turns to Mr Prunty who, of course, we have

10 heard at this Inquiry. Mr Prunty:

11 " Mr Prunty, page 59 of the transcript stated, that

12 'The next minute a whole squad appeared out of nowhere

13 and jumped him [Mr Hamill]'. Page 61, there was no

14 police around. They came after Robert had been beaten

15 up. They broke up the crowd and they took one fellow

16 away. At this time, they [the crowd] were still kicking

17 at Robert. At page 62, the judge asked to clarify the

18 timing. The witness then responded, 'They broke up the

19 crowd when the kicking had stopped". Page 64, he said

20 the crowd did not disperse after someone was taken by

21 the police from the scene. They were roaring and

22 shouting again. The judge intervened to check the

23 timing of this and the witness then said the roaring and

24 shouting was as the attack was happening. At page 72,

25 he challenged the position of the Land Rover as

1 described and placed the rear pointing over towards

2 Thomas Street. At page 77, he stated the attack last

3 a good ten minutes and the police came out when the

4 kicking stopped. Page 78, he did not think it possible

5 that police had got out at any stage before the kicking

6 stopped. Page 80, he denied that there were fights

7 after the incident or cat-calling. Page 85, he was not

8 aware of any incidents other than the attack on the two

9 men. In his statement ... page 13, he describes the

10 attack taking place and states that by this stage",

11 overleaf, "the police had got out of the Land Rover.

12 They ran in to try and stop it. He goes on that he was

13 grabbed and a policeman grabbed hold of one of the

14 fellows that was kicking Robert Hamill. He, like

15 everyone else in the group, was kicking him. When the

16 police got involved, they seemed to back off a bit.

17 After, they were still shouting and bottles were

18 thrown."

19 He then goes on and I think I can just precis this,

20 that E and F say the affair was over much more quickly.

21 In summary, in relation to that, sir, it does appear

22 that, as, indeed, you have raised quite often, it is

23 very difficult. It was a confused situation. People

24 had drink. They may not have all-round vision,

25 360 degrees. It is not our function to say that people

1 are being untruthful, but perhaps in trying to get to

2 grips with what is likely to have happened, it is,

3 I think, important to realise that witnesses, even

4 perhaps with the best will in the world, can be totally

5 inconsistent within their own version of events and

6 inconsistent with other witnesses who might be perceived

7 to be on the same side as them.

8 I would not intend to go through all the

9 inconsistencies which there are in the various pieces of

10 evidence, but perhaps to adopt again what Mr McGrory

11 said, that the evidence is confusing, conflicting and

12 inconclusive. I think that's a pretty fair summary of

13 people. Whether they are trying to do their best to

14 tell the truth, whether they are trying to cover up, or

15 whether they are trying to protect other people is

16 perhaps immaterial.

17 So at the end of it all, it may just be a question

18 of impression, but there are objective features perhaps.

19 The one which sticks out, which I think everybody has

20 focused on, is somebody pulled Constable Neill out of

21 the Land Rover, said, "You sat there and you did

22 nothing". I think another expression was "You let those

23 f***ing orange bastards get away with it". That has to

24 refer to something serious, not just a punch-up or

25 cat-calling.

1 The only thing which we do know of, because there

2 were no other injuries -- and that again brings me back

3 perhaps to a theme which I don't particularly want to

4 develop too far, but we do notice that the only other

5 injury was to Stacey Bridgett. He got that at some

6 stage after he was speaking to the Land Rover people.

7 I hope it is not too facile just for me to adopt what

8 Mr McGrory and Ms Winter assume, but it is something

9 which I did refer to myself in our written submissions,

10 that, if it is right that Forbes and Bridgett were

11 talking to the Land Rover crew at a time immediately

12 prior to or during which somebody pulls Constable Neill

13 out of the Land Rover, then it would seem to me, with

14 respect, that that, as Ms Winter says, gives them

15 an alibi. It is hardly an alibi, but it certainly makes

16 it difficult to see how they could have been involved in

17 the assault, assuming it was an assault that was over

18 and done with quickly, as per E and F and others. It is

19 just very hard to see.

20 That leads on to a query as to the accuracy of the

21 involvement, the alleged involvement in the attack,

22 which appears to have been done by all these people when

23 one looks at Tracey Clarke's statement. Five people are

24 named as being all there together doing this. One has

25 Bridgett and Forbes. We just submit that cannot be

1 right that -- well, it is not for me to trespass on what

2 Tracey Clarke's counsel will say, but it does not appear

3 to tally at all with the uncontroverted evidence that

4 Bridgett and Forbes were talking to the Land Rover crew.

5 Again, it is very, very hard to know, because if, as

6 indeed you asked me, sir, a few minutes ago, what

7 Mr Mallon saw when he turned round was the officer

8 talking to these two boys and perhaps the others were

9 out at the same time, well, his evidence was at that

10 stage there was no noise going on. Well, there was

11 noise, but there was nothing untoward, and he went on

12 his way down and then spoke to Hull and said, "Don't be

13 going up there", not because there is something

14 desperate going on, but because there was a potential

15 with the different groups of people conglomerating in

16 the centre of town.

17 So wherever one turns, one finds almost a blind

18 alley in terms of trying to ascertain how long the thing

19 lasted, who did what, when the police were out. One

20 looks at Prunty, and, within himself, he has the thing

21 over, the attack over, by the time the police came out.

22 Then he has it going on for ten minutes. Then he has

23 the police intervening to break up the crowd while they

24 are still kicking at him, which flies totally in the

25 face of the other civilian witnesses, who say, by the

1 time the police were out, the kicking had ended.

2 Again, sir, it is a very difficult task for the

3 Inquiry to tease out what did happen.

4 It is probably something which you may well feel,

5 sir, must be attempted anyway, if only to ascertain what

6 the conduct of the police was.

7 It is separate, I think, from the warning given by

8 Mr Mallon, and I don't intend to address you on that,

9 sir, because it is not really my territory, but it is

10 relevant to the people whom I represent to try to come

11 to grips with how long the assault lasted

12 THE CHAIRMAN: I wonder if we may have to consider, and

13 I appreciate this would conflict with what E and F say,

14 and this is not expressing any concluded view, simply

15 saying, "Is it an issue we may have to consider?"

16 whether the attack lasted longer than has been suggested

17 by some and whether what Tracey Bridgett says she

18 saw was the later part of it, so that those whom she

19 names may not necessarily have been involved from the

20 start. When I say "the start", I don't mean whatever it

21 was which actually brought about the violence. It is

22 something we may have to consider.

23 MR McCOMB: I think it is something which, throughout

24 reading the material and trying prepare for this, one

25 has tried to come to grips with. In my respectful

1 submission, one has to come back --

2 THE CHAIRMAN: I said Tracey Bridgett. I meant

3 Tracey Clarke and Timothy Jameson.

4 MR McCOMB: Sir, I understood you.

5 Well, a possible answer, and perhaps not a too

6 speculative one, is that what some people saw as kicking

7 could have been kicking out. It is remarkable, indeed,

8 in relation to Mr Hobson -- again, I do not want to

9 trespass on Mr Green's territory -- we do know the first

10 time Mr Neill made a statement he said "kicking him".

11 Then it became "kicking at". We have that also, and

12 I am sure Mrs Dinsmore will deal with this, with

13 Mr Atkinson, when he first turned round at some stage,

14 whatever he was doing, and out of the corner of his eye

15 he saw three people jumping on and kicking Mr Hamill.

16 That was his statement I think of 27th April. That gets

17 diluted at a later stage.

18 Again, my friend will deal with that in more detail

19 I'm sure, but it just goes to show the impression one

20 might get, whatever one's bias or lack of bias is, can

21 be wrong. One might say, "Yes, I saw him kicking him".

22 Then, if you were really pressed, "Well, I didn't

23 actually see his foot contact with him, but", as we do

24 know, "there was a crowd of people in the area behaving

25 aggressively."

1 What they may have seen, either of the two, Tracey

2 or Timothy, although it is not their evidence, but what

3 they may have seen, what the Panel may consider they did

4 do, was to see a large number of people, including those

5 whom they name in the area.

6 I can't get away from the fact, for a start, in

7 relation to Stacey Bridgett, that there is blood of his

8 which was on the trousers. We have been through that.

9 It appears he was standing pretty close to him, if that

10 forensic evidence of Lawrence Marshall is correct. We

11 have not called any evidence in contradiction.

12 So it is clear that a number of people were there.

13 It is my respectful submission that two and two has been

14 added to produce five or more than that. People who may

15 well have been involved at a later stage may have been

16 shunted forward, as it were, in time, back in time, to

17 the original attack, because the one thing we do know,

18 again, one comes back to the people who were close to

19 them. We have an attack and that is it. A lot of

20 kicking in or around, a lot of yahoo-ing, shouting and

21 roaring, but no more physical contact.

22 Again, whether that have been relevant has been

23 debated already as to whether there could have been, or

24 should have been, charges of affray. I don't intend to

25 go into much detail about that, sir, because it might

1 be, and it would be almost an insult to the memory of

2 someone who is dead, that the height of a criminal

3 prosecution might be a conviction for disorderly

4 behaviour. That would just be worse than useless, but

5 it may be that that is all that could have been

6 achieved.

7 Again, that's for Mr Green to deal with in relation

8 to Hobson and his conviction for affray.

9 So again, we have little pieces of statement or

10 evidence from time to time, "kicking" or "kicking at"

11 and it is hard to separate out what was the actual

12 physical assault which may have led or which did -- not

13 may have -- led ultimately to the --

14 THE CHAIRMAN: It seems clear, doesn't it, even after D and

15 A had been laid low, there was a crowd round them and

16 they were not well-wishers. Some may have just been

17 ghoulish spectators, but some may have been more.

18 MR McCOMB: There was a mixture. Again, one just does not

19 know, because they don't appear in the history of this

20 case, but it is my submission they must have been there,

21 where a number more Nationalists and Catholics. One

22 had, again, Mr Vincent McNeice who gave evidence. He

23 said in total there were about fifteen.

24 I tried to get from him how he arrived at that

25 figure. It is an estimate obviously, but it does give

1 a picture, again which is somehow borne out by what

2 Mr McGrory's idea is, that there were other people

3 coming down from Thomas Street. That is, of course,

4 relevant to Mr McGrory's theme, that the group, whatever

5 order they came down in, and I will not go through

6 that -- you have that before you -- the group of D, E,

7 F, Prunty, McCoy and Robert Hamill, they were not the

8 ones who were making the noises and rattling at

9 Jamesons Bar's shutters.

10 If they are right, and there is no reason to assume

11 that the bar staff were not correct in saying some

12 people whom they couldn't identify, but people coming

13 down from St Pat's direction were doing the usual

14 Saturday night rattling, roaring and shouting, that

15 those were other people coming down after this group.

16 If that is so, they must have seen something. They must

17 have got involved. We have a number of fights going on.

18 There is probably truthful or reliable evidence

19 from, amongst others, Constable Neill, that there were

20 fights going on. There was one witness, and I just

21 can't recall immediately, who referred to about five

22 fights going on between small groups of people, perhaps

23 two on one, three on one, that sort of thing.

24 Again, the evidence of the ambulance driver,

25 Mr Morrow, who by the time he arrived some minutes

1 later, said there were still groups of people there

2 shouting and cat-calling. I know that's rebutted by

3 Mr Prunty and others, but it would seem that there were

4 groups of people, not all friendly disposed to one

5 another, as well as those -- the majority -- I accept it

6 must have been the case the majority would have been

7 Loyalists or Protestants, that they would not have been

8 well-wishers, but it is significant, in my respectful

9 submission, that the only other physical injury that we

10 know of, because neither Mr Hull nor Mr Prunty sustained

11 any significant injury at all that had been noted when

12 they went to hospital, the only other injury was

13 apparently to Mr Bridgett.

14 That appeared to take place -- again, it is hard to

15 put this in the sequence of events, sir -- at or near

16 the back of the Land Rover, possibly a one-on-one

17 confrontation, somebody just biffed him on the nose and

18 it bled.

19 That would be consistent again with Bridgett not

20 being involved in the attack. Again, it is a very

21 difficult matter for the Panel to resolve, but in my

22 respectful submission one cannot get away from the

23 evidence of those who are most deeply concerned, who

24 have an initial attack and, after that, certainly not

25 much goodwill, far from it, but no more physical

1 contact.

2 I don't think I can really dwell on the events prior

3 to the arrival of the ambulance any more than that

4 unless there is anything specific on which you feel or

5 might be able to assist

6 THE CHAIRMAN: No. Thank you.

7 MR McCOMB: There are other matters which concern our

8 clients. I propose not to deal with those at any

9 particular length, except to deal with questions from

10 yourselves or your colleagues.

11 In relation to the tip-off, we are faced, and

12 I think everybody must accept, with the fact there was

13 a phone call from the Atkinson to the Hanvey household.

14 There appears never to have been one before. There was

15 one subsequently I think in May, and the timing of it

16 may certainly have some significance.

17 I am limited obviously in my instruction as to what

18 the content of that was, or even the fact of it having

19 been made, but again, perhaps this is not for me to

20 speculate on, but may I perhaps put as a suggestion, and

21 again it is totally without instructions, that

22 Mr Atkinson did see Hanvey there. I think that is

23 probably incontrovertible.

24 One has the evidence of P89, who came on the scene,

25 as we have heard, at a stage when there was still

1 considerable ill-will going on. Indeed, to follow on

2 from your question, sir, that Hanvey was there. When

3 one reads P89's statement, curiously, one notices there

4 was a girl with him as well, who appeared to be his

5 girlfriend. She was quite agitated, quite enthusiastic

6 or whatever. Mr Hanvey certainly seemed quite animated.

7 Neither he nor any of the other officers who saw these

8 people there on that night saw them do anything

9 physically wrong either to the prostrate bodies or to be

10 engaged in fighting with others.

11 So one does have, I think, a picture that

12 Mr Atkinson did see Allister Hanvey there that night.

13 There is insufficient evidence, even in my respectful

14 submission, on a balance of probabilities, to get near

15 to drawing an inference that he saw Hanvey kick or punch

16 or physically assault either D or Robert Hamill.

17 It is quite possible that he did phone the next day

18 to say, "What are you up to, you stupid ass?". We

19 know -- again, it is incontrovertible that they knew

20 each other from the Tae Kwon Do club. Allister Hanvey,

21 as we know, was somebody who had great skills in that

22 area.

23 En passant, Andrea McKee volunteered the fact he was

24 a nice quiet boy. That may not have been her exact

25 words, but it was the gist of what she said. It was in

1 answer to a question of mine. He may well have thought

2 to get involved in one of these Portadown Saturday night

3 fracas, which sadly still continue, it was not the sort

4 of thing a young fellow should be involved in. We just

5 don't know. We don't know the content of what he said,

6 if it was himself or if it was Eleanor, his wife, and we

7 may never know.

8 Again, it is purely within your province, sir, and

9 that of your colleagues, to draw whatever inferences you

10 feel are necessary or likely in relation to that. All

11 I can say, I think, is that there is insufficient

12 evidence to suggest that he, first of all, saw Hanvey do

13 anything wrong. There is probably insufficient evidence

14 to suggest or to draw a necessary inference that he

15 warned him to dispose of his clothing.

16 Again, we don't know whether it was to get rid of

17 his clothing or burn his clothing. It seems to me the

18 word "burn" comes into the picture some years later. It

19 is referred to, I think in 2000, for the first time, the

20 word "burn", although much of the debate in this case

21 has been whether the police should have been looking for

22 burnt clothing. I don't know, if I was told to get rid

23 of some clothing, whether I would necessarily set

24 a bonfire and try to burn it or just hide it somewhere.

25 Again, that is the realms of speculation but it may

1 be something you feel, as a factual matter, you need to

2 deal with

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Burning is within the range of response

4 anticipated.

5 MR McCOMB: Absolutely, yes, but it is not necessarily

6 getting rid of it. If you burn it, it is getting rid of

7 it. Getting rid of does not necessarily mean to burn.


9 explanation or speculate as to why Allister Hanvey was

10 not able to see Atkinson at the scene?

11 MR McCOMB: Again, that's quite right: the various times at

12 which the three people involved are concerned,

13 Tracey Clarke, Robert Atkinson, Allister Hanvey, it

14 seems, looking at some of the evidence, certainly of

15 Tracey's, that she saw Atkinson that night, whether it

16 was the back of the Land Rover. She was sitting on the

17 steps of Primark. So far as Hanvey was concerned,

18 I understand that he gave a description which was --

19 which tallied with that of Reserve Constable Atkinson,

20 but you are quite right, my Lady. He does not say

21 "I saw Atkinson that night".

22 One might expect, to answer your question, since

23 they did know each other, he could have easily said

24 that. I don't know where it takes one necessarily,

25 because people understandably may wish to distance

1 themselves from events without necessarily being

2 a participant. In other words, one could have been at

3 or involved in a riotous situation, want to get offside,

4 keep oneself well away from it and be untruthful about

5 where one's whereabouts was or who one was taking to.

6 It does not follow, and I don't think an inference

7 can properly be drawn, that then means one is guilty

8 perhaps of the most heinous event which happened in the

9 particular sequence of events. I don't know if that

10 answers your question, my Lady.

11 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: I just wondered if you

12 had given any significance to the fact he seemed to be

13 denying Atkinson was there or he would recognise him if

14 he was.

15 MR McCOMB: It is a difficulty. I don't think it is my

16 function to invent a clever answer, which is not

17 available to me. Of course, as I said, the likelihood

18 is that they were there. If one looks at P89, one can

19 complain that he didn't mention Hanvey at the time back

20 in 1997, but only in 2000. I don't think that's

21 a particularly justified complaint. He puts the two of

22 them. He said, as you will recall, he is beside

23 Atkinson and says, "Watch out for that boy there. He's

24 a martial arts expert". So it's quite clear that

25 probably they see each other.

1 I mean, I don't attempt to give an answer, which is

2 any other than the one I have done.

3 It does come back, as I say, to the fact that, while

4 particularly Allister Hanvey and a number of other of my

5 clients may well have been there, I think it would be

6 futile to suggest that they were not, it is certainly

7 our submission that one cannot properly infer from that

8 that they were involved in the attack, but I don't wish

9 to go round that lap again, Madam, unless there is

10 anything further in relation to that.

11 Again, I don't propose to dwell on the issue of the

12 jacket. There is some evidence that there was a jacket

13 similar to this. We have prepared a rather detailed

14 breakdown of this. I think as far as I would wish to go

15 is to say, as I understand it, there is no evidence that

16 that jacket actually was sold or one of a bunch of about

17 eight that was actually sold to Paranoid at any material

18 time. We just don't know that.

19 I pause just again, and I think we did comment on

20 this in our written submissions, to say that if Tracey

21 was doing the best she could on the night of

22 the 9th/early hours of 10th May to give a full and

23 accurate account to a very experienced officer,

24 Mr McAteer, one would have thought that during those --

25 it seems quite a lengthy interview -- that somebody

1 would have asked -- Mr McAteer would have asked her,

2 "What was he wearing that night?"

3 Then, if she had seen what she had seen, she would

4 have been able to describe it. We know, and it is no

5 fault of the police, that they didn't -- who carried out

6 the searches, that they were not looking for any

7 particular item of clothing. We know that, certainly

8 not an item of clothing similar to the one described by

9 Jonathan Wright or Constable Warnock and similar to the

10 one perhaps which was described by [Tracey Clarke's

11 mother] and Tracey subsequently.

12 Again, one wonders why, if the attack had taken

13 place as it did -- I just put this as a suggestion,

14 sir -- if the evidence is that Hanvey was kicking or

15 jumping on the head of Mr Hamill, one might query why he

16 would be told to burn his jacket. There is no evidence

17 of physical contact or wrestling or anything else.

18 I don't know where that takes one. It is not

19 a major point, but it may just be a query. Would you

20 allow me just one second, sir?

21 THE CHAIRMAN: The point really about the jacket is that it

22 was a means of identification rather than something

23 which would carry any scientific evidence.

24 MR McCOMB: I think that's quite right. It does -- whatever

25 was said about the jacket, whatever was done about the

1 jacket, whether or not that jacket existed or not, it is

2 consistent purely with -- and I am grateful to you, sir,

3 to put it more clearly than I did -- it is equally

4 consistent with a manner of identifying him as being

5 involved in something he shouldn't have been involved

6 in, a riot, disorderly or whatever it was, because at

7 that stage one does not know what Reserve

8 Constable Atkinson knew about the state of well-being of

9 either Mr Hamill or D.

10 One can imagine that he realised that there may have

11 been injuries, but I don't think anybody at that stage

12 realised how significant they were. So it may be that

13 all that Mr Atkinson saw was Mr Hamill at a later stage.

14 That does tally with P89's evidence.

15 I do draw some support, although it is not, again,

16 my instructions, but looking at it objectively, one can

17 see that Atkinson, Hanvey, P89, possibly Tracey, were

18 amongst a number of many other people at around about

19 the same time, but at a stage after which the attack had

20 ceased.

21 Would you allow me just one second, sir?

22 If I have not already dealt with it, it is my

23 respectful submission that it is certainly strange, if

24 nothing else, that Mr McAteer was not able to elicit

25 from Tracey a description of that jacket, but I think

1 I have made that point.

2 I think, sir, unless there is anything else which

3 either you or your colleagues would wish me to deal

4 with ...

5 THE CHAIRMAN: No, I don't think so. thank you.

6 MR McCOMB: Thank you very much, sir.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr McComb.

8 MR McCOMB: Thank you, sir.

9 MR UNDERWOOD: Sir, because I am quite anxious to preserve

10 the running order by which, as it were, those making

11 allegations go before those who have to answer

12 allegations, that concludes the oral submissions for

13 this week.

14 There are a couple of documents which I would like

15 to draw to your attention, though, which have arisen out

16 of things which have been said in writing.

17 On the question of things that have been said in

18 writing, can I make clear what's happening about that?


20 MR UNDERWOOD: As everybody knows here, there is a massive

21 set -- in fact, they take up four folders, when printed

22 out -- of written closing submissions, which, as I have

23 repeatedly said, attempt to focus on what at least

24 appear to me in the first place to be the issues. I am

25 very pleased to say they also appear to other people to

1 be the issues as well.

2 Obviously, because the Panel is not interested in

3 people reading those out to them, the submissions that

4 have been addressed to you have, as it were, highlighted

5 the content of some of those written submissions. It is

6 unfair to expect anybody who contributed to those

7 written submissions to have them put on the website at

8 this stage, because we set a very tight timescale by

9 which the contributions were to be made. Because of the

10 manner in which they were done electronically, there was

11 no chance for anybody to spellcheck them.

12 What the Inquiry is doing is going through and doing

13 a spellcheck exercise so that people's best endeavours

14 are shown in their best light. We hope to have that

15 done before the conclusion of the submissions next week

16 so the matters can go on the website for those who are

17 interested and who are outside of the chamber and who

18 have not yet seen these written submissions to follow

19 what has been said by reference to them.

20 As I say, those written submissions which have been

21 circulated amongst witnesses and interested parties have

22 given rise to a couple of documents which I need to draw

23 to your attention.

24 The first is a letter from the Attorney General's

25 office. We find it at page [75444]. Perhaps we could

1 split the screen and have that and page [75445] up at

2 the same time?

3 It is a letter dated 17th November 2009 to my

4 learned instructing solicitor. Perhaps I can pick it up

5 from the second paragraph on the left-hand page:

6 "The Director of Public Prosecutions has shown me

7 a draft of its intended response to counsel's closing

8 submissions. In paragraph 28 of counsel's submissions

9 he states:

10 "'... in practical terms, there was no oversight of

11 the decision which had the effect of the prosecution",

12 that's the prosecution of Mr Atkinson, "being

13 discontinued. Although the Attorney General had the

14 power to intervene, that power was essentially never

15 used'."

16 I hope I will be forgiven if I skip to what seems to

17 be the heart of this. Picking it up at the final two

18 lines on the left-hand page:

19 "It might assist if I clarified the difference

20 between intervention and direction. Whilst it is true

21 that a power of direction has not been used in respect

22 of a prosecution decision, intervention is not at all

23 uncommon and is a component part of the relationship

24 between the Attorney General and the Director. When

25 a case is either drawn or comes to the attention of the

1 Attorney General, she may seek further information from

2 the Director, may seek clarification of the

3 consideration that had been given to a proposed

4 decision, suggest further work that needs to be done,

5 ask for counsel's advice to be sought or may put to the

6 Director other factors that she believes he should take

7 into account. This is in the nature of superintendence

8 and if the power of direction is not used, its

9 presentation nevertheless underpins the authority of the

10 Attorney General in exercising her responsibility. The

11 Director is responsible to the Attorney General for the

12 due performance of his functions and intervention is

13 part of the architecture whereby the Attorney General

14 meets her responsibilities. It would be

15 a misunderstanding of the nature of superintendence if

16 it was thought that effective superintendence required

17 the use of the power of direction."

18 THE CHAIRMAN: The power of direction gives potency to the

19 supervision.

20 MR UNDERWOOD: Yes. It is slightly reminiscent of that

21 matter that was raised, I think yesterday, about whether

22 the Secretary of State had a power to require the chief

23 constable to give answers. A velvet glove may be better

24 than a fist.

25 The other document would I like to draw to your

1 attention, if I may, is at page [75446], again splitting

2 the screen with [75447]. This is a letter from the

3 Crown Solicitor's office acting, as they do, on behalf

4 of Mr Marshall of the Forensic Science Service. It is

5 dated 26th November 2009. Again, picking this up at the

6 second paragraph on the left-hand page:

7 "We note that British Irish Rights Watch have made

8 reference in their final submissions (page 687) to

9 a matter which was never put to Mr Marshall when he gave

10 evidence and in respect of which he has had no

11 opportunity to reply. This is the evidence of

12 Mr Irwin", and the reference is given, "that:

13 "'Although the forensic scientist,

14 Lawrence Marshall, initially thought there was heavy

15 bloodstaining on Robert Hamill's clothing, he later

16 confirmed that the vast majority of this was, in fact,

17 wine stains'.

18 "We make the following points:

19 "(a). The piece of evidence upon which British and

20 Irish Rights Watch rely was given by Mr Irwin after

21 Mr Marshall had given evidence. It was never suggested

22 to Mr Marshall by any party when he gave his evidence

23 that he had made this remark. He was further given no

24 prior notice of the evidence of Mr Irwin such as to

25 enable him to challenge that evidence when it was given.

1 We make no criticism of the Inquiry in this respect

2 whatsoever, but simply make the obvious point that,

3 since he has had no opportunity to respond to this

4 evidence, it would be grossly unfair to conclude that he

5 had made any such remark.

6 "(b). For the record, the position is that

7 Mr Marshall has no recollection whatsoever of making

8 this remark and is entirely confident that he did not do

9 so. Indeed, Mr Marshall finds the suggestion that he

10 made this comment bizarre, because it would be entirely

11 inconsistent with his own examination notes.

12 "We thank you once again for sending us the

13 consolidated submissions and we would be very grateful

14 if the points made in this letter were brought to the

15 attention of the Panel."

16 Consistent with what we have done throughout,

17 obviously nothing is shown to you that has not been

18 shown in public. If I may say so, it is very helpful of

19 the Attorney General's office and the Crown Solicitors

20 to do this in writing rather than seek to attend to make

21 oral submissions to the same effect.

22 So those are the only matters which have arisen in

23 that way which I need to draw your attention to. I hope

24 we will have a fairly compact week next week with the

25 submissions flowing in short order

1 MR ADAIR: Sir, I wanted to mention something, if I may,

2 just arising out of that.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Adair.

4 MR ADAIR: To date, I had understood that the written

5 submissions were not going to go on to the website.

6 I think we got a letter at one stage that they were not

7 going on. That was not to say they were not going to go

8 on at some stage.

9 Now I want to say this, sir. At the risk of

10 complimenting my colleagues, suggestions that have been

11 made throughout this Inquiry have been substantially

12 based on the evidence and founded on either evidential

13 matters or reasonable inferences. While it is a matter

14 for you, sir, obviously and my remarks apply to

15 Mr McGrory and to everyone else who has represented

16 their clients, we then -- when we got the written

17 submissions, I was somewhat taken by surprise to see

18 written submissions by BIW in conjunction with the

19 Committee on the Administration of Justice and then they

20 gave their oral submissions yesterday.

21 Now, unlike the -- and they have not, as you know,

22 sir, been present -- just for the record, so that

23 anybody reading this is aware why I am making this

24 point, they have not been present during the course of

25 these proceedings to listen to them

1 THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that people from either of those

2 institutions or organisations have been present from

3 time to time.

4 MR ADAIR: Yes.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Not, I think, necessarily for the whole time

6 and not the same person throughout. Is that right,

7 Mr Underwood?

8 MR UNDERWOOD: No, they have had an observer here throughout

9 and have been copied in to the documents and, of course,

10 have seen the transcripts.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Has it been the same observer?

12 MR UNDERWOOD: I think one or two observers.

13 MR ADAIR: They have not participated in the proceedings in

14 the way the representatives of other parties have.

15 Now, there are allegations made by BIW, and I regret

16 to say that the Committee for the Administration of

17 Justice have appended their name to that document as

18 well, that have never been raised in this Inquiry by

19 anybody. These are allegations, essentially, of serious

20 criminal misconduct by a number of officers. I am not

21 going to say what it relates to, because you will know,

22 and to say it would only publicise the point.

23 Now, it seems to me, sir, that it is unfair to those

24 officers that those allegations should gain prominence

25 on the website, having regard to the fact that no-one is

1 suggesting that they are either rational, sound or based

2 on any evidence. There are outrageous allegations, in

3 my submission, being made by this group against officers

4 which have never been suggested by anybody, ever, let

5 alone during the course of this Inquiry.

6 I have just some concern -- I have just listened to

7 Mr Underwood saying these are now going on. I was not

8 aware of it. My concern is these allegations will now

9 gain prominence by those who read them and say, "What

10 about this allegation?" These people will now be

11 tainted with this allegation, which no doubt, sir, you

12 will deal with, I accept, entirely in your report, but

13 I am wondering, sir, should you give some consideration

14 as to whether those submissions, which no-one has ever

15 suggested are founded on any evidential basis, should be

16 included on the written submissions on the website?

17 I don't know what Mr Underwood's attitude is to

18 this.

19 MR UNDERWOOD: Can I offer, as it were, to mediate, first of

20 all, between Mr Adair's team and the BIRW and CAJ to see

21 whether the things which exercise Mr Adair are

22 justifiable on the part of BIRW and CAJ and if they are

23 not, then perhaps to invite them to take them out of the

24 written submissions prior to publication, and then, if

25 necessary, to put the matter to you, if necessary, in

1 private session in order to determine what should and

2 shouldn't be published.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: That seems to me to be an appropriate first

4 step. I make these comments. We, of course, can only

5 decide or make our report upon evidence we have heard

6 and inferences which apply or, rather, which arise from

7 that, and, I suppose, matters of which we could take

8 judicial notice.

9 It would be wrong for the website to be used to make

10 allegations which could not be made out of the context

11 of the Inquiry with impunity. That may call for

12 significant censorship of the comments made by the BIRW

13 and CAJ. I don't know if anyone wishes to add anything

14 to that at this stage.

15 MR WOLFE: If I could simply add my name or more properly

16 the name of the PSNI to Mr Adair's complaint. I think

17 if I can say this. In the way that some of the

18 allegations have been put forward by British Irish

19 Rights Watch, and I don't wish to repeat them for the

20 very good reason that Mr Adair has given, you, sir,

21 would have stopped any such questions, I rather suspect,

22 if they had been put in the way that the allegation has

23 been put in written form, and you would have asked the

24 questioner for the foundation stone to some of the

25 questions or some of the allegations about which we,

1 I venture to suggest, legitimately have concern. It is

2 for that reason that I add the PSNI's name to the

3 objection that Mr Adair has articulated.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Thank you.

5 MS DINSMORE: Mr Chair, if I could just for the record add

6 a watching eye in relation -- I fully accept that there

7 is not quite the same clarity in relation to

8 Mr Atkinson's position. However, Mr Chair, as you will

9 be aware, the British Irish Watch have gone much further

10 than many of the matters which have been raised before

11 you in relation to Mr Atkinson and, therefore, I too

12 would wish to be included.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

14 MR O'CONNOR: May I also adopt the submissions of Mr Adair

15 on behalf of my two clients who are also police officers

16 in this Inquiry? I did make the point in relation to

17 one factually incorrect matter arising from the evidence

18 in those submissions. Neither did I understand that the

19 written submissions of the BIRW/CAJ would go on the

20 website. I want to cast an eye over it again. Thank

21 you.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

23 MR UNDERWOOD: I should, to be fair to the BIRW/CAJ say

24 this. My team offered them a list of what we regarded

25 as infelicities in their written submissions which they

1 have very substantially accepted. Part of the process

2 by which the documents would be readied for publication

3 would involve putting right those infelicities in any

4 event, but I hear what is said elsewhere and, of course,

5 will ensure that anybody who has any concerns about

6 whether an accusation in the BIRW and CAJ's submissions

7 can properly be made will be heard and that will be

8 worked out.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Any allegation has to be based upon material

10 which has been before us.

11 MR UNDERWOOD: Quite so, or is in the public domain.

12 MR WOLFE: I am not quite sure what my learned friend means

13 by "infelicity", or, indeed, the attention that the

14 organisations have given to that. If that means that

15 they are minded to withdraw some of the allegations,

16 then I look forward to seeing that, but certainly some

17 of the issues that we have concerns about were repeated

18 verbally by Ms Winter the other day. So I look toward

19 to seeing that list and seeing where that takes us.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. I think, Mr McComb, you wish to

21 say something.

22 MR McCOMB: I think I agree with that, except for this

23 slight difference. British Irish Rights Watch seem to

24 have exonerated any of my clients from any involvement

25 in anything. I don't know where that takes me.

1 MR WOLFE: That proves our point.

2 SIR JOHN EVANS: Absolutely.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: 10.30 on Monday morning.

4 (11.50 pm)

5 (The hearing adjourned until 10.30 on Monday morning)


7 --ooOoo--



















1 I N D E X



Closing submissions by MR McCOMB ................. 1






















Associated Evidence

Reference Title Description
Advice from Counsel - Gordon W Kerr QC (37752)
Letter - Kevin McGinty to Judi Kemish 17 11 09 (75444)
Letter Crown Solicitors to Inquiry 26.11.09 (75446)