Transcripts
Return to the list of transcripts
Transcript
Hearing: 29th January 2009, day 11
Click here to download the LiveNote version
- - - - - - - - - -
PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO THE DEATH OF
ROBERT HAMILL
- - - - - - - - - -
Held at:
Interpoint
20-24 York Street
Belfast
on Thursday, 29th January 2009
commencing at 10.30 am
Day 11
1 Thursday, 29th January 2009
2 (10.30 am)
3 (In Camera Session)
4 (11.05 am)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Underwood?
6 MR UNDERWOOD: I call Edward Honeyford.
7 MR EDWARD HONEYFORD (sworn)
8 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD
9 MR UNDERWOOD: Morning, Mr Honeyford.
10 A. Good morning.
11 Q. My name is Underwood. I am Counsel to the Inquiry.
12 Sorry. Are you having difficulty hearing me?
13 A. That's okay. I don't have great hearing, but if
14 I struggle, I will let you know.
15 Q. Can you tell us your full name?
16 A. Edward Honeyford.
17 Q. If I get up on screen a document that starts at
18 page [80472], I wonder if you can look through it and
19 tell us if it is your statement. We will just flick
20 through the pages.
21 A. Yes, that's my statement.
22 Q. Is it true?
23 A. It is true.
24 Q. Thank you. There are a number of matters in it I would
25 like to ask you more about. The first of those is the
1
1 interviewing of Timothy Jameson.
2 If we pick that up on page [80473], at paragraph 8
3 you tell us that you interviewed him, but before that
4 you spoke to him on 29th April and completed a pro forma
5 questionnaire, and you give us the page references.
6 Let's have a look at that. It is [70865]. The
7 Inquiry has seen a few of these already, but you are the
8 first witness from whom we have heard who can tell us
9 how they came about and what went into the compilation
10 of these.
11 Can you tell us what was going on with these
12 questionnaires?
13 A. The questionnaire would have been sent out. It would
14 have been attached to an action sheet and it would have
15 directed you to interview who was named on the
16 questionnaire. The questions would have been typed out,
17 you would have asked the questions and, whatever reply
18 was given, you would have wrote it down.
19 Q. We have a typed version here, but in practical terms,
20 you then would have started off, would you, with one of
21 these with the questions typed in and you would have
22 written it out as the person was giving you the answers
23 or afterwards?
24 A. As the person would have been giving their answers.
25 Q. We see on the second page, [70866], about three-quarters
2
1 of the way down, there is a question:
2 "Is there anything else you would like to add?"
3 Apart from that, was there any scope for you to be
4 asking supplemental questions apart from the questions
5 that were actually on the form when you were doing
6 these?
7 A. I believe I would have stuck to the questions that would
8 have been on the pro forma, Mr Chairman.
9 Q. If we go back to the first page, if we may, [70865], we
10 see this is Timothy Jameson's. He gives his occupation,
11 date and the time. It is administered on
12 29th April 1997 at 9.00 in the evening. The first
13 question is:
14 Question: "You have been identified as being present
15 at Market Street, Portadown on 27th April 1997 at or
16 around the time of a serious assault. Where were you
17 coming from?"
18 To which he said:
19 Answer: "Got off bus about 1.40 am. Went up the
20 street to Boss Hoggs, came out of Boss Hoggs, stood at
21 Wellworths, looked up street, saw police Land Rover
22 beside Halifax Building Society, observed large crowd."
23 Then it goes on. Going over the page, [70866]:
24 Question: "Who else was in the vicinity?"
25 That question goes on. The answer is:
3
1 Answer: "Walked up middle of town, stood at
2 church, observed people moving around after each other
3 down the town centre."
4 Can you help us about what you understood or might
5 have understood by that phrasing:
6 "Observed people moving around after each other"?
7 A. I think what he meant by that was there was activity,
8 there was people moving about, there was something
9 happening, but the whole thing about questioning him was
10 whether he had seen an assault, which he said he hadn't
11 seen, but he does say there was people in the town
12 centre. It was particularly busy.
13 Usually, Portadown at night is like a ghost town,
14 but on that particular night, it is the night that they
15 all go to the Coach Inn in Banbridge. At 1 o'clock or
16 thereabouts in the morning, there will be several buses
17 coming back and dropping quite a few of the young ones
18 off to make their way home, and for an hour or two it
19 would be busy.
20 Q. So you just took him to be describing the business
21 rather than the assault?
22 A. That's correct, yes.
23 Q. The system then was that those questionnaires would be
24 fed back into the detectives in some way?
25 A. That's right. It would have gone back to
4
1 Detective Inspector Irwin, who would have been the
2 office manager. I would have attached that to the
3 action sheet and it would have went back into the return
4 tray for him to analyse it.
5 Q. Then we gather that you interviewed Mr Jameson on
6 9th May. We can look at the statement that arose out of
7 that.
8 Can you recall how it came about that you went from
9 administering that questionnaire to having an interview
10 some days later?
11 A. The second time that I spoke to Mr Jameson there was
12 an action sheet came out to re-interview him, but before
13 the action sheet was issued, I was briefed privately by
14 Detective Chief Superintendent McBurney and P39,
15 who was the DCI, who was the second in charge.
16 Q. Can I ask you about that private briefing? Can you
17 recall it? Can you recall the detail of it, I mean?
18 A. It is quite a while ago, but I can recall it briefly.
19 I am quite happy to tell you what I can remember of it.
20 Q. If you would, please.
21 A. I was brought into the office. I'd say it was
22 Detective Chief Superintendent McBurney who did most of
23 the talking and certainly was taking the lead. He
24 informed me that there had been information to the words
25 of -- that it came into the system that Mr Jameson had
5
1 seen an assault taking place in Portadown, that he
2 hadn't told us the truth when I initially interviewed
3 him on 29th April.
4 I was told to re-interview him. I was told that
5 that would be better done at Portadown Police Station
6 and I was informed to make it a priority interview, that
7 it had to be done that day, that night.
8 Q. Right. You won't know that some people that we are
9 talking about have anonymity and have been given code
10 letters and code numbers.
11 A. No.
12 Q. Can I just give you a piece of paper with a name and
13 number on it so that if you are minded to use that name,
14 you instead use the number?
15 The briefing then would have contained, as it were,
16 suspicions that, because what was contained in the
17 questionnaire was not the full truth, something was
18 being hidden. Is that fair?
19 A. That is fair, yes.
20 Q. Have I got it right that those suspicions were shared by
21 Detective Chief Superintendent McBurney with you, or
22 were they your suspicions?
23 A. They were both his and mine. I was very conscious, the
24 first time I had spoken to this young fellow, that he
25 had seen nothing and now, all of a sudden, I am standing
6
1 in front of Mr McBurney and he is telling me a story
2 that he had seen something.
3 Yes, it rang alarm bells in my head. I was
4 concerned about it.
5 Q. Just help us with the position in 1997 about the point
6 at which, if you were interviewing somebody, you had
7 reason to believe they had done something criminal that
8 you would have to caution them.
9 A. That is correct. That would have been the procedure and
10 that would have been complied with.
11 Q. So were you alert to the possibility that in
12 interviewing Mr Jameson, there could have come a point
13 where you would have to caution him?
14 A. That was -- I was told to assess him. I was never given
15 any information to ever indicate that he had did any
16 wrongdoing, but I was told to assess him.
17 Part of the assessment was that there was
18 a possibility that he could have done something wrong.
19 If he had have done or if he had said to me during
20 interview that he had been involved in this in any way,
21 he would have been arrested, cautioned and a custody
22 record would have been opened.
23 Q. Sorry. I am just watching the pens.
24 You know there is a contention that the reason why
25 Detective Chief Superintendent McBurney and others asked
7
1 for this interview to come about is that they had
2 received information that Timothy Jameson had admitted
3 putting the boot in.
4 A. I became aware of that much later on. Yes, I am aware
5 of that now.
6 Q. Had you been told that at the time, what would you have
7 done?
8 A. I would have been interviewing him under caution.
9 Q. Is there any circumstance in which, given that
10 information, you might have decided to treat him as
11 a witness to start with and then see how it went?
12 A. No, I couldn't have done that. That would be contrary
13 to PACE regulations and would have resulted in things
14 going wrong at the trial. It just would not have
15 happened.
16 Q. Can we look at -- sorry. Before we look at the way the
17 interview turned into a statement, can you tell us about
18 how the interview started off and how it developed?
19 A. Is this the interview with Mr Jameson?
20 Q. Timothy Jameson, 9th May 1997.
21 A. Well, I will have to go back to say that I went to his
22 family home. He had not returned home from college,
23 which I believe was in Armagh. I spoke to his mother.
24 She was a very pleasant woman. I asked her was Timothy
25 there. She said no. I informed her that I had to
8
1 interview him and it was an urgent interview, and it was
2 going to be a witness interview. I asked him to make
3 contact, that I would make myself available all evening,
4 I would not leave until this was done.
5 She asked was he in any trouble. I said no. She
6 asked would it be all right if somebody came in. I said
7 there was not a problem. He was of age, but if they
8 wanted to come in, they could. It was left that he
9 would either make -- ring in or come in to see me.
10 I think thereabouts at 8 o'clock in the evening he
11 arrived at Portadown Police Station. I would have been
12 informed by a phone call from the Inquiry office. There
13 would have been a uniformed officer on the Inquiry
14 office. He would have rang across to the CID office,
15 which is just the block adjacent to it, and I would have
16 came over, met him in the interview room and taken him
17 down to the official interview room and interviewed him.
18 Q. Right. What sort of state was he in, do you recall?
19 A. He was in a good state. He was calm. I didn't feel
20 there was any problems with him whatsoever.
21 Q. Now, doing the best you can after all this time, can you
22 help us with whether you had any information about who
23 was responsible for the murder?
24 A. No, I didn't have any information at that time.
25 Q. Did you have any clear picture of how the events had
9
1 unfolded, never mind the identities, of the sequence of
2 the assault or anything of that nature?
3 A. No, I was working on some of the action sheets but I was
4 also doing other divisional CID work. I was not
5 permanently working on this assault at that time.
6 I remember certainly, when I went into interview
7 Mr Jameson, I went in with very much an open mind.
8 I didn't have a great lot of information with me as to
9 who else was involved or what different people's part
10 was in it.
11 Q. Was there pressure to get a conviction? Was there some
12 overwhelming desire at all costs to get a witness to put
13 somebody in the frame?
14 A. I don't know what you mean by that terminology. All
15 investigations, you are under pressure. You want to get
16 a result, but there is a way of doing it and we dealt
17 with it correctly. I felt that Mr McBurney and any of
18 the CID that were involved in this worked hard on it,
19 worked extremely hard on it, as they would with any
20 investigation at that time.
21 Q. Let's have a look at the statement, shall we? It starts
22 at page [17653]. I want to run you through it in some
23 detail, if I may.
24 A. Yes, certainly.
25 Q. Starting about a quarter of the way down:
10
1 "When we got off the bus in Portadown at 'Herron's
2 Country Fried Chicken' ..."
3 Let us just enlarge this:
4 "... we stood about at the bottom of the town for
5 about five minutes to see if there were any parties on
6 anywhere."
7 Was that information which came from him or was that
8 something which you have inserted?
9 A. No, that would have came from him.
10 Q. "The three of us walked up the street to 'Boss Hoggs'.
11 I went in on my own to get a chip and a tin of Coke.
12 I got a chip and Coke, went up to Wellworths and stood
13 there with Stephen Bloomer and Kyle Magee."
14 Were those names, as far as you can tell us now,
15 with which you were familiar at the time?
16 A. I was not familiar with those names at the time,
17 Mr Chairman.
18 Q. "There was a fellow called McClure standing beside us at
19 Wellworths with his girlfriend."
20 Again, was that a name you inserted or was that
21 a name that came from him?
22 A. That came from Mr Jameson.
23 Q. There is a little discussion about that:
24 "I stood there with my two mates for the bus. This
25 is the second bus coming from Banbridge. I was waiting
11
1 to meet Tom Quinn."
2 Again, is that from Mr Jameson or from you?
3 A. That is from Mr Jameson.
4 Q. "Tom is a mate of mine and I was talking to him on the
5 bus going over to Banbridge. I didn't see Tom in the
6 Coach Inn. We then decided not to wait for the bus and
7 to walk up on the town. We all started to walk towards
8 the town centre, Stephen Bloomer walked on in front of
9 us and Kyle and I followed behind."
10 [17654]:
11 "I walked up past McMahon's clothes shop and
12 Ronnie May's pub, Kyle was with me. When I got as far
13 as Ronnie's pub, I could see a crowd of approximately 15
14 to 20 persons fighting in the middle of the town."
15 That's the first distinction of importance, isn't
16 it, between the QPF and this?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. Tell us about the discussion which led to this going
19 down. Were you writing down as you spoke or did you
20 have a discussion with him?
21 A. I would probably have had a discussion with him first
22 and I would have been taking rough notes every so often
23 of what he would have said, to keep track of it.
24 Q. How did it go after that? Did you then write out from
25 the rough notes the statement to get him to sign, or
12
1 what?
2 A. No. Throughout and during this interview, Mr Chairman,
3 there was one problem we kept coming back to and that
4 was his identity. He was concerned about his identity.
5 He was concerned about having to be named and that these
6 people would know him. That was a problem we had and
7 I felt there was no way he was going to be making
8 a written statement until this matter was resolved.
9 This is a matter that I couldn't have resolved.
10 I wouldn't have had the authority to do so.
11 Q. What happened about that?
12 A. As a result of that, I left him in the interview room
13 and informed him that I was going up to see Mr McBurney,
14 explaining that Mr McBurney was the head of the
15 Southern Region CID and he was in the CID office.
16 I went to see Mr McBurney. In the office at that
17 stage was Mr McBurney and Detective Inspector Irwin and
18 I briefed them fully of what Mr Jameson had to say and
19 what the problems were that we had, and that was:
20 namely, his identity, and what could be done about that.
21 I had already explained to him that I had said to
22 Mr Jameson there was a possibility he could become
23 anonymous, he could become like a Witness A or
24 Witness B.
25 Q. Uh-huh. How far had he got in telling you what ended up
13
1 in the statement?
2 A. He had got a fair way of telling me.
3 Q. Including names?
4 A. Including names, yes.
5 Q. By that point, how were relations between you? Were you
6 pressing him or were you trying to help him?
7 A. I was trying to help him. I felt that throughout the
8 interview with Mr Jameson the relationship was good.
9 I would honestly have said it was very good. There was
10 nothing I could identify other than the concern he had
11 about his identity, which I could share with him.
12 I could understand that.
13 Q. What did you think about the truth of the information
14 you were getting from him?
15 A. I felt he was being truthful. I spent a lot of time in
16 the interview with him and I have to say that I did
17 certainly say to him, "I hope -- you have to be telling
18 me the truth, because, you know" -- I called him
19 Timothy. I said, "Timothy, you know, there is going to
20 be arrests. What you don't want is if any of these
21 people are arrested and they name you". He was told in
22 no uncertain terms he would be arrested, brought in and
23 interviewed. I had to be satisfied he was telling the
24 truth and he had to know it had to be truth. I felt
25 everything that he said was what he knew and was the
14
1 truth.
2 Q. Going back to the statement then, we just dealt with the
3 crowd of 15 to 20 persons fighting in the middle of the
4 town. He says:
5 "I walked towards the crowd. There was fellows
6 punching each other and I observed a fellow with an
7 Umbro sweater, grey colour and I think blue jeans,
8 fighting with another fellow. This fellow I know to
9 see, he lives in [blank] and is called Marc, he is
10 also called 'Muck'. I know this fellow to see about
11 town, Marc has very short brown hair, goatee beard and
12 is overweight. I think he was wearing a black leather
13 jacket. I was standing four to five feet from Marc.
14 The street lights were on. Marc was punching this
15 fellow in the face with his fist, that's the fellow
16 with the Umbro sweater on. This fellow was fighting
17 back, but Marc was getting the better of him. Marc
18 knocked this fellow to the ground, he was lying on the
19 middle of the road, opposite the bakery on the corner
20 'Number Seven', on the side of the street the cars drive up
21 the town. This fellow lay there for about one minute
22 and got up again."
23 How clear are you that came from Mr Jameson, not
24 from you?
25 A. That would have came from Mr Jameson. I am quite clear
15
1 on that.
2 Q. Was the name Marc or "Muck" familiar to you at the time?
3 A. No.
4 Q. It goes on:
5 "Marc then started fighting with another fellow.
6 This was a man wearing a blue shirt and tie in his
7 mid-30s with short hair, I think ginger colour. This
8 man was trying to stop the fighting and I saw Marc
9 grabbing this man and throwing him out of his way."
10 Again, was there any of your input in that?
11 A. No.
12 Q. "I also noticed a police landrover parked at the
13 Halifax Building Society facing down the street. The
14 landrover was parked at the side of the street.
15 I didn't see any Police get out of it."
16 Were you conscious that there was some issue about
17 whether the police had got out of the Land Rover?
18 A. Yes, I would have been conscious of that.
19 Q. "I then noticed Rory Robinson fighting. I don't know
20 who he was fighting with, I only looked over at him for
21 a couple of seconds."
22 [17655]:
23 "Rory was hitting somebody with his fists.
24 I couldn't see who he was fighting with. Rory was
25 wearing cream coloured jeans."
16
1 Again, is there any of your invention in that?
2 A. No.
3 Q. "I then heard a bottle smashing, I was standing in the
4 middle of the fight. I looked around and I saw
5 Allister Hanvey kick and punch this fellow who was lying
6 on the ground. This fellow was lying in the middle of
7 the street about opposite 'Eastwoods' Clothing. I was
8 about nine feet from him. The fellow was just lying there,
9 with his hands at his side, he didn't move. This
10 fellow was wearing a black coloured jacket, I think he
11 had black hair. I saw Allister Hanvey kick this fellow
12 3 to 4 times while he was on the ground. The
13 kicks were to the fellow's chest area. I know Hanvey to
14 see for about 3 years. I can't remember what Hanvey was
15 wearing."
16 This, then, is the first evidence that came to the
17 attention of detectives of the identification of
18 a murderer, wasn't it?
19 A. That's correct, as far as I am aware, yes.
20 Q. How careful were you, in 1997, about getting evidence
21 out of a witness who was identifying a murderer?
22 A. Well, in a case like this, you would be putting as much
23 effort as could you put in to take a statement. You
24 would be covering everything that you could possibly
25 cover.
17
1 As a detective, you would probably, I can say,
2 arrive in on a Saturday morning of your weekend on and
3 you could have quite a few statements to take. If it
4 was the run of the mill ordinary assault, I would have
5 to say it wouldn't be as detailed as what you would be
6 wanting in a murder statement.
7 This was very important, that we identified those
8 that were involved, to identify what they were wearing,
9 to identify who was striking who. It was as detailed as
10 one could get it.
11 Q. It goes on:
12 "I then saw another fellow kick the boy lying on the
13 ground. This fellow has black hair and I know him to
14 see about Portadown, he is called 'Fonzy'. He would be
15 in his early 20s. I saw 'Fonzy' kick the fellow lying
16 on the ground with the black jacket in the face a couple
17 of times. The fellow lying on the ground still didn't
18 move. I didn't see any blood about him. I started to
19 walk on towards the church, there was still fighting
20 going on around me."
21 He is telling you that he is close enough -- well,
22 he is in the centre of the fighting and he is close
23 enough to identify these people. You told us earlier
24 you had to assess him --
25 A. That's correct.
18
1 Q. -- and you bore in mind the possibility, at the very
2 lowest, that, because he had not told you about this
3 before, there may be something to be hidden.
4 What was the state of your assessment of him by the
5 time he told you these things?
6 A. I felt he was telling the truth. I had pressed upon him
7 to tell the truth, and my concern, part of it, was that
8 I had interviewed him on the 29th, that he had seen
9 nothing, and now here he was with a completely different
10 story. Was there a possibility that he was involved in
11 it?
12 Yes, you have to say in the back of your head there
13 is always the possibility, and that's one of the things
14 I had to assess him, but when I finished the interview
15 with him, I was happy with what he said. If I hadn't
16 been, I wouldn't have took the witness statement.
17 I could have gone back up to Mr McBurney and said,
18 "Look, sir, I have interviewed him. He made a witness
19 statement". I could have suggested, "Let's hold off on
20 that to see what comes out of some of these arrests",
21 but I think taking the statement was the right course of
22 action and I felt he was telling the truth.
23 Q. Okay. He goes on:
24 "I got up the street a few yards and I dropped my
25 chips. I bent over to pick them up and I saw
19
1 a dark-coloured police car coming up the street. It was
2 going fast and stopped opposite Thomas Street. I saw
3 about 3 police get out of the car and go into the middle
4 of the fight."
5 Again, was that information in your knowledge?
6 A. Well, I would have -- during the course of the interview
7 I certainly would have asked him, "Was there any police
8 presence? What did you see the police do, if you did
9 see any of them?" and that was his response.
10 Q. Did you already know a dark police car had pulled up to
11 the scene with the three police officers?
12 A. I can't honestly remember whether I knew that. I knew
13 certainly there was a Land Rover in the town centre, but
14 the second car, I can't help you. I am sorry.
15 Q. Fair enough. He goes on:
16 "I was about Poundstretcher and I saw Dean Forbes
17 punch a fellow on the face and run off towards me. The
18 fellow Dean Forbes punched was the fellow wearing the
19 grey Umbro sweater. The fellow wearing the Umbro
20 sweater just stood there."
21 [17656].
22 Was Dean Forbes known to you, or was the name
23 Dean Forbes known to you?
24 A. It could have been. There are probably several names on
25 that statement -- when you say "players" -- for some
20
1 reason or other would have come into contact with the
2 police in their enquiries, but Dean Forbes or any other
3 ones don't really ring a bell that much with me.
4 Q. He goes on:
5 "I turned around and started to walk towards the
6 church. The Police started moving the crowd up the
7 street and a second Police car arrived and parked behind
8 the first one. Police got out of the car and I noticed
9 R/Constable Atkinson, one of the policemen was
10 carrying a rubber bullet gun."
11 It is not entirely clear from the comma there
12 whether it is Robert Atkinson who he was saying was
13 carrying the gun.
14 A. I think that's what he means. It was Robert was
15 carrying the rubber bullet gun, as it is referred to as.
16 Q. "I stood at the Church for a while and I saw
17 Tracey Bridgett [sic], he had a bust nose. I didn't speak to
18 Bridgett. The police started moving everybody up the
19 street and I walked on home on my own. I also observed
20 Vicky Clayton in the crowd being pushed up the street by
21 the Police."
22 So anything there from you, or was that all from
23 him?
24 A. That's from him. I wouldn't even have actually knew
25 Vicky Clayton. I wouldn't even know to this day.
21
1 I don't know.
2 Q. "I had four to five pints of beer that night at the
3 disco. I wasn't drunk."
4 We will come in a bit to allegations he made later
5 on about the way the statement was taken, but one of
6 them is that he told you that he was drunk and you said,
7 "You can't put in a statement that you were drunk".
8 What do you have to say about that?
9 A. What I have got to say about that is, yes, I would
10 certainly have asked him. I am quite confident in my
11 own mind that I asked him how many drinks he had on that
12 night, because if he had had, say, 20 pints and six or
13 seven half ones and I hadn't produced that or opened
14 that up at a later date -- which we will be talking
15 about later -- when he went before the DPP, he could
16 have said, "Well, I had 20 pints and six whiskeys.
17 I was stoned out of my mind." He would be useless as
18 a witness.
19 I had to know what drink he had. I certainly said,
20 "Did you have much drink? What had you?" That's what
21 he said he had to drink and that's what I put down.
22 Q. Let me put this to you: if, as you later said happened,
23 he told you, when you were interviewing him, that he was
24 drunk, didn't remember anything, would you have taken
25 a statement of this type, which was going to result in
22
1 a number of arrests for murder?
2 A. No, I don't believe so. I would have went to my
3 authorities. The second thing, like his identity, that
4 would have been equally as big an issue. It is one
5 I would have to go back and say, "Look, sir, this man
6 said he was full. Is he going to make a good witness?
7 Do we take a statement off him?" but the drink certainly
8 wasn't an issue.
9 Q. What sort of state was he in once he had signed the
10 statement off?
11 A. He was in good -- he was in a good state. When he went
12 to leave the station, I offered him a lift home, because
13 it was late. He said, "No, I will just walk on home".
14 As we know, it is not that far away. He was good.
15 That's the last I had seen him in quite a while.
16 Q. You then had a consultation with Mr Kerr, Queen's
17 Counsel, I think, and Mr Davison, and with
18 Timothy Jameson -- or rather, you attended one, I should
19 say.
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Can I just ask what your role was there?
22 A. My role was basically I was on the sidelines.
23 I attended it. I was directed to go to Belfast.
24 I believe I travelled down with Mr Irwin and Mr Davison
25 was there, Mr Kerr was there, Mr Cooke, who was the
23
1 Assistant Chief Constable Crime and I think some other
2 member of the Bar was there.
3 Q. Was it normal for an interviewing officer to be present
4 at a consultation of that sort?
5 A. Well, I would have been involved in quite a few
6 terrorist cases through my career in the police, and,
7 prior to trials, there would be consultations.
8 I suppose at this one here you could say there was
9 probably more than usual. You wouldn't have Mr Cooke
10 there unless he had been involved in investigation and
11 probably various members of the Bar wouldn't have been
12 there either.
13 Q. Okay. If we look at the note of the consultation,
14 page [17591], Mr Davison's note, the last set of
15 paragraphs, so the last quarter of the page.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. "On 21 October 1997", so five months later or so, "at
18 4.00 pm, I attended a consultation between
19 Gordon Kerr QC and Timothy Jameson."
20 It lists the others: Detective Superintendent Cooke,
21 DI Irwin and you were also present, along with
22 Timothy Jameson's father. Do you recall this?
23 A. I do recall that.
24 Q. "Timothy Jameson presented as an average 18-year-old
25 youth who was reasonably tidily and casually dressed.
24
1 He was reasonably articulate, but from the outset of the
2 consultation said that he could not remember what he
3 saw."
4 Tell us, if you will, how this went, how it came
5 out, if you can recall it?
6 A. I don't recall any awful lot. I was, as I would say,
7 sitting in the sidelines. It was Mr Kerr that was
8 asking the questions and he just seemed to be holding
9 back. It was just, "I am here, but I don't want to be
10 here". He just seemed to be reluctant to answer what
11 questions Mr Kerr wanted to put to him, I felt.
12 Q. Right. It goes on:
13 "In particular, he could not distinguish in his mind
14 between what he saw and what people had said to him had
15 happened. After recalling a couple of introductory
16 details he then stated that he could not remember
17 anything about the fight. He stated 'I don't know if
18 I saw things happening. I was drunk and I had been
19 drinking all that night'."
20 Do you recall him saying that?
21 A. I vaguely recall him saying that, yes.
22 Q. What was your feeling about how this was developing?
23 A. I knew the way it was developing. It was developing
24 that we had a witness who didn't want to give evidence
25 and his way out of it was to make it look as if the
25
1 police had put the words in his mouth, and that's how
2 I feel it was.
3 Q. He goes on:
4 "He stated that when he made his statement he was
5 simply agreeing with what the police said to him and he
6 put in his statement what they told him."
7 To us, 12 years on, that sounds like a very serious
8 allegation to make against a police officer.
9 A. It is a serious allegation, yes.
10 Q. What you are telling us is this, is it: that was pretty
11 common, that's what people would say if they didn't want
12 to give evidence?
13 A. That was common. That was par for the course in those
14 days. A witness would retract, and that was their means
15 of retracting. It wasn't something that was the first
16 time you would have seen, that this was something new
17 that jumped out of the box. This was common practice.
18 Q. Did anybody ever react to it? Did anybody ever have
19 investigations into the truth of it or what?
20 A. None whatsoever. I don't believe anybody ever believed
21 it happened.
22 Q. Going over the page [17592] -- perhaps we could
23 highlight that:
24 "Gordon Kerr QC quizzed him at length and in depth
25 but he stubbornly maintained his assertion that he could
26
1 not remember what happened and only wrote in the
2 statement what the police told him to write. He stated
3 that he is not scared to give evidence, although he
4 admitted that he did not want to give evidence. He
5 indicated that his desire not to give evidence was not
6 affecting his inability to remember.
7 "This witness will not give any evidence of any
8 value whatsoever", is Mr Davison's view.
9 Did anything that's contained in that change your
10 view about what he was doing here?
11 A. Well, I think his statement there that he said that he
12 didn't want to give evidence. If somebody doesn't want
13 to give evidence, well, that's it. They are not going
14 to give evidence. The problem they are posed with is
15 how they get out of it.
16 There are several methods, and he chose to go down
17 the road he went down and there was little I could do
18 about it.
19 Q. That was the end of it, as far as you were concerned?
20 A. That was basically the end of it, yes.
21 Q. As far as you were concerned, did the consultation press
22 him as hard as it could? Did Mr Kerr and Mr Davison do
23 everything that was reasonably possible to get him to
24 give evidence?
25 A. Yes. I think -- and actually I had said it on a taped
27
1 interview with one of the Police Ombudsman that Mr Kerr
2 had given him a fair grilling. I think I actually said
3 in the taped interview that if I had have grilled him as
4 hard as Mr Kerr, maybe there would have been room to
5 complain. He had to grill him. He gave him a good run
6 for his money, but he had to assess him.
7 I felt he went into him reasonably well. I said
8 "God almighty. That is hard enough on him. I didn't do
9 as hard on him". That's the only comment I can make.
10 Q. Fair enough.
11 If we go back to your statement at page [80477],
12 paragraph 20, you tell us there that you interviewed
13 Marc Hobson. You can't recall, you say, the briefing
14 for the interview, but you think you read some
15 statements in advance which you had printed off as you
16 couldn't read them on the HOLMES system.
17 Is that because you didn't have access to the HOLMES
18 system or what?
19 A. The outdoor team -- I wouldn't be -- like a lot of
20 detectives in my era wouldn't be great with keyboards
21 and that. I think in the early stage people that went
22 into the HOLMES room were ones that liked to work with
23 computers, liked to do the typing. I certainly would
24 never have been cut out for that.
25 Those detectives, the statement comes in raw,
28
1 handwritten. They put it beside them. It is typed. It
2 is then certified a true copy of the original. If
3 I need a copy for any reason, it is then printed off as
4 a typewritten copy.
5 Q. Does it follow from that that you only got selected
6 information that was fed to you for particular
7 interviews?
8 A. Yes, I wouldn't have to say -- I would have gone up and
9 asked for Marc Hobson's. If it was attached, it was
10 attached.
11 Q. You go on here:
12 "I don't think any disclosure of statements was made
13 to Marc Hobson although he was interviewed under
14 caution for four hours. He was very clear that he was
15 not involved and he had not seen anything. After the
16 interview, I went to Detective Inspector Irwin and
17 Detective Chief Superintendent McBurney and summarised
18 the interview for them."
19 What was your impression of Marc Hobson in that?
20 A. I don't actually recall Marc Hobson.
21 Q. Fine.
22 A. It would be wrong of me to try to remember something.
23 If I could, I would tell you, but I don't remember.
24 Sorry.
25 Q. Let's move on to Jonathan Wright then. You deal with
29
1 him at page [80478], paragraph 25. You say:
2 "I also interviewed Jonathan Wright. A number of
3 statements were taken from him and I believe I recorded
4 two of them."
5 You give page numbers there. If we go over the
6 page to page [80479], paragraph 26, you tell us:
7 "I remember very little about Jonathan Wright and
8 rely entirely on the record contained in the documents.
9 I can speculate based on my experience of police
10 practice that I re-interviewed him because new issues
11 had arisen and I was given an action sheet ..."
12 Can we look at the interview -- sorry -- the
13 statements that you took and see what you can help us
14 with on those, please?
15 The first statement is at page [00564].
16 11th May 1997, so two days after you had got, as it
17 were, the break-through interview with Mr Jameson which
18 had identified people. What he says is:
19 "On Saturday night, 26th April 1997 I left home at
20 approximately 6.30 pm."
21 What he tells us in the first few sentences is that:
22 "I then walked to ... Marc Hobson's house."
23 He went to the Pleasure Gardens with Marc Hobson.
24 If we pick it up halfway down:
25 "We all stayed there to approximately 10 o'clock.
30
1 As we were leaving, Allister Hanvey came down and asked
2 us where we were going. I know Allister Hanvey from
3 school and I hang about with him sometimes. We told
4 Allister that we were going to a friend's flat and he
5 decided to join us. We all walked up the town centre
6 and Philip Leckey and Gregory Blevins left us at the
7 shops near the Loughgall roundabout. Allister Hanvey,
8 Marc Hobson and I walked on to [blank]. We went into
9 this flat belonging to Dean Johnston."
10 On [00565], missing out a couple of sentences there:
11 "We stayed there to approximately 1.30 am and then
12 Allister and Marc and I left and started walking towards
13 the town. We wanted to get something to eat. We walked
14 to the Chinese on West Street. We all went in and got
15 something to eat. I got a fried rice with curry sauce.
16 Marc got chips and gravy. I can't remember what
17 Allister got. We all left the Chinese about 1.40 am and
18 continued to walk towards the town centre. We just
19 wanted to eat our meal at the summer seats at the front
20 of the big church in the centre of the town. On the way
21 down we stopped to talk to an old fellow ..."
22 He deals with that. Then going down to about
23 two-thirds down the page on the right-hand side:
24 "Allister walked on a few yards further down the
25 street towards the town centre and stopped at the dry
31
1 cleaners. Allister then started to walk on towards the
2 town centre and shouted something like, 'Follow me
3 down'."
4 He says he stayed talking for a bit. Then the final
5 couple of lines:
6 "We got to the big church in the centre of the town
7 and I stood on a round wall in front of the church, where
8 the Christmas tree used to be."
9 [00566]:
10 "Marc was beside me. I could see a lot of people
11 being pushed towards us by the police. There would have
12 been about twenty in the crowd. They were shouting at the
13 police and pointing their fingers at them. I seen
14 police, but I couldn't say how many police there were.
15 I couldn't hear what the crowd was shouting. I stood
16 looking around for Allister but couldn't see him.
17 I didn't see anybody fighting. I saw two ambulances and
18 they were carrying somebody on a stretcher into the
19 ambulance. The police were in a row pushing the crowd
20 up the street towards us. I saw Stacey Bridgett walk up
21 the left-hand side of the street ..."
22 He goes on to say he was walking with somebody:
23 "Marc and I decided to go home. This would be about
24 five past two."
25 Missing a sentence:
32
1 "I didn't get involved in any fighting and I didn't
2 see anybody fighting, only the crowd being pushed up the
3 street."
4 Then about three-quarters of the way down the page:
5 "Allister was wearing light-blue jeans, track suit
6 top, grey colour, with a zip up the front of it. The top
7 had orange stripes on both arms which went down to the
8 elbows."
9 Now, does that help you recall any of the
10 circumstances of this?
11 A. Not an awful lot, really.
12 Q. All right.
13 A. It is a statement taken from him and I accept I have
14 taken it, but I don't recall an awful lot about it.
15 Q. Can you help us with whether you would have appreciated
16 the significance of the evidence of what Allister Hanvey
17 was wearing?
18 Did you know there was some issue by this point
19 about what he might have been wearing?
20 A. I think the point through the whole inquiry would have
21 been you would have been told in statements of this case
22 you would take a particular note. You would ask each
23 witness, if he seen somebody, what each person was
24 wearing, because there is always the forensic thing that
25 you are going to be dealing with, and in case clothing
33
1 was changed or washed, you would always put in it, "He
2 was wearing red, blue or green", whatever all you had to
3 do.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Did you have any reason, particularly in the
5 case of Allister Hanvey, to learn about his clothing?
6 A. I don't believe so, Mr Chairman. Sorry.
7 MR UNDERWOOD: I think you now know that when Tracey Clarke
8 gave a statement on 9th and 10th May she made
9 an assertion that Reserve Constable Atkinson had tipped
10 Allister Hanvey off to destroy his clothing. Were you
11 conscious of that then?
12 A. No, I definitely wasn't conscious of that then.
13 Q. If somebody had come to you and said, "Look, any further
14 interviews you do of anybody connected with this, can
15 you concentrate on what Hanvey was wearing?", would you
16 have done it any differently to what you did here?
17 A. I don't think so, no.
18 Q. Right. The statement goes on:
19 "On Saturday night in question I would have
20 drank a bottle of Old English Cider and a few tins of
21 beer."
22 Are we seeing a pattern here from your interviewing,
23 that the last thing you ask witnesses is --
24 A. Yes. It is important to ask how much drink they would
25 have, because it affects the whole case and the
34
1 statement taking. Yes, that would be normal for me, or
2 normal for most detectives anyway.
3 Q. Then if we look at the second statement, page [00568],
4 this is 15th May 1997, so four days later, what
5 Mr Wright has said subsequently is that he was called
6 back into the police station.
7 Can you help us with how this second statement came
8 about at all?
9 A. The only help that I can assist with is that I would
10 have been given an action sheet. It would have been via
11 an action sheet. It wouldn't have been any other way.
12 An action sheet would have said clearly to re-interview
13 him and it would have said what it wanted.
14 Q. Okay. Have you any recollection at all of this
15 interview, though?
16 A. I don't. I am sorry.
17 Q. See if I can jog it a bit. He says:
18 "Further to my statement dated 11th May 1997, I did
19 not give the full facts in relation to an incident which
20 occurred in Portadown town centre in the early hours of
21 Sunday, 27th April 1997. The content of my first
22 statement is correct up to where we got to the church in
23 the centre of the town. When Marc Hobson and I walked
24 down the town and got to the front of the church where
25 the Christmas tree was, we walked a few yards further
35
1 down the street, we walked down the centre of the
2 street. I could see a fight further down the town in
3 the middle of the street between Thomas Street and
4 Woodhouse Street. I was about thirty yards from the fight.
5 "There were about twenty to thirty people in the middle of
6 the street. I saw a person standing behind the crowd in
7 the middle of the street, this man was wearing a blue
8 shirt and striped tie, he was wearing dark trousers
9 which appeared smart. This man was shouting towards the
10 crowd of Protestants to come on. There was fighting
11 going on in the crowd he was shouting at. I would say
12 he was approximately twenty five years old, and had very short
13 hair, about number 2 cut. Marc then left me and ran
14 down into the crowd, fighting in the middle of the road.
15 I stood there I would have been standing at the edge
16 of the flower beds facing the Abbey National. I could
17 see Marc being pushed about by the crowd."
18 Over the page, [00569]:
19 "I saw him lift his hand and reach out for somebody.
20 I didn't see him hit anybody. There was a lot of people
21 shouting ..."
22 I'm not going to bother with what they were
23 shouting:
24 "There were 2 or 3 from the Catholic crowd
25 shouting too, they were trading insults, calling the
36
1 Protestants 'Orange bastards'. The fighting lasted
2 about five to ten minutes. I saw Rory Robinson in the
3 middle of the crowd, he was running around like
4 a headless chicken. I saw Stacey Bridgett trading
5 punches with one person. They were fighting a wee bit
6 to the left of the main fight more towards the
7 Alliance & Leicester Building Society.
8 "I saw a boy lying on the street at the mouth of
9 Thomas Street, he was lying on his chest and wasn't
10 moving. This fellow was wearing dark clothes. I saw
11 a police landrover parked on the Main Street at the
12 Halifax. There were about five to six policemen trying
13 to break the fight up. I saw people trying to push
14 police away from the main fracas. The mood of the crowd
15 was violent towards the police. I heard bottles being
16 smashed. The police got the crowd under control and the
17 crowd started leaving. Marc came back out of the crowd
18 and I told him to come on. We walked up the town centre
19 to the church and I then parted from him and walked
20 home. I made this statement because not telling the
21 full facts the first time has been preying on my
22 conscience."
23 Does that help you at all?
24 A. Not particularly, Mr Chairman. It is obviously what he
25 said, and if that's what he said, that's what I have
37
1 wrote down.
2 Q. He says, and has said since, that you took him into
3 an interview room in order to make this statement and
4 made threats to him. In particular, he says he wanted
5 a solicitor and you wouldn't let him have one and you
6 told him that unless he made a further statement, he
7 wouldn't be able to go on holiday. You threatened
8 charging him.
9 What do you say to those things?
10 A. That is totally wrong.
11 Q. See if this detail rings any bells.
12 He says he was due to go on holiday with his
13 girlfriend and you told him, unless he made a statement,
14 you wouldn't let him go on holiday and his girlfriend
15 would be humiliated having to explain to everybody why
16 she did not have a holiday?
17 A. I don't remember him saying he was going on holidays and
18 I certainly wouldn't have said that to a witness. There
19 is just absolutely no point in it.
20 Q. He says you told him his father, who worked for the
21 Church of Ireland, would be humiliated if he didn't give
22 a statement.
23 A. That's the first I have even known his father works for
24 the Church of Ireland, is now. I can honestly say
25 I never knew that.
38
1 Q. He says that you intimidated him to the point where he
2 broke down and said, "Yes, I'll make a statement", and
3 then you brought some other policeman in. Can you help
4 us with that?
5 A. No, there was no other policeman. Had there been any
6 other policeman interviewing the witness with me, it
7 would have been well documented and I certainly wouldn't
8 have said those things to him.
9 I am disappointed that people have to say those
10 things.
11 Q. What he says is he was frightened of you as a result of
12 your behaviour.
13 Can you help us with whether you had a intimidating
14 manner and people were likely to be frightened of you in
15 those days?
16 A. I wouldn't have an intimidating matter. I have to say
17 in an interview room in Gough barracks in a terrorist
18 interview, if someone tried to talk over me or if
19 somebody tried to take over it, I would be well
20 qualified to handle it, but when you are dealing with
21 witnesses, you deal with them -- I deal with them
22 correctly. There is no use me going down the line of
23 taking a witness statement from somebody if they're not
24 going to stand up. If I do something wrong that's not
25 right, it is not going to go anywhere. I had a good
39
1 rapport with people. I was always able to talk to
2 people. In my whole career in the police, nobody has
3 ever had an occasion to jump up or assault me or do
4 anything like that. I have always handled myself.
5 I am a member of the community. That's why I'm
6 there, I am there to protect everybody, including the
7 person I have to interview. I have to be sympathetic to
8 him as well. I was always conscious of that.
9 Q. Do I understand that when you were interviewing
10 witnesses with a view to making a statement, there was
11 no policy of tape recording?
12 A. No, that was never police policy.
13 Q. I think you know now that Mr Wright later on made
14 another statement saying that this statement we have
15 just looked at wasn't true.
16 A. I am aware of that now, yes.
17 Q. So what we have is two witnesses who say they gave
18 statements to you that they were either forced into
19 making or which didn't contain their evidence.
20 A. That's correct, Mr Chairman.
21 Q. Would you like to comment on the fact that there are two
22 witnesses who in common say this about you?
23 A. Yes, Mr Chairman. I would like to say I believe
24 honestly what we had here, we had two witnesses, two
25 good witnesses who were interviewed in accordance with
40
1 PACE and had a lot to contribute to the assault of
2 Mr Hamill, who later died as a result of his injuries,
3 and if they had been stood up and counted and gave their
4 evidence, which is what people would expect, then there
5 would have been quite a few convicted for this dreadful
6 event.
7 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much. Those are the questions
8 I have for you have. It may be other people have some.
9 A. That's okay.
10 MR ADAIR: I wonder, could I say I represent Mr Honeyford?
11 I am wondering, sir, would it be convenient if I were to
12 reserve my questions to the end? I don't know what's
13 going to be put to him by representatives, because there
14 have been different versions.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: That seems to me to be appropriate.
16 MR ADAIR: Yes, thank you, sir.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: You will remember he is, in effect, your
18 witness and it may be better not to lead him?
19 MR ADAIR: Of course, sir.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr McGrory?
21 Cross-examination by MR McGRORY
22 MR McGRORY: I have no objection to that, sir.
23 I do want to ask you questions on behalf of the
24 Hamill family, if you don't mind.
25 A. No, I don't mind.
41
1 Q. I think, as an officer of some dedication and
2 experience, as you have shown, Mr Honeyford, you will
3 understand how frustrating, to put it mildly, it is for
4 the Hamill family that the police could have gotten so
5 close to those who were guilty of this murder, yet
6 everything fell apart in terms of the investigation and
7 the trial.
8 Do you understand that?
9 A. Yes, I understand that, Mr Chairman. I can understand
10 their feelings.
11 Q. They got so close physically, because there were police
12 very close by when the attack happened.
13 Would you agree with me that the police got very
14 close to those whom the police believed were guilty of
15 the murder in terms of the investigation --
16 A. I would agree with that.
17 Q. -- in the sense that the police had statements from
18 Mr Jameson and from Tracey Clarke, in which people were
19 identified as actually being involved in the murderous
20 attack on Mr Hamill?
21 A. That is correct, Mr Chairman.
22 Q. Yet, those witness statements did not translate into
23 convictions.
24 A. I am aware of that.
25 Q. So I just want to ask you some questions about some key
42
1 events in the course of the investigation where the
2 family may believe that things began to fall apart.
3 Now, one of the areas of concern that is arising is,
4 in respect of these action sheets or action prints,
5 there appear to have been a lot more in existence than
6 we might have. Do you know anything about that?
7 A. I am not aware of that, Mr Chairman. I would be very
8 surprised, under the current disclosure rules, that you
9 would not have them all.
10 Q. You have the misfortune, Mr Honeyford, of being the
11 first policeman to give evidence. So if I may be
12 forgiven, I would like to explore just some of those
13 issues with you.
14 A. I wasn't aware of that, Mr Chairman.
15 Q. For example, the questionnaire that you filled out --
16 I have forgotten the reference. I am sorry. It was up
17 a little bit earlier. [70900]. I am grateful to
18 Mr Adair. This is the -- sorry. That's the -- I am
19 sure Mr Adair did not give me the wrong reference just
20 to put me off my stroke.
21 MS SHORT: [70865].
22 MR McGRORY: I am grateful.
23 I think you gave evidence earlier that you were
24 given an action sheet that was attached to this --
25 A. That's correct.
43
1 Q. -- but that the original documentation that you would
2 have had with you, there would have been an action sheet
3 and then a questionnaire with questions, but obviously
4 no answers?
5 A. Yes, that's true.
6 Q. The action sheet would have informed you as to why it
7 was you were speaking to this person?
8 A. It would have said, "Yes, go and interview Witness A/B,
9 as they were seen in the town centre, to establish
10 what's known/seen".
11 Q. Can you be sure now that that particular action sheet
12 which prompted the action of you taking the
13 questionnaire with you to see Mr Jameson had on it the
14 information that he had been seen in the town centre?
15 A. I believe -- I can only recall briefly, but I do believe
16 it said that Mr Jameson was believed to be in the town
17 centre at the time of this incident.
18 Q. Believed to be in the town centre and seen in the town
19 centre -- forgive me -- are two very different things.
20 Can you remember at all precisely why it was police
21 felt he was in the town centre, whether he had been seen
22 or whether perhaps he had informed somebody else he was
23 there?
24 A. I can't really. I only believe it was that he was seen,
25 that some member of the police force, uniformed ones
44
1 that were there initially at the time of it, put his
2 name down he had been there. I don't know. That would
3 be something you would have to research with the HOLMES
4 people.
5 Q. Can you help me? In terms of the information that you
6 took from Mr Jameson, the answers that he gave you --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. -- did you transcribe those by hand?
9 A. Yes, that would have been typewritten. The actual
10 questionnaire would be a template. That would be typed
11 by the typing pool, attached to the back of the action
12 sheet. I would have had that on my billboard and asked
13 him his name, address, occupation, date of birth and
14 then I would have read the question to him:
15 "I have been informed that you have been identified
16 as being present at Market Street, Portadown on ..." and
17 asked him what he had to say and exactly what he said is
18 what I would write there and then in his presence.
19 Q. Of course. Can you assist the Inquiry at all as to what
20 happened to the original documentation when you returned
21 to the police station?
22 A. When I returned to the police station, the questionnaire
23 pinned to the action sheet is put back into the in-tray
24 of the HOLMES system and then Detective Inspector Irwin,
25 who was the office manager, would read those during the
45
1 day and decide if there was any follow-up that needed to
2 be done or write them off or whatever would have to be
3 done.
4 Q. Would you also have kept a notebook entry of your
5 encounter with Mr Jameson in the context of the
6 questionnaire?
7 A. Maybe yes, maybe no. It would depend. Sometimes you
8 would have maybe said, "Interviewed Mr Jameson on",
9 whatever date and time. I haven't had access to my
10 notebooks. I can't recall whether I did that or not.
11 Q. Do your notebooks still exist?
12 A. Oh, I would say they certainly do, yes.
13 Q. Can you help us as to where they might be?
14 A. I can only say they are in Lurgan or Portadown Police
15 Station. When I retired from the police, as with every
16 officer, all the notebooks -- in fact, for quite
17 a number of years prior to my retirement, as each
18 notebook was filled up, it would be you would have kept
19 them, so you could have 10, 15 or 20 full notebooks
20 sitting on your desk. But they then brought out
21 a procedure -- don't ask me what date, I can't recall
22 it -- but as each notebook was completed, you would have
23 to go to the administration staff and they would issue
24 you another one. There was a record kept, a serial
25 number put on it and the date it was issued.
46
1 I don't have any notebooks, to answer your question.
2 Q. So I don't have to return to the issue of notebooks. If
3 there was a notebook entry of your account of the
4 subsequent events when you met Mr Jameson again on
5 9th May --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- and when you were briefed about why you were meeting
8 him on that occasion, those notebooks -- would you have
9 put that information in your notebook?
10 A. I think I certainly would have said -- there would be an
11 entry, "Briefed by Detective Chief Superintendent
12 McBurney to re-interview him".
13 Probably, as I would be doing up the notebook at the
14 end of the night or following morning, I would have put,
15 "Interviewed Timothy Jameson at Portadown Police
16 Station", on date, at certain time, or maybe the time
17 wouldn't have been in it. It is hard to say what would
18 have been wrote in it.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Where you had interviewed on the basis of
20 an action sheet and questionnaire or were taking
21 a statement, you say you would record in your notebook
22 the fact of doing that. Would you record the content of
23 the answers?
24 A. Oh, no, because you are just doubling, trebling, the
25 paperwork, and the notebook was never designed for that,
47
1 Mr Chairman.
2 MR McGRORY: So if that's the case, then that makes the
3 original documentation that was attached to the -- that
4 was the original questionnaire and whatever was attached
5 to it very important documentation. Do you agree with
6 me?
7 A. Yes, certainly very important.
8 Q. Are you aware of any system that was in place for the
9 preservation of that paperwork?
10 A. I was never HOLMES trained. That was never part of my
11 job.
12 Q. It may be it is a matter for somebody else.
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Thank you for your assistance in exploring this.
15 You will understand that the reason I am asking you
16 those questions, Mr Honeyford, is because there is now
17 a very real and important issue about why
18 Timothy Jameson was spoken to a second time on 9th May.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. I would like to explore that a little with you. If
21 I could perhaps just -- your statement at paragraph 11
22 that was shown to you at the beginning of your evidence
23 by Mr Underwood -- it is page 3 of your statement,
24 paragraph 11, [80474]. If paragraph 11 could be
25 highlighted, please. About the third line, you say:
48
1 "I was very conscious of the fact that he had spoken
2 to the police previously and denied being in the town
3 centre, but had subsequently admitted being there and
4 witnessing the assault."
5 Do you accept that's not quite accurate when you
6 look at the questionnaire?
7 A. Aye, the fact that he said he was not in the town
8 centre?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. I do believe what it should have read or what it was,
11 that he was in the town centre but hadn't seen anything
12 was what was said.
13 Q. We take it that was just a mistake?
14 A. Yes, please.
15 Q. Now, in terms of the circumstances of the 9th May
16 interview, you have said that you were -- by this point,
17 of course, Robert Hamill has just died.
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. This is now a murder investigation?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You were brought up to a room and it was
22 Inspector Irwin's room, but he wasn't there, but Chief
23 Superintendent McBurney was, and another senior officer,
24 whom I will not name, but I think you have the person's
25 name.
49
1 A. P39.
2 Q. They were present?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. You were being asked now to re-interview somebody you
5 had already spoken to and had taken the information from
6 him that's on the questionnaire?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You were told that information had come into the
9 system --
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. -- that led those very senior officers to believe that
12 he perhaps hadn't been fully forthcoming to you.
13 A. That's correct, Mr Chairman, yes.
14 Q. Now, I am suggesting to you that those police officers
15 told you that he had confided in somebody when you met
16 them on that occasion?
17 A. I can't remember if that was the terminology.
18 I remember them saying there was information that
19 certainly came into the system that he had witnessed
20 this event in the town centre and I was to re-interview
21 him as a matter of urgency.
22 Q. Could we have page [27084], please? The bottom third of
23 the page, please. The bottom half of that starts with
24 a sentence:
25 "I was informed that there was information ..."
50
1 Do you see that? If we could have that highlighted,
2 that would be very helpful
3 A. Yes. It has gone.
4 Q. "I was informed that there was information had come into
5 the system that Mr Jameson hadn't told us the truth,
6 that he had now confided in persons ..."
7 I think it would help at this stage if I told you
8 what this document was. This is a record of your
9 interview with the Ombudsman's office in 2001.
10 A. Okay.
11 Q. So would you agree that your memory of events in 2001
12 was better perhaps than it is now?
13 A. Certainly.
14 Q. If you told the Ombudsman's investigators in 2001 that
15 you had been told that Mr Jameson had confided in
16 persons that he had witnessed the assault, that that is,
17 in fact, what you were told?
18 A. Well, it would have been something close to that. It
19 would have been better if I had been asked in 1997 or
20 1998. I could have remembered it better then, but as
21 time goes, it is hard to remember.
22 Q. I would not disagree with you there, Mr Honeyford.
23 A. I am glad.
24 Q. But you remember being asked in 2001?
25 A. Yes, I remember being interviewed by him.
51
1 Q. Do you agree that's the most likely --
2 A. Yes, I would accept that.
3 Q. -- accurate information that you were given by
4 Superintendent McBurney and the other person?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, as an experienced officer, would you not have
7 probed that a little bit? Would you not have said to
8 Superintendent McBurney, "What has he confided, and to
9 whom has he confided? Why am I being sent down to
10 interview this person?"
11 A. I didn't ask them who he had confided in.
12 I certainly -- I believe I had voiced -- I'd said to
13 them, "I have interviewed him. He was in the town
14 centre and he had seen nothing", and now I am being told
15 that he has seen the events that happened to Mr Hamill,
16 and I was told to assess him and I was asked to assess
17 him fully, including the possibility that he might have
18 been involved in it, and, when I went down, I believe
19 I did a good assessment of him to the best of my
20 ability.
21 Q. Would you have said to Superintendent McBurney and the
22 other policewoman, "Is there a possibility here that
23 this guy was involved?"
24 A. I could have said that, probably did.
25 Q. Absolutely no indication was given to you at that point
52
1 that Mr Jameson would have been a suspect?
2 A. No. I think if there had been any inkling at all
3 whatsoever that he had been involved in it, the course
4 of action Mr McBurney would have taken would be one of
5 a caution interview, which would have been taped.
6 Q. If I could perhaps have page [27089], which is a few
7 pages later into the interview you had with the
8 Ombudsman's people in 2001. The very first paragraph,
9 if that could be highlighted, the top paragraph.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Just before you do, to explain your last
11 answer to those who may not know, interviewing him on
12 tape would be the procedure for a witness -- for
13 somebody who was a suspect.
14 A. Yes, only on a suspect.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: And no longer being treated, therefore, as
16 a witness.
17 A. That's correct, Mr Chairman, yes.
18 MR McGRORY: Sorry, sir. Yes. Perhaps I should have dealt
19 with that.
20 Now, in terms of the question as to in whom
21 Mr Jameson might have confided, having learned at this
22 point that he had confided in somebody and that's why
23 you were being asked to re-interview him, did you form
24 a view as to whom he might have confided in?
25 A. In my own mind -- and it is certainly something that
53
1 I kept to myself -- I would have believed the person he
2 would have confided in would have been his father.
3 Q. Can we talk about his father just a little bit?
4 A. Certainly.
5 Q. This is a relevant issue. His father was who,
6 Timothy Jameson's father?
7 A. I can't remember his first name just offhand.
8 Q. It would be Bobby Jameson.
9 A. Bobby Jameson, yes.
10 Q. Do you remember that Bobby Jameson had a particular
11 relationship with the police service at the time?
12 A. Yes, I do, Mr Chairman.
13 Q. Can you tell us what that relationship was?
14 A. Mr Jameson was involved in doing quite a bit of security
15 work both at police stations and at police officers'
16 houses that came under threat and I am aware that he had
17 a full-time police escort, bodyguards.
18 Q. I think it would be fair to say, Mr Honeyford, that
19 someone of that kind who performed that function for the
20 police service was a very valuable person to them.
21 A. Yes, I would agree with that.
22 Q. For obvious reasons; that people who did that work were
23 in serious danger?
24 A. Yes, that's true.
25 Q. They were hard to get?
54
1 A. Very hard to get. Nobody wanted to undertake that type
2 of work in the province at that time really.
3 Q. So you thought he might have confided in his father?
4 A. I believed so, yes.
5 Q. You discovered subsequently it wasn't his father. Is
6 that correct?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. In fact, it was his father's police escort?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Is there any possibility that you would have been told
11 when you -- on 9th May, when you met Detective Chief
12 Superintendent McBurney and the other police officer in
13 whom he had confided?
14 A. No. I can honestly say I was not told that,
15 Mr Chairman.
16 Q. You see where you say in that paragraph where you told
17 the Ombudsman that later you heard probably through the
18 pipeline that he had confided in police officers, like
19 possibly boys that had been minding his father?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now you had heard that by 2001 obviously, since you told
22 this to the Ombudsman. Can you help us as to when you
23 heard that?
24 A. No. I wish I could. I would love to be able to put
25 a date on that, but it was quite a period of time after
55
1 it. I just can't recall.
2 Q. Or who within the pipeline might have told you that?
3 A. It was probably just in passing by some other detective.
4 Q. So does that mean that in close-knit police circles it
5 was being discussed by 2001 that Timothy Jameson had
6 confided something important to his father's minders?
7 A. I don't think it was something that was talked about
8 much. I just think -- I can't even remember who said
9 that to me, but I found out somehow or other that he had
10 confided -- or it was alleged that he had confided to
11 a police officer or two police officers that guarded his
12 father.
13 Q. Well, it was being talked about enough for you to have
14 heard it?
15 A. I heard it, yes, but then again, I was still
16 Divisional CID in 2001.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: The question and answer are a bit ambiguous.
18 Was it told to you or did you hear it said in your
19 hearing? Do you follow the difference?
20 A. I can't remember which, to be honest, Mr Chairman.
21 MR McGRORY: You see, there is concern, Mr Honeyford, that
22 Timothy Jameson was treated differently than possibly
23 any other suspect because of his father's relationship
24 with the police.
25 A. I don't believe that to be the case.
56
1 Q. Well, if you thought for one moment that those who sent
2 you to interview him on 9th May, the day after
3 Robert Hamill died, knew that he had confided in police
4 officers that he had, in fact, been involved in the
5 attack, how would you have felt?
6 A. I would feel, as I do, totally pissed off about it.
7 Q. Would you have taken the view that you were being used
8 to protect him?
9 A. I would have taken the view.
10 Q. Now, can I just move on to the actual interview on
11 9th May, if you please?
12 You saw him on your own. Now, you were told by
13 Chief Superintendent McBurney that he needed seen fairly
14 quickly and that it was urgent. Isn't that correct?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. Obviously it was very important, because this is now
17 a murder investigation?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Was that common practice, to speak to someone in those
20 circumstances without anybody with you?
21 A. It would have been common enough. On some occasions
22 there would be two detectives would interview a witness
23 and sometimes there would only be one. It would depend
24 on the resources and what other detectives were doing.
25 Q. This interview lasted for a couple of hours?
57
1 A. That is correct.
2 Q. During the course of the interview, as you have said,
3 you began to realise that this chap, what he is telling
4 you was making him into a fairly key witness?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You go up again to see Detective Superintendent McBurney
7 and the other policewoman?
8 A. Yes, I had to do, yes.
9 Q. You asked for guidance?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. At this point, did nobody say to you, "Better take
12 somebody else down with you"?
13 A. No.
14 Q. With hindsight now, in view of what happened
15 subsequently at the consultation that we spoke about at
16 the law courts -- we will come to that in detail
17 later -- do you feel that left you vulnerable?
18 A. No, not particularly. On a number of occasions, any
19 number of occasions, you would be interviewing on your
20 own a witness. Suspects would seldom be interviewed by
21 one detective. There would always be two, but
22 witnesses, sometimes there could be two police officers,
23 sometimes there would be one.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McGrory, you may be more helped not by
25 hindsight but whether it is said there was anything
58
1 which should have put the witness on notice that he
2 ought not to interview Jameson unless there was someone
3 else with him.
4 MR McGRORY: I think you heard what the Chairman has said
5 there. Was there anything that alerted you at that
6 time?
7 A. Nothing at all, Mr Chairman.
8 Q. But, of course, then we come to the consultation in the
9 High Court --
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. -- wherever it was. You arrive there. The room is full
12 of people, including senior Crown counsel and including
13 Bobby Jameson, Timothy Jameson's father.
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. At this meeting young Timothy Jameson starts to take
16 a different course, does he not?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. He is saying basically that you put words in his mouth?
19 A. That is so.
20 Q. What I suggest to you I find puzzling about this is that
21 this was accepted, so what I want to ask you is this:
22 did you not protest to anybody in the room that this was
23 not so?
24 A. No. I didn't protest. I wasn't asked to comment on it
25 either. I was merely -- mainly there as an observer.
59
1 I was most surprised and shocked by what he said.
2 Q. Well, did nobody say, "Just a minute here" to young
3 Mr Jameson and his father. "Could you leave the room
4 a moment?" and then ask you, "See what he has just said?
5 What do you say about this, Detective Honeyford?"
6 A. No, that didn't happen. Nobody left the room,
7 Mr Chairman.
8 Q. You must have been feeling very uncomfortable?
9 A. Yes, I was uncomfortable.
10 Q. But you didn't speak up yourself?
11 A. No. It wasn't my place. I wasn't asked to.
12 Q. Now, you said in your statement that this was sort of
13 common practice for witnesses, or one of a number of
14 avenues to get out of giving evidence that witnesses
15 had.
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. Can you give us any other examples? Has it happened to
18 you before in your career?
19 A. I am sure it has. I retired in 2002 and for me to start
20 and write a list would be nearly impossible, but it was
21 a common thing that happened. People would make
22 a witness statement and, for whatever reason that they
23 didn't want to carry it out, all of a sudden people
24 would be made to think Mr bad policeman, "The police
25 alleged this, the police alleged that".
60
1 The same used to happen all the time in terrorist
2 interviews. It was alleged that you shouted at them.
3 It was alleged you did this. You know what? They
4 brought in tape recording, which was one of the best
5 things that ever happened, and then they quickly found
6 out this was not the case and things still went on.
7 Q. At least in those interviews there was somebody else
8 with you to back you up.
9 A. Yes. It is unfortunate. In hindsight, it would have
10 been great if there had been a secondary officer with
11 me. I would have been delighted at this stage because
12 somebody else would be able to get up and incorporate
13 what I am saying or have to say.
14 Q. You see, what you are saying, Mr Honeyford, is that this
15 happened regularly enough for it to be regarded as a way
16 out of giving evidence.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So would you agree that the system was very vulnerable
19 to the loss of good potential witnesses by sending
20 police officers on their own to take the witness
21 statement?
22 A. It is hard for me to answer that. The system is the
23 system. I don't employ the system. I just carry it
24 out.
25 Certainly I would have to say I wish on this
61
1 occasion that I had have been accompanied, but I wasn't.
2 Q. But, of course, on this occasion nobody even asked you
3 was it true what young Mr Jameson was saying about you?
4 A. That is correct, Mr Chairman.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Were you asked later?
6 A. No. I honestly believe I said to the Police Ombudsman,
7 when I was interviewed, that I don't believe for one
8 minute anyone believed what he was saying. I think
9 those that knew me -- and everybody in that room, apart
10 from Mr Cooke, would have had a good working knowledge
11 of me and known the way I work. I just think they
12 thought it was probably hideous to think I even would
13 have treated people that way. I didn't treat them bad.
14 It is annoying to be accused of it, I can tell you.
15 Q. Thank you, Mr Honeyford.
16 A. Thank you.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Before you sit down, Mr McGrory, are you
18 suggesting that -- I can follow that to have two people
19 present at an interview may make the officer who is
20 attacked less vulnerable, but that's not so much the
21 issue. It is whether you are suggesting that to have
22 two people at an interview would have done more to
23 prevent the person making the statement from rescinding
24 or retracting from it, retracting it later.
25 MR McGRORY: Yes, that's what I am saying, sir.
62
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.
2 MR McGRORY: I have just thought of one more question, if I
3 may.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, of course.
5 MR McGRORY: Throughout the time that young Timothy Jameson
6 is saying all these things about you, his father is
7 present.
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. Are you aware of any complaint his father might have
10 made about the treatment of his son by you?
11 A. No, Mr Chairman. What I would like to say about that,
12 in those days, within Northern Ireland and within the
13 RUC, I think it is safe to say everybody and their
14 granny would know how to make a complaint against the
15 police. There was a particular procedure in dealing
16 with it and I am quite aware Mr Jameson would have knew
17 how to implement that procedure or anybody else,
18 including the DPP, if they had felt I had done any
19 wrongdoing.
20 Q. Do you think if Mr Jameson senior felt his son was
21 making a serious allegation that you had bullied him
22 into making this statement, he would have taken it up?
23 A. He most certainly would have and he most certainly would
24 have knew how to.
25 MR McGRORY: Thank you.
63
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr McComb?
2 Cross-examination by MR McCOMB
3 MR MCCOMB: There is agreement I go next. It may be
4 Mr Atchison may have some further questions after I have
5 sat down.
6 Now, Mr Honeyford, are you aware that
7 Timothy Jameson was then arrested some considerable time
8 later, 2001?
9 A. No.
10 Q. You may not be, because you were not involved.
11 A. No, I have never been aware of that, Mr Chairman, never.
12 Q. Is it fair to say you have had a considerable number of
13 years' experience in dealing with, as you have said,
14 hardened terrorists?
15 A. Yes. I joined the CID in 1979 and I was in
16 Divisional CID in J Division right through to my
17 retirement in September 2002.
18 Q. Indeed, as perhaps many of us know, many of those people
19 in interviews just sit, perhaps stare blankly at the
20 wall for day after day?
21 A. Yes. That is correct.
22 Q. But on occasions, you and your colleagues, and you,
23 yourself, were successful in obtaining an admission from
24 them?
25 A. That is so.
64
1 Q. Even though they were, of course, experienced in
2 counter-terrorism and counter-interrogation themselves?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. I am not suggesting that you were -- or were you, in
5 fact, under any particular pressure, you and your
6 colleagues, to get information, to get statements in
7 relation to the Robert Hamill case?
8 A. You are always under pressure in any investigation.
9 Q. I appreciate that, but particularly in this by the time
10 that you are interviewing him --
11 A. No. No more than any other investigation.
12 Q. I am sorry, I was just going to go on to say: were you
13 aware that relations, particularly through
14 Miss xxxxxxxxxx, had made complaints about police
15 inactivity?
16 A. I would have been aware there was correspondence between
17 xxxxxxxxxx and the station at divisional level, but
18 I wouldn't have been party to that. I wouldn't have
19 read it, wouldn't have seen it.
20 Q. Certainly it would have been of great value to have
21 somebody who had information and could perhaps lead to
22 the arrest of suspects.
23 A. Certainly.
24 Q. Now, you said this morning to the Inquiry that you
25 thought Timothy was being truthful.
65
1 A. That is so, yes.
2 Q. Do you remember being interviewed by the Inquiry
3 comparatively recently, and you were interviewed and
4 then you made the statement to which there has been
5 reference?
6 A. Yes, I vaguely remember.
7 Q. Unfortunately, sir, with the transcript of the
8 interviews there do not appear to be any pages, but
9 I have mentioned this to my learned friend Mr Underwood.
10 May I just ask you some questions? If you say you
11 can't remember having said it, of course, please do.
12 These are a verbatim note of what is contained in the
13 transcript.
14 Do you remember saying:
15 "It's very safe to say that I was suspicious of him
16 when he came into the station. I still am."
17 A. Yes. I would always have that doubt. If I go and
18 interview a person, as in this case was on 29th April,
19 who tells me "Yes, I was in the town centre. No,
20 I didn't see or witness anything", and then a number of
21 weeks later I am told that he had seen, I would be
22 a very poor police officer if I didn't have something at
23 the back of mind to indicate and say, "Is there
24 a possibility that he was involved?"
25 Certainly I was always very conscious and worried in
66
1 case he was.
2 Q. When you say he was involved, not just as a spectator?
3 A. Yes, involved as attacker.
4 Q. As an attacker?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Is it your case that you still are suspicious, for
7 whatever reason, that he was?
8 A. I probably still am. I felt I had given a lengthy
9 interview. I had covered in detail and I pressed upon
10 him as much as one can the need to tell the truth. You
11 do it in simple terms. It is not science, technology.
12 I said, "There is a lot of names here. You know,
13 I know these fellows are going to be arrested. The
14 problem you have is if some of them name you, you will
15 be arrested". He was confident. There was no
16 stuttering. There was no nervousness. He was confident
17 he was not involved in it. That was relayed to
18 Mr McBurney when I went up and spoke to him regarding
19 the issue about identity.
20 Q. Were you confident he had not been involved?
21 A. I was confident at the time of the interview. There was
22 nothing that he said that indicated in any way
23 whatsoever that he was involved, and I related that to
24 Mr McBurney. If I had -- if I had to say what was said
25 in interview room, you could pre-judge all day and still
67
1 wonder but it is not going to change things; the fact
2 that he was given a good lengthy interview and he
3 remained adamant he was not involved in it, and I had to
4 accept that at the end of the day.
5 Q. If you hadn't, you would then have arrested him, if you
6 had reasonable grounds?
7 A. Certainly, if there had been any indication, if he had
8 made any comment to the fact he would have been involved
9 in this in any way, it would have been my duty to arrest
10 him and caution him, which I would have done.
11 Q. Then he would have been interviewed. As I understand
12 it, he would have been taken from Portadown to another
13 police office?
14 A. Yes. Portadown is not a designated PACE station. He
15 would have been taken to Lurgan and there it would have
16 been a taped interview.
17 Q. You said also, and may I just quote you:
18 "I was very surprised that his name didn't come out
19 as involved in it. I half suspected he would end up
20 being arrested and interviewed ..."
21 That was in the context of that interview you had
22 with him, Mr Honeyford.
23 A. With?
24 Q. With Timothy Jameson. May I read it to you again, just
25 for clarity?
68
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. "I was very surprised that his name didn't come up as
3 being involved in it. I half suspected he would end up
4 being arrested and interviewed ..."
5 How do you square that with your belief today that
6 he had, in fact, been truthful and not been involved as
7 an attacker?
8 A. Well, when you look at it, do you know who has told the
9 truth in respect of this? What I have had is two main
10 witnesses. Him and Mr Wright had quite a bit to
11 contribute to this. I feel what Mr Jameson told me was
12 the truth in what he seen, and I feel, if he had been
13 man enough to stand up and give evidence, which is what
14 people should have been doing in Northern Ireland at
15 that period of time, we could have had a very successful
16 conviction for the murder of Mr Hamill.
17 Q. I shall not dwell on it because I think I have asked you
18 a couple of times already. How do you square that with
19 saying you were suspicious of him and still are?
20 A. The fact that the first time round, having seen nothing,
21 and then the second time, as I have said, when I went
22 down to interview him, I always had this doubt in my
23 mind. I was asked to assess him, and part of the
24 assessment was: assess him as a witness and see what he
25 has to say, but it has to be detailed, and also keep in
69
1 mind that he could be a suspect.
2 But I certainly wasn't told by Mr McBurney or
3 Witness P39 that there was any indication he had been
4 involved in the attack at all. If there had been, I am
5 quite happy it would have been a cautioned interview
6 from the word go.
7 Q. If Mr McBurney had said he was aware that
8 Timothy Jameson was potentially involved in the murder
9 prior to today -- that was when he was being
10 interviewed -- it is at 22849, sir -- that was
11 Mr McBurney's interview with the Ombudsman as well.
12 I will not go through that in any detail, because we
13 will come to that with Mr McBurney. In one of his
14 answers to one of the interviewers who asked him:
15 "Would you have been aware that Timothy Jameson was
16 potentially involved in the murder prior to taking his
17 statement?
18 "McBurney: Oh, yes, I would have been aware."
19 Did he communicate to you, Mr McBurney, that this
20 young man might be potentially involved as an attacker?
21 A. No, no, definitely not, Mr Chairman.
22 Q. Now, we know that Mr McBurney has always made the case
23 certainly in his interviews, as you have as well, that
24 there was no communication either to him or to Mr Irwin
25 or to P39 that Timothy Jameson himself had been involved
70
1 in kicking -- had been possibly an attacker of either
2 Mr Hamill or somebody else that night?
3 A. I believe so. Certainly there was nothing relayed to me
4 by either of those officers to indicate that he was.
5 Q. You have never been aware of the identity, have you, of
6 the police officers who may have given this information
7 or some information which sparked off the Inquiry?
8 A. I became aware of it -- again, I would love to be in
9 a position to say when, but it was probably years after
10 the initial investigation.
11 Q. Yes, indeed. You said that. May we be shown [80671],
12 please? This is a statement of G. Can we agree that
13 that indeed was one of the two? There was another who
14 is referred to as P20. G was one of the ones who came
15 into the police office that afternoon of 9th May and
16 communicated some information to Mr McBurney and
17 Mr Irwin. Could we scroll down, please, to paragraph 12
18 of that?
19 SIR JOHN EVANS: Does the witness know who G is?
20 A. I don't, Mr Chairman.
21 MR McCOMB: We don't want a name obviously.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: There is no reason why a name shouldn't be
23 written on a piece of paper and handed to him so he
24 knows what you are asking him about.
25 MR McCOMB: Perhaps if my learned friends could do so.
71
1 MR UNDERWOOD: I am so sorry. I was engaged in trying to
2 determine whether this avowedly draft witness statement
3 has ever been signed so that that can be clarified, but
4 in the meanwhile the name will be given up. I should
5 just make it clear that G has not signed this statement
6 yet.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Will this take long to find?
8 MR McCOMB: No. There are three paragraphs I wish to refer
9 to and put to Mr Honeyford.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: He has the name now. Perhaps we should see
11 it as well. Have you seen it? Have you seen it,
12 Mr McComb?
13 MR McCOMB: I haven't seen it. I have an idea, but
14 I haven't actually seen it.
15 Is it possible, having seen it -- again, we will not
16 mention the name -- that he was one of the people who
17 minded Mr Jameson?
18 A. Yes, I am aware he would have been one of the security
19 team that minded him.
20 Q. Now it would seem that both you and his partner, his
21 regular partner, were told something by Timothy Jameson
22 in the afternoon of 9th May and they communicated that
23 to the police, as I have suggested to you.
24 Would you be surprised to know, that, in fact, what
25 they said -- what G says is that he and his partner,
72
1 P20, went into the police office and told Messrs Irwin
2 and McBurney that, in fact, they had just been told by
3 Timothy that he had put the boot in or he had kicked at
4 somebody when he was in Portadown that night of
5 the 26th.
6 A. So what are you asking me in respect of that?
7 Q. I am asking you: would it surprise you to hear that, in
8 fact, G and his partner communicated much more to the
9 officers?
10 A. Yes, I would be surprised, yes.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McComb, whether he was surprised or not,
12 how will that help us to ascertain the facts about
13 Jameson?
14 MR McCOMB: Well, certainly in relation to that, sir, it is
15 not our contention that that was a truthful thing.
16 Quite separately from that the question is whether that
17 was said and communicated to the officers, particularly
18 Mr McBurney, whether it was true or not.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: His surprise about it is neither here nor
20 there.
21 MR McCOMB: Well, you have not heard of this before, have
22 you?
23 A. No, not -- I have heard about it when I was interviewed
24 by the Police Ombudsman, but I had not heard about it
25 during the investigation.
73
1 Q. Indeed. May I just read to you from paragraph 12,
2 please [80674]? Can we highlight that? Do you have it
3 there in front of you:
4 "There is one conversation during the course of our
5 duties that I can readily remember, without needing to be
6 reminded. I cannot remember the date of this
7 conversation, but I am now informed that it was on
8 9 May 1997. Reserve Constable P20 and I were at
9 Mr Jameson's house, the one to which he had moved after
10 splitting up from his wife ... Timothy was staying with
11 his father at that time."
12 If we can just scroll down a little in paragraph 12
13 and just highlight the latter half:
14 "Timothy was staying with his father at that time.
15 While Mr Jameson was changing upstairs,
16 Reserve Constable P20 and I went out ... for
17 a cigarette, because, Mr Jameson, being a non-smoker, we
18 were not allowed to smoke in the house."
19 Just bear with me one second.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
21 MR MCCOMB: Can we go down to paragraph 14, please? Sorry.
22 The second half of that paragraph. It is [80675].
23 If we look at the second and third lines:
24 "I was surprised by what he told us. He did not say
25 who was fighting or if he recognised anyone in the
74
1 crowd. We did not question him or ask him to explain
2 what he meant by 'Fenian' or his comment that 'he put
3 the boot in'. With the investigation into
4 Robert Hamill's murder going on, I recognised the
5 importance of the information. I took Reserve Constable
6 P20 to one side and told him that we had to do something
7 about it. Reserve Constable P20 agreed, so we both
8 decided to go down to CID office in Portadown."
9 He goes on to say that he communicated that
10 information to Messrs McBurney and Irwin.
11 Now, you can't say whether that's right or wrong
12 obviously.
13 A. I can't, Mr Chairman, no.
14 Q. If we may go to paragraphs 19 and 20 finally in relation
15 to this statement [80676] and perhaps highlight those,
16 please, second line:
17 "I have been referred to my later statement dated
18 23rd May 2001 ... where I said 'I did have further
19 contact with Timothy Jameson again, but the incident
20 concerning the death of Robert Hamill was never
21 mentioned'. By this I meant that I would have seen
22 Timothy again in passing about Mr Jameson's house while
23 I was on duty and would have said 'Hello. How are you?'
24 but the subject was never revisited."
25 Can we just go to 20 as well finally? Highlight
75
1 that. If we just take the last four lines:
2 "I was not informed of the decision to treat
3 Timothy Jameson as a witness, but I would have expected
4 that, in light of the information passed on by
5 Reserve Constable P20 and myself to Detective Inspector
6 Irwin and Detective Chief Superintendent McBurney, he
7 would have been treated as a suspect."
8 Again, does that come as news to you now?
9 A. Yes, that comes as news, yes.
10 Q. You did say that you gave Timothy Jameson a fair
11 grilling during his --
12 A. That is correct, Mr Chairman. I did. I am happy to
13 stand over that.
14 Q. I think your description of the witness statement said
15 it was a very hard witness interview.
16 A. Yes, it took a lot of time. As I have said before, and
17 I will say again, his concern was his identity, and no
18 matter how much he was telling me, every so often when
19 you were trying to cover what the people were wearing
20 and who they were, he would always say, "But what about
21 my identity?"
22 I said we would resolve it, but I explained to him
23 this could not be taken by me, this decision, but it
24 could be by Mr McBurney. Even if he wanted to make
25 a statement, I would not have recorded one until I spoke
76
1 to Mr McBurney regarding that point, because it was
2 vitally important.
3 Q. I think perhaps in the context of a fair grilling it
4 doesn't mean that it was a difficult interview when you
5 use the word "hard". You were going quite hard on him?
6 A. It means it was long, it was lengthy, it was detailed,
7 and we had to cover all those aspects. That's what
8 I call long and hard. I don't mean by "hard" I was
9 raising my voice or being forceful to him or being
10 arrogant to him.
11 Q. It was a very hard witness statement, in fact.
12 A. Hard being what I said.
13 Q. Were you at all anxious about this interview taking
14 place? He was 17 at the time I understand.
15 A. 17 or 18 I believe.
16 Q. I understand he was 17, but I am subject to correction.
17 Did you think yourself -- again, this was when you
18 were being interviewed by the Inquiry -- that it was
19 probably better -- Mr McBurney said to you this was
20 a priority:
21 "'Probably better for Mr Jameson to be interviewed at
22 the police station outside his home environment', which
23 I believed would have been the correct course myself."
24 Was that your belief, that it would have been
25 preferable to ask him questions when he was only
77
1 a witness perhaps in his home environment, bearing in
2 mind his youth?
3 A. I think he was of age to be interviewed on his own and
4 I believe the correct procedure on that occasion was to
5 take him outside of his environment of his parents.
6 I feel maybe if he had been interviewed in front of
7 his mother, he wouldn't have been maybe as forthcoming.
8 Q. I see. The witness in Portadown Police Station at that
9 time were not very good for -- you refer to what it was
10 like. I need not quote that.
11 A. Yes, please.
12 Q. We can say what you thought it was then. You say it was
13 a "shit hole".
14 A. Yes. I was asked by the Independent Police Board. My
15 Lord, they seemed to put great emphasis on the luxury of
16 interview rooms. I just told them boldly and truthfully
17 that when I arrived there in March 1977 and looked at
18 it -- it was an old Victorian house and it could only be
19 described as a shit hole. I told them when I went over
20 in 2002 to say cheerio to a few people, it was the same.
21 Q. And the conditions -- sorry. Did I cut you off?
22 A. No.
23 Q. You said the conditions were not good for interviewing.
24 A. No, they weren't, no.
25 Q. Where you interviewed Mr Jameson was down in the
78
1 basement, was it?
2 A. That's correct, Mr Chairman.
3 Q. You then had to go up two flights of stairs, I think, to
4 the other room which might have been available for
5 interviewing.
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. You did go up from time to time or -- did you go up,
8 first of all?
9 A. No, I had no need to go up to the second interview. If
10 and when I had to go to see Mr McBurney, I had to go out
11 of the back door, which is adjacent to the interview
12 room, cross the yard, which would be no further than
13 that lady who is doing the typing, and up the stairs to
14 the CID office.
15 Q. Where you were interviewing downstairs, was it quite
16 normal or quite common for other policemen to come in if
17 you were in the middle of an interview and say, "Sorry"?
18 A. Yes, more times than enough, yes.
19 Q. But nothing like that happened during this two --
20 perhaps slightly more than two hours?
21 A. No. It must have been a quiet night. People would
22 always be pushing the door open. There wasn't one of
23 these signs saying "Interview in progress. Keep out".
24 It was just an ordinary room, but it was the designated
25 interview room. It was one of only two. It was basic
79
1 with a capital "B", and you would always have had people
2 pushing the door open and saying, "Are you going to be
3 long? I'm interviewing somebody about an accident", and
4 you would have said, "I am going to be half an hour", or
5 "I'm going now", or, "Get lost. I am going to be here
6 for ages", just whatever you had to tell them.
7 MR MCCOMB: I think my friend would wish to ask some
8 questions.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: I am not very sure why we have two series of
10 questions from the same team.
11 MR ATCHISON: Yes, certainly, sir. I can assure you that
12 I wouldn't propose to duplicate any of the questions
13 proffered by the learned counsel who preceded me.
14 May I ask, Mr Honeyford, once it was established
15 that Mr Jameson was going to give evidence in favour of
16 proffering a conviction, at that stage, given you were
17 interviewing a young man on his own, did it occur to you
18 to invite a parent or a guardian to attend?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Even though you knew that you were alone with this young
21 boy or young man?
22 A. Well, I was happy that I could conduct the interview on
23 my own and he certainly was of the age -- if he had been
24 16, that would have been outside the remit. He would
25 have had to have a parent, but he was 17.
80
1 I did say to his mother, because his mother said,
2 "Is he involved in anything? Is he involved in any
3 trouble?" and I remember telling her, "No, he is not.
4 He is a witness. But if you want to come down, you can
5 come down".
6 I have to say, if either of the two parents had
7 arrived with him, I would have been quite happy for them
8 to sit in, but, as I said to the Police Board when I was
9 interviewed, that seldom happened. You never would have
10 had parents coming in much and you would never have had
11 a solicitor sitting in on a witness interview much
12 either.
13 Q. Can I ask, was it a long interview?
14 A. Yes, it was a long interview. It lasted from
15 approximately 8 o'clock until probably approximately
16 10.30 pm or 10.45 pm.
17 Q. If I say that Mr Jameson suggests it lasted
18 approximately five hours, is that possible?
19 A. No, I don't believe so. We didn't go that long.
20 Q. Do you agree that it was a long interview and, to use
21 your words, a slow interview?
22 A. Yes, it was a slow interview.
23 Q. You at that time, of course, were an experienced police
24 officer.
25 A. Yes.
81
1 Q. I am sure you had the ability to elicit evidence.
2 A. Yes, I had, yes.
3 Q. Now, is there any particular reason why it took -- your
4 words were, "I had to take my time".
5 A. Well, this is an important witness for a murder inquiry.
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. Not only do you want to elicit all the names of the
8 persons he has possibly seen carrying out this assault.
9 You had to also cover all aspects: what he had to drink,
10 how far he was standing from them, what he seen. I had
11 to establish everything that he knew, and on top of all
12 that we had this problem, overriding problem, that he
13 was concerned about his identity, and how that would be
14 dealt with, and I had to try to relay how that worked.
15 Q. Touching upon the drink issue, Mr Jameson, in the
16 statement that you took from him you recounted that he
17 hadn't drank very much that night.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Mr Jameson had said that he had a lot to drink, that he
20 was badly inebriated.
21 A. That's correct, yes.
22 Q. Now in that context he has said that names were offered
23 by you.
24 A. That's correct, but that's untrue.
25 Q. Is it possible that that's the reason why the interview
82
1 took so long, that you were, in fact, applying pressure
2 to this young man?
3 A. Well, I think, to be honest, if I had knew all this and
4 all the names, the interview could have been done in
5 quite a short period of time, if what they are
6 suggesting is right, that I wrote the statement out and
7 bullied him into signing, but that didn't happen. I had
8 to obtain this information.
9 Q. In order to prepare the statement did you draft many
10 notes prior to settling the statement itself?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. Can you say from your recollection how many pages of
13 notes you prepared?
14 A. It could have been four, five, six, only roughly
15 guessing.
16 Q. Would you have written out a rough draft in essence
17 before you settled the final statement?
18 A. No, no, it just would have been rough notes on scrap
19 paper, interview paper.
20 Q. Given you say this was a very significant witness, very
21 important witness, did you not think it important to
22 retain those notes?
23 A. No, I did not, Mr Chairman. I have to say at that stage
24 that was not policy. However, as I told the Independent
25 Police when I was interviewed, maybe approximately
83
1 a year after that we all went on an interviewing
2 technique course. Believe it or believe it not, we
3 found that we were interviewing wrong for many numbers
4 of years. We did a course which lasted a week. I have
5 to say I was on many courses throughout my career in the
6 RUC and the PSNI, and this by far was one of the better
7 courses that I had ever attended, because it changed
8 your whole way of interviewing, which, to be honest,
9 would be what you are saying, would have been keeping
10 all these notes and a particular way of doing them, but
11 it wasn't done at the time. Notes weren't kept.
12 Q. Now I don't want to duplicate an earlier question, but
13 would it be fair to say in your day as a detective
14 constable you had the ability to question witnesses and
15 question them hard, if needs be?
16 A. Yes, certainly.
17 Q. And you relayed to your colleagues -- you say whenever
18 you went up to Detective Constables McBurney and Irwin,
19 you explained to them that you had been running him.
20 You had put him over it.
21 A. Such terminology, that's interviewed him.
22 Q. You were confident as an experienced officer that
23 Mr Jameson had had no part in this crime?
24 A. Certainly Mr McBurney would have asked me, "How did the
25 interview go?" If there had been any indication
84
1 whatsoever, any doubt that Mr Jameson had been involved
2 in it, I would have had to put that forward, because we
3 certainly wouldn't have been going down the avenue of
4 taking a witness statement off him.
5 Q. You also said:
6 "I am a strong personality, very, very strong."
7 Do you agree with that?
8 A. I do.
9 Q. This was a young man out of his comfort zone perhaps, if
10 we were to use that phrase, in a police station. Is it
11 possible that you did apply pressure to this young man?
12 A. No, I don't -- I believe my experience and my strongness
13 can be used to my ability in both ways. If there is
14 an interview where you have to be that way, I can be it,
15 but this was a young man who had come from a good
16 background who was, I have to say, more than pleasant,
17 better than most witnesses I would have to interview.
18 I got on particularly well with him and there wasn't
19 a problem.
20 Q. If I am right in the chronology of events that night,
21 you say that you questioned Mr Jameson for an hour and
22 a half. You then returned upstairs and sought consent
23 from your superior in relation to offering anonymity?
24 A. Yes, Mr Chairman, yes.
25 Q. Now, at that stage, did you know that Mr Jameson -- or
85
1 do you say that Mr Jameson had told you about the facts
2 that he then relayed in the statement.
3 A. Yes, he had covered most of them, yes.
4 Q. Now, at that stage, did you not think it important to
5 bring down either Detective Inspector Irwin or McBurney,
6 either of those two individuals with you?
7 A. No, I didn't feel that I had to have anybody holding my
8 hand, Mr Chairman.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: It might be helpful, if there is a reason why
10 he should have done, to suggest what the reason was and
11 then get his answer.
12 MR ATCHISON: Yes.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Soon, I hope.
14 MR ATCHISON: Very much.
15 You said, Mr Honeyford, that McBurney and Irwin were
16 very hands-on investigators.
17 A. Yes, they are two experienced officers. Certainly
18 Mr McBurney is.
19 Q. You gave the example that, in your experience,
20 Mr McBurney in particular had no hesitation in attending
21 in the city centre at 4.00 am --
22 A. That is correct.
23 Q. -- to observe a simple reconstruction.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, given they were, in your words, such hands-on
86
1 investigators and this was meant to be the key witness
2 in a murder, did it not occur to you to invite them to
3 come down and engage with you?
4 A. No. It wouldn't have occurred to me. I didn't feel it
5 necessary. If they had have wanted to come down, that's
6 up to them. That's their protocol. They could have
7 said "I am sending down Michael Irwin to join you".
8 That would have been happy days now, wouldn't it? But
9 he didn't so ...
10 Q. Beyond that, after the interview was conducted, you say
11 you simply released Mr Jameson and he went home.
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. You didn't think to say to Detective Constables McBurney
14 or Irwin, "This is the statement I have obtained. Do
15 you want to speak to this young man before I release
16 him?"
17 A. No. I took the statement. I offered him a lift home.
18 He said no. He wanted to walk home. It is a short
19 distance to his house from the station. I went
20 upstairs, I went into the office, I handed the statement
21 over to Mr McBurney. I believe in my presence he read
22 through it. It was late and I headed for home. I knew
23 the next day when I came in there would probably be
24 a lot of arrests and searches to be done as a result of
25 it, and that was the end of it.
87
1 Q. Am I right as well that you said, when you interview
2 somebody, you get it right the first time? You pride
3 yourself on that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Would it be possible there was some source of
6 embarrassment that you had to revisit the issue with
7 Mr Jameson --
8 A. No. No, that's --
9 Q. -- that you hadn't elicited this information the first
10 time?
11 A. I would say the first interview that I would refer that
12 to was really the second interview. If I got it wrong
13 on 9th May, I would take that personally, but the first
14 interview was a pro forma that he was in the town. It
15 wouldn't be construed as a full-blown, proper interview.
16 Q. Again, sir, I would not propose to repeat the earlier
17 points relayed by my friends --
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly not. That's it, is it?
19 MR ATCHISON: No. Briefly, sir, if I might conclude?
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Very briefly, yes.
21 MR ATCHISON: Very briefly. Certainly, sir, you will
22 appreciate that I have a mandate to rely and that
23 I propose not to inhibit the Inquiry in any manner
24 simply to facilitate that.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.
88
1 MR ATCHISON: Am I right that whenever the meeting was
2 conducted with the DPP and Mr Kerr, at that stage it has
3 been established that you had no remark when Mr Jameson
4 volunteered that the words had been put in his mouth by
5 you?
6 THE CHAIRMAN: We have heard that already. Don't repeat it,
7 please.
8 MR ATCHISON: I am setting the context, sir. Is it the
9 case -- what would normally happen if somebody made
10 an allegation you had put words in their mouth?
11 A. Normally there would be certain forms filled in,
12 complaint against police forms and it would be sent to
13 the police investigation team for me to be interviewed
14 under caution for whatever misconduct or criminal
15 offence was alleged to have been happened.
16 Q. Had any such allegations been proffered against you in
17 the past? Had you any experience of such an
18 investigation?
19 A. Oh, yes. Certainly as a divisional detective
20 interviewing in Gough barracks, Castlereagh and anywhere
21 else, there were always complaints being made.
22 Q. As ably identified by Mr McGrory, I understand that you
23 were not challenged in relation to the allegation by
24 Mr Jameson, but I understand that a further allegation
25 of course was then made by Mr Wright. He retracted
89
1 a statement and he also said that you put words in his
2 mouth.
3 A. I have been made aware of that. I wasn't present in
4 court or wherever he gave his evidence.
5 Q. Were you ever questioned or investigated in relation to
6 that allegation?
7 A. I don't believe so, no. There was no complaint made, so
8 far as I remember.
9 MR ATCHISON: Thank you.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I see the time. 2.05. It may be
11 a little after that.
12 (1.05 pm)
13 (The luncheon adjournment)
14 (2.05 pm)
15 (In Camera Session)
16 (3.40 pm)
17 (Witness returned to hearing room)
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Sit down.
19 MR GREEN: Sir, if I might be permitted one or two
20 questions?
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
22 MR GREEN: Mr Honeyford, you retired from the police force
23 in 2002, if my memory serves me right.
24 A. That's correct, Mr Chairman.
25 Q. At that stage, you had 26 years of service. Isn't that
90
1 right?
2 A. 26 in the regular, yes. I had also been in the reserve
3 two and a half or three years before that.
4 Q. So you would have joined --
5 A. '74.
6 Q. -- in 1974. That was really just after the very peak of
7 the troubles in this part of the world. Isn't that
8 right?
9 A. That is so, yes.
10 Q. Would I be right in saying that what you did as part of
11 your duty was directly related for the most part in the
12 troubles here. Is that right?
13 A. Yes, indeed.
14 Q. To the extent that, in fact, you did very little else
15 apart from interrogation and interviewing of suspects at
16 Gough and Castlereagh Holding Centre. Isn't that right?
17 A. Certainly, Mr Chairman, a vast majority of the time
18 would have been spent with terrorist stuff, but it was
19 also Divisional CID, which meant in between bouts of
20 interviewing in Gough barracks and Castlereagh, you had
21 every other type of CID work to do, which was the
22 robberies, domestic murders and whatever else came
23 along.
24 Q. I would be right in saying your responsibilities for
25 non-CID work took priority. Isn't that right?
91
1 A. Yes, terrorist crimes would take priority first, yes.
2 Q. In fact, to the extent that it stopped you undergoing
3 certain training with respect to, for instance, PACE
4 interviewing. Isn't that right?
5 A. Yes. One of the CID courses, which is like a 22-week
6 continuous course of law, learning various things, and
7 it had to be cut short. It was at the height of the
8 troubles. I think it must have been in the early 1980s.
9 We were all dispatched back to our stations because of
10 the civil unrest.
11 Q. You seem to have a very good memory of that, but just
12 for the record, if we could bring up Mr Honeyford's
13 statement to the Inquiry, please. It is paragraph 35 of
14 that [80481]. In fact, that is an issue, Mr Honeyford,
15 that you had addressed specifically by the person
16 interviewing you for that statement. Isn't that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. We can just read that:
19 "I am asked what training I had received before
20 April 1997. In 1980 or 1981 I began a four-month course
21 with CID. The trouble was so bad in the province at the
22 time that all training was cancelled and we all had to
23 return to our stations. I had not, by April 1997,
24 received formal training in the HOLMES system or PACE
25 interviewing methods. We had no formal training, but,
92
1 instead, hands-on experience in dealing with major
2 incidents."
3 Is that right?
4 A. That would be reasonably correct, yes.
5 Q. Now provisions of PACE were enacted in this jurisdiction
6 in what year? Can you remember?
7 A. I can't, no.
8 Q. 1987? Was it in or around 1987?
9 A. I would be only be agreeing with you for the sake of
10 agreeing with you. I don't know.
11 Q. So whatever work you did that was non-terrorist related,
12 you had no training in interviewing and the handling of
13 witnesses in that regard?
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Just one moment. Did PACE relate to
15 interviewing witnesses?
16 MR GREEN: Suspects.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Suspects, yes. You see, you included
18 witnesses in that question as though it were part of the
19 PACE procedures.
20 MR GREEN: Yes.
21 From 1987 until 1997 we had the provisions of PACE
22 in this jurisdiction for the interviewing and
23 questioning of suspects. Isn't that right?
24 A. Yes, I believe so.
25 Q. The fundamental difference with PACE was that solicitors
93
1 by and large were entitled to be present during the
2 interviewing of the suspect who was being interviewed.
3 Isn't that right?
4 A. That is so.
5 Q. Now Marc Hobson, whom I appear for, you, in fact, first
6 dealt with him in this Inquiry or this investigation on
7 9th May 1997. Isn't that right?
8 A. If that's what the papers say, Mr Chairman. I don't
9 have any recollection of Marc Hobson, but I am sure he
10 is one of many that I did interview.
11 Q. If we could bring up page [08143], which is the
12 questionnaire pro forma, that relates to Marc Hobson.
13 Can you see that document in front of you?
14 A. I can, yes, Mr Chairman.
15 Q. It is dated 9 May 1997 and the time is given at 7.00 pm.
16 Isn't that right?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. If we go through that, the questionnaire pro forma is
19 already set out before you begin that process. Isn't
20 that right? So the questions are all set down in
21 writing before you, in fact, engage Mr Hobson. Isn't
22 that right?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. Go over the page to [08144], please. Question 7, if we
25 could highlight that section:
94
1 Question: "What were you wearing on the night in
2 question?"
3 Answer: "Black leather jacket, waist-length, white
4 Nike trainers, bubble type, blue jeans, grey round neck
5 sweatshirt, either 'Muzono' or 'Nike' printed on it."
6 That was his answer to the question:
7 Question: "What were you wearing on night in
8 question?"
9 Isn't that right?
10 A. Yes. Obviously that's what I wrote.
11 Q. Question 9 gives the person's physical description. Is
12 this you recording, looking at the person in front of
13 you, his description as far as you were concerned?
14 A. Yes, I believe so, yes.
15 Q. That's given as 5 foot 8 tall, short brown hair,
16 sideboards, moustache/goat beard."
17 Is that both a moustache and goat beard or just one?
18 A. Moustache and goat beard, I would say.
19 Q. "14 stone, well-built, gold earring in left ear,
20 freckles on face, high forehead."
21 Isn't that right?
22 A. Yes, that's what it says.
23 Q. Do you remember then you took a statement from Mr Hobson
24 presumably on the strength of that information later
25 that same day?
95
1 A. I don't recall that from memory, but I am sure ...
2 Q. I don't need it brought up, but there is a statement on
3 the record dated 9th May and it gives you as being the
4 person who took that statement. Then he was released
5 from custody. Is that your recollection?
6 A. It was a witness statement or caution statement?
7 Q. Sorry, he was released from whatever assistance he was
8 giving you?
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Forgive me. If he is not in custody, he is
10 not released. He is free to go. Now, be clear.
11 MR GREEN: He then left the police station, having conducted
12 that interview and provided the statement. Isn't that
13 right?
14 A. Yes, that would be a fair way of putting it, yes.
15 Q. It was early the next morning when he was arrested.
16 Isn't that right?
17 A. I believe so. Again, I would have to refer to
18 documents. I'm not ...
19 Q. Well, he was arrested, for the record, at 7 o'clock the
20 following morning, and you were present during that
21 arrest. Isn't that right?
22 A. I don't recall it, but if the records say I was, I am
23 sure ...
24 Q. Do you remember then interviewing him at the police
25 station on three occasions over the next 24 hours?
96
1 A. I don't recall the interview, no.
2 Q. Perhaps we could bring up just a short passage from that
3 interview. It is page [06792], please. Just highlight
4 the very top half of that page, please. You say:
5 Question: "And the way things are going, I have no
6 doubt with the passing of time more people will come
7 forward. You are fairly distinctive in your looks,
8 would you agree, Marc?"
9 Answer: "Aye."
10 Then you discuss the biker's beard.
11 Can you remember, looking back now -- I know it is
12 a long time ago, Mr Honeyford -- whether, in fact, he
13 was of a distinctive appearance?
14 A. I can't remember from memory, but I am sure the records
15 are right.
16 Q. If that's in a record of the interview that you
17 conducted with him, he must have had fairly distinctive
18 looks for you to have made that point. Would you agree
19 with that?
20 A. Probably so. I just can't recall the person in
21 question.
22 Q. In the interview of Marc Hobson, can you remember the
23 interventions of the solicitor during that interview?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Can you remember whether you viewed the role of the
97
1 solicitor as helpful to the interviewing process or not?
2 A. I can't remember what the solicitor -- whether he was
3 helpful or unhelpful.
4 Q. You see, during your responsibilities within the police
5 force, certainly at around 1997, Mr Honeyford, I am
6 going to suggest that you by and large operated without
7 the intervention of solicitors, because you had very
8 little PACE interviewing experience. Isn't that right?
9 A. I would say there was a stage when suspects were
10 arrested. They were asked when they were brought in, or
11 they were asked at the time they were arrested, did they
12 wish to have a solicitor. If they wanted a solicitor,
13 they got a solicitor.
14 It changed at some stage, in that, when the custody
15 suite was formed, once you arrived in at Lurgan police
16 station the first person you'd bring the prisoner to is
17 the custody sergeant. Really, apart from handing them
18 over to the custody sergeant and informing him of your
19 grounds of arresting him and time and date and all that,
20 the custody sergeant takes over solely and you walk away
21 and don't really see the prisoner probably for an hour,
22 an hour and a half until all the forms have been filled
23 in.
24 If he wishes to have a solicitor, you have to wait
25 until the solicitor arrives. Then he usually has
98
1 an hour with the solicitor on his own, at the end of
2 which stage then you go in and interview him and the
3 solicitor is present.
4 Q. Just remind me. Are we talking about PACE interviews or
5 non-PACE interviews?
6 A. We are talking about caution interviews, PACE, under
7 caution, yes.
8 Q. If I can just refer you to a few paragraphs of your
9 interview with Marc Hobson. Page [06737], please. Just
10 highlight the very bottom section of that. Your
11 question to him is:
12 Question: "You're right. You have nothing to be
13 proud of. You might as well say you have nothing to be
14 proud of now when there is a man lying dead, but
15 certainly you were happy with the outcome of that night
16 because the mood of the crowd that night was, 'Kill the
17 Fenian'. Marc, that was your chance (inaudible)."
18 If we can just go over the page then, [06738]. This
19 is the solicitor's intervention:
20 "Has the first witness statement that was read --
21 did that person identify anyone else other than my
22 client?"
23 That was the solicitor intervening to ask what the
24 state of the evidence was that you were putting to
25 Marc Hobson. Would you agree with that?
99
1 A. Yes, that's what he was doing.
2 Q. Do you think he was perfectly right to do that?
3 A. It's a solicitor's entitlement. As I say, I have never
4 actually found them ever very helpful in an interview,
5 but they are entitled to represent their client and
6 that's what they have to do, and he did.
7 I can't stop the solicitor -- if he wishes to make
8 a comment, he will make it. If he wishes for the
9 interview to be suspended, to talk in private, I have to
10 suspend it. It is very much in their remit that they
11 can do that.
12 Q. Do you mean you have never known a solicitor to be
13 helpful to your ends?
14 A. Well, I can't honestly say that there have been many
15 occasions in my career that I have had a solicitor that
16 has sat down and told the suspect, "You know, put your
17 hands up there and tell that detective the whole truth".
18 That would be a bit of a surprise, I am sorry to say.
19 Q. That's not what the solicitor is there to do, with all
20 due respect.
21 A. I know what the solicitor is there to do.
22 Q. He is there to protect the interests of his client for
23 whom he is appearing and representing. Isn't that
24 right?
25 A. Yes.
100
1 Q. He is quite entitled to intervene, if appropriate, at
2 stages in the interview. Isn't that right?
3 A. And he has, and whatever has come out of it is fair
4 enough.
5 Q. So when he intervenes there, your answer to him is:
6 "I'm not, we're not going
7 into ins and outs of who else he's. I think the only
8 thing I could do here. I think [blank] you are pushing
9 your luck."
10 A. I said to the solicitor?
11 Q. Uh-huh.
12 A. Yes. It's on tape. I've been saying all along the best
13 that ever happened for the police was bringing in tape
14 recording for suspect interviews, because what you say
15 on tape is on tape, and if something that I've said is
16 wrong, well, now is the time to sort it out.
17 I won't let somebody override me. I won't let
18 a solicitor override me. He is entitled to what he
19 wants to say, and if I think he is pushing his luck,
20 I will tell him he is pushing his luck. If he is not
21 happy with that, he can suspend the interview and take
22 the matter up with the Superintendent. It can be
23 resolved, as a lot of things are, outside the remit of
24 the interview. Whether I will be allowed to go in or
25 not will be a matter for him.
101
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you suggesting, Mr Green, that when the
2 solicitor asked that question, the officer should have
3 said "yes" and given him all the details?
4 MR GREEN: Certainly not.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: I wonder what we are going on about then.
6 MR GREEN: Well, what we are going on about, sir, was what
7 we would say was the belligerent attitude of this
8 interviewing officer to Marc Hobson. Whether the
9 solicitor was right or wrong in his intervention is
10 really irrelevant.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Have you any examples of belligerence towards
12 Mr Hobson that you wish to draw to our attention? That,
13 if it was belligerent, was towards the solicitor.
14 MR GREEN: Indeed. It is the intervention of the solicitor
15 which I am seeking merely to outline, sir.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well, then. Yes?
17 MR GREEN: The rights or wrongs of whether the solicitor was
18 right to intervene is irrelevant. It is the attitude
19 you had when, in fact, he did intervene. Your attitude
20 was to him a very personal attack:
21 "I think you are pushing your luck."
22 A. I am sorry if that -- if it has hurt his feelings, it's
23 hurt his feelings, but I am not really worried about
24 that. I have a job to do and I am interviewing
25 a suspect who could possibly have been involved in the
102
1 murder of Mr Hamill. You can rest assured I am going to
2 do that to the best of my ability.
3 Q. Can we bring up page [06747], please? Now, the bottom
4 four lines of that, starting with:
5 "Solicitor: You have problems, Marc ..."
6 It is wrongly identified as the solicitor's
7 question. It is clearly not.
8 Question: "You have problems, Marc. Would you
9 agree?"
10 It appears as if his solicitor advises him:
11 "Don't answer that, Mr Hobson."
12 Then the question is asked by you, I submit:
13 "No, don't answer that. Do what your solicitor
14 tells you."
15 Can we go over the page, please [06748]? Then the
16 solicitor, I suggest, says:
17 Solicitor: "Mr Hobson has given his account."
18 Question: "What do you want me to do? Do you want
19 me to stop interviewing him?"
20 "Solicitor: Look, we have been through this."
21 Question: "Well, let's --"
22 "Solicitor: I appreciate you are doing your job."
23 Question: "Well, I wish you wouldn't hinder it."
24 Was it your impression that the solicitor was
25 hindering the questioning?
103
1 A. I haven't had the benefit, nor do I wish to sit and read
2 the transcripts or put the headphones on and listen to
3 these verbatim, because they were long, long interviews,
4 but there must have been something he said that made me
5 take that attitude with him.
6 You know, I have interviewed with solicitors for
7 quite a number of years before I retired. In fact,
8 nearly every PACE interview would be done with
9 solicitors after that was brought in for suspects.
10 There is no big problem. Sometimes it gets heated.
11 I am sort of at a loss really at what you are getting at
12 here, you know.
13 MR GREEN: I will come straight to it, Mr Honeyford. I am
14 getting at: you do not, and did not, like any
15 interference from anyone or any perceived interference
16 from anyone in the conduct of an interview you were
17 conducting with a suspect. Isn't that right?
18 A. No, that's not.
19 Q. The solicitor was doing nothing more than his job, and
20 yet you were very keen to be very belligerent and cut
21 him off very quickly without any justification.
22 A. I am sitting here, and the problem I have, Mr Chairman,
23 is I can't even remember which solicitor it was, but
24 solicitors are like policemen. They vary. There are
25 some of them would come in, they would have an hour with
104
1 their client beforehand, they would come in and wouldn't
2 speak a word. There are others that come in and you
3 wonder whether you are interviewing the suspect or
4 interviewing the solicitor. Sometimes you do have to
5 remind them of who is running the interview. I am in
6 charge of the interview, not the solicitor.
7 Q. Now, when you came to speak to Mr Jameson for the second
8 time --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- Mr Jameson had provided you with the answers to the
11 questionnaire pro forma. Isn't that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. On, I think, the 9th.
14 A. The pro forma was 29th April.
15 Q. Sorry. You are quite right. 29th April. In that
16 Mr Jameson gave effectively no information that was of
17 any assistance to you. Isn't that right?
18 A. That is so.
19 Q. Of course, he was a witness then. Isn't that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. There then came a time very shortly after that whenever
22 you were given information that he may not have told you
23 the truth in that. Isn't that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did his standing, in your eyes, that is his position as
105
1 a witness, change in your mind to being something other
2 than a witness to something else?
3 A. No. As I said earlier today to this Inquiry team, I had
4 to go down and I had to assess him, but certainly in the
5 back of my mind I had to keep in focus that it is
6 a possibility he could have been involved in this
7 attack, and part of it was, and I have said it on oath,
8 I did put it to him, "Were you involved in it?" and he
9 said no. He continually said no, he was telling the
10 truth.
11 I had to point out to him, and he was already aware,
12 that there was going to be arrests, and if some of these
13 boys that he named ended up naming him as involved in
14 this serious assault, that he would be arrested, and
15 I was very confident from his demeanour and the
16 interview I had with him that he was going to be
17 a witness and that he hadn't done anything wrong.
18 Q. Yes. Now in dealing with any witness --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- it is appropriate and proper to put them at their
21 ease and to get what information you need out of them,
22 gently, if necessary, or with some degree of probing, if
23 necessary. Isn't that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Would the position have been, when you first spoke to
106
1 Mr Jameson, that you were simply asking probing or --
2 gentle, but maybe probing questions on 29th April, and
3 then the tone of the interview would have been somewhat
4 different whenever you came to question him for his
5 statement?
6 A. No. It wouldn't have been any different. The only
7 thing, it would have been more thorough. The response
8 to 29th April, that was a pro forma and there was
9 nothing to indicate really whether he had seen anything
10 or not or whether he was actually there, and he had
11 given this account. That was put into the system.
12 Somehow there was some information came in that he
13 had seen something, that he had something to tell us,
14 and I was sent out to interview him. I treated him as
15 a witness and I treated him with respect.
16 Q. But something had changed between the first occasion
17 when you spoke with him and the second occasion.
18 Knowledge had been brought to you and information
19 brought to you that he had lied to you. Isn't that
20 right?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. I am suggesting to you that your whole approach to him
23 when dealing with him for the purposes of that statement
24 would have been totally different --
25 A. No.
107
1 Q. -- and you wouldn't have liked the fact that he had lied
2 to you, barefaced lies.
3 A. I think with the amount of time I had spent with him
4 on -- was it 9th May, when the main statement was taken?
5 Certainly if I had spent that length of time with him
6 and then it had turned out that he had been involved in
7 this serious assault which led to a murder, yes, that
8 would have annoyed me, but the first interview -- you
9 have to remember the 29th is a pro forma of a page and
10 a half. There is nothing much to it. It is the very
11 first of the first enquiry that you are making.
12 Q. But the important is, Mr Honeyford, he lied to you
13 according to his later statement, if it is true. He
14 lied to you in that.
15 A. Well, I don't know who he has lied to.
16 Q. I am suggesting that when you came to discuss matters
17 with him on 9th May for the purposes of his statement,
18 your attitude to him would have been very similar
19 perhaps to the tone we see in those interviews of
20 Mr Hobson, belligerent and disrespectful and dismissive
21 of him to the extent where his free will might have been
22 overcome.
23 A. No, that wouldn't have been the case. He was very much
24 a witness. I think Mr Hobson was very much a suspect,
25 two completely different types of interview.
108
1 Q. But there was no solicitor --
2 THE CHAIRMAN: What was the manifestation of the overcoming
3 of his free will are you saying?
4 MR GREEN: Well --
5 THE CHAIRMAN: It is a serious question.
6 MR GREEN: I take it as a serious question. Mr Jameson has
7 said that what is in that statement is not what he
8 wished to record.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: I see.
10 MR GREEN: Isn't that right?
11 A. Yes. That's fair enough, Mr Chairman. That's what he
12 has put in it.
13 MR GREEN: My suggestion and my question to you is that this
14 nicey-nicey impression that you would put before this
15 Inquiry as to the type of interviewer you are would be
16 somewhat different if someone got on the wrong side of
17 you.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In an interview.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I suggest to you that Mr Jameson had got on the wrong
22 side of you by his lies to you on 29th April?
23 A. No, that's not correct. I would be quite happy it's not
24 correct.
25 Q. Just one final matter. If we could bring up
109
1 Mr Jameson's statement. Sorry, Chairman. I don't have
2 the page number. Page [00266] perhaps. He is
3 identified there as Witness B.
4 Now, that statement you say took between two and
5 three hours to compile. Is that right?
6 A. I don't know when I've -- I actually start writing up
7 the statement, but certainly it was 8 o'clock or
8 thereabouts when he came into the station and, if memory
9 serves me right, I do believe he went out somewhere
10 around between 10.30 and 10.45.
11 I am aware he says he was there longer, but I don't
12 believe so.
13 Q. That's just over three pages long and we are beholden to
14 your recollection from your duties as a police officer.
15 Would that be normally the time that it would take
16 to prepare a three-page statement, two and a half, maybe
17 three hours?
18 A. It says in this one that I am looking at that it
19 consists of six pages.
20 Q. Can you just flick on to the last page of that, please?
21 I think it is written in hand to begin with. Isn't that
22 right?
23 A. Yes, handwritten, yes.
24 Q. Then it is typed up in typescript. Isn't that right?
25 A. Uh-huh.
110
1 Q. Now, can you just tell us very briefly the mechanism by
2 which a statement like that comes about?
3 Do you understand what I am asking you? How, in
4 fact, does a police officer come to write --
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Isn't this a repetition of what he told us in
6 answer to Mr Underwood?
7 MR GREEN: Perhaps it is.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: We don't need it twice. We are listening,
9 you know.
10 MR GREEN: Why is it that during the course of that
11 interview or that preparation of that statement that the
12 question of how much drink he had is raised at the very
13 end of it?
14 A. How did that come about?
15 Q. Why is it at the very end of the statement?
16 A. Because it was one of the matters that I wanted to cover
17 in the statement.
18 Q. I heard you saying that to Mr Underwood earlier.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. I think he was asking you the question, "Is there
21 a pattern emerging here of the statement dealing with
22 drink at the very end of it?"
23 I don't think you answered him. That's why I am
24 asking you that question.
25 A. It is important to cover that. If I had not asked him
111
1 about drink at all, he would be in a very good position
2 to turn round, when we all went to the DPP's office, and
3 tell the Director of Public Prosecutions that he had
4 20 pints, and then he wouldn't have been -- probably
5 been able to remember what he remembered.
6 So it was important to me in his assessment. I have
7 to know what drink a man has taken to judge whether he
8 is going to be a witness or not, or was he sensible or
9 was he not.
10 Q. Why is it not at the beginning of the statement? Why at
11 the end?
12 A. I can't explain that. It could have been at the
13 beginning. It could have been at the end.
14 Q. Well, did you ask him about his state of intoxication
15 towards the end of your interviewing of him or at the
16 very beginning?
17 A. Without the original notes that I would have scribbled
18 down and taken at the time -- if I had them, then
19 I could say there it is on page 4, page 1, but I don't
20 have --it is quite a long time ago. I honestly can't
21 tell you.
22 Q. Because you know, he says he was drunk, whereas in that
23 statement he says he wasn't drunk.
24 A. That's what he says, yes.
25 MR GREEN: Thank you.
112
1 Cross-examination by MR LINDSAY
2 MR LINDSAY: Mr Honeyford, I have some questions.
3 I represent Mr Wright in this case.
4 Just to put Mr Wright's statements in context in
5 this case, you had interviewed Mr Jameson on 9th May.
6 Isn't that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Following that, you interviewed Marc Hobson and
9 Allister Hanvey on 10th May?
10 A. I believe so.
11 Q. Then Mr Wright made his first statement to you on
12 11th May?
13 A. I believe that's correct. I had a few statements and
14 seeing that ...
15 Q. That reference is at page [00564].
16 Now, when Mr Wright made that first statement and
17 you had, in fact, interviewed Mr Hobson and Mr Hanvey,
18 you became aware through those interviews and that first
19 statement that, Mr Wright had been with Mr Hanvey and
20 Mr Hobson immediately prior to the incident?
21 A. Probably that would be correct, yes.
22 Q. So really what you were faced with after Mr Wright's
23 statement is a witness who potentially could say a lot
24 more than what he had said? Is that correct?
25 A. That's correct.
113
1 Q. Because Mr Wright had been in a fairly unique position,
2 in that he had been describing his movements prior to
3 this incident and said:
4 "Although I am saying in my statement here I saw
5 absolutely nothing, I was with Mr Hanvey and Mr Hobson
6 immediately prior to this."
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Then, in fact, four days later, on 15th May, isn't it
9 the case that Mr Wright then comes and make a second
10 statement?
11 A. I believe so from looking at the documents, yes.
12 Q. The transcript, in fact, of that statement is at
13 page [00568]. Now, in that statement on 15th May and
14 the statement on 11th May, isn't it the case that you,
15 in fact, were the officer on both those occasions to
16 take those statements?
17 A. I believe so.
18 Q. Now, leading up to that statement on 15th May, could you
19 just explain whether Mr Wright had contacted you or
20 whether you or some other police officer had contacted
21 Mr Wright.
22 A. I can't recall from memory.
23 Q. Is it fair to say that your only knowledge at that
24 particular stage was that Mr Wright was coming in to
25 make another statement?
114
1 A. I would probably have been detailed to take a statement
2 off him or he could have came in voluntary. I don't
3 know what the ...
4 Q. Is it fair then, if I put it this way, that you don't
5 know whether he came in or whether he was asked to come
6 in?
7 A. That is so. I couldn't tell you.
8 Q. Mr Wright came in to make a second statement some four
9 days later, and isn't it the case that in that statement
10 he details events very differently from his first
11 statement.
12 A. I believe so.
13 Q. In fact, he names a number of persons as having been
14 seen by him, witnessed by him as involved in this event?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Amongst those he names, in fact, are -- of having some
17 role of those that he names are Marc Hobson,
18 Rory Robinson and I think Stacey Bridgett.
19 I am not putting that particularly to you, but,
20 I mean, you understand that obviously in that second
21 statement he is now naming certain persons as having
22 witnessed certain persons as having been involved to
23 some extent?
24 A. Yes, I accept that's in the statement.
25 Q. Now, before he made that second statement, you spoke to
115
1 him before that. Isn't that correct? I mean, prior to
2 the taking and making of that statement, you spent some
3 time discussing with him what he was going to say?
4 A. The taking of this second statement?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. I probably would have, yes. I don't particularly recall
7 it all, but I am sure I would have had to.
8 Q. If he said he came in and the officer took his statement
9 in relation to this but prior to the actual making of
10 that statement he had spent some time with that officer
11 about what he was going to say, would that be in keeping
12 with your general procedure?
13 A. It would be, yes.
14 Q. You are aware then that subsequent to that statement he
15 eventually makes a third statement and in that statement
16 he withdraws obviously the contents of the statement of
17 15th May?
18 A. I am aware of that. I didn't record that statement from
19 him. I am not really privy to what was said or done.
20 Q. You are absolutely correct. You didn't record it, but
21 he made a statement, I can tell you, on 13th March 1988
22 and that's at page [00581]. It is a short statement,
23 but if I read an extract from that statement on that
24 page to you, he says:
25 "The first statement dated 11th May 1997 is the
116
1 correct statement, the second statement that I gave is
2 not correct. At the time I made it up as I was afraid
3 and I now know that it is known by others in Portadown
4 what I said in the second statement and because of that
5 fact I am not prepared to give evidence in Court
6 regarding the second statement."
7 Now, subsequent to this he has been asked in some
8 considerable detail about what his fear was in relation
9 to that and he is alleging that his fear was of the
10 police.
11 A. I wasn't aware of that.
12 Q. Yes. In other words, he is making an allegation --
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the witness says he does not know. He
14 cannot talk about what others may or may not know.
15 MR LINDSAY: He is making an allegation that you intimidated
16 him into making that second statement and you put the
17 words into his mouth.
18 A. I don't think that was the case there.
19 Q. When you say you "don't think", is it possible that that
20 could have been the case?
21 A. No, it is not possible whatsoever.
22 Q. You see, the wording of that statement is:
23 "At the time, I made it up as I was afraid."
24 The point I want to make to you is that it would
25 seem strange to make a statement naming persons in the
117
1 community because he was afraid of those persons.
2 Do you understand the point I am making?
3 A. I understand the point you are making, but the point is
4 I find it difficult to understand why such a period of
5 time has lapsed before he made his statement withdrawn.
6 What prompted him to do that?
7 Q. Well, I accept your point and I am sure he will answer
8 questions about that, but the point I am making is that
9 the allegations he has made against you are that that
10 second statement is made up of words that have come from
11 you.
12 A. That would not be the case. There would be nothing to
13 be gained by that.
14 Q. In fact, when asked about it in some detail in
15 an interview -- and I need to put some of the
16 allegations he makes about you in relation to this -- he
17 said he was called down to the police station because
18 they wanted to speak to him again. I am not expecting
19 you to obviously know whether that is right or wrong.
20 He said:
21 "I was called down on the Thursday and I was going
22 on holidays on the Saturday morning. I was going ... with
23 my girlfriend and the police had basically said that
24 there was no way I was going to make it for the
25 holidays."
118
1 Do you remember saying anything like that to him?
2 A. I do not, Mr Chairman, no. It wouldn't have been said.
3 Q. He wouldn't be getting on the plane and things like
4 this.
5 He said:
6 "They said basically my two friends had been charged
7 and I was going to be charged as well."
8 Do you remember threatening him that he might be
9 charged?
10 A. I can certainly say he was not threatened.
11 Q. But it is the case, in fact, that at that stage, when he
12 makes that statement, Marc Hobson and Allister Hanvey,
13 who were his two friends, had been interviewed in
14 relation to this. Isn't that correct?
15 A. I haven't read the stuff enough to know whether that is
16 right or wrong. I would take your word for it, I am
17 sure.
18 Q. If I tell you they had actually been interviewed by you
19 on 10th May and this second statement is 15th May.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. He then says further threats were made to him and one of
22 these threats that was made to him was that it would be
23 embarrassing for his father, who was a member of the
24 church, to read in the paper that his son had been
25 arrested.
119
1 A. The first I knew his father was involved in the church,
2 I can tell you, is today.
3 Q. I think his words were:
4 "Imagine how your father would feel going into
5 church on Sunday morning knowing that his son's name was
6 splashed across the newspaper or on the news."
7 Then he says he was told:
8 "Imagine how humiliated your dad's going to feel
9 about this. Imagine how your girlfriend is going to
10 feel. You are supposed to go on holidays on Saturday
11 morning and imagine how your girlfriend is going to feel
12 and she's going to wake up ..."
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Am I not right that Mr Underwood went through
14 these assertions this morning?
15 MR LINDSAY: Basically he listed a number of assertions but
16 he didn't deal with the detail of them which Mr Wright
17 says was the detail.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: If it really does add something, by all
19 means, but not if it is simply repetition, please.
20 MR LINDSAY: No, I am dealing with the specific detail.
21 I think Mr Underwood put it in terms quite simply that
22 there was a threat made about his father and a threat
23 made about a holiday.
24 In any event, I am making the case to you that, when
25 he went in on 15th May, you personally were the
120
1 interviewing officer, and then the officer who took the
2 statement from him had threatened and intimidated him.
3 A. I didn't threaten or intimidate him. I am sure he is
4 like anybody else in the province, and particularly from
5 Portadown. If I had have, he wouldn't have left the
6 station without making a complaint, which everybody knew
7 how to do. There was no such complaint made, because it
8 didn't happen.
9 Q. In fact, he made a withdrawal statement on
10 13th May 1998. Are you aware that obviously some months
11 prior to that a decision had already been made by the
12 Department of Public Prosecutions not to proceed with
13 the case against a number of these persons?
14 A. I wouldn't have knew that, no.
15 Q. In fact, the only persons after 29th October 2007 (sic)
16 that proceedings continued against were Marc Hobson and
17 Stacey Bridgett.
18 A. After 2007?
19 Q. Sorry. After 29th October. There was a direction on
20 29th October 2007 (sic). I think it appears at
21 page 08994. Sorry. 1997.
22 So, at the time he made his statement of withdrawal,
23 a number of persons that had originally been charged in
24 relation to this matter, it was decided there would be
25 no charges against them?
121
1 A. That could be the case. I wouldn't have been involved
2 in that end of it to know.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Forgive me, but this sounds as though really
4 you are trying, through the guise of questions to
5 a witness which are all based on hearsay so far as he is
6 concerned, to make a speech, and that's not the purpose
7 of cross-examination or questioning in an Inquiry.
8 MR LINDSAY: Well, in relation to --
9 THE CHAIRMAN: You will be able to make your address later.
10 If there is something new, please deal with it, but
11 really we are just going over what has been gone through
12 already and interpolating comments in it, neither of
13 which is appropriate.
14 MR LINDSAY: I am obliged, sir.
15 In your interview -- you were interviewed in
16 relation to the way you had dealt with Mr Jameson.
17 Isn't that correct?
18 A. No, I was not.
19 Q. Well, were you interviewed in relation to matters
20 involved?
21 A. Not by any Police Complaints Department. Obviously
22 there has been --
23 Q. The Ombudsman?
24 A. Obviously the Ombudsman.
25 Q. In your interview, which appears at page -- I think my
122
1 reference is page [27091].
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
3 MR LINDSAY: The first paragraph in relation to that, seven
4 lines down, do you see where it starts:
5 "Why I suppose ..."
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You say:
8 "Why I suppose you've got to say: well, the
9 difference between the 29th and now is this fella's
10 died. Maybe it's pricked his conscience."
11 Isn't that correct?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. If we go to the second statement of Mr Wright on
14 15th May, isn't it the case that if we go to the last
15 line of that statement that Mr Wright is saying there:
16 "I made this statement because not telling the full
17 facts the first time has been preying on my conscience."
18 A. That's what he has said. That's what I have wrote.
19 Q. I suggest to you that, far from preying on his
20 conscience and making this statement, he was brought in
21 by the police and these words were put in his mouth in
22 relation to the statement.
23 A. That's not the case, Mr Chairman.
24 Q. That's a particular word you have used in relation to
25 Mr Jameson that appears in the statement again of
123
1 Mr Wright.
2 A. I can't see where it is.
3 Q. A statement of Mr Wright which he now alleges are words
4 that were used by you.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Page?
6 MR LINDSAY: It is the second statement of Mr Wright,
7 "conscience".
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we have that on the screen, please?
9 [00569].
10 MR LINDSAY: I think it was on the screen.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: But you mentioned -- you said that this
12 was -- these were the same words that had been put into
13 the mouth of someone else and I thought we should
14 perhaps better look at that to compare the two.
15 MR LINDSAY: That is a particular word that you have used in
16 your own interview when addressing the issue?
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Which word?
18 MR LINDSAY: The word "conscience". Isn't that correct?
19 A. I don't believe so, no. I am quite confident that
20 whatever he said I have wrote down and I haven't put
21 words in his mouth. There is nothing to be gained.
22 Q. If we go to your interview, which is the part that I had
23 read to you, which is my papers at [27089] -- my papers
24 in fact at [27091], and the first paragraph there, some
25 seven or eight lines down:
124
1 "Why I suppose you've got to say: well, the
2 difference between the 29th and now is this fella's
3 died. Maybe it's pricked his conscience ..."
4 So you, when being asked about the allegations made
5 against you by Timothy Jameson, are saying it had
6 pricked his conscience?
7 A. It is obviously a term that we would use.
8 Q. It is the term you used.
9 A. Yes. If you say I have used it, I have used it.
10 Q. The point I am making is it is also a term that is used
11 at the end of the second statement of Mr Wright.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: We have that point. Is the word "conscience"
13 a word uncommonly used in Northern Ireland?
14 MR LINDSAY: It is a word that Mr Wright has indicated, sir,
15 appears in his statement not from his mouth, a statement
16 of words that came from --
17 THE CHAIRMAN: I dare say, but is it an unusual word to use
18 in Northern Ireland?
19 MR LINDSAY: In certain factions perhaps, but I accept the
20 point.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Right. Let's get on then.
22 MR LINDSAY: Mr Wright makes these allegations against you.
23 Do you understand the point that is being made is that
24 Mr Jameson has made exactly the same allegations against
25 you?
125
1 A. Yes, I am aware of that.
2 Q. So, in fact, two witnesses that came in and varied their
3 original instructions to you in relation to this case
4 have then turned around subsequently and said that they
5 only did that because you put the words in their mouth?
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Please, this is about the fourth time we have
7 heard this. We are listening and we have a shorthand
8 note. Let's get on, please, to something new, if there
9 is anything new. We are not here simply to rehearse
10 what has gone on before. It helps no-one, you know.
11 MR LINDSAY: I accept that fully, but I still have to put
12 just what Mr Wright has said in relation to the case,
13 because I am sure he will be asked at some length about
14 it.
15 If you just give me one moment, sir, there is not
16 much ...
17 I am simply saying, therefore, to you that what
18 happened is you brought Mr Wright in and applied
19 pressure to him to make that second statement.
20 A. I did not do that, Mr Chairman, and there would be no
21 point in doing it.
22
23 MR LINDSAY: No further questions.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
25 MR LUNNY: Sir, I appear on behalf of witness G instructed
126
1 by Emmett Kelly solicitor, and I seek leave to be
2 allowed to ask a few questions, probably no more than
3 three questions, in relation to one aspect of the
4 evidence given this morning by Mr Honeyford.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
6 Cross-examination by MR LUNNY
7 MR LUNNY: Mr Honeyford, do you remember this morning you
8 were asked in cross-examination by Mr McComb about
9 an interview you had for this Inquiry?
10 A. Which one is Mr McComb?
11 Q. Mr McComb is just there. Specifically you were asked
12 why you had said -- it was suggested to you that you had
13 said you were very surprised that Mr Jameson, his name
14 was not involved as a suspect.
15 Do you remember that?
16 A. I am doing my best to remember and I don't actually
17 recall it, but I am sure it must have been said.
18 Q. This is your transcript of the interview for the Inquiry
19 and I will just read out a very short portion of it.
20 When you are asked by the interviewer if you believed
21 the truth of what you have been told by Jameson you say
22 as follows:
23 "I spent a lot of time going over this with him and,
24 you know, the truth, the truth. You know, I was very
25 surprised that his name didn't come out as involved in
127
1 it. You know, I sort of half suspected there was
2 a possibility he would end up being arrested and
3 interviewed ..."
4 Why were you surprised?
5 A. Why was I surprised? Because he was one of quite a few
6 fellas that all ran together as a pack, and here he is
7 in Portadown in the early hours of the morning when
8 somebody got seriously assaulted.
9 I can only say what I did. I was sent out to
10 interview him, to assess him -- I am talking about the
11 main interview that I took the detailed statement off
12 him.
13 Q. Is that the only reason you were very surprised that he
14 was not involved in it?
15 A. I was wondering -- I have always got the wondering in
16 the back of my head: if I interview you on 29th April
17 and you tell me you were not about Portadown, you didn't
18 really see anything, and then I am brought into
19 an office and told by a senior officer that there is
20 evidence to suggest that you were in Portadown and you
21 have seen something, the first thing that's going to
22 come into my mind is the interview I had with you on the
23 29th and say, "Well, why did you tell me that you seen
24 nothing and why are you telling me now you did see
25 something?"
128
1 Then there is the other bit of your brain will say,
2 "Was there a possibility he could have been involved in
3 it?"
4 Q. Or could it be this, that before your interview of
5 9th May you were well aware that he had told Witness G
6 that he had become actively involved in the assault or
7 in an assault on somebody? He had put the boot in?
8 A. Witness G. I am at a loss. Who is Witness G? Could
9 I be told that?
10 Q. Well, I suggest to you that when the interview -- when
11 you were taken aside and taken into the room with
12 Mr McBurney and Detective Constable Irwin --
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Just pause. He is being given the paper that
14 says who G is, so he knows who we are talking about.
15 MR LUNNY: Oh, sorry.
16 You are now aware who Witness G is?
17 A. Yes. I can honestly tell you, no, I have not spoken to
18 Witness G throughout this inquiry --
19 Q. I am not asking if you have spoken to him. Can
20 I suggest this to you? It does appear that Witness G
21 has suggested that he was told by Timothy Jameson that
22 Jameson -- he, Jameson, was actively involved in
23 an attack on someone that night in Portadown.
24 Are you not aware of this until now?
25 A. No, I am aware of it. I learned this a long time after
129
1 I interviewed Mr Jameson, who Witness G was and what the
2 conversation was allegedly told. What you are asking me
3 is what I was I told.
4 Q. I am bringing you back to the interview that you had in
5 private as a priority interview --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- with -- I think it was Detective Inspector McBurney
8 and Mr Irwin.
9 A. No. The first briefing --
10 Q. Or was it P39?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. In any event, you know what I am talking about, don't
13 you?
14 A. Yes, yes.
15 Q. Were you given any briefing at all as to what the
16 information was that had come into the system?
17 A. No.
18 Q. None at all?
19 A. No, I wasn't told who it was or where it come from or it
20 wasn't on the sheet that eventually came out, the action
21 sheet that came out for me to interview him.
22 Q. No, the information that you were given, what did that
23 consist of?
24 A. From memory?
25 Q. Well, you have had a long time to think about it now?
130
1 A. Well, when you say I've had a long time to think about
2 it --
3 Q. What information were you given --
4 A. -- what do you mean I've had a long time to think about
5 it?
6 Q. -- before the interview?
7 A. I retired in 2002 and I don't think about anything I did
8 in the police. So I haven't been thinking about it.
9 I'm sorry, I don't agree with you on that.
10 Q. Can I ask you again: before you went to interview
11 Timothy Jameson alone --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- did you interview him at home -- on your own?
14 A. Yes, I said that.
15 Q. Before you did that, you were given certain information.
16 A. Yes. I have said to the Inquiry team what that
17 information was.
18 Q. I suggest to you that part of that information was that
19 Timothy Jameson had been involved in kicking someone?
20 MR UNDERWOOD: What possible basis has my friend for putting
21 to Mr Honeyford that he knew that? There is no evidence
22 at all in the hands of the Inquiry.
23 MR LUNNY: The reason for putting it is this: this man had
24 been very surprised Mr Jameson was not involved as
25 a suspect. That's why I asked the question as to why he
131
1 was surprised. He could have been surprised --
2 THE CHAIRMAN: He says he learned, but that was a good deal
3 later.
4 MR LUNNY: Yes, it was. I accept that.
5 I merely put the question or a number of questions
6 on this basis. I am suggesting to this witness that his
7 surprise arises out of the fact that he was aware from
8 the start.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, has answered that, hasn't he?
10 MR LUNNY: Yes, he has. Those are my questions. Thank you.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: I think it will have to be 10.30 tomorrow
12 morning.
13 MR UNDERWOOD: I don't know. I think we are probably down
14 to the last set of questions.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Will you be long?
16 MR ADAIR: I think there are more as well, sir.
17 MR UNDERWOOD: I wonder if somebody could give time
18 estimates on this, because I am very conscious that
19 Mr Honeyford has been hanging around for a long time
20 today? If people could give some sort of indication ...
21 MR MALLON: I will be about half an hour tomorrow morning.
22 MR UNDERWOOD: I wonder if half an hour tonight would be
23 even better?
24 MR MALLON: I have no objection to that.
25 MR ADAIR: I will be about half an hour as well, sir.
132
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Who is next?
2 MR ADAIR: I think I am going at the end, sir.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Of course you are.
4 Yes, Mr Mallon?
5 Cross-examination by MR MALLON
6 MR MALLON: I am sorry to reach you at the very end. I am
7 sure you are tired. I am trying to be brief with you.
8 In relation to the last topic, I am not going to go
9 into it in any detail, but do I understand it correctly
10 that this young lad was a juvenile of 17 when he came in
11 to be interviewed by you.
12 A. He was an adult of 17. He was of the age that he is
13 entitled to be interviewed without anybody being
14 present.
15 Q. An adult is 18. Juvenile up to 18.
16 A. Whatever age he was, I believed he was 18. Somebody
17 said today he was 17. I know he was of the age that he
18 didn't have to have parents with him.
19 Q. This was a juvenile who came into you who you knew had
20 told you lies?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. He was implicated in a murder by two police officers,
23 that is Officers R/Con G and R/Con P20. They had already
24 informed Mr McBurney of that -- sorry?
25 MR McCOMB: I am sorry to intervene. It may be the question
133
1 I asked, it came from the Ombudsman, which had suggested
2 he was 17. I have just been checking it. I certainly
3 wouldn't want to mislead my friend or the Inquiry.
4 I think he was actually 18.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
6 MR McCOMB: I am sorry about that.
7 MR MALLON: I am very much obliged to my learned friend.
8 I was taking it from that.
9 So he was 18. He was implicated in a murder.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. He wasn't cautioned?
12 A. No.
13 Q. And he wasn't offered a solicitor?
14 A. He wasn't offered a solicitor. When I went to his
15 house, I spoke to his mother. I quickly found out that
16 he hadn't yet come home from the Tech and I asked that
17 he ring in or come in to see me tonight, that I wouldn't
18 leave the station, that I would be available to speak to
19 him, and what Mrs Jameson said to me was, "Is he in
20 trouble?" and I said, "No, he is not. He is a witness".
21 It was left that if her and her husband wished to
22 come him in with him, that was okay, and if they had
23 come in, it would have been okay.
24 Q. Was that because you wanted him converted from a suspect
25 to a witness?
134
1 A. Sorry. I am not ...
2 Q. Was that because you wanted him converted from a suspect
3 into a witness?
4 A. He was a witness from the start.
5 Q. I am just putting it to you that because the senior
6 officers did not tell you that, you treated him as
7 a witness?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. If they had given you the information, he would have
10 been treated as a suspect?
11 A. Yes, if I had been told what you are saying, yes.
12 Sorry.
13 Q. It is that simple. If somebody was interviewed as
14 a witness and converted from a suspect to a witness by
15 the lack of that information being passed to you.
16 A. Obviously that's the case.
17 Q. Could that have been done deliberately?
18 A. It could have been. I don't know. I doubt it. I would
19 have faith in the senior --
20 THE CHAIRMAN: He is not really able to comment on other
21 people's motives, is he?
22 MR MALLON: No, but he --
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Then let's get on.
24 MR MALLON: Now, you received a briefing both morning and
25 evening under normal circumstances. Isn't that right?
135
1 A. That's right.
2 Q. If that important information was available and was not
3 passed to you in the morning and evening briefings and
4 you were delegated to interview a witness and that stuff
5 was held back from you, it could hardly have been done
6 accidentally?
7 A. Well, I don't know.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: That's comment. You can address that to
9 others in due course when it will not be comment.
10 MR MALLON: Yes. Under normal circumstances, when you were
11 interviewing a suspect in a murder charge --
12 A. A suspect?
13 Q. Yes, a suspect in a murder charge. You would expect to
14 be given all relevant information to carry out
15 a priority interview, wouldn't you?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. But if the decision was made to convert him to a witness
18 and, to do that, perfectly innocently by you, that
19 information was withheld, would you know about that?
20 A. How would I know about it?
21 Q. Well, then, when you did find out that this information
22 was available and you had carried out an interview on
23 the wrong premises, because it had been withheld from
24 you or it was not given to you, did you then go back to
25 your superiors and say, "Boys, what are you playing at?"
136
1 A. No, I don't recall doing that.
2 Q. Why not? You had been made a fool of.
3 A. I can say that I was briefed by Mr McBurney and another
4 witness that was named there, two senior officers. At
5 no stage during that briefing was there any indication
6 that Mr Jameson had done anything wrong.
7 If they had indicated, I am quite confident that
8 Mr McBurney, being very much the senior man and hands-on
9 would have said, "Look, Eddie, this is going to be
10 a caution interview. Take him to Lurgan and do
11 a caution interview", but he said he was a witness and
12 he was to be interviewed as a witness and I was to look
13 at that time and assess him, which is what I did.
14 Q. You see, I have agreed with you in everything you have
15 said there.
16 A. That's good.
17 Q. I have put it to you that you are an innocent tool, that
18 you have been used. Information has been deliberately
19 withheld from you and you have been used to convert
20 a suspect into a witness?
21 A. I can't answer that.
22 Q. I know you can't.
23 A. I wish I could.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: If he can't answer it, don't repeat it.
25 That's it.
137
1 MR MALLON: That's the only point I am going to make on
2 that.
3 Now, if you just give me a second. I am sorry. My
4 technology is just not as good. You indicated there is
5 a position in the police -- I think it is in paragraph 3
6 or 4 of your statement -- involving an office manager,
7 Inspector Irwin.
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Can you indicate to me what an office manager does,
10 where he sits in the chain of command and how you get
11 your work from him?
12 A. In the chain of command he would be third. The
13 investigating officer, the deputy investigating officer
14 and then the next one would be office manager. He would
15 be really responsible for anything that comes in,
16 getting it out on action sheets, putting it on to HOLMES
17 and drumming up whatever enquiries he feels needs to be
18 done to pursue the matter.
19 Q. Would he be high enough up the chain to be involved with
20 the strategy, thinking and planning of operations?
21 A. The office manager?
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. He should be.
24 Q. So he should be up there involved with McBurney and
25 P39 and those two senior officers?
138
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. He would be in there?
3 A. He would be, yes.
4 Q. He would transmit the instructions down?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. You were instructed to interview by way of
7 a questionnaire Tracey Clarke. Do you remember that?
8 A. No, I don't remember Tracey Clarke.
9 Q. Sorry. Will you excuse me a moment? I will get you the
10 page number. Page [17649]. Would you like to read it?
11 A. I can see it here in front of me.
12 Q. How would I know that that was you who was asked to do
13 that? Do you have any input into that document at all?
14 Do you have any identification?
15 A. I think the second page I would be certainly signing it
16 and putting my rank and number at the end of it.
17 I actually think there would be something printed out on
18 the second page.
19 Q. I can't see that, but I am informed that is by you.
20 MR UNDERWOOD: What it says is:
21 "Completing officer's details, John McAteer."
22 MR MALLON: I am informed that was you. Did you ever
23 interview Tracey Clarke?
24 A. No, I don't believe so. It definitely doesn't --
25 Q. Were you with Mr McAteer when that was done?
139
1 A. No, I did no enquiries with Mr McAteer on that.
2 Q. So it was Mr McAteer alone.
3 A. I can't answer that. I don't know.
4 Q. If we can go on to another document, please, you took
5 part in a large number of searches looking for clothing
6 throughout this case. I think it was three. Is that
7 correct?
8 A. I am not sure how many, but I accept that I took part in
9 searches and arrests and so forth.
10 Q. Now, you know the importance that clothing formed in
11 this case?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you know that Allister Hanvey is alleged to have
14 been involved in the wearing of a silver Skanx jacket
15 which was purchased as a present by Tracey Clarke. Were
16 you aware of that?
17 A. No, not that there was -- I don't recall that.
18 Q. You don't recall that?
19 A. No.
20 Q. But in the briefings and looking for clothing, were you
21 ever asked to look for clothing which might have been
22 worn by Allister Hanvey?
23 A. If I did a search of his premises, or somebody else, and
24 it was on the action sheet, particularly clothing with
25 a certain name on it or a certain colour, or
140
1 a metallicness, I would look for them, but unless
2 somebody can show me it on an action sheet, I can't
3 recall it.
4 Q. I am not saying that you were specifically actioned to
5 do that. What I am saying is: were the police officers
6 drawn together and told, "Look", in some form of
7 briefing, either morning or evening, or at some time,
8 "One of the key elements in this case is the clothing
9 worn by Allister Hanvey"?
10 A. I don't recall that.
11 Q. You don't recall that?
12 A. No, I don't, Mr Chairman. Sorry.
13 Q. Do you recall any allegations against Robert Atkinson?
14 A. I do, yes.
15 Q. One of those allegations is that he is supposed to have
16 told Allister Hanvey to burn clothing.
17 A. I believe so.
18 Q. The clothing that he was supposed to have burned was
19 what? Were you ever informed about that?
20 A. If I was, I can't remember. I don't recall it.
21 Q. It is alleged that there is a silver jacket, a Skanx
22 jacket, with orange marks down it alleged to have been
23 worn by him that night and which was subsequently
24 destroyed as a result of his so-called telephone call
25 from Robert Atkinson.
141
1 A. Right. If that's the case, yes.
2 Q. No, it is not the case, but it is the case that has been
3 made.
4 Now, did you know or were you ever told that the
5 only coat that Tracey Clarke had ever purchased for
6 Robert Atkinson (sic) was a blue Puffa jacket?
7 A. Was I ever told that? No.
8 Q. Would you ever asked to look for a blue Puffa jacket?
9 A. I can't recall. I would have to -- and hopefully I'd be
10 relying on documents that would have printed on it to
11 say to look for a particular jacket. I don't recall
12 every morning and every evening briefing that happened
13 in 1997 and 1998 and so on.
14 Q. Were you aware that the only jacket that Witness P50
15 sold to Tracey Clarke was a blue Puffa jacket?
16 A. If I was, I can't recall.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: That's something that can be established
18 elsewhere. If this witness knows anything about it, it
19 is only what he has been told.
20 MR MALLON: Yes, indeed. I am simply going through his
21 briefings. I will not be very long.
22 Can we take it that nobody ever briefed you to look
23 for the clothing that Allister Hanvey wore?
24 A. I don't know that. For me to answer that I would have
25 to sit and go down through every notebook entry I made
142
1 during that inquiry.
2 If somebody gave me out an action sheet and it is on
3 it to look for a particular jacket, then it is on it and
4 I have replied to it, if I had been briefed as
5 one-to-one, like you and me, and you said to me to look
6 for it, and if I wrote it down in my notebook, which
7 I would have done, then it is there, but unless somebody
8 can produce that to me, I can't recall it.
9 Q. As you say, you would have attended a large number of
10 briefings. I am asking if you can recall there were --
11 A. No, I don't recall. Yes, a large number of briefings.
12 Q. -- a large number of actions in this case?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You were briefed both morning and evening?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I find it surprising --
17 THE CHAIRMAN: That's a comment.
18 MR MALLON: Would it not surprise you that you can't
19 remember anything about clothing which formed such
20 an important element of this case in relation to --
21 A. From this distance of time?
22 Q. Yes. No?
23 A. No.
24 Q. In relation to Robert Atkinson, did you work with him?
25 A. No, I didn't work with him.
143
1 Q. You didn't know him?
2 A. I knew him, yes. He was part of J Division. At one
3 stage, he was part of Portadown. At one stage, he could
4 have been even escort to Mr Jameson. He did those type
5 of duties.
6 Did I ever work with him? No. Did I ever socialise
7 with him? No. I never had any contact with him.
8 Q. Just completely separate?
9 A. Completely separate.
10 Q. Were you aware that an allegation was made that he was
11 in regular telephone contact with the Hanveys?
12 A. I became aware of that much later, yes.
13 Q. Were you aware that his telephone bills were provided?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Were you aware that there was one call at 8.37 and only
16 one other call?
17 A. I remember that there was discussion about calls, but
18 I wasn't involved in the telephone billing.
19 Q. Now, were you aware that Tracey Clarke had made
20 allegations in respect of Robert Atkinson that there was
21 a pattern of calls almost on a daily basis. Was that
22 ever made clear to you?
23 A. I don't believe so. I think at the stage we are at now
24 I was probably off that investigation and back to
25 performing ordinary, the day-to-day running of CID
144
1 general duties. Certainly I do remember that people
2 have said and talked that there was this involvement,
3 that involvement. Some of it I am very surprised about,
4 but --
5 Q. There would have been a lot of gossip about this?
6 A. There would have been gossip, yes.
7 Q. Both inside the police and out?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Not all of it based on fact?
10 A. Sorry?
11 Q. Not all of it based on fact?
12 A. Probably that would be the case.
13 MR MALLON: I have no further questions. I do hope you
14 enjoy your sailing.
15 A. Thank you.
16 Cross-examination by MR ADAIR
17 MR ADAIR: I am in your hands as to whether we proceed.
18 Could I respectfully suggest whether we ask the witness
19 if he would like to -- I will be as short as I can.
20 Would you like to go on today or would you -- sorry,
21 Mr Underwood --
22 MR UNDERWOOD: I just want to throw a spanner in the works.
23 We have one other witness who has been here all day as
24 well. I am being urgently pressed to get him in, if at
25 all possible today. Can I just throw that in the mix?
145
1 He would be a short witness.
2 MR ADAIR: Can you come back in the morning, Mr Honeyford,
3 for a brief period?
4 A. Right.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry about that. We will see you in the
6 morning then. Is it 10.30 am?
7 MR ADAIR: I think there is another witness.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: 10.30 am tomorrow morning?
9 MR UNDERWOOD: 10.30 am for Mr Honeyford. We could sit at
10 10 o'clock if that suits.
11 A. I am at your mercy. I don't mind. 10.00 am or
12 10.30 am. It doesn't matter to me.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: We will say 10 o'clock.
14 MR UNDERWOOD: May we have 10.00 am? Thank you very much,
15 Mr Honeyford.
16 (The witness withdrew)
17 MR UNDERWOOD: May I call Mr Murray, please?
18 MR JAMES MURRAY (sworn)
19 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD
20 MR UNDERWOOD: Good afternoon, Mr Murray.
21 A. Good afternoon.
22 Q. My name is Underwood and I will be asking questions from
23 over on this side.
24 A. I didn't know where the sound was coming from. Sorry.
25 Q. It is because the sound is all round. Can you tell us
146
1 your full names, please?
2 A. James Murray.
3 Q. Can I ask you to look at page [17338] on the screen?
4 This is a witness statement which has your name on it.
5 If we can just flick through the pages, and I wonder if
6 I can get you to look to see whether it is a statement
7 you made. Is that your witness statement?
8 A. It is, yes.
9 Q. Was it true when you made it -- sorry -- is it true?
10 A. Is it true is unfortunately very hard for me to answer,
11 because I don't remember making it.
12 If I made it at the time and signed it, I take it to
13 be true, but, as I can't remember, I could not say 100%.
14 Q. Very well. Can I ask you now to look at page [81027]
15 please?
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Just before you do, when you made that
17 statement, were you trying to tell the truth?
18 A. I would say for me to have made that statement I had
19 heard those facts at the time.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Were you telling the truth then when
21 you made the statement? Were you being truthful when
22 you made the statement? Don't bother about how much you
23 remember now.
24 A. Right.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: At the time you made the statement, were you
147
1 being truthful?
2 A. I would have been, yes.
3 MR UNDERWOOD: If we now look at [81027], going over the
4 three pages of this, is this a statement that you have
5 made for the Inquiry?
6 A. It is, yes.
7 Q. Is this true?
8 A. It is, yes.
9 Q. If we can go back to the first page of it, in
10 paragraph 4 you tell us there why it is you have
11 a memory problem.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Is that true?
14 A. That is very true, yes.
15 Q. Can you tell us how good your memory was in 2000 when
16 you made the first statement we have just looked at?
17 A. My memory back then would have been very much the same.
18 If I could explain it --
19 Q. If you like.
20 A. -- that I am not a social drinker. I drunk by myself.
21 I would go out and buy a bottle of spirits, drink it,
22 just to be completely out of it, as in wakening up the
23 next morning and trying to figure out where I was, what
24 I done, who I done it with. Anything like that there
25 was gone.
148
1 Q. Okay. Can you have a look, please, at page [70100]? We
2 know from police documents that we have that a policeman
3 showed you in 2000 this, which is a diagram of a jacket
4 that the police were interested in.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Can you help us from your recollection now about
7 anything about this jacket?
8 A. Unfortunately not.
9 Q. All right. Can you look at [05116], please? If we look
10 at the last paragraph of that -- I misled you. I said
11 it was 2000. It was 2001 you were shown it. It says:
12 "11 2 01 called with Jim Murray", and we have
13 blanked out your address there. "Showed him AM5 and
14 AM6", and that's diagrams of that jacket, "which he
15 thought the jacket was similar. He thought the one
16 Allister was wearing was shorter."
17 Do you remember any of that?
18 A. I do not remember saying that, no.
19 Q. We know that there came a time in 1997 when
20 Tracey Clarke went to see an officer of the DPP and
21 a barrister about giving evidence in a murder trial, and
22 the record we have of it -- I don't need to take you to
23 it -- tells us that her parents were with her, and we
24 take it that's you and your wife.
25 Have you any recollection of that?
149
1 A. Very slightly.
2 Q. I am so sorry. Do go on.
3 A. In meaning I remember being lifted from the house in the
4 police car to be taken to Belfast, but as for what
5 happened after that, what was said or done, I'm sorry.
6 I can't get that together at all.
7 Q. All right. Let's try a few specific questions of you.
8 If you can't answer, just say so.
9 Have you any recollection now of discussions with
10 Tracey Clarke in 1997 about what she saw on the night
11 that Robert Hamill died?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Have you any recollection of her buying a jacket for
14 Allister Hanvey?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Have you any recollection of her being upset about
17 a jacket being destroyed?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Apart from what you have told us about the police car to
20 Belfast, have you any recollection of the question
21 whether she should give evidence in a criminal case?
22 A. No.
23 Q. I would like to go back to just the concept of what your
24 attitude would have been to the police in 2000 when you
25 gave the statement we have been looking at.
150
1 You have told the Chairman that as far as you are
2 aware you would have told the truth.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Has there ever been a point at which you have had
5 an approach to the police which would have made you lie
6 to them?
7 A. No.
8 MR UNDERWOOD: Very well, Mr Murray. Those are the
9 questions I have for you. It is possible other people
10 will ask you questions, but thank you.
11 A. Thank you.
12 MR ADAIR: No questions.
13 MR McGRORY: No questions.
14 Cross-examination by MR MALLON
15 MR MALLON: Just one question. At the time you were giving
16 these statements, were you on the drink as well?
17 A. I was, yes, sir.
18 Q. Drunk every day, all day?
19 A. Always had alcohol in my system.
20 Q. Never had a clear head or a clear mind?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Tell me, did you ever do silly things with drink in you,
23 reckless, dangerous, foolish things?
24 A. I would say the only thing I ever done was upset my
25 children.
151
1 MR MALLON: That's the worst of all. Thank you.
2 Cross-examination by MR ATCHISON
3 MR ATCHISON: I appreciate, Mr Murray, you have had a long
4 day. I would not seek to prolong that.
5 You have been most candid that you have had a drink
6 problem for some time. Can I ask, would you be able to
7 give me an estimate of how long, in years?
8 A. I really couldn't count it myself. I would go back to
9 23, 24 years of age.
10 Q. Would you mind if I were so rude as to ask your age as
11 of today's date, please?
12 A. 57.
13 Q. Thank you. Would I be right in saying as regards
14 Miss Clarke you don't get on with her at this time? You
15 wouldn't have contact?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Also, just to be clear, the incident involving Mr Hamill
18 occurred on 27th April 1997. Your statement was
19 recorded on November 2000. So there was essentially
20 over three and a half years.
21 Would it be fair to say that the statement that you
22 gave at that time, you were being asked to cast your
23 mind back some three and a half years previously?
24 A. You see, with not knowing whether that statement is
25 true, if I -- I have -- since I have got that statement
152
1 in my possession, I have read through that statement --
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. -- and I cannot honestly say where that information come
4 from.
5 Q. I understand.
6 A. Because in the house there was two families and even me
7 with my drink was concerned about mine, because they
8 were not fitting in. The other side had their problems.
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. There was -- am I allowed to mention a name or anything?
11 MR UNDERWOOD: Could you write it down first, because some
12 people have anonymity?
13 A. I don't ...
14 THE CHAIRMAN: May we see it first, please?
15 MS SHORT: The witness does not have anonymity her name is
16 Andrea McKee.
17 MR ATCHISON: I managed to hear Ms Short. I understand it
18 is Mrs McKee.
19 Before we stopped you, you were explaining that
20 Mrs McKee would have had access to your home at that
21 time.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Would I be right that she just lived across the square
24 from your house at that time?
25 A. She did, yes.
153
1 Q. And her and her husband would have been visitors at your
2 property?
3 A. I can't remember so much him.
4 Q. Certainly Mrs McKee. Would that be right?
5 A. Yes, yes.
6 Q. Am I right, in 2000, when you made this statement,
7 November 2000, it is fair to say on your evidence you
8 were certainly consuming a lot of alcohol at that time
9 as well?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Again, you have been most candid.
12 It is fair for us to take it that you can't
13 attribute the source of the statement to Miss Clarke,
14 for example, what you say could have been told to you by
15 Mrs McKee. Is that possible?
16 A. I cannot honestly sit here and blame one on the other.
17 I can't.
18 Q. It is fair to say -- I don't want to put words in your
19 mouth -- I certainly don't -- but is it fair to say your
20 memory could have been contaminated, as it were, between
21 the two?
22 A. Yes, it could.
23 Q. Do you recall did you talk much about the case with
24 other people at that time; for example, Mrs McKee?
25 A. No, I didn't.
154
1 Q. Although I am sure it is difficult for you now to
2 remember.
3 A. There is things I can remember and things I can't, but
4 it is like, if you have a close tie with someone, it
5 will linger there, which I never had with any of them.
6 Q. I understand.
7 A. To be in the same house, the conversation, I could have
8 picked it up from another person or otherwise
9 I wouldn't -- obviously I wouldn't have knew what to say
10 at all.
11 Q. Just to clarify, I know it is recorded within your
12 statement, but for the benefit of the Panel, Mrs McKee
13 would have been your sister-in-law -- would that be
14 right -- at the time?
15 A. Yes, she would have been, yes.
16 MR ATCHISON: Thank you very much.
17 A. Thank you.
18 Cross-examination from MR BERRY
19 MR BERRY: Mr Murray, can you hear me?
20 A. Yes, I can.
21 Q. You have already agreed with Mr Underwood who asked you
22 questions first of all that the statement you provided
23 in 2000, in November 2000, was true. Isn't that right?
24 A. Yes, to my knowledge, yes.
25 Q. Just to confirm, you would have had no reason whatsoever
155
1 to tell lies in that statement, would you?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Your statement of November 2000, if it could be called
4 up, it is [17338], which you have been referred to.
5 That is a detailed statement, isn't it?
6 A. That's the first statement?
7 Q. Yes. That's the statement that's in front of you now?
8 A. Sorry, yes.
9 Q. It is detailed?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. It records a number of occasions where Tracey Clarke has
12 told you various things. Isn't that right?
13 A. Yes, yes.
14 Q. You had no reason whatsoever to invent that, had you?
15 A. Not that I'm aware of.
16 Q. Yes. So can we take it, therefore, when you were
17 telling this to the police officer, you were doing your
18 very best to assist and tell the truth?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, in relation to Andrea McKee and Tracey Clarke, can
21 I ask you, casting your mind back as best you can to
22 1997, would it be fair to say that they had a good
23 relationship at that time, that they were close?
24 A. As far as I remember, yes, yes.
25 Q. I know you have your own difficulties, but your wife at
156
1 that time wasn't well and hadn't been well for a number
2 of years. Isn't that right?
3 A. Correct, yes.
4 Q. It is fair to say that Tracey Clarke would have, for
5 instance, stayed over at the McKee house, the house
6 belonging to Michael McKee and Andrea McKee. Isn't that
7 right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. She had effectively a room that she used there quite
10 often. Isn't that right?
11 A. Yes, as far as I can remember, yes, she had.
12 Q. There was a closeness there, almost like an older sister
13 and a younger sister rather than an aunt and a niece,
14 between Andrea McKee and Tracey Clarke back in 1997.
15 Isn't that right?
16 A. There would have been, yes.
17 Q. Can I ask you to look at page [17340] of your statement?
18 You mention about halfway down that:
19 "I think John McAteer took this statement."
20 This is the statement that was taken from
21 Tracey Clarke.
22 Now, in 2000, is it fair to say that you knew
23 a policeman called John McAteer?
24 A. Yes, yes. That's fair to say, yes.
25 Q. You would have known John McAteer for some time and
157
1 known him in 1997. You don't, for instance, say
2 a "Detective Constable McAteer" or a "Mr McAteer". You
3 refer to him as "John McAteer", which suggests, does it
4 not, that you know him?
5 A. No, I didn't know him.
6 Q. Well, how did you know his first name? Can you
7 remember?
8 A. I can only suggest he told me his first name.
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. He was a detective.
11 Q. Yes. Do you know when that would have been? Would that
12 have been about 1997?
13 A. I honestly couldn't say on the time.
14 Q. Can I ask you this? From what you remember of
15 John McAteer, had you a good impression of him? Did you
16 like him?
17 A. I would have said yes.
18 Q. I mean, he is not a man that you look back all those
19 years ago and think, "Oh, I didn't trust him", or,
20 "I thought he was dodgy in some way". He is a man you
21 look back on and think, "Yes, that's a man I trusted"?
22 A. I would say yes.
23 Q. In terms of when Tracey Clarke -- you are aware she gave
24 a statement to the police? You refer to it in this.
25 She gave a statement to the police in May, 9th and
158
1 10th May 1997, and present when that statement was given
2 was John McAteer and Andrea McKee.
3 Can I suggest to you, Mr Murray, that at that time
4 there were hardly two other people that you would have
5 trusted more being present when Tracey Clarke was giving
6 a statement to police back then?
7 A. Well, back then, John McAteer, as being a police
8 detective, I would have trusted him.
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And -- sorry. Go ahead?
12 A. From my recollection -- sorry, I can't pronounce it
13 right -- Andrea McKee, I don't -- I wouldn't put any
14 trust in her.
15 Q. Well, is that you looking back now, because haven't you
16 agreed with me that, for instance, Tracey Clarke was
17 very close to her at that stage. Isn't that right?
18 That was your impression?
19 A. Yes, yes, but that would have been Tracey's choice.
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. Tracey never liked me.
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. So ...
24 Q. Can I ask you this: when you found out that Andrea McKee
25 was present with Tracey Clarke when she was providing
159
1 her statement to police, did you raise any issue or
2 concern about that?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Well, if you felt that Andrea McKee, for instance,
5 wasn't to be trusted, why did you not speak up?
6 A. Because, quite truthfully, it was nothing to do with me.
7 I had no authority over anybody.
8 Q. Well, were you not at all concerned that Tracey Clarke
9 was giving a statement to police with someone whom
10 potentially you didn't have a high regard for?
11 A. I would say no to that, because, like, if that was
12 Tracey's choice, you know, I look at it as that was her
13 choice. I had nothing -- I wasn't -- I wasn't brought
14 into the link.
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. So if she wanted to do that of her own accord, that was
17 up to her.
18 Q. Yes. Your understanding is that it was Tracey's choice?
19 A. I would say it would have to be, yes.
20 MR BERRY: Thank you very much, Mr Murray.
21 A. Thank you.
22 Re-examination by MR UNDERWOOD
23 MR UNDERWOOD: I have one matter arising out of that.
24 You tell us you did not trust Andrea McKee. Can you
25 tell us why?
160
1 A. Well, I think it was from I even moved there, if
2 I remember rightly, she was very against me, because
3 I was -- I was moving in on people that had been on
4 their own for a very long time, and I think she just
5 resented me --
6 Q. So do you mean --
7 A. -- for taking the limelight.
8 Q. I am so sorry. When you say you mean you didn't trust
9 her, you mean you didn't trust her to look after your
10 interests. Would that be fair?
11 A. In the sense that I could have thought that because
12 I had moved in there and took over, to me she was
13 a person that would have said anything to down me.
14 Q. Uh-huh. Do you think she would have said anything to
15 down Tracey?
16 A. I think she would, yes.
17 Q. What makes you think that?
18 A. I think she was that type of person.
19 Q. Did you have experience of that?
20 A. She was -- to me -- not really experience of it, but
21 sensing a person out. As I say, from the start she
22 wouldn't even have spoke to me. I was just like nobody,
23 but to me she was a person who would turn -- how would
24 I explain that -- if I walked in and Tracey took me with
25 loving arms and Joe Bloggs walked behind me and done the
161
1 same, she would have went for him.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. Because from the start, to me, she just did not like me.
4 Q. Can you tell us whether you knew what attitude
5 Andrea McKee had to Allister Hanvey?
6 A. Well, as far as I can remember and know, they were all
7 great friends. They were all the one ...
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. But, as I say, being from Lisburn, I didn't know the
10 connections, but, as I say, as far as I can remember,
11 they were all the one.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: When you say "they", that's Andrea McKee and
13 Mr Hanvey. Is there anyone else you include in that
14 "they"? Is Tracey one of them?
15 A. Yes.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: All great friends?
17 A. Yes.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
19 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much. Those are my questions.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. You are free now to go. Thank
21 you, Mr Murray.
22 A. Thank you very much.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry you have had to wait all day.
24 A. It is quite all right. Thank you very much.
25 MR UNDERWOOD: There is one other matter I am sorry to say
162
1 at this hour I am going to ask you to look at in
2 chambers, if I may.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: You can leave us now.
4 A. Thank you very much.
5 (The witness withdrew)
6 MR UNDERWOOD: I assume it will take five minutes to
7 rearrange the technology.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: We will just retire.
9 (5.20 pm)
10 (In Camera Session)
11 (The hearing adjourned until 10.00 am tomorrow morning)
12 --oo0oo--
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
163
1 I N D E X
2
3
MR EDWARD HONEYFORD (sworn) ...................... 1
4 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD ............... 1
Cross-examination by MR McGRORY ........... 41
5 Cross-examination by MR McCOMB ............ 64
Cross-examination by MR LINDSAY .......... 113
6 Cross-examination by MR LUNNY ............. 127
Cross-examination by MR MALLON ............ 133
7 Cross-examination by MR ADAIR ............. 145
8 MR JAMES MURRAY (sworn) .......................... 146
Examination by MR UNDERWOOD ............... 146
9 Cross-examination by MR MALLON ............ 151
Cross-examination by MR ATCHISON .......... 152
10 Cross-examination from MR BERRY ........... 155
Re-examination by MR UNDERWOOD ........... 160
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
164
