Transcripts
Return to the list of transcripts
Transcript
Hearing: 1st May 2009, day 43
Click here to download the LiveNote version
- - - - - - - - - -
PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO THE DEATH OF
ROBERT HAMILL
- - - - - - - - - -
Held at:
Interpoint
20-24 York Street
Belfast
on Friday, 1st May 2009
commencing at 10.00 am
Day 43
1 Friday, 1 May 2009
2 (10.00 am)
3 MR UNDERWOOD: Good morning. Can I have witness P39,
4 please?
5 WITNESS P39 (sworn)
6 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD
7 MR UNDERWOOD: Good morning. We have met before at the
8 anonymity application, you may recall. My name is
9 Underwood. I am Counsel to the Inquiry.
10 What will be happening is I will be asking a fair
11 number of questions of you, and it may be that there are
12 some supplemental questions after that by other
13 advocates.
14 You know we are calling you P39 in the course of
15 this, and the public is not here?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. If anybody slips and uses your name, rest assured, it
18 will be taken out again on the transcript.
19 Can I ask you to look, please, at page [81567]?
20 This is a document that runs to ten pages. If you
21 wouldn't mind keeping your eye on the screen while we
22 scroll briefly through the ten pages.
23 May I ask if that's your statement?
24 A. That is my statement.
25 Q. Are the contents of it true?
1
1 A. Yes, to the best of my ability, they are true.
2 Q. If we go back then to page [81567] -- we don't need to
3 highlight it -- in paragraph 2 you tell us that in
4 April 1997 you were a detective chief inspector. I want
5 to ask you a little about your history and experience
6 before that point.
7 We have your training record, which we can see at
8 page [72535]. In fact, it is probably better to start
9 this at [72536].
10 No. We have a technical problem with it. Here it
11 is.
12 Picking it up from the bottom, if we look on the
13 left-hand side, we see: Refresher course, Sergeant
14 Initial, Drugs Familiarisation, TV Interview Techniques,
15 something in 1980 called MSX. Can you recall what that
16 is?
17 A. I'm looking at: Refresher course Enniskillen, Sergeant
18 Initial, Drugs Familiarisation course, TV Techniques,
19 CID Senior Initial. Yes. MSX, yes, I see that now.
20 Q. Do you know what MSX is now?
21 A. That was a means of -- it was really like a fax machine.
22 Q. Right. Then if we go to page [72535], the second page
23 of it, again, picking it up from the bottom, we see
24 something in 1984 called "Com Rels Induction". Can you
25 help us with what that is?
2
1 A. Community Relations.
2 Q. Okay. Then if we go up a few to 1991, there's
3 "Interview Techniques". I can't see anything else there
4 to do with, for example, HOLMES or running a major
5 incident.
6 A. No. I never -- I never completed a course on HOLMES or
7 MIRIAM courses or anything like that.
8 Q. The one -- if we just take, before we finish on this,
9 look from the top, the second one down, there is a Crime
10 Strategy Seminar, presumably. Yes?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Was that anything like the HOLMES or MIRIAM course?
13 A. No. That was a one-day conference.
14 Q. Thank you. Now, if we go back to your statement,
15 please, at page [81567], perhaps we could highlight
16 paragraph 2.
17 You tell us generally about the set-up, but halfway
18 down that paragraph, on the left-hand side, you say:
19 "After retiring from the RUC, I retained possession
20 of my journals, which was customary at that time. I had
21 these journals destroyed for security reasons. At that
22 time there was no talk of any inquiry. I therefore make
23 this statement relying solely on my memory and those
24 papers disclosed to me by the interviewers."
25 I want to ask you about what would have gone into
3
1 journals at that stage. We have heard from other
2 witnesses that, once an officer reached the rank of
3 inspector, they would tend to use journals rather than
4 a notebook, and certainly, once above the rank of
5 inspector, used journals exclusively.
6 Did you treat the journal just like a notebook or
7 was it half a policy book, half a notebook or what?
8 A. I treated my journal recording absolutely everything
9 that was relevant to my duty.
10 Q. See if we can get help on this.
11 If, for example, you were in a senior capacity in
12 an investigation, and you made a decision about
13 something like, for example, that there was now
14 sufficient information or evidence to arrest someone,
15 would you have recorded that or would you simply have
16 recorded the arrest?
17 A. I would most probably have recorded everything in it.
18 I know that I recorded in great detail.
19 Q. Okay.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: By that, you mean probably you would have
21 recorded both the conclusion that there was now
22 sufficient evidence to arrest someone, and the fact of
23 the arrest? You would have recorded both, you think?
24 A. Most probably.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
4
1 MR UNDERWOOD: I want to ask you about the way in which the
2 initial investigation into the assault on Mr Hamill was
3 organised.
4 We know you were called in. We can look at it in
5 your statement in a bit. You were called in early on
6 the morning of the Sunday of 27 April 1997 by
7 Detective Constable Keys, who had been the first
8 detective at the scene, and we know that Detective
9 Inspector Irwin became involved as well.
10 Down to the point at which it became a murder
11 investigation, it's right, is it, that you were in
12 charge?
13 A. Yes, I would have had the overall charge because I was
14 the chief inspector in the division.
15 Q. What was Detective Inspector Irwin's role in that in
16 order?
17 A. Detective Inspector Irwin was the detective inspector in
18 charge of the subdivision.
19 Q. So in practical terms, in the period between 27 April
20 and the point on 8 May when this became a murder
21 inquiry, how did the investigation actually work in
22 terms of who was in charge, who gave day-to-day
23 directions and so on?
24 A. Well, from the Monday, which would be the 28th --
25 am I right in saying the 28th?
5
1 MR UNDERWOOD: That's correct.
2 A. Detective Inspector Irwin would have been the officer in
3 charge of the subdivision, and I would have the overall
4 view of the investigations.
5 Does that answer your question?
6 Q. It begins to. So, on a daily basis then, for example,
7 were there briefings between you and Detective Irwin?
8 A. Absolutely. Yes, there were.
9 Q. Were they, as it were, regular, first thing in the
10 morning, or as and when, or what?
11 A. Well, they would have been first thing in the morning,
12 but, because of this investigation, we had regular
13 briefings during the day as well.
14 Q. Was this a very formal command structure in which you
15 told him what to do and he just simply briefed you about
16 what was going on, or was it more collegiate with you
17 two deciding between you what happened?
18 A. Certainly we sat down and discussed the matter. It
19 wouldn't be where I would be dictatorial. We were
20 discussing the matter and looking for the best way
21 forward, and ...
22 Q. If we look -- are you having trouble seeing it on screen
23 or am I leaping to pages --
24 A. No, it's okay.
25 Q. If we look at page [22723] on screen, this is an
6
1 interview by somebody from the ICPC of Mr Irwin, and if
2 we -- let's just pick up the run of it. There's -- on
3 the very left-hand side there is a number, "087", and
4 Mr Irwin is asked, "Was DCI P39", you, "the SIO?"
5 Mr Irwin said:
6 "No, unfortunately, not unfortunately, that nobody
7 is appointed at that stage."
8 This is before 8 May. And Mr Mahaffey said:
9 "Right. Was DCI P39 at that stage your supervisor?"
10 Mr Irwin said:
11 "She was, she was on the Sunday of the incident
12 occurred on the 27 April."
13 Mr Mahaffey asked:
14 "On the 8th of May, who was in charge of the Robert Hamill
15 investigation?"
16 And Mr Irwin said:
17 "It was being supervised between me and P39."
18 Is that fair?
19 A. Supervised by ...
20 Q. Supervised between Mr Irwin and you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. If we go back to your statement at page [81570] in
23 paragraph 18, you tell us:
24 "In my policy book 915", the policy book, of course,
25 we will come to, but you don't begin that until
7
1 you become the deputy SIO on 8 May when it is a murder:
2 "I recorded that DI Irwin was the officer manager,
3 but actually his role was much more than that. He was
4 responsible for managing the investigations in
5 Portadown."
6 Was he responsible for managing the investigations
7 in Portadown before 8 May, in your view?
8 A. For managing the Hamill -- the GBH with intent?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. Yes. He was the inspector in charge of the subdivision
11 and he would have been managing that investigation, but
12 I, too, had an input into it.
13 Q. What I'm really trying to get at is whether you were
14 supervising him, and that he was managing the
15 investigation, or whether, between you, you were running
16 the investigation when it was a GBH.
17 Can you help us on that?
18 A. It's very technical. I would say then that he most
19 probably was managing it and I was supervising on that.
20 Q. Very well. Thank you. Going back to page [81567] at
21 paragraph 3, you tell us how it is you became involved.
22 You say:
23 "Over the weekend of 26/27 April 1997 I was the
24 on-call Duty Officer for CID in J Division. At
25 approximately 6.50 am on 27 April 1997, Detective
8
1 Constable Keys telephoned me and informed me that
2 an incident had occurred in the town centre and as
3 a result two people were in hospital."
4 Now, it's very easy for us, with hindsight, to see
5 that this became a murder, and, therefore, it should
6 have been dealt with with a degree of seriousness from
7 the outset.
8 What I want to get from you, if I may, is the
9 impression that you were given from the outset of just
10 how serious this was.
11 Can you please help us with that?
12 A. Yes. I was given the account of what happened insofar
13 as there was a young man who was hospitalised -- sorry,
14 there were two men who were hospitalised as a result of
15 this incident in the centre of Portadown. So I accepted
16 that it was a serious incident.
17 Q. Were you given any reason to distinguish between the two
18 in hospital? In other words, were you told one was much
19 more seriously at risk than the other?
20 A. Are you referring to the telephone call that I received?
21 Q. I'm asking you about the early stage. So either in the
22 telephone call or when you arrived and were briefed?
23 A. Certainly not in the telephone call. The telephone call
24 was very brief. It was to get -- to call me out on
25 duty, and when I went in to the station, I was then
9
1 briefed in more detail, and after I contacted the
2 consultant, Mr xxxxxxxxxx, I was given a very detailed
3 briefing in relation to the health of Mr Hamill, the
4 condition of Mr Hamill.
5 Q. If we go over -- I'm so sorry. I spoke over you.
6 If we look at page [81568], you tell us in
7 paragraph 4 that when you arrived at the station,
8 shortly after receiving the call:
9 "I spoke with DC Keys and I also spoke to
10 Inspector McCrum who was the inspector on duty that
11 night."
12 We know that Inspector McCrum, by that stage, had
13 information from the hospital, or should have had
14 information from the hospital, to the effect that this
15 was serious in respect of Mr Hamill, or at least
16 potentially serious.
17 Is that what he passed on to you?
18 A. It would be impossible for me to remember exactly what
19 Mr McCrum passed on to me, but, at that stage, I was
20 treating the whole incident as being very a serious
21 incident.
22 Q. That's helpful. Thank you. Now, in that paragraph, in
23 the final two sentences you say:
24 "I told him ..."
25 That is the inspector, I think:
10
1 "... that they had ..."
2 That is the police officers on the scene:
3 "... to return immediately, as their statements were
4 required. They arrived into CID office shortly
5 afterwards."
6 Can you help us with why you regarded it as urgent
7 that the officers at the scene be required to give
8 statements?
9 A. Because I needed the evidence for the investigation.
10 I needed to know the evidence that was available and
11 what happened.
12 Q. Is this because you didn't want to waste any time or
13 because you were anxious that, for example, evidence
14 might get lost if you didn't act quickly?
15 A. Both.
16 Q. Going on in paragraph 5, you say:
17 "I went to the scene, which was sealed off, as
18 DC Keys had already told me. The tape covered the
19 junction area of Market Street, Thomas Street and
20 Woodhouse Street."
21 There's some confusion, to be fair, in the evidence
22 about whether the scene had already been sealed off when
23 you arrived or whether you or DC Keys directed it to be
24 sealed off.
25 Have you a clear recollection of whether it had
11
1 already been sealed off?
2 A. I believe that it was sealed off when I went down to the
3 scene.
4 Q. Do you think it --
5 A. The tapes had been in the areas that are mentioned
6 there.
7 Q. We know the incident happened roughly 2 o'clock or so in
8 the morning, and the scene was cleared by officers by
9 about 3 o'clock of individuals. Would it have surprised
10 you if nobody had sealed the scene off by the time you
11 had arrived, or would it surprise you now to learn that
12 nobody had sealed the scene off by the time you arrived?
13 A. Yes. During the telephone conversation that I had with
14 Detective Constable Keys, that was my first question in
15 relation to getting the scene sealed and if it was
16 sealed.
17 Q. Mm-hm. Then I want to go down to paragraph 7, if I may.
18 You say:
19 "When I returned to the CID general office, the
20 uniformed police officers arrived into the office. They
21 were the four who were on duty in the Land Rover in the
22 town centre. I briefed them, telling them that detailed
23 statements were required, that the statements be written
24 in a sequence of events and that they could confer with
25 each other, but, should they do so, they must record
12
1 that in their notebooks."
2 Firstly, I want to ask, was consideration given to
3 getting the other officers who had been at the scene in
4 to give statements?
5 A. Yes, I asked for all the officers at the scene to be
6 brought in for -- I just want to -- I want to recap.
7 Q. Please do.
8 A. Well, I had been told that the officers who had been on
9 duty that night were going home. So obviously I asked
10 for those officers to return immediately so that I could
11 get statements --
12 Q. Yes. But --
13 A. -- but initially --
14 Q. Go on.
15 A. These were the officers that -- these were the officers
16 who were on duty at that time.
17 Q. Quite, and it may just be that you haven't been asked
18 about this before, so it doesn't appear in your
19 statement, but we know there were back-up officers and
20 we also now know that those back-up officers duly gave
21 witness statements on 27 April, early in the morning.
22 Did you also brief those to give statements or did
23 you just brief the four in the Land Rover to give
24 statements?
25 A. I briefed the officers who were in the office to give
13
1 the statements.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: So that would be the Land Rover crew?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR UNDERWOOD: We know that one of those was a constable,
5 and three of them were reservists. We have heard some
6 evidence to the effect that it would have been unusual
7 to allow reservists to make their own statements.
8 What's your view on that as a proposition?
9 A. Well, I wanted them to make statements and I didn't want
10 to have any influence on the evidence that they could
11 give, and that's why I asked them to make their
12 statements in sequence of events.
13 And on the Monday morning, at the conference,
14 I asked the detective sergeant to go back to the
15 officers with the statements, to ascertain if, in fact,
16 any other evidence could be gleaned from them.
17 Q. We know that Detective Sergeant Bradley, in fact, did
18 that, we think on 28 April --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- but it was only done with the four officers who were
21 in the Land Rover. Can you explain why that exercise
22 wasn't conducted with the back-up officers?
23 A. No, I can't.
24 Q. Can you recall whether you instructed anyone to do that
25 exercise with the back-up officers?
14
1 A. No, I would be referring to the police officers, and
2 I can't explain that, no.
3 Q. No, I'm asking you whether you can recall whether you
4 did it.
5 A. No, I can't recall.
6 Q. Thank you. We know that in the course of giving
7 statements, some of the police officers mentioned people
8 who may well have been suspects and gave details of
9 clothing that the suspects were wearing.
10 Was any strategy devised by which searches, or
11 possibly arrests and searches, would be carried out
12 quickly in order to seize that clothing?
13 A. I made the decision that, after reading the statements,
14 that it was unclear with regards to the evidence that
15 was coming through, and I believed at the time that my
16 best way forward to glean evidence was to try and get
17 witnesses to make their statements, so that they could
18 identify those who were in the town centre at the time,
19 and those who were suspected of having committed the
20 crime against Robert.
21 Q. Let me put another possibility to you that could have
22 been followed up. We know, for example, that one of the
23 officers gave evidence that he had heard somebody saying
24 of a member of the crowd that he had jumped on the head
25 of Robert Hamill, and the officer said that person
15
1 answered to the name Stacey. We also know that these
2 statements divulged that there was a Stacey Bridgett on
3 the scene.
4 Bear with me for a moment, if you would.
5 So that, on a read of the statements that were
6 available by 28 April, there was, for example, some
7 reason to believe that Stacey Bridgett might have jumped
8 on the head of Robert Hamill.
9 Now, was consideration given to seizing clothing
10 quickly before DNA evidence could be destroyed?
11 A. When I read that statement, or when I read the
12 statements, I should say, at that time the man called
13 Stacey was standing at the Land Rover when speaking to
14 the police, when someone came over to the Land Rover and
15 pulled the driver out of the Land Rover and said, "You
16 sat there while this was going on", or something to that
17 effect.
18 When that police officer got out of the Land Rover,
19 he already saw Robert, or the person we believe was
20 Robert, lying on the ground. So he was already
21 assaulted and lying on the ground, and this man, Stacey,
22 was at the Land Rover, and then there was another
23 statement, if I remember correctly, saying that a woman
24 said that Stacey, or someone responded to Stacey, had
25 jumped on his head. But when that lady was interviewed,
16
1 she denied that, and it wasn't -- she did not say that
2 in her statement. And that statement was taken on
3 either the 27th or the 28th. I'm not quite sure of that
4 date.
5 Q. I want to tease a couple of things out of that. The
6 first thing is, it's your recollection, is it, that
7 Mr Hamill was on the ground and unconscious by the time
8 the officers got out of the Land Rover?
9 A. Yes, I believe that's what was in the statements.
10 Q. The second thing I want to tease out is this: was it
11 unknown in Portadown for witnesses to be reluctant to
12 come forward and help the police?
13 A. For witnesses?
14 Q. Mm-hm?
15 A. We were depending on witnesses to come forward to help
16 the police. I believed that that was the best way
17 forward in that investigation. So that they could
18 identify the suspects.
19 Q. You see, we now, with the benefit of a good deal of
20 hindsight, would recognise that the police might have
21 encountered quite some difficulty in getting witnesses
22 to come forward. That wasn't your perception then. Is
23 that right?
24 A. We -- in the investigation, we ultimately did find it,
25 but when -- I made that decision on the Sunday, and
17
1 I believed that Robert was seriously injured, and
2 I believed that certainly the Catholic community would
3 have been very willing to give statements, and I based
4 my decision on that belief.
5 Q. You see -- let me test this this way. If we look at
6 paragraph 16 of your statement:
7 "On 1 May 1997, we planned to arrest three
8 individuals, but for reasons which I can no longer
9 remember we had to delay it. On 6 May 1997 we arrested
10 Stacey Bridgett, Dean Forbes and xxxxxxxxxx. I am
11 reminded that after interview it was clear that
12 Mr xxxxxxxxxx had nothing to do with it and he was released.
13 The other two were released on bail."
14 What I want to suggest to you -- and I know you
15 haven't seen all the papers and it is a long time ago --
16 is that nothing changed in terms of your understanding
17 of what Stacey Bridgett had done between 27 April and
18 1 May, because all you had to go on, in respect of
19 Stacey Bridgett doing anything in respect of Mr Hamill,
20 was this evidence that somebody had said in the heat of
21 the moment that he had jumped on the head of
22 Robert Hamill?
23 A. Well, actually, I disagree with that. A lot had
24 happened because, number 1, my decision was made on the
25 Sunday that I was going for witnesses, and I believed at
18
1 that time that I would have got the support,
2 particularly from the Catholic community.
3 Now, from the days following, I discovered that
4 I was getting -- I was having great difficulty in
5 getting the witnesses to come forward to make
6 statements. In fact, one of the Catholic people who
7 gave a statement didn't do so until after Robert had
8 died. So I was reviewing the situation every day.
9 I, in the meantime, had gone to the Hamill family,
10 I had asked them for their help to get witnesses. I had
11 gone to the priests in the community. I had asked them
12 for help to get witnesses to come forward, and,
13 unfortunately, they didn't come forward with any help to
14 me.
15 So on 1 May, my decision was changed. I said --
16 I decided then that we should go for these people, and
17 we got one of them wrong, but that was the reason why
18 I changed my strategy.
19 Q. Obviously we are coming into this with the benefit of
20 hindsight.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You must not take my questions as being necessarily
23 critical. What we are trying to do is find out why
24 decisions were made:
25 It comes down to this then, does it? As of
19
1 27 April, you did have enough information to arrest, for
2 example, Stacey Bridgett, but you wanted to improve the
3 case against him down to the point when, on 1 May, you
4 decided that you couldn't adequately improve the case
5 against him and decided to arrest him?
6 A. I believed that the evidence was extremely weak,
7 because, as I have already said, this man was standing
8 at the Land Rover. He was speaking to police officers.
9 Robert was already assaulted. I couldn't connect him to
10 the assault on Robert Hamill at that time. And
11 I believed, as I'm really repeating myself now,
12 I believed that the best way forward was to try and get
13 witnesses who could identify the suspects, and
14 I believed at that time that that would have been a more
15 successful way of pursuing the investigation.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: You have said that you were hoping for help
17 from the Catholic community.
18 A. Absolutely.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: You haven't told us what sort of help, if
20 any, you were hoping for from the Protestant community.
21 A. Sorry. I was dealing with the Catholic community at
22 that point.
23 Of course, at that time, we then raised
24 a questionnaire to identify people who were on the
25 street, and we were getting descriptions from the
20
1 statements, and pursuing that end of it. Going and
2 interviewing the people that we were able to identify,
3 asking them the questions which were on the
4 questionnaire, and that's how we were pursuing the
5 Protestant or the Loyalist community.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Tell me if, then, I have understood
7 correctly. Is this a fair summary: your first hope was
8 that you would get the help from the Catholic community.
9 That wasn't forthcoming, so you cast your net wider.
10 A. No, sorry. I am misleading you, if I give you that
11 impression.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: That's my fault, I am sure.
13 A. I was going both for the Catholic community and the
14 Loyalist community, but because I believed that the
15 Catholic community would have been more forthcoming,
16 because of the injuries sustained by Robert Hamill ...
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
18 MR UNDERWOOD: I'm sorry to keep on at this point, but one
19 other matter on it.
20 Did you consider whether you could seize clothing
21 which could have had DNA traces on it whilst all that
22 investigation was continuing?
23 A. I can't remember. I'm sorry.
24 Q. All right. The -- if we go over the page on your
25 statement -- sorry, it's back, in fact, to [81569],
21
1 paragraph 10 you tell us that Detective Constable Keys
2 had asked for some assistance:
3 "I asked him to call in Detective Constable
4 McDowell. DC McDowell commenced eliciting information
5 from the statements as to what happened and who was
6 there."
7 We have heard from DC McDowell, and it may well be
8 that the Panel take the view that his idea of eliciting
9 information wasn't exactly high grade.
10 What was your perception of Mr McDowell's abilities?
11 A. His abilities to ...?
12 Q. As a detective.
13 A. He was a detective constable. He was more junior than
14 Detective Constable Keys.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: That doesn't, I think, quite answer
16 Mr Underwood's question, though. There are bright
17 youngsters and there are not so bright youngsters, and
18 so on up the age scale.
19 A. Constable McDowell was bright, but he didn't have the
20 same experience as Detective Constable Keys.
21 MR UNDERWOOD: You would say there -- to be fair, this is
22 a statement that has been put together for you, so
23 I want to get your real evidence on this part of it --
24 that DC McDowell commenced eliciting evidence from the
25 statements as to what happened and who was there.
22
1 Do you mean by that he did anything other than read
2 them?
3 A. Yes, I do mean that he did -- he actually started
4 recording on a separate paper the names of the -- the
5 names mentioned in the statements, where they were, and
6 what they could prove, descriptions, et cetera.
7 Q. There is a gap, isn't there, which is between what was
8 done with the four in the Land Rover: namely, that
9 Detective Sergeant Bradley carefully went through
10 statements and elicited more information from them, and
11 what happened with all the other police officers who
12 were at the scene, which is that nothing happened to
13 elicit more information from them?
14 Do you accept that?
15 A. Well, I'm not in a position to answer that question
16 because I have just forgotten whether that's right or
17 not.
18 Q. Let me put this to you. Inspector McCrum and
19 Sergeant P89 made very short statements in which
20 they said nothing of any value whatsoever, and yet
21 nobody interviewed them. Nobody asked them what they
22 saw and who they could have seen at the scene.
23 Can you explain why that would be?
24 A. No, I can't.
25 Q. Because you told off Detective Sergeant Bradley to do
23
1 precisely that task with the four in the Land Rover.
2 Did you regard it as your responsibility to tell
3 anybody to do that to the other officers or were you
4 leaving that to Detective Inspector Irwin?
5 A. Well, if I had overlooked something, Detective
6 Inspector Irwin would have reminded me, or vice versa,
7 and if it was overlooked, I cannot explain why it was
8 overlooked.
9 Q. You see, to be fair, we don't know it was overlooked.
10 You may well have asked somebody to do it and recorded
11 that in your journal and it may be that the person told
12 to do it didn't do it.
13 A. Well, I can't remember. I really can't remember that.
14 I know that it was very important that those statements
15 were reviewed, and that was asked on the Monday morning.
16 I know that. I asked that to be done. But I cannot
17 remember the details at this stage.
18 Q. Very well. You see, at paragraph 11, still on this
19 page, you say:
20 "I commenced reading the statements. The detective
21 constables and I discussed the incident and the
22 statements. It was becoming somewhat complicated, in
23 that most people in the town centre could be suspects."
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did you believe that you read all the statements that
24
1 came in from officers who were at the scene?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. So if, for example, a local reservist gave a statement
4 that didn't contain evidence identifying very many
5 people, would that have struck you as odd? Was that the
6 sort of thing you were looking for, in other words?
7 A. That would have been one of the reasons why I asked the
8 detective sergeant to go back the following morning.
9 Q. Then, if we can move over to page [81570] again, please,
10 paragraph 14, you talk about the CCTV footage.
11 We know that Detective Constable Keys seized some
12 tapes and we know he viewed some and they were handed
13 back with the view that there was nothing worthwhile on
14 them.
15 Can you help us more about that? Was there any
16 discussion with Mr Keys about what actually was shown on
17 the tapes?
18 A. I was looking for evidence in relation to the incident
19 on the Saturday night/Sunday morning, and I left it with
20 Detective Constable Keys to recover the footage and to
21 view it, and to come back to me or/and the detective
22 inspector in relation to what he had found. And there
23 was nothing of an evidential matter on the tapes.
24 Q. Again, the problem is we are looking at this with
25 hindsight, and what might have struck you then as having
25
1 evidential importance, and what might now, with the huge
2 advantage of all the documents we have got, strike one
3 as having evidential advantage may be different, and
4 that's why I'm asking you if you can remember what was
5 shown. Can you help us at all with that?
6 A. No, I can't help you with what was shown. I know the
7 cameras were very limited. I remember believing, before
8 we got the CCTV, that we would have got evidence.
9 I believed that we would have got evidence from it, but
10 apparently it was extremely limited as to the view and
11 there was nothing on the -- I think actually there might
12 have been one of them not working. I'm not quite sure.
13 I really cannot remember in great detail about that.
14 Q. I'm going to press you on one other aspect of this.
15 Do you know whether the tapes showed the Land Rover?
16 A. I can't remember.
17 Q. If we move on to paragraph 15, then, you say, as you
18 have already told us, that you went to [Robert's mother]'s home
19 to try to gain the support of the family and the
20 community.
21 In the third sentence of that you say:
22 "She [Robert's mother] received us well, but I was aware
23 that animosity was building towards the police."
24 Again, we know that animosity built towards the
25 police because of an understanding or a suspicion that
26
1 the police didn't get out of the Land Rover in time.
2 Can you help us with why you thought at the time that
3 animosity was building towards the police?
4 A. Because of the lack of support that we were getting from
5 the Hamill family.
6 Q. Sorry, I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not
7 asking you why you perceived animosity, I'm asking you
8 why you thought people were building an animosity
9 towards the police. What was motivating them to become
10 agitated towards the police?
11 A. Well, the fact that we were finding it difficult to get
12 witnesses from the Catholic community; that they weren't
13 coming forward to support us; that they weren't helping
14 us to move this investigation forward.
15 Q. You think that's because there was animosity towards the
16 police?
17 A. That was because of the press -- which was reported in
18 the press, I should say, that the police officers
19 remained in the Land Rover and didn't help at the scene.
20 Q. At that stage, did you believe that the Land Rover crew
21 remained in the Land Rover while Mr Hamill was being
22 assaulted?
23 A. Well, I had the evidence from the statements saying --
24 well, you know what they said in the statement, where
25 they came over -- Constable Neill got out of the
27
1 Land Rover, that Robert was already lying on the ground.
2 He was already assaulted, and after that, they went out
3 into the street and the crowd was there, and they had
4 difficulty in getting them back, and they sent for
5 reinforcements.
6 Q. I want to be fair to you on this. What the statements
7 of the four in the Land Rover essentially said -- and
8 I am paraphrasing -- was that Mr Hamill was not on the
9 ground by the time they got out. In fact, what Mr Neill
10 said was that he thinks perhaps he saw Mr Hamill running
11 about. That was the evidence which was given at the
12 criminal trial.
13 So your perception now of the position is not
14 actually what's in their statements, and that's why I'm
15 asking you what your perception was at the time.
16 A. Sorry, I would have to read the statement again then
17 to -- I had understood that he was lying on the ground.
18 But if I'm wrong, it is a lapse of memory. I thought
19 that he was.
20 Q. Very well.
21 A. I'm sorry about that.
22 Q. The point is your understanding of what happened is the
23 understanding you have got from reading the statements
24 of the four in the Land Rover?
25 A. Yes.
28
1 Q. Do I take it then you accepted what was in the
2 statements of the four in the Land Rover as true?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. But were you conscious that that's not -- to come back
5 to it, that's not what the Catholic community believed;
6 the Catholic community believed they were sitting there
7 while Mr Hamill was beaten and put on the ground?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. How did you deal with that?
10 A. Well, I -- as I said, I went to the Hamill family.
11 I went to the priests in the community, and I asked them
12 for their support in pursuing this investigation.
13 I needed to get witnesses to come forward to tell us
14 what exactly they saw, and what happened at the scene.
15 And in conversation -- from my conversation with
16 them, they would have known I would have expected them
17 to have known that I was looking for witnesses to pursue
18 the investigation.
19 Q. Right. Then, if we go down to paragraph 17 on this
20 page, you tell us that on 8 May, when Mr Hamill died,
21 you were off work. That "DI Irwin telephoned me that
22 night to tell me what had happened", and you say,
23 "I believe he briefed DCS McBurney as well", and you go
24 on to say you opened a policy book and the investigation
25 was transferred to HOLMES.
29
1 Was this the first time you had operated a policy
2 book?
3 A. Yes, I believe that was the first time I actually opened
4 a policy book.
5 Q. What I want to ask you about on this is the way in which
6 the intelligence relating to Mr Atkinson was dealt with.
7 If we look about halfway down this paragraph 17, on the
8 right-hand side:
9 "DCS McBurney made it clear, however, that because
10 there was intelligence of a police officer's involvement
11 with a suspect, we had to restrict the recording of
12 information. In fact, he was of the view that we should
13 not have recorded anything for security reasons. I was
14 therefore selective about what entries I made in the
15 policy book."
16 Were you at odds then with Detective Chief
17 Superintendent McBurney about the use of this book?
18 A. Well, he was the senior investigating officer, and I was
19 mindful of the fact that -- the police officer's
20 involvement with the suspect, and we discussed this, and
21 he, being Mr McBurney, said that it would be much better
22 to restrict the recording of the information in the
23 policy book, although I recorded some of the entries in
24 it, and I kept the policy book very secure.
25 Q. That's what I was going to ask. What was the difficulty
30
1 about this? Could it not be locked away?
2 A. Well, I kept it actually in my briefcase and carried it
3 with me. The facilities in Portadown were very sparse.
4 In my office, I had a desk, similar to this one, with
5 a chair and two chairs in front of it, and it was a very
6 small office. There were very, very limited facilities
7 in Portadown.
8 Q. I just want to show you this policy book because
9 I unfairly opened it and stopped short.
10 If we look on the screen, it starts at page [00913].
11 What we see is a range of entries down to 17 July (sic), which
12 we find at page [00934]. Can we look at [00934],
13 please? Is that your writing?
14 A. Yes, that's my writing.
15 Q. That's the writing we see through it. There is
16 a further book, I think, if we look at page [00935].
17 Did you simply run out of paper and start another book
18 there? Is that how these work?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Then I think if we go to page [00941], the final entry
21 is of 30 May 1997, decision number 25?
22 A. Mm-hm.
23 Q. Again, that's your writing, I think.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The decision there is:
31
1 "Handed policy file to DI Irwin. Going on annual
2 leave."
3 That was your last dealing, I think, on that policy
4 book. Is that right?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. In fact, apart from something I will ask you about in
7 terms of a crime file in July, I think that was your
8 last dealing with this investigation. Is that so?
9 A. That could very well have been. I'm not in a position
10 to say it was the last one or not.
11 Q. All right. I want to come back now to 9 May 1997. It's
12 in your witness statement at page [81571]. At
13 paragraph 19 you deal with Tracey Clarke, learning about
14 her and her coming in to give evidence. By all means
15 remind yourself about the paragraph, if you like.
16 A. Sorry?
17 Q. I want to ask you a number of questions about how
18 Tracey Clarke gave her statement.
19 She attended the police station late on 9 May,
20 accompanied by Andrea McKee. Is that correct?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. You and Mr McAteer saw her, I think, for the purposes of
23 taking her statement.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, we have heard from Mr McAteer, and we have got some
32
1 idea of what Ms Clarke says about that.
2 Let me put to you what is said against the police,
3 and it's that either Andrea McKee forced Tracey Clarke
4 to make a statement which was substantially untrue, or
5 the police did, and that by way of forcing her, the
6 police did things like bang on the table and refuse to
7 let her out of the police station until she had made the
8 statement?
9 A. That is utter nonsense, totally untrue.
10 Q. Now, what we would be very grateful for is your
11 impression of Tracey Clarke, what was her demeanour when
12 she came in, for a start?
13 A. Well, Tracey Clarke was a very young girl, vulnerable.
14 She came in with this other lady, Andrea McKee. She --
15 I can't remember all the details, but I really talked to
16 her about what she had seen on 26th/27th, and I wanted
17 her -- I asked her to tell the truth as she knew it.
18 I emphasised that it was the truth we wanted, as she
19 knew it and understood it.
20 Q. Did she come tumbling out with it or did you have to
21 tease it out of her? What happened?
22 A. At the start, I understand that Detective
23 Constable McAteer was speaking to her first, and I went
24 in, and I sat in, along with him, taking the statement,
25 and she -- after a while, she started recording -- she
33
1 started talking about what had happened.
2 Q. Was it your impression that this was a girl telling the
3 truth?
4 A. Yes, it was.
5 Q. Was it your impression that she was under any sort of
6 pressure from Andrea McKee?
7 A. No.
8 Q. How were you treating her, you and Mr McAteer?
9 A. I was treating her as a very young, vulnerable girl.
10 All I asked the girl to do was to tell the truth as she
11 knew it, and I kept saying, you know, "If it's the
12 truth", and, "Just tell us the truth", if she was there,
13 and she saw what happened.
14 Q. I take it then, you accepted that she was telling you
15 the truth in everything that she put in her statement?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. In paragraph 20 you deal with this, and about five lines
18 from the bottom, you say:
19 "I never thought Tracey would not give her
20 evidence..."
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. "... and I don't recall being aware that she was being
23 intimidated."
24 We know, of course, she was called Witness A and was
25 going to be given at least that degree of protection.
34
1 What sort of discussion was there about her
2 willingness to give evidence, once she had given her
3 statement?
4 A. Well, after she had given her evidence -- oh, so sorry,
5 after she had made her statement, Detective
6 Constable McAteer and I accompanied her home, and spoke
7 with her parents, particularly her mother.
8 Mr McBurney and I had made efforts to get Andrea
9 (sic) a job elsewhere, other than in the Portadown area.
10 Q. When you took her home and spoke to her parents, was
11 there any discussion of the content of her statement?
12 A. No, I don't think so. I think actually the conversation
13 would have been about Andrea (sic) herself and, you
14 know, how good she was, and she was a good daughter
15 and --
16 Q. Do you mean Tracey?
17 A. I'm so sorry. Pardon me.
18 MR WOLFE: Just for the record, "Andrea" was said twice. It
19 should be "Tracey" on both occasions.
20 A. Pardon me.
21 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you.
22 We have been unable to call Tracey Clarke's mother
23 because of her medical condition, and I just wonder if
24 you can assist at all on whether Tracey Clarke's mother
25 knew that Tracey had given a statement which identified
35
1 potential murderers?
2 A. Well, she knew that she had given a statement, and she
3 knew that she -- Tracey was in the town centre at the
4 time and that she had witnessed the scene -- the
5 incident.
6 Q. This may seem outlandish, but did Tracey Clarke's mother
7 say something like, "That's nonsense. She didn't see
8 anything"?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Did you have the impression that Tracey Clarke and her
11 mother had spoken about this at all?
12 A. Yes. I would have -- I believed that [Tracey's mother] was
13 aware of what Tracey was doing.
14 Q. There's one point of detail I wonder if you could help
15 us with.
16 In the statement which Tracey gave, she did not say
17 what it was that Allister Hanvey had been wearing on the
18 night. Now, when Mr McAteer gave evidence to us, he
19 said that he was certain he would have asked her that,
20 because that was his technique, and that his
21 recollection was that she was able to give only the
22 vaguest description, so vague that it wasn't worth
23 making a note of.
24 Can you help on what was said about that?
25 A. I'm awfully sorry, but I couldn't remember such fine
36
1 detail.
2 Q. Very well.
3 Now, in addition to telling you in the statement
4 what Tracey Clarke had seen, she also recounted the
5 events, as she put them, of dealings between
6 Robbie Atkinson and Allister Hanvey.
7 Do you recall that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. We can see her statement, if necessary, to see what was
10 said in there. But it was to the effect, of course,
11 that there had been a phone call early in the morning
12 from Mr Atkinson to Mr Hanvey, tipping him off, in
13 essence, to do something with his clothes.
14 We know, if we look at the policy book, that you
15 took some action about that. Perhaps we could look at
16 page [00918].
17 Here we've got decision number 5, dated 9 May 1997
18 at 11.50 pm. Again, this is your writing, I take it?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. "To obtain records of incoming and outgoing telephone
21 calls in respect of E Hanvey, R Atkinson.
22 "Reason:
23 "To establish the authenticity of intelligence."
24 And you have signed it at the bottom and dated it
25 9 May. So did you, as it were, break off out of the
37
1 interview to do that?
2 A. I obviously did.
3 Q. So what I'm getting at, is that that's not, as it were,
4 backdated from something you then did a day or two
5 afterwards?
6 A. No.
7 Q. If we look at page [24696], we can see that Mr McAteer
8 makes the request in manuscript, and then, towards the
9 bottom of that, "I request all incoming and outgoing
10 calls in respect of the above telephone numbers,
11 please."
12 Again, you have signed that off?
13 A. Mm-hm.
14 Q. Again, we see, "Approved, Mr McBurney, 9 May."
15 It looks as if these dates are right, as if, within
16 the course of about ten minutes, you got out of the
17 interview, made the decision, or, having made the
18 decision, recorded it in the book, that this was done by
19 Mr McAteer, signed off by you, and countersigned and
20 approved by Mr McBurney.
21 Is that right, do you think? I'm not doubting it.
22 I'm just asking for your comments on it.
23 A. Well, I know that it was made immediately. But I cannot
24 give you details as to the sequence of how it was done,
25 but I definitely know that as soon as we had that
38
1 intelligence, that we wanted to pursue it.
2 Q. Right. Would you forgive me?
3 If we go over the page -- sorry, back on your
4 statement at page [81573], at paragraph 24, you say:
5 "I do not remember when I got the results back from
6 the request for itemised telephone billing, but it would
7 have taken some time. I know it wasn't turned around in
8 a day."
9 Mr McAteer told us he thought it would take about
10 a week.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. We have found a document with the records on. It bears
13 a date of 16 May. So would somewhere round a week or
14 16 May be reasonable, as far as your recollection is
15 concerned?
16 A. I would have guessed that it would have taken longer.
17 But if it said a week, I'll accept that.
18 Q. We know that when that came back, it confirmed there was
19 indeed a telephone call made a little after 8.30 from
20 the Atkinson household to the Hanvey household.
21 Do you now recollect that indeed the billing
22 confirmed the allegation to that degree?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What happened then?
25 A. From the investigation point of view?
39
1 Q. Yes. Once the corroboration, such as it was, appeared,
2 what decision was taken about what to do about
3 Mr Atkinson?
4 A. The decision was that that was going to be a separate
5 investigation.
6 Q. Whose decision was that?
7 A. Mr McBurney's.
8 Q. Did you have any input into it?
9 A. There probably would have been a discussion about that.
10 Q. Did you understand what the reasoning was?
11 A. Well, I knew that the ICPC were involved, and I would
12 have thought that there would have -- the investigators
13 would have been from outside J Division.
14 Q. You see, one of the difficulties is Mr xxxxxxxxxx, who
15 was the ICPC supervisor, has tragically died. So we
16 can't get any evidence from him about whether he thought
17 he was involved.
18 But from the materials we have, it appears that the
19 ICPC took the view that they were nothing to do with the
20 Atkinson allegation.
21 What would you say about that?
22 A. Well, I thought that -- I thought that ICPC were
23 involved with it. I would have -- I would have
24 considered that they would have been involved in that
25 investigation.
40
1 Q. Can I press you on this? Do you think they should have
2 been involved?
3 A. Well, I said that I thought that they were. So ...
4 Q. Given that it was to be a separate investigation, can
5 you help us with whether consideration was given to
6 suspending or arresting Mr Atkinson?
7 A. Mr McBurney would have been speaking to officers higher
8 in rank than himself, and I would imagine that that was
9 discussed, but I wouldn't be privy to those discussions.
10 Q. If we go down to paragraph 26 of your statement --
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Forgive me, just before we do, I can see that
12 this was a disciplinary matter, but what view did you
13 take about whether the business of Mr Atkinson also was
14 a matter for the murder investigation?
15 Did you regard it as part of it or something
16 different?
17 A. Well, it was decided that he would be -- a criminal
18 investigation would take place, and that it would have
19 been, I believe, separate from the murder investigation.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Did you think it had any impact on the
21 investigation into the murder?
22 A. Well, it certainly --
23 THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, the case which might be made
24 against Mr Hanvey.
25 A. That was a decision that was made by Mr McBurney, sir.
41
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Did he discuss it with you?
2 A. He discussed it with senior officers.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Did he discuss it with you?
4 A. Well, he told us what the --
5 THE CHAIRMAN: What the decision was?
6 A. Yes.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: I noticed a little earlier in your evidence
8 you said about a decision being "Mr McBurney, he
9 decided".
10 A. Yes.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Was he a man with his own way of doing
12 things?
13 A. Mr McBurney was a very experienced police officer who
14 had a very strong personality and has a strong
15 personality.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
17 MR UNDERWOOD: On this point, can I take you to a passage in
18 your statement at [81574], paragraph 29. In the final
19 five lines of this there is a sentence which starts:
20 "We were not, however, actually investigating
21 Reserve Constable Atkinson at that time. We needed to keep the
22 police officers on board as well as the civilian
23 witnesses. We did not consider including
24 Robert Atkinson as part of the murder investigation; we
25 believed it would be better to deal with them
42
1 separately."
2 Would that more accurately read:
3 "Mr McBurney believed that and I did what I was
4 told"?
5 A. Yes, the decision was made that that would have been
6 a separate investigation.
7 Q. But a decision by Mr McBurney?
8 A. Well, I'm not saying that was the decision by
9 Mr McBurney. It could very well have been with senior
10 officers. I'm not privy to that.
11 Q. But it was not a decision that you were engaged in?
12 A. No.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: If you are going on to another matter,
14 otherwise, please finish this and then we will have our
15 break.
16 MR UNDERWOOD: Certainly. I just want to finish off on that
17 passage, if I may. There is this sentence and I just
18 want to ask you about it:
19 "We were not, however, investigating Reserve
20 Constable Atkinson at that time."
21 Was that your understanding, that, in fact, there
22 was at that stage -- and we are talking here about,
23 I think, 12 May 1997 -- no investigation into
24 Mr Atkinson?
25 A. I believed that that investigation would have been taken
43
1 on by a different team.
2 Q. But you weren't aware that there was an investigation,
3 in fact. Is that fair?
4 A. Pardon me?
5 Q. You weren't actually aware that there was
6 an investigation. Is that fair?
7 Let me tell you now, there wasn't an investigation
8 by another team.
9 A. I'm so sorry. I didn't catch what you said.
10 Q. Let me tell you now, there was not an investigation by
11 another team, but you assume, do you, that another team
12 was investigating Mr Atkinson?
13 A. I believed that another team would have been
14 investigating Mr Atkinson, yes.
15 Q. Does it surprise you that no other team, in fact,
16 investigated Mr Atkinson and nothing else was done until
17 September 1997?
18 A. Yes.
19 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: Can I just ask about the
20 sentence that comes before that:
21 "We were conscious that the three investigations
22 would overlap..."
23 So you really thought there were three
24 investigations going on at the same time?
25 A. That was from -- just let me recap, please. (Pause).
44
1 Yes. I'm reading it here. We were conscious that the
2 three investigations would overlap, yes. That was
3 discussed with Mr xxxxxxxxxx.
4 Can I look at the policy book, please?
5 MR UNDERWOOD: Of course you can. You might want to do it
6 after a break. That's all.
7 A. Okay.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: 15 minutes.
9 (11.15 am)
10 (A short break)
11 (11.35 am)
12 MR UNDERWOOD: We were going to look at your policy book
13 entry in relation to this, and the one I think that's
14 nearest to it -- but you will tell me otherwise -- is
15 page [00926].
16 I think I can read your writing in the way it's been
17 copied, but let me take you through it, if I may.
18 It's decision number 13 on 12 May 1997. "Officer
19 Making Decision", it says, is DCS McBurney:
20 "Meeting held with ICPC.
21 "Those present were", and the word blanked out is
22 'xxxxxxxxxx', "Mr xxxxxxxxxx and Mr Greg Mullan,
23 DCS McBurney, Superintendent Anderson, C & D,
24 DCI P39, and then:
25 "D/C/Supt McBurney briefed
45
1 ICPC of incident and investigation so far. Mr xxxxxxxxxx
2 outlined his role in supervising the complaints made by
3 Miss Hamill, which was police inactivity at the scene.
4 "D/C/Supt to continue with
5 murder investigation. D/C/Supt to
6 be in charge of investigating complaint", that is in the
7 singular, "ICPC to obtain copies of all documents so far
8 in investigation.
9 "Reasons:
10 "All strands of the incident are inextricably
11 linked. At this stage of the investigation it is
12 necessary to examine all strands of the incident."
13 Now, let's examine this. Is this the meeting you
14 are talking about at which you thought three separate
15 investigations, as it were, were perceived?
16 A. I think there's another entry in the policy book. If we
17 could move on.
18 Q. Of course.
19 A. Is that the first entry?
20 Q. I think it's the first ICPC entry.
21 A. Is there a more detailed entry in the policy book?
22 Q. There is not. Rather, there's one on 19 May. It may
23 well be that that's --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Which is a lengthy one. It's at page [00936].
46
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Before we leave that, can I deal with 12 May?
3 You told us in your statement that there were
4 matters that you did not put in the policy book because
5 of their sensitivity. Have you any recollection about
6 whether there was, in fact, discussion of the Atkinson
7 allegation on 12 May, but you omitted it from the policy
8 book for that reason?
9 A. I can't -- I would like to check the policy book first
10 before I answer that question, if I may, please, just to
11 refresh my memory.
12 Q. You mean you want to see the 19 May entry?
13 A. Yes, I do. I have it here.
14 Q. Page [00936] for our purposes. (Pause).
15 Yes?
16 A. Yes, I see in decision number 22 that I have recorded at
17 the bottom of page [00936], and it said that:
18 "These should be kept to a minimum. He", being
19 Mr xxxxxxxxxx, "would be present during the interviews
20 and would ensure that the persons were aware that the
21 investigation was in relation to the complaint re
22 police, not the murder investigation and the allegation
23 made by Witness A," which would have been the
24 investigation you are referring to.
25 Q. It's the allegation I'm referring to.
47
1 A. Yes, that's right.
2 Q. So what we are clear about is, insofar as you make
3 a reference to a discussion with the ICPC about this,
4 the ICPC was not involved in supervising any
5 investigation there might have been about the Atkinson
6 allegation. Is that right?
7 A. Yes, according to these notes here, yes.
8 Q. Have you any independent recollection of the
9 discussions?
10 A. I made a detailed note of those at the time. I didn't
11 make a note of the actual briefing that Mr McBurney gave
12 to those present. I wouldn't be happy giving evidence
13 under oath as to what he said, because I really would be
14 guessing and I don't have the details of that.
15 Q. Very well. Is this a fair summary of the position about
16 the Atkinson allegation then: that you took it so
17 seriously when it was made as to ensure that there was
18 an immediate call for the billing records?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. That when the confirmation came in that there had been
21 a telephone call between the two households, that
22 Mr McBurney took the decision, perhaps with officers
23 more senior than you, and indeed him, that the
24 allegation would not be dealt with in either in the
25 murder investigation or the neglect complaint. Is that
48
1 right?
2 A. Yes, I was under the impression that that was a separate
3 investigation, there was going to be a separate
4 investigation.
5 Q. That was going to be my third question; that you assumed
6 or you were under the impression that there would be
7 a separate investigation?
8 A. Yes.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you remember if anything was said to
10 suggest that the fruits of the investigation about the
11 telephone call would be fed into the murder
12 investigation?
13 A. No, I don't recall that.
14 MR UNDERWOOD: Let me leap ahead and take you to page
15 [15952].
16 A. Just, if I may say that in the evidence from Witness A,
17 she said that the reserve constable was in touch with
18 Hanvey on a regular -- on a daily basis, if I remember
19 correctly.
20 Q. That's correct.
21 A. And the telephone billing didn't show that. It wasn't
22 on the telephone billing, but I know that there was
23 contact made on that morning of the 28th, I think I'm
24 right in saying it was the 28th. The 27th, was it?
25 Q. It was the 27th, yes.
49
1 A. Sorry.
2 Q. But the point is, if there was consideration about
3 whether that information was relevant to the murder, it
4 wasn't consideration that you were party to. Is that
5 fair?
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. There's one other document on this topic that may help
8 you. Let me show it to you, if I may. It's on the
9 screen. It's at page [15952]. We know that in late
10 July 1997 Detective Inspector Irwin signed off what
11 I call a crime file: namely, a file to go to the DPP
12 about the murder. It had with it a confidential
13 attachment. This is the confidential attachment. You
14 can look at this. You can look at the crime file.
15 I think you signed off the crime file, in fact, not
16 in your capacity that you were in, in May, but in the
17 capacity to which you came back in later 1997.
18 Do you remember whether you saw this confidential
19 attachment when you signed off the file?
20 A. I would say I did. Sorry, when I -- could you repeat
21 that question?
22 Q. Of course. Let me go back to your witness statement at
23 page [81575]. At paragraph 33 you say:
24 "On 22 July 1997, DI Irwin submitted his file on the
25 case to the DPP."
50
1 That is the murder case:
2 "It came through me and the subdivisional officer
3 and went to the DPP via Crime Branch."
4 That report is at page numbers [15952] to 15953.
5 It is [15952] to 15953 that we are looking, but,
6 in fact, [15952] to 15953 are just the confidential
7 attachment to the crime file?
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. What I'm asking you about is whether you would have seen
10 the confidential attachment as well as the crime file?
11 A. Yes, I would have.
12 Q. If we just look at it, in case it helps you, [15952].
13 It is a confidential attachment because it deals with
14 the question of Tracey Clarke and Witness B, who is
15 Timothy Jameson.
16 If we look at the final paragraph on [15952], what
17 Mr Irwin said was:
18 "Due to the implications made reference a serving
19 police officer, namely, R/Constable Atkinson, who
20 has many contacts within the Portadown station, but who
21 now serves in Craigavon RUC station, it was felt
22 appropriate to refrain from identifying the witness at
23 this stage.
24 That witness being Tracey Clarke:
25 "In addition, a separate DPP file being submitted
51
1 which will include this allegation."
2 So there is there reference to a separate DPP file
3 going up, which will include the allegation against
4 Mr Atkinson.
5 Was that consistent with your belief then that at
6 the time?
7 A. That the reserve constable was being investigated?
8 Q. Yes.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In fact, as we know, the file which went up to the DPP
11 which contained reference to him was the neglect file,
12 which was purportedly supervised by the ICPC.
13 Does that surprise you?
14 A. Yes, it does.
15 Q. I just want to ask a few other matters about the murder
16 investigation now.
17 If we go back to your statement at page [81573],
18 paragraph 26, you tell us that:
19 "On 10 May 1997, we arrested five people."
20 And you set out their names and tell us they were
21 all charged with murder, and that's noted in the policy
22 book.
23 You go on to say:
24 "I prepared the documents for the arrests and
25 DI Irwin briefed the arrest teams."
52
1 Would he have briefed the arrest teams in respect of
2 the searches of the homes of those being arrested?
3 A. Would I have?
4 Q. No, would he have, as part of his briefing of the arrest
5 teams?
6 I have just read to you:
7 "I prepared the documents for the arrests and
8 DI Irwin briefed the arrest teams."
9 A. Oh, yes. Sorry.
10 Q. We know that in arresting the individuals, officers also
11 searched the premises. Does it follow from that, that
12 DI Irwin briefed the searchers?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Thank you. You go on to say --
15 A. Sorry, can I just say that the officers -- the CID
16 officers would have been aware, and he would have
17 briefed them, most probably separately.
18 Q. Sorry, let me get that -- a search team would not
19 necessarily have contained a detective, would it?
20 A. No, but he would have asked a detective to accompany the
21 search team.
22 Q. Yes. That's why I'm asking whether the searchers were
23 also briefed by Mr Irwin or whether he only briefed the
24 arresters.
25 We will ask him of course, but I'm asking you
53
1 whether you know.
2 A. I wouldn't know. I wasn't present at that time.
3 Q. Fair enough:
4 "On the same day", this goes on, "PC Neill carried
5 out a confrontation identification of Marc Hobson. That
6 is recorded in the policy book at page 922 and also
7 notes that", and I quote:
8 "'Other police officers were not requested to attend
9 as it was necessary to interview them re their ability
10 to identify suspects and, due to the ICPC not available,
11 the interviews were not carried out'."
12 This of course only refers to a particular date,
13 10 May, but we can't discern that officers were ever
14 interviewed about their ability to identify suspects.
15 Can you comment on that?
16 A. Yes. I had the officers interviewed on the Monday.
17 Q. On the 28th --
18 A. Yes. That's right. And --
19 Q. I'm sorry to interrupt, but you had the four in the
20 Land Rover interviewed on 28 April?
21 A. Mm-hm.
22 Q. But what this is discussing is further interviews with
23 all the officers, by the look of it, re their ability to
24 identify suspects, and what's said here is the only
25 reason that didn't happen was the ICPC wasn't available,
54
1 apparently, on that day.
2 What do you say about that?
3 A. Mr McBurney was on the telephone that day to senior
4 officers, and I was trying to get Mr xxxxxxxxxx from the
5 ICPC to speak with him, and he wasn't available.
6 Now, I wasn't privy to the conversation that
7 Mr McBurney had with the senior officers, and that
8 reference came from Mr McBurney in relation to what he
9 wanted to speak to the ICPC about.
10 Q. I follow, but can I take this in two stages? Before the
11 ICPC became involved, you were conscious of the need for
12 officers at the scene to be seen by detectives to tease
13 out any other information. That is correct, isn't it?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. We know that that was done with the four in the
16 Land Rover --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- and you can't recall why it didn't happen, if it
19 didn't happen, with the others?
20 A. Yes. I would have expected it to happen, but ...
21 Q. But we know that, because we have read the entry in the
22 policy book, once the ICPC got involved, further
23 interviews with officers were going to be conducted with
24 them present so that they could gather any information
25 that came out for use in the neglect complaint.
55
1 What we are seeing here is that there was
2 a recognition of the need to interview police officers
3 about their ability to interview suspects, but because
4 of the inability of the ICPC to be available on a given
5 date, that didn't happen. Do you follow?
6 A. Mm-hm.
7 Q. As far as we can see, it never happened. Can you
8 explain why it was? It may be that you have no idea.
9 Tell us what you know?
10 A. I do recall that -- a confrontation identification is
11 the weakest form of identification, and we certainly
12 didn't want to weaken the evidence against the suspects.
13 We didn't want to weaken the evidence for the murder
14 investigation, and the suspects refused identification
15 parades, and there was -- I can't -- I can't explain
16 that entry, but I know that we were trying to keep the
17 identification as strong as we possibly could, and there
18 was only the one officer who was asked to go for
19 confrontation ID.
20 But I cannot explain that entry. It was Mr McBurney
21 gave me that entry to put in, but I cannot explain it
22 any further.
23 I have forgotten. I'm sure I remembered at the
24 time, and fully understood it at the time, but I cannot
25 recall at this late stage.
56
1 Q. All right. Let me put a particular possibility to you,
2 and see whether you can assist.
3 Let me go back to this point about somebody in the
4 crowd saying he is one of those who jumped on the head
5 of Robert Hamill, and pointed out to the police officer
6 recording this, and that police officer then hears that
7 person answering to the name of Stacey.
8 Now, was consideration given to interviewing that
9 police officer, and having a confrontation with
10 Stacey Bridgett?
11 A. Could you refresh my memory? Who was the --
12 Constable Neill confronted one of the suspects.
13 Q. The only confrontation there was was Constable Neill,
14 who confronted Mr Hobson.
15 A. Hobson. Right.
16 Q. You may recall that when Constable Neill gave his
17 statement, he thought it was xxxxxxxxxx, and that's why
18 you arrested xxxxxxxxxx. So you had a confrontation
19 just to get some evidence of identification to link him
20 with Mr Hobson. No other confrontation was carried out.
21 No identification parade was arranged, and as far as we
22 can see, no police officer was shown mug shots?
23 A. We didn't have any mug shots.
24 Q. Right. Or videos?
25 A. Pardon me?
57
1 Q. Nor videos?
2 A. Nor videos.
3 Q. Because it was common, was it not, to video things like
4 Drumcree, so you would have on record faces?
5 A. No, we didn't have any videos available. But
6 Stacey Bridgett, wasn't he the suspect who was at the
7 Land Rover?
8 Q. Yes, but he was arrested twice.
9 A. And the police officers -- but the police officers could
10 identify him, without confrontation, if I remember
11 correctly.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Those who saw him at the Land Rover, that may
13 well be so. But I don't remember now whether anyone
14 else says --
15 MR UNDERWOOD: The point is -- I don't want to go into more
16 detail than is necessary, but Constable Cooke is the
17 officer who said, when he was dealing with the crowd,
18 somebody in the crowd said, "He is one of those who
19 jumped on the head of Robert Hamill", and pointing to
20 a person who appeared to answer to the name Stacey.
21 So I'm asking whether consideration was given to
22 a confrontation between Constable Cooke and
23 Stacey Bridgett, not to establish that Stacey Bridgett
24 was at the Land Rover, but to establish that
25 Stacey Bridgett was a murderer.
58
1 A. I'm sorry, I can't recall that.
2 Q. So be it.
3 Then I want to ask you about searches to see if you
4 can assist us.
5 We know that there was a search of the home in which
6 Allister Hanvey lived when he was arrested on 10 May.
7 We know there was a further search of that home on
8 13 May, and I have already asked you whether you knew
9 whether DI Irwin did the briefing for the searches.
10 Were you connected with the search in any way?
11 A. No, I wasn't.
12 Q. Can you help us with why there was a second search on
13 13 May?
14 A. No, I can't. I'm sorry.
15 MR UNDERWOOD: So be it.
16 I'm asked to correct. It wasn't PC Neill who
17 misidentified, or rather who said that Mr Hobson was
18 Mr xxxxxxxxxx. I think it was Mr Cooke who did that.
19 I have no further questions for you. As I said at
20 the beginning, other people may have some supplementary
21 ones. Thank you very much.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you just help us about this? The
23 paragraph in your statement we looked at just now, where
24 the efforts to achieve identifications were to be
25 deterred because of the ICPC's unavailability.
59
1 So in effect, the complaint was being given
2 precedence over the attempt to get together the
3 identification evidence?
4 A. No, sir, that is not correct. The complaint -- the
5 murder investigation was given precedence over
6 everything else. But I know that I recorded that in the
7 policy book on Mr McBurney's direction, and I'm quite
8 sure that I understood that at the time, but I have --
9 because of the lapse of time, and the fact that I have
10 been retired away from policing for over 11 years,
11 I have forgotten why that was.
12 Perhaps, you know, Mr McBurney will help you with
13 that, but I'm sorry, I can't help you at the moment.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: You see, it reads as though the effort to
15 identify wasn't able to proceed because the ICPC wasn't
16 available.
17 Did Mr McBurney -- you sound as though if
18 Mr McBurney explained why that should be, you can't
19 remember it?
20 A. That's right. I can't remember it.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
22 Examination by MR McGRORY
23 MR McGRORY: I have quite a number of things, sir.
24 My name is McGrory, P39, and I represent the family
25 of Robert Hamill.
60
1 When did you have your journals incinerated?
2 A. Shortly after I retired.
3 Q. Why?
4 A. Because I live alone, and, for security reasons,
5 I didn't want anything of a police nature in my home.
6 Q. But you were in the police for, what, 30-odd years?
7 A. Yes. I had retired, and I was moving on, and I -- as
8 I have already said in interview, if I had known that
9 this was down the line, I would have held on to my
10 journal, because my journal would in actual fact have
11 helped me in this matter.
12 Q. Well, you didn't consider them too big a security risk
13 when you were in the police force?
14 A. I didn't have my journal at home in the police force.
15 I had it locked, or I carried it in my briefcase.
16 Q. Can we presume you took your briefcase home?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So when your journal was in your briefcase, it came home
19 with you?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So you did have your journal at home at times?
22 A. At times, yes.
23 Q. You didn't regard that as a security risk?
24 A. I was a police officer at the time, sir.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: You had to have a journal?
61
1 A. And I had to have a journal.
2 MR McGRORY: Yes. But in terms of ways of avoiding
3 a security risk after you retired, you could have given
4 your journals, for example, to the bank to mind.
5 A. The thought of it never crossed my mind. Why -- you
6 know, I would have to ask myself, why would I give my
7 journal into the bank? I wasn't required for any court
8 proceedings at that time, that I -- and, you know,
9 I just --
10 Q. What date did you retire?
11 A. I retired in March 1998.
12 Q. Do you know what date the murder trial into the death of
13 Robert Hamill took place?
14 A. No, I don't.
15 Q. It was in September 1998.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. That was after you retired.
18 A. Yes, but I wasn't giving evidence in the murder trial.
19 Q. But as an experienced police officer, you would be aware
20 of disclosure issues, would you not?
21 A. Yes, I would.
22 Q. So in fact, the trial of the person charged with the
23 murder of Robert Hamill hadn't taken place when you
24 destroyed your journal?
25 A. Shortly after I had retired, I don't know -- I cannot
62
1 give you the date on which I destroyed my journal, but
2 it was shortly after I retired.
3 Q. Yes, but you have told us you were confident that you
4 weren't needed for any court cases?
5 A. Yes, that's right.
6 Q. But we have at least the murder of Robert Hamill which
7 had yet to be dealt with in court, insofar as the one
8 person who was accused of it.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: This is assuming that there was something
10 disclosable in the journals, isn't it?
11 MR McGRORY: Yes, indeed, sir.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: You may like to ask about that, because we
13 are not going to assume that that was so.
14 MR McGRORY: You are aware of disclosure issues in that,
15 when a trial is coming up, a senior police officer or
16 member of the Public Prosecution Service involved in the
17 trial needs to take a decision as to what material
18 should be disclosed to the defence.
19 A. But I had not given any evidence, nor was I asked by the
20 DPP to give any evidence in relation to the murder
21 investigation or in relation to the murder file.
22 Q. Sorry, go on. Are you finished?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Never mind whether or not you were to be called as
25 a witness, you still held important and detailed
63
1 information in your journal about the conduct of the
2 investigation. Isn't that correct?
3 A. I recorded what I did in relation to the investigation,
4 yes.
5 Q. Would it not have been proper for you to leave your
6 journal with those who were continuing with the
7 prosecution in respect of the murder of Robert Hamill?
8 A. That would have been totally unheard of at the time.
9 Q. Well, when you retired, was there any procedure or
10 instruction as to what would happen to your journal?
11 A. Absolutely not.
12 Q. Could we have page 15 of your interview on the screen,
13 please? Sorry, this is your Inquiry interview. I don't
14 have the page reference. It's page 15 of that
15 interview.
16 Now, at the bottom half of the page, you were asked
17 by Mr Stephens for the Inquiry about this issue about
18 your journal. He asked you, was there any instruction,
19 and you said:
20 "There were -- there was instruction, but I kept
21 them and I also was aware that I wasn't involved in any
22 court -- criminal court cases, and, therefore, because
23 of that, I did -- at that particular time -- bearing in mind
24 that there was no evidence or talk about a tribunal
25 coming up later on. If there had of, I would have been in
64
1 a better position and I wish that I had of retained
2 it..."
3 It goes on. You can read it. You say there was no
4 reason to retain it, so you had them incinerated. What
5 was the instruction that you referred to there?
6 A. Well, actually, that isn't accurate as far as I can
7 remember. I was -- I went along for that interview.
8 I was under medical -- medication, and I wasn't well at
9 the time, and there were certain things in that
10 interview which I disagreed with, and I said there,
11 there was instruction.
12 I couldn't remember at that time whether there was
13 instruction -- what instruction there was. I don't
14 believe that there was ever any instruction, but I'm now
15 led to believe that there is an instruction in relation
16 to journals.
17 Q. That was implemented subsequent to your retirement. Is
18 that what you are saying?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. To be fair to you, P39, we had evidence from another
21 senior officer recently, a Mr McMullen, who said that he
22 knew of no policy in respect of retiring inspectors and
23 their journals, and he seems to have taken his home.
24 So that may be --
25 THE CHAIRMAN: But he didn't destroy them.
65
1 MR McGRORY: He didn't destroy his, no. He still has his.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: You're quite right. I'm sorry.
3 MR McGRORY: Sir, I'm coming to this.
4 Whether or not there was any specific instruction
5 about what you should do, do you not agree that it would
6 have been prudent to hold on to those journals in case
7 they were needed?
8 A. At the time, I was satisfied that they would not have
9 been needed, and I live alone, and as I have already
10 said, and I'm repeating myself, I had them destroyed for
11 security reasons. I had everything in relation to
12 policing matters destroyed in relation to security
13 matters.
14 Q. But with respect, P39, the decision as to whether or not
15 the material in your journal was relevant to the trial
16 wasn't yours. Do you understand that; that it wasn't
17 yours to take?
18 A. Well, I don't agree actually, sir, because I felt that
19 if I had material which was relevant to the murder
20 inquiry -- and I must say that I really worked hard to
21 make -- to try and get these people before and through
22 the courts for the murder of Robert.
23 If I had thought for one moment that I had relevant
24 information or evidence in relation to that, that
25 I would have been giving it in the court.
66
1 Q. You see, in the run-up to that trial in September 1998
2 someone for the defence of Mr Hobson might have said,
3 "There's some material in existence here from Chief
4 Superintendent or Inspector P39. Can we have that,
5 please?" But by then it might not have existed. Isn't
6 that right?
7 A. I am satisfied that I didn't have any. The notes that
8 I made were my notes in which I did -- and my duties.
9 So I safely say that no witness or suspect would have
10 been asking me for my journal.
11 Q. Was there any other reason, P39, why you wanted to
12 dispose of those journals?
13 A. Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
14 Q. Is there anything in them that might have compromised
15 you or anyone else involved in this Inquiry?
16 A. I didn't even know about the Inquiry --
17 Q. No, but --
18 A. -- at the time.
19 Q. -- in the context of the Hamill case?
20 A. No --
21 THE CHAIRMAN: If you are going to make an allegation of bad
22 faith, it should be made and made clearly. If not, then
23 you can proceed to another matter, I think.
24 MR McGRORY: I simply asked the question, sir.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: No. You have heard what I said. No
67
1 argument, please. If you make an allegation of bad
2 faith, then you must make it clearly. Otherwise,
3 I think the matter has been sufficiently pursued.
4 MR McGRORY: I haven't made an allegation of bad faith, sir.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Good. Then I can make a note of it. I'm not
6 suggesting you should have done. I wanted to be quite
7 clear.
8 MR McGRORY: I have some other issues to address with this
9 witness.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Other matters, yes.
11 MR McGRORY: We may or may not return to this matter.
12 I would like to move on to a completely different
13 subject, P39, and that's the issue of briefings and
14 debriefings and whether or not there should have been
15 any more thorough process implemented of getting the
16 information from those who were on the ground at the
17 time of the incident.
18 Now, I don't need to go into this in too much
19 detail, because Mr Underwood has already addressed it.
20 But I just want to reflect on one particular point, and
21 that's that in a major investigation incident room,
22 I think that was the MIRIAM procedure that is used in
23 inquiries that are serious but not serious enough to go
24 on HOLMES.
25 I think you have said that you implemented MIRIAM in
68
1 this case. Isn't that right?
2 A. Well, it was mini-MIRIAM. It wasn't a full-scale MIRIAM
3 system.
4 Q. You have already said that you regarded this as a very
5 serious incident?
6 A. Yes, absolutely.
7 Q. It was a very serious assault.
8 A. Yes, absolutely.
9 Q. And -- so, I mean, is there a concept of a mini-MIRIAM?
10 I mean, something is either serious enough to implement
11 MIRIAM, or it isn't.
12 A. Well, can I say that -- and I'm speaking from memory,
13 and bearing in mind that I have left policing for almost
14 12 years, over 11 years -- that HOLMES had taken over
15 from the MIRIAM system, and at that time that it was
16 only murder investigations which were involved -- which
17 were put onto HOLMES or the MIRIAM system.
18 Now, serious incidents were not put on those systems
19 per se, and I have been led to believe that directions
20 came out the following year -- I think it was some time
21 during 1998 -- whereby it said that even policy books
22 could be used for serious incidents, and this is going
23 in -- I'm referring now to the GBH of Robert, and this
24 happened in April 1997.
25 So there was no such instructions given that we
69
1 should even have used a mini-MIRIAM system. But because
2 the inspector and I considered that this investigation
3 was so serious, that we implemented it ourselves on our
4 own behalf.
5 Q. Can I have page [10789] on the screen, please? Do you
6 recognise this document?
7 A. Well, I recognise it as a force order.
8 Q. Do you see the date on the right-hand corner?
9 A. Yes, 1991.
10 Q. Is this a force order detailing how a MIRIAM-style
11 investigation should be conducted?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Can you see the principal objectives of major incident
14 room? Do you see that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In fact that's what MIRIAM means, isn't it?
17 A. Yes, but we didn't have a major incident room in
18 Portadown.
19 Q. Did you have any substitute for a major incident room?
20 A. In Portadown? No.
21 Q. So --
22 A. We didn't even have interview rooms, under PACE, for
23 suspects in Portadown.
24 Q. So in the absence of one, did you identify any kind of
25 a room from which the investigation would be conducted?
70
1 A. No. We only had the facilities in Portadown, we had one
2 general office, one extremely small office for myself,
3 and a similar office for the detective inspector. That
4 was the only facilities CID had.
5 Q. Let me make this clear, P39. You had the resources you
6 had. I'm simply trying to find out whether or not you
7 did the best with the resources you had.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I'm not making any allegation about this.
10 A. No.
11 Q. Now, if you look on down at 2(e), at the bottom of the
12 page:
13 "To act as a means of historical reference so that,
14 in a long running enquiry, officers joining the
15 investigation team can have easy reference to major
16 policy decisions taken earlier during the course of the
17 enquiry."
18 Do you see that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. One of the purposes of having an incident room or
21 something like it is so that there would be continuity
22 in terms of the policy decisions --
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. -- and that there would be records kept.
25 I think (d) above it talks about keeping records in
71
1 a manner which highlights people, vehicles, other
2 factors which become subject to the enquiry.
3 So this is a sort of -- I'm suggesting to you this
4 would be a sort of a policy book within the MIRIAM
5 system.
6 A. Yes. But we weren't operating a MIRIAM system per se.
7 I'm repeating myself again. It was a mini-MIRIAM. We
8 introduced action sheets so that we could have a record,
9 as you are referring to, sir, in relation to the
10 investigation that -- the investigations that we were
11 carrying out.
12 Now, in 1997, GBH with intent would not have been
13 put on a MIRIAM system, would not have been put on the
14 HOLMES system, and would not have had a policy book.
15 Q. None of those things in a GBH with intent?
16 A. No.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you help us, Mr McGrory? Is there
18 anything in this MIRIAM document which tells one to what
19 types of crime MIRIAM is appropriate?
20 You see, it says what should be happening in a major
21 investigation incident room, but that's not quite the
22 same thing.
23 MR McGRORY: No, it doesn't, sir. But this witness did say
24 that in your interview with the Inquiry that you adopted
25 a MIRIAM system.
72
1 A. Yes, sorry. Well, I said MIRIAM system, but in actual
2 fact it was a mini-MIRIAM. Really, we only used the
3 action sheets. If you do recall, in my interview,
4 I couldn't even remember that it was action sheets that
5 we were using. In fact, I refer to as cards. But it
6 was action sheets that we were using. That was because
7 I was away from policing for such a long time.
8 Q. Of course, this could have been an attempted murder as
9 much as it was certainly a GBH?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. One of the recommendations in this MIRIAM or
12 stipulations in this MIRIAM document is that there also
13 be a statement reader appointed.
14 A. Mm-hm.
15 Q. Now, can you remember whether or not you delegated that
16 function, to read the statements that were taken from
17 those involved?
18 A. Well, we were still talking about the MIRIAM system, and
19 that system was for murders, and you must accept that we
20 didn't have those facilities, and we didn't have
21 a police officer who would have been sitting down and
22 solely dealing with reading statements.
23 We didn't have the luxury of that sort of manpower.
24 Q. You see, forgive me, I may have picked this up wrong in
25 previous evidence, but my understanding was that, once
73
1 it became a murder, it was elevated to HOLMES.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And that short of HOLMES, you had a MIRIAM-style system?
4 A. No.
5 Q. That's not your experience?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Okay. But getting back to just common sense
8 investigative principles, and away from documents such
9 as what should and shouldn't happen in a MIRIAM or
10 HOLMES or whatever, did you take the view that somebody
11 needed to collate all of the information that was coming
12 in from those officers on the ground?
13 A. That's why the mini-MIRIAM system was introduced,
14 because, on the Monday, I had started collating this --
15 this evidence myself, and when the detective inspector
16 came back, we introduced the mini-MIRIAM, which
17 obviously, from the action sheets, we were keeping
18 a better record of what was -- what enquiries were going
19 out, the results coming in, and that's how we worked it.
20 Incidentally, I may say, sir, that was a very
21 unusual way of doing it, because, generally speaking, it
22 wouldn't have been as thorough as that, and I believe
23 that this was unheard of within the RUC, to have such
24 a thorough investigation and records kept for this type
25 of crime.
74
1 Q. But this wasn't done until the Monday?
2 A. Well, remember that on Sunday --
3 Q. Sorry, would you just answer the question, please?
4 A. Yes, this was done on Monday.
5 Q. Thank you. I'm trying to find out what was done on the
6 Sunday night.
7 Now, you were already referred by Mr Underwood to
8 the issue arising from the statement of
9 Constable Silcock, who is the constable -- I can show it
10 to you, just to refresh your memory if needs be, but he
11 is the gentleman who made the statement about
12 Stacey Bridgett, or about the man who was -- he was
13 pushing back up the crowd --
14 A. Right.
15 Q. -- and that he answered to the name of Stacey Bridgett
16 and a woman had said to him, "He is one of the ones who
17 jumped on the fellow's head."
18 His statement is stated 27 April, which is the
19 Sunday morning.
20 A. The Sunday.
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, what I'm suggesting to you is that here is
24 information which would have facilitated immediate
25 action to try to capture this fellow Stacey, if indeed
75
1 he was one of those people who jumped on Mr Hamill's
2 head.
3 Can you recall whether or not you had read that
4 statement on the Sunday morning?
5 A. No, I wouldn't have read it on the Sunday morning.
6 Q. At any time on the Sunday?
7 A. The Sunday evening, probably, I most probably did, but
8 I also read a statement from a witness -- am I right in
9 saying it was Witness F who -- and that lady said that
10 she either didn't say it, or couldn't confirm that that
11 was the case.
12 Q. We don't know that the lady referred to by Mr Silcock
13 was that lady, and I can't mention her name by the way.
14 A. Sorry.
15 Q. That's okay. She has anonymity.
16 A. Sorry about that.
17 Q. Do you believe that that was the same person?
18 A. I do believe that that was the same person.
19 Q. At least we have identified the name Stacey Bridgett
20 within that statement.
21 A. Within the constable's statement?
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Indeed, I think you may be aware, there was a statement
25 from another constable in the back-up team, called
76
1 Warnock, who gives a description of the clothing worn by
2 Allister Hanvey --
3 A. Right.
4 Q. -- as being a grey jacket with stripes down the sleeves.
5 Do you remember that?
6 A. Well, I don't remember it offhand, but I'm accepting
7 that that was done.
8 Q. Yes. Did you read that statement on the Sunday?
9 A. I'm sure I read -- I read whatever statements were
10 available to me.
11 Q. Can you remember whether they were in manuscript or
12 typed?
13 A. They were in manuscript.
14 Q. Because I think the person who countersigns those
15 statements is it a Constable Lawther. He is not in
16 until the following week. So he didn't see the typed
17 forms until then. But you had access to the
18 manuscripts?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You see, I want to suggest to you that within that
21 manuscript material that you read on the Sunday at some
22 point, there was certainly sufficient information to
23 seek the immediate arrest of Stacey Bridgett.
24 Do you agree with that?
25 A. I made the decision at that time that I was going down
77
1 the road to get witnesses in to identify the suspects so
2 that we would have something to put to them when we
3 arrested and brought them in for interview in relation
4 to that. That was the decision I made at the time.
5 Now, in hindsight, I could very well have changed
6 that, but that was the decision that I made at the time,
7 and I believed at that time, as I have already said,
8 that I -- that the witnesses, certainly from the
9 Catholic community, would have been coming forward to
10 give me the statements or to give us the statements, and
11 I believed that I would have been in a much stronger
12 position to pursue this investigation successfully by
13 having those witness statements before I actually
14 arrested suspects.
15 Q. But you had them in manuscript form on the Sunday
16 evening?
17 A. Yes, I had. Absolutely.
18 Q. Are you saying that you took an investigative decision
19 on the Sunday evening that what you had wasn't enough?
20 A. Yes, I believed that that was extremely weak. To
21 read -- what else had we to put to them? And I believed
22 that -- you know, that these people would be coming in
23 to give us the statements, identifying the suspects, and
24 we would be in a much stronger way of pursuing this
25 investigation.
78
1 Q. Were you aware that under PACE, all you really needed
2 was a reasonable suspicion to seek a warrant, say, to
3 search someone's house?
4 A. I'm sure at the time I knew that. I'm not saying --
5 I definitely don't know what PACE is now, but -- that
6 was the decision I made at the time, but I made it in
7 good faith, believing that that was the good -- the
8 right thing to do.
9 Q. I have no doubt, P39, that you did make it in good
10 faith. But I'm trying to get to the bottom of whether
11 or not you, or others involved in this investigation
12 with you, could or should have taken more immediate
13 action in respect of at least Stacey Bridgett.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you just help me, Mr McGrory? What do
15 you say was the evidence which would have justified an
16 immediate arrest of Stacey Bridgett?
17 MR McGRORY: The evidence of Constable Silcock, that he saw
18 a chap who was being aggressive, that he was pushing
19 back, who was trying to get at those on the ground, who
20 had a nose bleed, and who answered to the name of
21 Stacey, and in respect of whom a woman had told him that
22 he was one of those who had jumped on Robert Hamill's
23 head.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Thank you.
25 MR McGRORY: We will move on, P39.
79
1 Just on the issue of debriefings, there is a force
2 order which I have mentioned before, but it refers to
3 debriefings. It's to be found at page [10809] of the
4 bundle. It's a manual on public order --
5 A. Mm-hm.
6 Q. -- number 12.8. This is what should be done according
7 to this manual in public order incidents after a return
8 to normality. It says here:
9 "As soon as circumstances permit, all members
10 involved in the operation should return to the base
11 station and undergo a thorough debrief. When all
12 relevant information has been obtained, a factual report
13 should be forwarded to Force Control and Information
14 Centre."
15 Is that something you were conscious of that needed
16 to be done?
17 A. When I went -- when I commenced duty on the Sunday
18 morning, the officers who were -- I had to ask the
19 officers to return to duty so that I could get those
20 statements. So the debriefing would have taken place
21 long before I commenced duty.
22 Q. So it was your understanding it had occurred?
23 A. Understanding that whoever was on duty would have
24 debriefed the officers?
25 Q. Can you remember if you asked for the results of the
80
1 debrief that you understood had occurred?
2 A. I would have -- the inspector gave me a briefing in
3 relation to what had happened, so that would have been
4 as a result of what had -- the briefing of the night.
5 Q. Would you have expected there to have been a written
6 record?
7 A. Oh no, definitely not.
8 Q. Given the numerous orders and directions to keep written
9 records of things in journals and notebooks and so
10 forth, would you not have expected whoever conducted the
11 debrief to have kept a note?
12 A. No, there was never a written record of a debrief.
13 Q. Well, at some point on the Monday,
14 Detective Sergeant Bradley returned to these officers.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Did you direct that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Was that because you were dissatisfied with the detail
19 of the information?
20 A. No, that was in the morning. I was present with the DI
21 at the conference, and I gave directions for the party,
22 what they were going to do that day, and then I had
23 other conferences to attend to, and the DI had gone
24 elsewhere on duty.
25 Q. Now, can I just ask you about Scenes of Crimes policy?
81
1 A. Mm-hm.
2 Q. You were phoned about 6.50 in the morning. Is that
3 correct?
4 A. Whatever time it was.
5 Q. I think that's what you said. So you are in a bit
6 earlier than you had expected to be in, and you are
7 getting briefed on all of this.
8 Would you have expected SOCO to have been called out
9 by then?
10 A. When I was speaking to Detective Constable Keys, I asked
11 about the scene, and I asked if -- to get SOCO and
12 photography called.
13 Q. But would you have expected that to have been done by
14 the time you got there?
15 A. Probably so. I'm not -- there were other major
16 incidents -- or serious incidents, I should say, not
17 major, serious incidents as well that I had to deal
18 with. So I would have been -- as soon as they were
19 contacted, I would have expected them to go and to be
20 called out on duty, to go on duty.
21 Q. You would have been aware that there was available to
22 the police an overnight SOCO team?
23 A. Yes, they were working, the same as ourselves, on
24 callout.
25 Q. Yes. So that when an incident like this has occurred at
82
1 1.30 am to 2.00 am, anything could have happened at the
2 scene overnight?
3 A. Yes, but it was already contaminated. That scene was
4 already contaminated because there were so many people
5 up and down the scene that it was of limited forensic
6 use. You know, there were, what, about 50, 60 people in
7 the -- up and down the scene. So it was a contaminated
8 scene. But I accept what you are saying, that it
9 should -- the SOCO people had to examine it.
10 Q. Is it not an imperative to get the best possible
11 evidence? You understand that imperative?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So that, whether or not there were a lot of people on
14 the scene at the time of the crime, at the moment the
15 scene is cleared, that is the best moment at which to
16 secure it and have SOCO out.
17 A. Yes. Once it's sealed off, SOCO is called, and it takes
18 whatever length of time it takes them to get there, yes,
19 that would be done.
20 Q. You see, we know that DC Keys arranged for the sealing
21 off of the scene, but quite some time later, several
22 hours later, 4.00 or 5.00 in the morning or something,
23 and that SOCO didn't get there until 10 o'clock. But it
24 was you who asked for SOCO, was it?
25 A. Yes.
83
1 Q. Were you not surprised that SOCO hadn't already been
2 there?
3 A. Well, in the circumstances, sir, I knew that there was
4 mayhem that night, or in the early hours of the morning,
5 and I expected -- it was usual for SOCO to be called
6 immediately, but in those circumstances, I accepted what
7 I had to do and what I was faced with.
8 Q. In any event, you called them in as soon as you --
9 A. Yes, absolutely.
10 Q. Can I ask you, now, about the CCTV, please?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Mr Underwood has asked you about this, but did you get
13 a report from Detective Constable Keys about his
14 observations of the CCTV?
15 A. A written report?
16 Q. A verbal?
17 A. Yes. Yes, I got a verbal report.
18 Q. Can you assist us as to when that was?
19 A. That would have been on the Monday or -- Monday.
20 I think it was Monday, yes.
21 Q. So I suppose that the premises wouldn't have been open
22 until the Monday?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. And DC Keys was there promptly on Monday morning?
25 A. Yes.
84
1 Q. Can you remember what he said to you about what his
2 observations were of the CCTV?
3 A. Well, I cannot remember his words, but what I know, and
4 what I do remember, is that there was nothing of
5 evidence on the tapes. And I can't remember whether
6 there was one of them completely blank or not, and --
7 I just can't remember that. I haven't got -- I'm
8 referring from memory.
9 But I know that there -- I was satisfied that there
10 was nothing of evidence on the tapes. That was very,
11 very important, and I knew the importance of that, and
12 I was satisfied that the detective looked at the tapes
13 and found that there was nothing of evidence on it, and
14 I was satisfied with his report to me.
15 Q. Well, would you agree with me that in order to accept
16 that there was nothing of evidential value in those
17 tapes, that would have required you to know exactly what
18 was on them or not on them?
19 A. No, it would be -- that would mean that I would have to
20 do absolutely everything myself. I delegated police
21 officers, detectives, to do that, to do different jobs,
22 and they would report back to me, or the detective
23 inspector. So of course I accepted, you know, their
24 report. I would have to.
25 Q. Do you agree with me that whoever took the decision that
85
1 the tapes weren't relevant, needed to have been aware of
2 the contents of the statements of those who were
3 present, and to have cross-referenced them, and then to
4 have applied that information to the tape?
5 A. Well, I would say that the detective who was viewing
6 those tapes was --
7 Q. Sorry, can I interrupt you there, sorry? Leaving aside
8 the individual detective, and what he did or didn't
9 do --
10 A. Right.
11 Q. -- do you agree with the proposition that in order to
12 make a properly informed decision about whether or not
13 the tapes are relevant, that the person making that
14 decision needed to go through the process of informing
15 himself or herself as to what everybody had said about
16 what had happened, and then observing the tape, and then
17 taking that decision?
18 A. Well, what I asked -- I would accept what I asked the
19 detective constable was -- looking at the tapes -- and
20 any officer who was looking at tapes, would be to look
21 to see if there was anything on the tapes that was
22 relevant to that particular incident, meaning: was there
23 anyone running around the scene? Did they see any
24 skirmishes on the tapes? Were there people shown on the
25 tapes? That's the type of thing that I would have been
86
1 looking for, and that's the type of thing that I would
2 have briefed anyone in relation to those tapes.
3 So any evidence whatsoever would have been relevant,
4 and would -- obviously then someone else would sit down
5 with them and view it.
6 Q. Would you agree, though, P39, that this was at a very
7 early stage, within days of the incident, and that there
8 was a lot of material yet to come in --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- and that any decision in respect of the value of the
11 tapes perhaps might not have been better taken until
12 later on?
13 A. No. I don't accept that. I think that it was
14 imperative for us to get those tapes and to get -- if
15 there was any evidence on them, to get that as soon as
16 possible.
17 Q. No, no, no. I'm talking about in terms of making the
18 decision that they were of no value, and returning them
19 to their owners, that that was a decision which would be
20 best not taken for a while, until all the information
21 was in?
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Might that not depend upon what in fact was
23 on them?
24 MR McGRORY: Indeed. Indeed, but -- indeed.
25 Can I ask --
87
1 THE CHAIRMAN: By all means. I merely make that comment.
2 MR McGRORY: Indeed. Let's put it this way: this question
3 is on the basis, partly, that something not on the tapes
4 can be as relevant as something on them.
5 A. If there was nothing of an evidential nature on the
6 tapes, I don't follow the trend that you are going.
7 Q. A blank tape can be of as much evidential value as
8 a tape with something actually on it, depending on the
9 circumstances.
10 A. Well, I didn't look at it upon that. I was looking for
11 evidence and I was looking for people on that tape, and
12 I can't put it any further than that. I'm sorry.
13 Q. I will take it no further. That's all I need to ask on
14 that subject.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
16 MR McGRORY: Now, I want to turn, P39, to the days of the
17 8th, 9th and 10th May.
18 A. Right.
19 Q. Now, Robert Hamill died on 8 May?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So this then became a murder case?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Were you on duty that day?
24 A. No, I was off duty that day.
25 Q. Did you hear about the death on the news?
88
1 A. No, I didn't. I was off for a specific reason. I was
2 just off for the one day, so I was off for a specific
3 reason, but I was told about it by -- I believe DI Irwin
4 rang me that night and told me.
5 Q. So when you went into work on 9 May, you were aware that
6 Robert Hamill had died --
7 A. Oh, yes, I was.
8 Q. -- and you now had a murder case on your hands?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Of course, up to that point, you were the officer in
11 charge of the GBH investigation.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Were you expecting to continue on the investigation when
14 you went in on the 9th?
15 A. I was aware that Mr McBurney had been briefed on the
16 evening before, the night before, because Mr -- DI Irwin
17 had informed me of that. So I was expecting Mr McBurney
18 to be there.
19 Q. As, indeed, I am sure you would have expected of the
20 senior superintendent at that time?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, events began to unfold pretty quickly though on the
23 9th.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. There were two major events --
89
1 A. Absolutely.
2 Q. -- on the 9th and the 10th which made a material
3 difference to the investigation.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Of course, you know what they are.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. It's the information that came in about Tracey Clarke
8 and the information that came in about Timothy Jameson.
9 A. That's right.
10 Q. The source for that information in both cases was
11 a gentleman called [Reserve Constable McCaw]. Do you want to check your
12 cipher list?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR UNDERWOOD: This person is now open.
15 MR McGRORY: [Reserve Constable McCaw] is McCaw. The other name is not open, and
16 he is being referred to as G.
17 A. No, I don't know of G.
18 Q. Well, I think we can proceed in any event. Can you --
19 doing the best you can, P39, try to recall the moment
20 when you first heard about what
21 Reserve Constable McCaw had to say about anything.
22 A. Sorry, I've got the wrong name here.
23 Q. We can say it now, it's Reserve Constable McCaw.
24 A. Right.
25 Q. He comes into the police station during the course of
90
1 the 9th?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And he -- twice actually, but the first time he has
4 information to impart?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Can you remember where you were when you encountered
7 him?
8 A. I only met that gentleman on one occasion, and I was in
9 my office at the time, and Mr McBurney was in the office
10 as well.
11 Q. Can you remember what time it was?
12 A. Well, I think I said in my statement I thought it was
13 about teatime. But it was certainly afternoon time, you
14 know, afternoon teatime.
15 Q. Would you describe your office for us, please?
16 A. Gosh, my office was an extremely small office. It was
17 one -- the CID offices were next door to the police
18 station. It was in actual fact a house, a dwelling
19 house, which was converted into CID offices, and the
20 office that I had was a bedroom, which was divided off.
21 There was a corridor taken off it, and also a walk-in
22 stationery room taken off it as well. So the remainder
23 of that was my office.
24 Q. Was there only one door into it?
25 A. Yes.
91
1 Q. So you had a private office?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Superintendent McBurney was in that private office with
4 you?
5 A. Yes, that's right.
6 Q. Can you remember what you were talking about?
7 A. Actually I was on the telephone --
8 Q. Yes.
9 A. -- when -- and he was there.
10 Q. Would he have used that facility, P39, when he was
11 visiting the station?
12 A. Yes. He would have come into the office, of course, and
13 that was the office where we restricted admittance to.
14 Q. Yes. Was -- this gentleman, Reserve Constable McCaw,
15 with anybody when he arrived at your room?
16 A. With DI Irwin.
17 Q. Was he with anybody else?
18 A. No. I didn't see anybody else.
19 Q. Could there have been anybody else outside in the
20 corridor?
21 A. I have been asked about this before, and it is possible
22 that someone else could have been in the corridor.
23 I wouldn't have had access to seeing who was in the
24 corridor.
25 Q. But it would have been --
92
1 THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, you can't really say.
2 A. That's right.
3 MR McGRORY: It would have been a bit of a tight squeeze in
4 your room, anyway, to put more than three or four people
5 into it.
6 A. Yes, it would.
7 Q. This is your only encounter with Reserve Constable McCaw?
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. That's your evidence. What did he tell you?
10 A. Well, when he came in, he -- DI Irwin introduced him.
11 Mr McBurney got up and spoke with him. I remained
12 behind my desk. He said -- I can't remember the exact
13 words, but something like -- that this fellow was in
14 this -- this fellow was in the town centre and would
15 have -- would know what -- either saw what happened or
16 heard what happened in the town centre on the Saturday.
17 Sunday morning.
18 Q. What fellow was he talking about?
19 A. He was talking about Timothy Jameson.
20 Q. So he was accompanied to your room by DI Irwin?
21 A. Yes. DI Irwin introduced him to us. He left. DI Irwin
22 left. He was going elsewhere, and this reserve
23 constable remained with Mr McBurney, and I was in the
24 office.
25 Q. Was it your impression that this was the first time
93
1 Superintendent McBurney had encountered this man on that
2 day, in this context?
3 A. Well, that really didn't enter my head, because it was
4 the first time I ever saw him, and as well as that, he
5 was giving us intelligence which I was absolutely
6 delighted with. This is what I was working for all
7 week, and I -- he was introduced to Mr McBurney, so I am
8 assuming that, yes, it was the first time he met him.
9 Q. You see, you understand how important this is, P39,
10 because there is a dispute about what you were told --
11 A. Oh?
12 Q. -- about Timothy Jameson?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. Are you aware of that?
15 A. Yes. Actually, Mr Mahaffey mentioned that to me for the
16 first time.
17 Q. He did indeed.
18 A. I never heard -- he referred to somebody saying he put
19 the boot in. Isn't that right?
20 Q. That's correct.
21 A. Yes. Well, Mr Mahaffey was the first person that I ever
22 heard mentioning that. I never heard those words until
23 Mr Mahaffey actually asked me about that in my home,
24 when he came to interview me.
25 Q. You see, it's because we expect to be told later today
94
1 by the gentleman I referred to by the name of G that he
2 was with Reserve Constable McCaw when they both went to
3 the police station on the 9th, and that
4 Superintendent McBurney and Inspector Irwin were
5 informed about what Timothy Jameson had said to them,
6 and there's no mention of you being present.
7 A. I was in the office.
8 Q. So what I'm trying to find out is whether or not there
9 might have been two meetings, but we will have to
10 explore that with G.
11 In any event, there was an occasion when Reserve
12 Constable McCaw came to your office --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. -- you were present with Mr McBurney, and you were
15 informed about what Timothy Jameson had said?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Are you absolutely 100 per cent certain that there was
18 no suggestion at that point that Timothy Jameson had put
19 the boot in?
20 A. Absolutely 100 per cent certain.
21 Q. But you would have been concerned about his
22 involvement -- that is Jameson's -- wouldn't you?
23 A. Well, I was working, morning noon and night, to get
24 this -- to get this investigation up and running and
25 getting the people who are -- who were suspected of
95
1 causing this damage to Robert. I wanted them arrested
2 and brought into the station, and to be brought through
3 the courts successfully.
4 So I was delighted that this evidence was given to
5 us to enable us to get another witness in. Absolutely
6 delighted.
7 Q. Yes. If I could just have page [14625] on the screen,
8 please. The page I'm having put up here is a transcript
9 of the handwritten note of the conversation you had with
10 Mr Mahaffey and Chief Inspector K in 2001.
11 The top half there, the bottom of the top, just
12 before K -- perhaps it would be easier if that was
13 highlighted. That's lovely. Thank you.
14 The section there:
15 "Get questionnaire."
16 A. Questionnaire?
17 Q. Look at the bit before it. This is you saying:
18 "No dealings directly. McCaw came in (didn't at
19 first think he was a cop ..."
20 McBurney was present, and yourself. You thought it
21 was late afternoon:
22 "McCaw said ... think Michael may have come to the
23 door and introduced him."
24 This is all consistent with what you have said:
25 "McB stood up. McCaw said something like this
96
1 fellow was in the centre of the town ... here is a
2 fellow who heard what went on. Don't know whether he
3 said seen or heard."
4 Then something about:
5 "Get questionnaire.
6 "Got Eddy (Honeyford) & his partner."
7 Now, was Eddy Honeyford summoned to the room? Is
8 that what happened?
9 A. You mean after that person had --
10 Q. Was this was after or was it --
11 A. Yes, after.
12 Q. After. That's okay. So:
13 "Had to be invited in & ascertain what he knows ..."
14 Is that a reference to what Eddy Honeyford knew?
15 A. No, he had to be invited in, "he" being Jameson.
16 Q. "And more importantly, his involvement?"
17 A. Yes. Well, his involvement. That's how -- what did he
18 know about the situation?
19 Q. And, of course, whether or not he might have been
20 involved?
21 A. To be honest with you, anything. If he was involved,
22 you know, obviously the circumstances would be changed.
23 Q. Did the name Jameson ring a bell with you?
24 A. When this man came in?
25 Q. Yes.
97
1 A. No, it didn't.
2 Q. No. Well, were the circumstances of how you heard the
3 information made clear to you? This is McCaw.
4 A. The circumstances in which he had received the
5 information?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. It had to -- when he left, I had to be told who he was.
8 I didn't know who he was, and I was told then that --
9 later on, that he was security man for the -- for that
10 family.
11 Q. Yes. Do you know how much later you were told that?
12 A. Oh, it would have been an ongoing discussion.
13 Q. So did McCaw leave with Inspector Irwin and leave you
14 and McBurney in the room?
15 A. No, no, no. Inspector Irwin came to the door with
16 McCaw.
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. Inspector Irwin left, and McCaw was in the room with
19 Chief Superintendent McBurney and myself.
20 Q. Did you leave the room at any time?
21 A. Did I leave the room? No, I didn't leave the room.
22 Q. During that conversation when you were present in the
23 room, was it made clear to you that McCaw was a security
24 guard of Bobby Jameson?
25 A. Sorry, could you just repeat that question, please?
98
1 Q. We know that the circumstances in which McCaw said he
2 was speaking to young Jameson were in the context of his
3 duty as a guard of Bobby Jameson, his father?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. He then came immediately into the police, he says, with
6 Reserve Constable G, to impart this information to
7 somebody higher up.
8 So when it was being imparted to you, was it -- do
9 you think it was on the basis that this is a security
10 guard of a certain individual?
11 A. Yes. Yes, I would say yes, you know. I'm going from
12 memory, but I would think so, yes, because the
13 discussion was immediately afterwards. It was ongoing
14 discussion.
15 Q. So Reserve Constable McCaw said what he had to say --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- and then he obviously left?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did he leave with Inspector Irwin or did he leave on his
20 own?
21 A. He obviously left on his own.
22 Q. On his own. So that left in the room you and
23 Inspector Irwin and Superintendent McBurney?
24 A. No. It left me and Chief Superintendent McBurney.
25 Q. So Irwin wasn't there at all?
99
1 A. No.
2 Q. So it's my misunderstanding. So it's just the two of
3 you?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So when he left on his own, was there any conversation
6 between you and the Chief Superintendent?
7 A. Yes, of course.
8 Q. Was there any conversation about Bobby Jameson,
9 Mr Jameson senior?
10 A. No, not at all. The conversation was in relation to
11 this fellow Jameson. I have forgotten his Christian
12 name, just off the top of my head, to find out was he
13 questioned before, to get him in, to have him
14 interviewed, you know, I was absolutely delighted that
15 this intelligence was coming in.
16 Q. But as you have said, it would have occurred to you that
17 young Jameson might have been involved in the attack.
18 A. No, I was going on the basis of what I was -- what I had
19 heard McCaw say.
20 Q. When you said to Mahaffey and K that he had to be
21 invited in -- this is young Jameson -- to "ascertain what
22 he knows and more importantly his involvement" --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- is that not --
25 A. Well, no, it wasn't what I meant. I know what you
100
1 are -- you are trying to say: was he involved in the
2 actual assault, his involvement at the scene, at that
3 time, in relation to who he was with? And if he was
4 involved, then the circumstances would change. But we
5 wanted to bring him in on the basis of what I was told;
6 that he either seen or heard what was going on at that
7 time when the incident occurred.
8 Q. Would it have occurred to you that this is a potential
9 suspect as well as someone who had information?
10 A. Well, I would take him in as a witness. But if he
11 was -- if he gave us information that he was a potential
12 suspect, my goodness, great, we'd got another suspect.
13 Q. Was there any discussion between you and
14 Superintendent McBurney then about the sensitivity of
15 this young man being the son of Bobby Jameson?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did that discussion ensue in the immediate aftermath of
18 Reserve Constable McCaw's departure?
19 A. No, that was after -- some time after. The conversation
20 in relation to -- with Mr McBurney and myself was,
21 number 1, to see if this chap -- this man had been
22 interviewed before, because we had introduced these
23 questionnaires, and we had to see if he had been brought
24 in to the investigation before; 2, then we discovered
25 that it was Detective Constable Honeyford who had spoken
101
1 with him, and then we wanted to get this man in to be
2 interviewed in relation to what information he had.
3 Q. Do you want to just look at the next page from this,
4 which is [14626]?
5 Sir, I have a little bit to do on this document, not
6 much, and then I have another topic.
7 A. Okay.
8 Q. I am sure everyone can do with a break.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: We can't sit much longer before we break off
10 for lunch.
11 MR McGRORY: This is the following page just of the note of
12 the meeting you had with Chris Mahaffey and
13 Chief Inspector K. They are asking you about
14 Reserve Constable McCaw:
15 "Did McCaw ask anything?
16 "No, he wouldn't have had the confidence.
17 "How long was he there?
18 "A couple of minutes.
19 "Was there further discussion?
20 "Yes, very confidential. Keep it that way.
21
22 "Maynard? Michael? Debriefing.
23 "Yeah, that these witnesses are kept on
24 board. Mindful that Jameson was the son of Bobby and
25 knew that TC was girlfriend of AH. Confidential, not
102
1 referred to by name, kept on board.
2 "Was there contact with TJ's dad?
3 "No."
4 Now, this may help us just with the timing because
5 it seems to have been in the context of discussing
6 Tracey Clarke as well.
7 A. Yes. Ongoing. And it was much later, after -- when
8 I read that, that was -- that conversation had taken
9 place after the statements were obtained.
10 Q. But just what is meant by, "mindful that Jameson was the
11 son of Bobby"?
12 A. That the police officers were -- the police officers
13 were doing security with Jameson senior, because he was
14 a contractor to Government, and at that time we were
15 discussing the security for both Jameson and
16 Tracey Clarke, and I was -- the fact that Jameson had
17 that security meant that we didn't put as much emphasis
18 on the security as we were on Tracey Clarke. He had
19 already got that security, police officers, and that's
20 what I mean by saying I was mindful that Jameson had
21 already got that.
22 Q. Yes. I just want to make it clear to you, to be fair,
23 do you understand the reason why I'm exploring this?
24 I will set it out for you.
25 A. Yes.
103
1 Q. If it's correct, that senior police, including you, were
2 made aware at this point, when McCaw came in, that
3 Timothy Jameson had made a confession to having been
4 involved in the attack, then some explaining has to be
5 done as to why he wasn't arrested and questioned about
6 that confession.
7 A. But I can assure you that if I had been aware that this
8 man had made a confession, he would have been arrested.
9 I had been working so hard to get a successful
10 prosecution here, I wanted to get the suspects who had
11 murdered Robert brought through the courts successfully.
12 Q. I believe you in that, P39, but what I'm trying to get
13 to the bottom of --
14 THE CHAIRMAN: What you believe doesn't matter. It is not
15 for counsel to give evidence.
16 MR McGRORY: I am being fair to the witness so she knows
17 I am not questioning her integrity, sir.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, that's the way to put it.
19 MR McGRORY: What I'm trying to get at, P39, is if there's
20 any evidence or any possibility that young
21 Timothy Jameson was treated differently than a normal
22 suspect would have been because he was Bobby Jameson's
23 son.
24 A. Absolutely no way.
25 Q. Certainly not in your mind?
104
1 A. Not at all.
2 Q. Thank you for that.
3 I have other issues to address.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: We will deal with those at 2.05. How long
5 will this witness take? There is another witness this
6 afternoon, but we can't sit until 5.30 or anything like
7 that. How much longer will you be, Mr McGrory?
8 MR McGRORY: I have one other major topic to deal with. It
9 could be half an hour.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Can anyone else make a contribution?
11 MR MALLON: An hour.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: An hour?
13 MS DINSMORE: No. That will be reviewed over lunchtime. We
14 will not be taking an hour.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Good.
16 MR McCOMB: We can be fairly short, sir, about 5 minutes.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. 2.10 pm.
18 (1.05 pm)
19 (The short adjournment)
20 (2.10 pm)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr McGrory.
22 MR McGRORY: Thank you, sir.
23 P39, I want to turn to the issue of the telephone
24 billing records --
25 A. Yes.
105
1 Q. -- of Reserve Constable Atkinson, and -- of course, it
2 wasn't just those of Reserve Constable Atkinson that
3 were sought by you initially.
4 The document -- the first document concerning this
5 issue that we have is at page [24696]. We saw it with
6 Detective Constable McAteer. It is his handwriting. It
7 is 9 May 1997 and the subject is:
8 "Request for details of telephone calls - Murder
9 Investigation, Robert Hamill."
10 Now, he drafts this by hand. Can you tell us
11 whether that was on your instruction or anyone else's?
12 A. Well, it would have been on instructions to make sure
13 that it was very secure.
14 Q. Yes, but --
15 A. I don't know whether -- I don't know if I instructed him
16 or not.
17 Q. That's all right. The document purports to seek
18 telephone numbers relating to two people?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. There appear to be only two telephone numbers. There's
21 E Hanvey, and a blacked out part which is probably an
22 address, then there's a telephone number.
23 Then below that, there's C, but I can tell you that
24 is Reserve Constable Atkinson. Then there is another
25 address and another telephone number?
106
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, that appears to be countersigned by you?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Then it's stamped on 9 May, and it appears to have been
5 approved by Superintendent McBurney -- do you see the
6 bottom right-hand corner --
7 A. I do.
8 Q. -- also on 9 May?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Was approval at superintendent level required for
11 a request for telephone billing?
12 A. I'm not 100 per cent sure, but I know that it was
13 necessary at some level. I don't know whether it was my
14 level or superintendent level.
15 Q. But it was certainly -- Superintendent McBurney was
16 certainly consulted at this point?
17 A. Oh yes.
18 Q. This, of course, is before Tracey Clarke had even
19 finished the statement-making process.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: She said that, yes.
21 MR McGRORY: Yes, because that finishes in the early hours
22 of the 10th.
23 A. Mm-hm.
24 Q. So there was some sense of urgency about acquiring the
25 information as to whether or not the allegation that she
107
1 was repeating --
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McGrory, we may not be playing "Just
3 a Minute", but we do have a rule about repetition. This
4 sense of urgency was gone through this morning.
5 Can we get on to something new, please?
6 MR McGRORY: Yes. If you would please have a look at
7 document -- it's page number [02723]. That is another
8 request for telephone billing, I suggest to you. Do you
9 recognise that document?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. That is dated 12 May in the middle of the page. Yes?
12 A. Mm-hm.
13 Q. Were you involved in that application?
14 A. I probably was.
15 Q. Yes. Indeed, now, but they are slightly different
16 because there are four numbers on the list at the bottom
17 of the page?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Can you recall at all why there are two further numbers?
20 A. Well -- I can't give you the details. I can't remember.
21 I can't even remember who they are, but obviously it was
22 meaningful at the time, and that we needed those
23 numbers, to be -- to get a billing on them. But I --
24 Q. Did you remember being asked about these numbers in 2001
25 by Inspector K?
108
1 A. Yes. I do.
2 Q. The context in which Inspector K was asking about these
3 numbers was that one of them, he believed, belonged to
4 a chap called xxxxxxxxxx?
5 A. Yes, thank you. Actually, you have reminded me.
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Can you recall why you were seeking information about
9 the number of xxxxxxxxxx?
10 A. No, I can't. I remember that he was asking me about
11 that at that particular time, and I couldn't remember at
12 that time. Unless it was in relation to a Loyalist
13 connection, I can't put it any further, because I have
14 been retired and I haven't had the opportunity of
15 speaking with any of those who are involved in the
16 investigation, to find out why that was. But obviously
17 it was relevant at the time.
18 Q. Yes, because obviously the seeking of details about
19 someone's phone number is a serious matter?
20 A. Yes, of course.
21 Q. It wouldn't have been done lightly?
22 A. No, no, no.
23 Q. And, of course, at the risk of repeating some
24 information the Inquiry has had, xxxxxxxxxx was a known
25 Loyalist. Isn't that right?
109
1 A. Yes, that's right.
2 Q. But not just any known Loyalist. He was connected to
3 the LVF. Isn't that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. In fact, he would have been regarded as an LVF leader?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Just to make it clear to you, the reason why I'm
8 exploring this issue of a possible LVF connection is
9 that this Inquiry has sat through days of evidence from
10 young people who were in the centre of Portadown on the
11 night of the incident, and virtually to a man and woman
12 they appear to have had a great reluctance about
13 disclosing what they might have seen to the police.
14 Do you understand what I'm saying to you?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Are you aware that --
17 A. No, I'm not aware of what happened -- I haven't looked
18 at the -- what is happening in the Tribunal.
19 Q. But even in terms of your own involvement in the early
20 stages of the investigation, were you conscious that the
21 police were going to have problems in getting
22 information about what happened?
23 A. From the Loyalists?
24 Q. Yes, let's begin with the Loyalists?
25 A. Well, initially, I thought that we would have more
110
1 difficulty from the Loyalists than from the Catholic
2 community, but in actual fact, as the investigation
3 progressed, we were getting information from the
4 Loyalist community.
5 But to go back to this telephone number in relation
6 to xxxxxxxxxx, I would -- I would guess -- and I'm only
7 guessing at this moment -- that that was to ascertain
8 if, in fact, there were any connections between the
9 people that we were looking at.
10 Q. Because obviously, if there were --
11 A. By telephone, yes.
12 Q. Then that would change the picture a bit, wouldn't it?
13 A. Well, it was always a very serious investigation.
14 I don't know what you mean by a change.
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. What do you mean?
17 Q. I'll spell it out for you.
18 A. Thank you.
19 Q. If those who were involved in the murder of
20 Robert Hamill were either members of or closely
21 connected to a paramilitary organisation like the LVF,
22 that would have had implications for the
23 evidence-gathering exercise?
24 A. In what way do you mean?
25 Q. In other words, people would have been reluctant to talk
111
1 about them, wouldn't they?
2 A. Through fear?
3 Q. Through fear?
4 A. Yes.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McGrory, have you asked Mr Underwood if
6 the enquiry about this particular phone number bore any
7 fruit?
8 MR McGRORY: Not specifically, but I have raised with him in
9 my lines of enquiry the issue of LVF and UVF
10 involvement.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: That is not quite the point. Surely it would
12 have been a good idea to raise this specifically with
13 Mr Underwood so he could tell you if any telephone calls
14 involving this gentleman had been made.
15 If not, then this is a pointless line of
16 investigation, isn't it?
17 MR McGRORY: Sir, could I ask the witness to be excused for
18 a moment, please?
19 THE CHAIRMAN: For the witness to be excused?
20 MR McGRORY: Yes, sir.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you like to leave us just for a moment,
22 please?
23 Yes, Mr McGrory?
24 MR McGRORY: I have asked the witness to be excused because
25 I don't want to have a discussion about the
112
1 pointlessness or otherwise of this line of questioning
2 in her presence.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: That is for me to decide. What is the
4 difficulty now?
5 MR McGRORY: It is my respectful submission, sir, that the
6 point is not whether or not necessarily Mr xxxxxxxxxx was
7 contacted by phone or made any phone calls himself, but
8 the fact that there was a perception that he might have
9 been involved.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, we can't come to conclusions about
11 speculative matters like that. You must go on with the
12 next point. You are not going to pursue this one.
13 MR McGRORY: Sorry, with respect, sir --
14 THE CHAIRMAN: You are not going to pursue this one.
15 MR McGRORY: Will you hear me, sir, on why I think I should
16 pursue it?
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Very briefly.
18 MR McGRORY: Sir, there is further reference in the papers
19 to a belief of Chief Inspector K's that perhaps there
20 was Loyalist involvement. There is discussion about
21 whether or not there was paramilitary involvement at a
22 meeting with the DPP on 13 May, which this witness
23 attended and which I want to put to her.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: You can ask her about the meeting with the
25 DPP. That's all.
113
1 MR McGRORY: Yes.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Ask her to come back, but I don't
3 propose to have a witness sent out again for this
4 reason. So I'm sure you won't ask for it.
5 MR McGRORY: No.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: The whole purpose of suggesting lines of
7 enquiry is to avoid loss of time while speculative
8 matters are pursued.
9 MR McGRORY: Well, it is not speculative -- well ...
10 (The witness returned)
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr McGrory?
12 MR McGRORY: Now, P39, you attended a meeting in the office
13 of the Director of Public Prosecutions on 13 May. Do
14 you recall that?
15 A. I'm aware that I went to the DPP's office.
16 Q. If you could please have a look at page [31609]. Now,
17 this is the -- it's -- the author of this document is
18 a Mr Raymond Kitson, who is a senior DPP official. He
19 is the deputy director.
20 About seven or eight pages into his note, I want you
21 to look at the section entitled "Bail". There are
22 a number of names there: Lunt, Bridgett and Forbes, to
23 be precise.
24 Do you see those names?
25 A. Yes.
114
1 Q. There is a bracket of assault on Mallon, beside Forbes's
2 name. Then there is an entry:
3 "No previous association with UVF."
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, can you remember the context in which that was
6 discussed? Or can you remember it at all?
7 A. No, I most definitely don't remember.
8 Q. You see, as a police officer, you would be aware that
9 one of the vital pieces of information that the DPP
10 would have needed, once there was a prosecution, is
11 whether or not there are paramilitary links?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Because that is information which the DPP will give to
14 the court in the context of a bail application.
15 A. Sorry, can I ask, are you sure that I was at this
16 meeting? I know that I was at one meeting with the DPP,
17 but I don't think that I was at a meeting where bail was
18 discussed.
19 Q. If you look at the first page of this note, it's
20 [31603]. At the top of the page is a list of names.
21 There's McBurney, then there's your name --
22 A. Yes. Right.
23 Q. -- and a number of other names. The date is 4.00 pm
24 on --
25 A. Yes.
115
1 Q. That would suggest you were present?
2 A. Absolutely. I know that I was present at one meeting.
3 Q. As the officer who was the second highest in command in
4 this murder investigation at the point of this meeting,
5 the question of whether or not there were paramilitary
6 links would be something that would be relevant to you?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. But it may be you have no further recollection, and we
9 have to ask Mr Kitson about this. Can you help us as to
10 whether or not the others were thought to have been
11 associated with the paramilitaries?
12 A. I would say not, but, again, I would -- that's only from
13 memory, and I would rather that someone who has
14 recollection of this or has written notes on it would be
15 asked that. But I -- from memory, I would say not.
16 Q. Now, I want to move on to the final issue I want to talk
17 to you about, and that's this question of how Reserve
18 Constable Atkinson was treated, and whether or not he
19 should have been treated as part and parcel of the
20 murder investigation.
21 As someone who was an accessory after the fact.
22 Do you know what I mean by that term?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. It's a common law offence which has been encapsulated in
25 the Criminal Law Act of 1967. Is that familiar to you?
116
1 A. Well, I am sure it was at the time, but I'm so long
2 removed from this work, that ...
3 Q. In fact, there is a specific offence of assisting
4 offenders?
5 A. Mm-hm.
6 Q. Were you aware of that then, in 1997?
7 A. I would say yes, I was.
8 Q. Now, what was said about Reserve Constable Atkinson by
9 Tracey Clarke was that Hanvey had boasted to her, or
10 told her, that Atkinson was keeping in touch with him
11 and had advised him to dispose of his clothes.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, I'm suggesting to you that that is in the realms of
14 the offence of assisting offenders.
15 A. Mm-hm.
16 Q. Do you agree?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Had you experience in the conduct of investigations
19 where a range of offences related to an incident were
20 investigated together?
21 A. Yes, I was, but Mr McBurney would have by far more
22 experience than I had. I didn't have nearly as much.
23 I have limited experience in comparison to him, and that
24 would have been a matter which would have been discussed
25 with senior officers.
117
1 Q. You see -- would you have had an understanding, P39,
2 that when an incident is being investigated, that
3 evidence against one person may be helpful in respect of
4 evidence against another person?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, I know the Chairman has already asked you about
7 this this morning, but if I may just have permission to
8 go a little bit further.
9 Do you understand that a tribunal of fact, a jury or
10 a Diplock judge as it would most likely have been in this
11 murder case, hearing the evidence against Hanvey insofar
12 as his involvement in the assault was concerned, might
13 have been influenced by the further evidence that would
14 be adduced against Atkinson in terms of the making of
15 the phone call?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. In other words, that there are strands of the rope in
18 the evidence that is presented in a case?
19 A. Yes, I understand what you are saying.
20 Q. And that where the facts in an incident are germane to
21 each other, the prosecution is quite entitled to try
22 people together for different crimes arising out of the
23 same incident?
24 A. Mm-hm.
25 Q. You understand that?
118
1 A. I do.
2 Q. In fact, that is the best possible way to proceed in
3 many cases.
4 A. I accept what you are saying.
5 Q. Now, what you have told us has happened in this case is
6 that the investigation against Reserve
7 Constable Atkinson for assisting offenders was siphoned
8 off. It became a third investigation. Well, that's
9 what you thought was going to happen to it.
10 A. Yes. I didn't have that decision to make, but that is
11 my understanding; that it was going to be a separate
12 investigation.
13 Q. Had you any reservations about that?
14 A. Well, that was discussed with senior officers and
15 Mr McBurney, and the decision was made, and it came back
16 to us that that was the decision as to how to proceed.
17 Q. So can we take it from that answer that you were party
18 to a discussion about whether or not --
19 A. No, I wasn't party to the discussion.
20 Q. No. Let me finish.
21 A. Pardon me.
22 Q. That you were party to a discussion amongst
23 yourselves -- that is the senior group of detectives,
24 McBurney, Irwin and yourself -- involved in this inquiry
25 as to whether or not Atkinson should be pursued
119
1 alongside Hanvey?
2 A. The decision was made -- I wasn't a party to the
3 discussion regarding whether Atkinson should be involved
4 in the murder investigation or a separate murder
5 investigation. I was told that the investigations would
6 be separate.
7 Q. So you weren't even asked your opinion by McBurney as to
8 whether or not Atkinson should be pursued as part of the
9 investigation?
10 A. No, I would say that Mr McBurney was discussing it with
11 more senior officers than I.
12 Q. You said that earlier. Is that your memory, that that
13 was being dealt with by Mr McBurney at some higher
14 level?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Can you tell us just how high a level?
17 A. Well, I wasn't privy to these discussions, and I'm
18 not -- I have no knowledge of who the officers were.
19 Q. He didn't just say, "I'm discussing that with Assistant
20 Chief Constable so and so"?
21 A. No, he didn't.
22 Q. But you have a sense that there was a discussion going
23 on elsewhere about this?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. That's fine.
120
1 Can I go back to that meeting with the Director of
2 Public Prosecutions on 13 May?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Could we just have that front page on [31603] again?
5 This is Mr Kitson's note.
6 A. Mm-hm.
7 Q. In which -- this is at the top of the page, he has noted
8 the issues. There's "Medical evidence", then there's
9 "Evidence and the extent of it", and I think that refers
10 to the medical evidence. Do you see that?
11 "Availability". That is not what I'm interested in
12 anyway. The next one is "Bail", of course, which we
13 have discussed and the next one is "R/Con Atkinson"?
14 A. Mm-hm.
15 Q. So this document would suggest that the issues
16 concerning Reserve Constable Atkinson were discussed --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- fairly closely to the beginning of the meeting with
19 Mr Kitson.
20 A. Yes. It's number 4.
21 Q. It's raised because he writes down issues. We have to
22 hear from Mr Kitson whether or not he took this note
23 contemporaneously or whether or not he wrote it
24 afterwards or whatever. But in any event, this would
25 suggest that one of the purposes of consulting the DPP
121
1 on 13 May was to discuss how the case would proceed in
2 a number of respects --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. -- and that in one of those respects it was what do we
5 do with Reserve Constable Atkinson.
6 A. Well, I would be saying to you, sir, that it is in my
7 mind that this investigation was going to be separate,
8 and, therefore, I have it in my mind -- and I have
9 nothing in my mind to say that it was going to be
10 anything else, and, therefore, I'm going -- relying on
11 my memory with regards to that.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Would it be helpful to look on through the
13 pages to see what is said about Reserve
14 Constable Atkinson, number 4 on the agenda?
15 MR McGRORY: The problem is, sir, I don't think there is any
16 further information about that. That's one of the
17 difficulties.
18 MR UNDERWOOD: In the middle of the page [31608] against the word
19 "Atkinson".
20 MR McGRORY: Yes:
21 "Said nothing. Investigation. Would have known all
22 the people. Subject to further."
23 A. Yes, further investigation, yes.
24 Q. But that was then discussed in some detail in the
25 presence of the DPP.
122
1 A. Yes, it was obviously discussed with the DPP, I'm happy
2 to say that, yes.
3 Q. You see, the difficulty we have with this -- yes,
4 indeed, there is an exclamation mark, Mr McKenna points
5 out, beside the name.
6 One of the difficulties we have is that there was no
7 further criminal investigation into Mr Atkinson.
8 A. Well, I wasn't involved in the investigation into
9 Atkinson, nor was I involved in the inactivity of the
10 police, and my involvement was in that present
11 investigation regarding Robert.
12 I -- why I keep repeating it, because it's in my
13 memory that there was a separate -- supposed to be
14 a separate investigation for Atkinson, and a separate
15 team, if I remember correctly. I'm not ...
16 Q. Just about the separate team, who was in it?
17 A. No, I wouldn't be aware of that. I'm just wanting to --
18 can I look at what I have written down here, to see ...
19 Q. Can you tell us what you are reading from?
20 A. I'm so sorry. I'm reading from the policy book.
21 (Pause).
22 Now, I have it recorded here that the --
23 Q. Can you help us with the page you are reading from?
24 A. Sorry. It's [00936]. I have already referred to this
25 page. At the very bottom, the three investigations are
123
1 listed there:
2 "... investigation was in relation to the complaint
3 re police, not the murder investigation and the
4 allegations made by Witness A."
5 So that's clearly, to me, saying that there were the
6 three investigations.
7 Q. Yes. We know that that's what you were told, but the
8 difficulty we have is, you see, that there wasn't
9 a third one, criminal investigation, into Mr Atkinson.
10 A. Well, that was taken away from J Division, as far as I'm
11 aware, and Mr McBurney will presumably help you with
12 that.
13 Q. Yes. You see, it wasn't taken from J Division. Would
14 you be surprised to learn that Mr McBurney remained the
15 officer?
16 A. But Mr McBurney was regional. He wasn't J Division.
17 Q. Would you be surprised to learn that Mr McBurney
18 remained in control of that part of the investigation?
19 A. Well, if I remember correctly -- and I have to go back
20 to the policy book, where Mr xxxxxxxxxx and he had the
21 conversation, and Mr McBurney was placed in charge of
22 some of the investigations. I can't remember whether it
23 said in the policy book whether he was in charge of the
24 third investigation, being Atkinson, or not.
25 Q. I'm just asking that in view of your opinion that this
124
1 was being removed from J Division and was going to be
2 the responsibility of a separate team, are you surprised
3 to learn that it never left the control of
4 Superintendent McBurney?
5 A. Well, in answer to your question, I would say that
6 Mr McBurney was regional, and he could very well have
7 been in -- the overall in charge of that investigation
8 because it could have been someone from within the
9 region, but not within the division.
10 Q. Very well.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McGrory, you will be able to speak to
12 others about this --
13 MR McGRORY: Yes.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: -- and I have no doubt Mr Underwood will be
15 asking pertinent questions. Perhaps you could move on
16 now?
17 MR McGRORY: I have no further questions about that topic,
18 sir.
19 You mentioned the ICPC there, of course.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What was your understanding of the role of the ICPC in
22 all of this?
23 A. Well, they were the people who were supervising the
24 investigation of the inactivity of the police, and
25 I understood that they were going to be involved in the
125
1 Atkinson investigation as well, but I'm obviously wrong
2 in that, and I'll stand corrected on that.
3 Q. Exactly. The role of the ICPC was purely in
4 a supervisory capacity in the context of a complaint?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR McGRORY: Thank you.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
8 Examination by MR McCOMB
9 MR McCOMB: P39, I won't be very long with you.
10 I appear for a number of the people who were
11 ultimately charged with the offences -- the offence
12 against Mr Hamill.
13 May I take you back to the [14622], please?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. There, as we have seen, that was -- do you remember the
16 visit which was made to your house?
17 A. Yes, I certainly do.
18 Q. Indeed. You had -- do you remember the details? What
19 I think I should do is just to go through them with you,
20 not the whole lot. If we go down about ten lines, do
21 you see:
22 "CH asked P39 again about the billing enquiry, and
23 when she became aware of the information re Atkinson's
24 T/C telephone call to Hanvey."
25 A. Yes.
126
1 Q. Now, that's yourself then, the note records it.
2 You:
3 "Stated that she must have been aware of it prior to
4 the statement of TC being recorded."
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I may have misunderstood the gist of your evidence this
7 morning, but do you think that that might well be the
8 case? It would have been perhaps the day before, it
9 appears, when one looks a little bit more into your
10 interview.
11 A. I was off duty the day before, but I was briefed that
12 morning, and thank you for bringing that to my
13 attention, because I would have been briefed that
14 morning by Detective --
15 Q. Mr Irwin?
16 A. Yes. Detective Chief Superintendent McBurney and
17 Detective Inspector Irwin, and I probably was advised on
18 that.
19 Q. It seems that may well have been the case --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- that Andrea McKee had given information --
22 A. Yes, verbally.
23 Q. -- verbally --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- to the detectives which would have been, then, within
127
1 their information, and perhaps yours then when you were
2 briefed about that, before the subsequent interview with
3 Ms Clarke that night?
4 A. Mr Chairman, if I may add, that clarifies -- I was asked
5 by the previous barrister about making the application
6 for the billing, and actually that has just reminded me
7 that I was aware of that on the morning of the 9th,
8 after the briefing. So that would have --
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
10 A. -- completed that.
11 MR McCOMB: This morning, Mr Underwood asked you about the
12 way in which the interview with Ms Clarke went.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I think his words -- I may not quote him correctly --
15 were, "Did the words tumble out of her mouth", or
16 something like that in terms of her eagerness to speak
17 to you and to give you details, and I didn't quite lift
18 what your answer was.
19 Just from your memory, did she appear to have some
20 reluctance in speaking to you and giving you details?
21 A. Well, she was a nervous and apprehensive young girl, who
22 was coming in to talk to us about what she had seen and
23 heard and what she had been told in relation to the
24 incident, and I had, as I have said, asked her to tell
25 the truth as she knew it, and that's what I believe she
128
1 did.
2 Q. It's just, again, one person's interpretation may be
3 different from another's, but just, do you see there:
4 "P39 spoke of the extreme difficulty in getting TC
5 to make her statement."
6 Now, in fairness, that is a note that somebody --
7 it's just:
8 "Handed P39 a copy of TC statement."
9 We are still on the same page, dated 10 May. It's
10 at the very top. If we go down about ten lines, perhaps
11 from the top.
12 It's been redacted. Yes:
13 "Handed P39 copy of TC statement dated 10 May to
14 assist her recollection."
15 Can you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Good. Now, yourself then spoke of the extreme
18 difficulty in getting TC to make her statement.
19 I was just asking you what -- how would you amplify
20 that now, just for us?
21 A. Yes. Well, the first thing is it was very difficult for
22 this young girl to come into the station, and the
23 officers who were dealing with her had difficulty in
24 getting her into the station, and
25 Detective Constable McAteer had spoken with her before
129
1 I actually went in, but at that time, when -- that is
2 why I'm saying about the difficulty in getting her to
3 make the statement. It was that her nervousness, her
4 apprehension about making the statement. She wasn't --
5 she was persuaded to come into the station, and that was
6 why Ms McKee was with her.
7 Q. Did you ever have a picture of what relationship there
8 was between Ms McKee and Ms Clarke? Did one seem to be
9 the more dominant personality?
10 A. When I met Ms McKee, she didn't speak at all to
11 Tracey Clarke. There was no conversation whatsoever
12 while I was there.
13 Q. Were you aware that another person, Timothy Jameson, was
14 being interviewed in or around the same time, at the
15 same station?
16 A. Well, actually, although in my interview notes I said
17 that they were in or around the same time, that is not
18 correct, because Tracey Clarke would have been in much
19 later than Timothy Jameson. So I can correct that.
20 Q. You anticipated me there, P39, because I was just about
21 to ask you that. You said that the two of them would
22 have been in the station at the same times.
23 A. Yes. I would just like to point out that, remember,
24 I didn't have any notes whatsoever before being
25 interviewed. So it was a recollection of what
130
1 I remembered at the time. But I can now tell you that
2 that wasn't the case.
3 Q. In relation to the potential use of witnesses and
4 Andrea McKee as a witness, in your interview with the
5 Inquiry -- it is at the bottom of page 79, sir, I don't
6 intend to flag it up unless it is necessary -- you said
7 to the Inquiry team that Mrs McKee, Andrea McKee, would
8 not have been of use as a witness in the murder inquiry,
9 but that she would have been, and was, a witness in the
10 investigation into Reserve Constable Atkinson.
11 I just wonder -- I didn't quite follow what you
12 meant by that.
13 Did you think, when you gave that answer, that
14 Andrea McKee would be a witness of something which she
15 herself knew about the conversation or the telephone
16 call in relation to the prosecution of Atkinson?
17 A. Well, I didn't know at that time about the telephone
18 connection. I didn't know about the telephone
19 connection between McKee and Atkinson until we received
20 the billing back again.
21 But in relation to McKee, she was actually the
22 person who was bringing Tracey Clarke into the station.
23 She too was very apprehensive. In fact, she didn't want
24 to be seen by anyone in the station, and was coming in
25 at night, for no one could see her, with Tracey Clarke.
131
1 So I was asked about getting a statement from her,
2 and I didn't consider taking a statement from her at
3 that time. Whether I would have taken a statement from
4 her later, obviously, in pursuance of the investigation
5 into Atkinson, would have been a matter for a later
6 date.
7 Q. But it was something which you thought, and, indeed,
8 I appreciate that Andrea McKee expressed her
9 apprehension, not only to herself, but the night before
10 to Mr Irwin, even to the extent of perhaps not letting
11 Tracey Clarke know that she was the one who had given
12 the information?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. But at a later stage, then, did you consider that she
15 might herself, Andrea McKee, be a potential witness
16 against Atkinson --
17 A. Well, I wasn't --
18 Q. -- although you didn't want to take a statement from her
19 then?
20 A. Well, you couldn't have taken a statement from her at
21 that time, because you couldn't expose her in front of
22 Tracey Clarke. But the other thing is that I wasn't
23 involved in the Atkinson investigation.
24 Q. I appreciate that.
25 A. So therefore, that would be have --
132
1 MR McCOMB: That would have been for another officer.
2 Thank you very much.
3 Examination by MR MALLON
4 MR MALLON: I appear on behalf of Robert Atkinson.
5 In relation to -- if you can go back to the incident
6 yourself and your investigations immediately that you
7 came into the office and directed that the Land Rover
8 crew be brought back, you did that and they were brought
9 back, I think, around 7.30, 8 o'clock?
10 A. Around that time, yes.
11 Q. You took statements from them, and you directed that
12 statements be taken from them. You also directed that
13 you didn't mind if they sat together and made their
14 statements, provided they recorded that fact in their
15 notebooks.
16 A. I didn't take statements from them. I asked them to
17 record their statements.
18 Q. Yes, and you didn't mind if they did that communally, or
19 individually, or however they chose, as long as they
20 noted that fact in their statements?
21 A. I asked them to make their statements in sequence of
22 events, and, should they confer, that they must make
23 a note in their notebooks.
24 Q. Yes. To the fact that they had conferred?
25 A. Yes.
133
1 Q. Not what they had conferred about, but the fact that
2 there simply had been conferencing among them?
3 A. And to what they conferred about.
4 Q. So the statements were in sequence, any conferencing
5 they had --
6 A. Yes --
7 Q. -- and anything that was added?
8 A. -- it must be recorded.
9 Q. Then, I think, once statements were taken, you had
10 Detective Constable Bradley go through these statements
11 with them again, and try and expand upon them?
12 A. Yes. I wanted to find out if there was any further
13 evidence that they could give in relation to suspects,
14 descriptions, et cetera.
15 Q. Had you read the statements that they had made before
16 you made that request?
17 A. Had I?
18 Q. Had you read the statements?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So you thought there may be more matters that could be
21 added to that?
22 A. Well, I wanted to satisfy myself that all the evidence
23 would be available.
24 Q. Yes. Now, Mr Atkinson would make a point in saying that
25 when he made his statement, he made a full statement of
134
1 all the things that he considered would be relevant to
2 him. He didn't put names of people who were not
3 involved. He did not add matters which he thought were
4 not relevant. He was relating his statement to the
5 incident.
6 He also, in fact, as you may or may not know,
7 informed Sergeant P89 about the presence of
8 Allister Hanvey, that he was a potential threat, and he
9 was also a martial arts practitioner and, therefore,
10 could be possibly dangerous to him.
11 That did not appear in his statement, and he says
12 the reason for that --
13 THE CHAIRMAN: No, no. Please just put a question. Don't
14 tell us what your instructions are.
15 MR MALLON: Were you quite satisfied with the detail in his
16 statement, or would you have expected him to add into
17 that statement people whom he did not perceive to be in
18 any way breaking the law?
19 A. Well, I would have expected the police officers to give
20 their statements in relation to who they saw at the
21 scene with regards to what they were doing, and if --
22 when the detective sergeant went back to them, I would
23 have expected them to have given information with
24 regards to who they saw in that town and to give the
25 descriptions.
135
1 That's really what I wanted to get, the evidence in
2 relation to the incident.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: If he had warned another officer to be
4 careful about Hanvey, who might be dangerous, would you
5 have expected him to put that to him?
6 A. Yes, I would.
7 MR MALLON: Indeed, after these statements were written,
8 there would have been a general conversation to try to
9 elicit evidence that the police officers did not
10 consider to be relevant to their statements, but would
11 have been relevant to the incident as a whole. In other
12 words, a debrief.
13 A. A debrief, yes.
14 Q. Yes. And, of course, the debrief in itself would have
15 been carried out in the presence of other officers, all
16 of whom could or should have been able to chime in and
17 to remind each other and to remind the officer who was
18 conducting the debrief of other information?
19 A. Well, I wouldn't -- in courts in Northern Ireland,
20 identification was a big issue, and I would have wanted
21 to keep the police officers to have -- to make their
22 statements so that I would be in a position to say that
23 this police officer was not influenced by other police
24 officers as to what they saw.
25 Q. And that was inconsistent with your instruction that
136
1 they could --
2 A. No. Sorry, I don't think it was.
3 Q. Well, we will leave that matter to you -- to the
4 Tribunal to decide. But when you had his statement, the
5 statement of Robbie Atkinson, when you read it, did you
6 find it lacking in any material detail?
7 A. Well, I'm sorry, but I couldn't remember such details.
8 Q. Would you like to look at it? Pages [09683], [09684]
9 and [09685].
10 THE CHAIRMAN: That is difficult question to answer,
11 Mr Mallon, because, of course, one doesn't know what
12 else he may have been able to reveal when the debriefing
13 takes place.
14 MR MALLON: Yes.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: For example, he didn't say in it that he had
16 warned another officer that Hanvey might be dangerous --
17 MR MALLON: Yes.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: -- and the witness has already said she would
19 have expected him to say that in his statement.
20 MR MALLON: Or in a debrief.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: No, no. She would have expected him to say
22 it in his statement.
23 MR MALLON: I accept what you say, but what I'm saying is
24 that this statement is a sequence of events in which
25 Mr Atkinson was involved, and anything beyond that,
137
1 would be the matter which could have been put into
2 a debrief, had he been debriefed. In fact, I don't
3 think Mr Atkinson was debriefed.
4 A. Is that the complete statement?
5 MR MALLON: It is. Have you got the three pages?
6 A. No, I have just got one. I have only had page 2 on the
7 screen.
8 Q. I'm sorry. It should start at pages [09683], [09684]
9 and [09685].
10 (Pause).
11 A. Well, yes, I would expect more in that statement insofar
12 as this person was very agitated and grabbed me by the
13 jacket. I would have expected him to have told us if he
14 could give a description of this person or if he knew
15 who this person was. This particular police officer was
16 aware of -- I understand he was aware of a number of
17 people in the crowd --
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. -- and he knew some of them.
20 Q. Yes. So, when you read that statement, did you mark
21 that and say, "We will go through and ask him a bit more
22 detail about this"?
23 A. That is what I said for all of those statements.
24 I asked the detective sergeant to go back and to
25 re-interview them regarding that --
138
1 Q. Yes, I understand.
2 A. -- and I asked them to have it done separately.
3 Q. Yes. But that's not the same as saying, "I think
4 there's something missing in this statement, will you go
5 and direct this man's mind to it and see if we can get
6 more detail?"
7 You have just said a general, "See if you can get
8 any more detail". I understand that.
9 A. I honestly can't remember the detailed brief that I gave
10 to the detective sergeant over 11 years ago, with
11 respect.
12 Q. I have to suggest to you that no defect in his statement
13 was ever pointed out to him. I mean, he was only
14 a reserve constable.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you able to say what transpired between
16 the officer who went to see him as a result of your
17 instruction?
18 A. Sorry, sir?
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you able to say what transpired?
20 A. No, I can't.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. Thank you.
22 MR MALLON: You see, evidence has been given by senior
23 police officers that reserve officers would normally
24 be -- have the contents of their statements discussed,
25 and then the statements, in a way, guided by a detective
139
1 so that their statements remained their words, but all
2 areas are covered by the statements and the statement is
3 a thoroughly professional job.
4 A. Yes, and that was done. But I must say that, number 1,
5 the training of a reserve constable in taking
6 a statement was very similar to that training given to
7 a constable; and the second thing is that the detective
8 sergeant went back to do that very thing that you are
9 raising with me, as he did with all the other officers.
10 Q. That is not quite what I was saying.
11 In the drafting of the statement, evidence has been
12 given by senior officers that a senior detective or
13 a detective constable or a detective of some experience
14 would assist them to go through the statement in its
15 drafting stage so that they would include in it all
16 relevant information.
17 Now, that is not the same as leaving it to him to
18 draft and then saying, "Look, if you have anything to
19 add to it, think about it, boys, and tell me."
20 It's not quite the same. In fact, it is a magnitude
21 of difference. A magnitude. And I have to suggest to
22 you that this was a fairly acceptable statement from
23 a reserve constable, without any guidance as to what
24 a detective would consider to be relevant, what detail
25 was required, without the assistance of others in
140
1 discussion, because he wrote his statement on his own,
2 and left it in his pigeonhole. He didn't meet with
3 others. This was his personal recollection.
4 It was made a very short time after he came in from
5 the incident when he was tired. I put it to you again,
6 that --
7 THE CHAIRMAN: That is about 20 lines of this question so
8 far.
9 MR MALLON: Then I suggest to you that it is a good
10 statement in the circumstances.
11 A. After -- yes, I would say that it was a statement which
12 was made by the reserve constable. He had a lot of
13 experience. I can't recount how many years' experience
14 he had as a reserve constable, and the detective
15 sergeant went back to each of them to find out if there
16 was anything more to be added to it.
17 Q. And, in fact, he did provide further additional
18 information to that detective constable, didn't he?
19 A. I understand that he did, but I'm not prepared to go
20 into details at this stage, whether -- what additional
21 level --
22 Q. That statement, was that the statement that was used in
23 the Hobson trial?
24 A. Oh gosh!
25 Q. Do you know anything about that?
141
1 A. I don't know.
2 Q. That's fine. We will leave that with you.
3 Now, in relation to -- if we can just go back now to
4 your introduction to the Hamill family, where you
5 noticed a little hostility.
6 A. When I met the Hamill family initially?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. When I met the Hamill family initially, I met with
9 [Robert's mother] and one of her daughters and Robert's
10 brother.
11 Q. Now, you have described it as a little hostile.
12 A little hostile atmosphere. Would that be right?
13 A. Mrs Hamill was receptive and I wanted to get the --
14 I wanted to get information and wanted to get witnesses
15 to come forward. But, yes, I do understand that the
16 Hamill family, as a whole, were a little hostile in
17 relation to the police.
18 Q. So it wasn't to you, and it wasn't to the detectives, it
19 was just to the police generally?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, you also went, as I understand it, to a number of
22 priests, to try to get their assistance in producing
23 witnesses.
24 A. Yes, I did. Just before I go on to that, I would also
25 say that on one occasion when I was with the Hamill
142
1 family, a lady, who -- I don't know whether she was
2 a member of the family or not, but she certainly wasn't
3 a sister of Robert's -- followed me out, verbally
4 abusing me. But that was part and parcel of the
5 hostility that I am referring to.
6 To answer the question that I have been asked, yes,
7 I did go to the priests in the community to ask them for
8 assistance.
9 Q. Now, when I asked you about a little hostility, I didn't
10 know you had been the subject, whilst leaving the home,
11 of verbal abuse by persons who had come to visit that
12 home.
13 I wouldn't have called that a little hostility.
14 I would have called that a fairly major incident of
15 hostility.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Who is giving evidence, Mr Mallon?
17 MR MALLON: Would you describe that, now that that has been
18 opened, as a little hostility or a fairly major incident
19 of hostility, being abused?
20 A. Well, I was a police officer for a long time, and I get
21 accustomed to these sorts of things.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: You have known worse, have you?
23 A. I have.
24 MR MALLON: Tell me, when you were trying to gather
25 witnesses from the Catholic community, and you hadn't
143
1 had any success, did it occur to you that they may be
2 worried about giving evidence to the police because of
3 what they had done that night? A number of people
4 coming down --
5 A. I don't know what their thoughts were, to be quite
6 honest.
7 Q. So it might have been self-protection as opposed to --
8 THE CHAIRMAN: That's conjecture.
9 MR MALLON: If, in fact, they had come down the street
10 shouting, being abusive, challenging, chanting, and
11 assaulted people on the way down the street, that's the
12 sort of thing that the police would take a dim view of,
13 isn't it?
14 THE CHAIRMAN: You smile.
15 A. I know. It's --
16 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm not saying that critically.
17 A. It's part and parcel of what -- the abuse that we get on
18 occasions. And, of course, we don't look on it
19 favourably, but it's --
20 MR MALLON: No, I was thinking not of abuse against you.
21 Sorry if I misled you. I was thinking of the attitude
22 of the people coming down from St Patrick's --
23 A. Right.
24 Q. -- and how they, themselves, initiated the abuse. They
25 may have initiated assaults and certainly started this
144
1 incident.
2 A. What exactly is the question you are asking me?
3 Q. Maybe that is the reason why they wouldn't give you
4 statements; because of their own behaviour.
5 A. I don't know the reason that they thought -- you know,
6 I can't answer for them. The only thing I can say is
7 that I found it difficult -- difficulty in them coming
8 forward to give me statements.
9 Q. Yes. Now, if I can then go on to your treatment in your
10 interview, if I could refer you to page 25.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Is this the interview for the Hamill Inquiry?
12 MR MALLON: Yes, it is.
13 You record at page 25, what your instructions were
14 in relation to the drafting of a statement.
15 Just refer to that for completeness.
16 You also had a number of incidents on that night.
17 A. Yes, I had.
18 Q. Was this the most serious incident, or would you say
19 that it was equally serious with the two other
20 incidents?
21 A. Equally as serious as the other two incidents.
22 Q. Other people were taken to hospital and children were
23 involved?
24 A. Yes. I had three serious incidents to deal with that
25 night. All of them were considered serious.
145
1 Q. Would any of them rank as more serious than this, or
2 would they all have been of the same nature?
3 A. Well, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and hindsight --
4 because here I am at a Tribunal, and obviously I would
5 now at this stage consider that the Hamill investigation
6 was the most serious, but at the time, I didn't have the
7 benefit of hindsight. I had three people in hospital,
8 two of them who were unconscious, one of them Robert,
9 and the other one was a man from Banbridge, and I also
10 had a child in hospital from the Lurgan subdivision. So
11 I considered all of them, at that time, to be very
12 serious incidents to be dealing with.
13 Q. Now, when you were in that -- you make reference in your
14 statement at page 38 to the "murder rules".
15 A. To the "murder rules"?
16 Q. Yes.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Page 38. Do you want it on the screen?
18 MR MALLON: Yes, page 38.
19 "... I think as far as that's concerned, it's
20 certainly a policy that came out with regard to murder
21 and using the murder rules as far as that's concerned."
22 Can you tell me what the "murder rules" are?
23 A. Just let me find it.
24 Q. Yes. I hadn't heard you refer to it, and I don't know
25 what it means.
146
1 THE CHAIRMAN: This is Mr Stephens speaking of the murder
2 rules, not the witness.
3 MR MALLON: Do you understand what that meant, the "murder
4 rules"?
5 A. No, I don't.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: You will be able to ask him.
7 MR MALLON: No implications with intelligence or anything of
8 that nature?
9 A. No, we didn't have an intelligence cell. I must say,
10 Mr Chairman, at that point, that I -- when I was being
11 interviewed, I mixed up the intelligence cell, which we
12 didn't have access to, and we didn't have
13 an intelligence cell within the RUC, but we did have
14 a regional intelligence office, and that's what I got
15 mixed up with when I was giving my evidence to
16 Mr Stephens.
17 Q. Now, the evidence that was coming in to you would have
18 been under constant review. Isn't that correct?
19 A. Oh yes.
20 Q. You would have known then, when Reserve Constable McCaw made his
21 observations to -- Mr McCaw, I think is his ...
22 A. Thank you.
23 Q. He is a reserve constable.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. He was actually a member of the gym that was run by the
147
1 McKees?
2 A. I now know that he was a member of the gym. When he came in
3 to give us the intelligence, I didn't know who he was
4 initially.
5 Q. But he was the man who gave you the breakthrough?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you didn't know anything about him?
8 A. No, I didn't. I never met the man before.
9 Q. Did you ever consider or ask out of curiosity, "How has
10 this come in and who has brought it in?", this
11 information?
12 A. I had already -- I met him in the office.
13 Q. Yes, but I'm talking about -- with Andrea McKee. He
14 brought in both Andrea McKee and the evidence in respect
15 of Jameson.
16 A. No, no. When I went in on duty on 9 May, I was given
17 a briefing in relation -- it was a very active day.
18 I was given a briefing in relation to what happened the
19 day before. There was a conference. It was the start
20 of the murder investigation. There was a conference.
21 I was extremely busy all day.
22 In the afternoon, late afternoon, this man came
23 in -- I am repeating myself all over again -- this man
24 came in, whom I didn't know, but I now know he is Reserve
25 Constable McCaw, and he gave us this information.
148
1 Q. What information precisely did he give you? Did you
2 make a note of it, or do you remember it, or would that
3 be in your policy book --
4 A. No, no. I remember that he gave the intelligence --
5 which I have already given in evidence here today --
6 that this man Jameson was in the town centre, and that
7 he had either seen or heard what was going on --
8 Q. Sorry. I don't want to cut across you. I'm not talking
9 about that piece of intelligence.
10 A. I didn't have any other piece of intelligence in
11 relation to any of the incidents prior to that.
12 I didn't have any intelligence from Mr McCaw regarding
13 Andrea McKee.
14 Q. Andrea McKee or Tracey Clarke?
15 A. No.
16 Q. So how did you think that that information came into the
17 system?
18 A. DI Irwin told me that he had been speaking to
19 Andrea McKee the previous night.
20 Q. So it was DI Irwin who introduced it, and not Reserve Constable McCaw?
21 A. Yes, of course it was DI Irwin.
22 Q. He didn't report that he had got it from Reserve Constable McCaw?
23 A. Well, he would have reported the night before to
24 Detective Superintendent McBurney. He was on duty.
25 I wasn't on duty the night they got that information --
149
1 Q. You see --
2 A. -- and I have -- I think I have covered that.
3 Q. Reserve Constable McCaw would appear to have been
4 a conduit for the two important pieces of information
5 into this case. Mr Barra McGrory has already indicated
6 that.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I was wondering if it ever occurred to you that the two
9 people might be the same, McCaw and Reserve Constable McCaw. Both of
10 them -- this man had made the two big breakthroughs and
11 he wasn't even known to you?
12 A. No, he wasn't known to me. I never met the man before.
13 Q. Now, when you were involved in the assessment of the
14 witnesses -- that's Witnesses A and B -- Witness A,
15 Tracey Clarke, and Witness B, Jameson -- you knew
16 Tracey Clarke because you had sat through the interview
17 with her?
18 A. Yes, the first time I met Tracey Clarke was in the
19 office when she was in to make her statement.
20 Q. When she was making her statement, can you describe how
21 Andrea McKee appeared? Was she comfortable,
22 uncomfortable? Did she move?
23 A. The lady sat in the chair behind Tracey Clarke, and she
24 never spoke during this time.
25 Q. She never spoke?
150
1 A. No.
2 Q. And that's with McAteer -- did you describe her as
3 "frantic"?
4 A. No, frightened. the word is "frightened". I know it is
5 typed in as "frantic", but it is a mistake, it is
6 "frightened".
7 Q. I'm talking now about Andrea McKee.
8 A. Yes, I was aware that Andrea McKee was frightened to
9 come into the station.
10 Q. Frightened?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Tracey Clarke, was she also frightened?
13 A. Tracey Clarke was very apprehensive, yes.
14 Q. Very apprehensive?
15 A. Well, apprehensive. Sorry.
16 Q. Now, when you were aware of this woman and this young
17 girl coming in to give evidence, were you aware that she
18 had filled in a questionnaire before she came in?
19 A. I am sure I was at the time.
20 Q. In that questionnaire, she said she knew nothing?
21 A. Yes. Well, that happened to the other witness as well.
22 Q. Yes, and then you -- and then you heard the evidence
23 with Andrea McKee sitting there?
24 A. Yes, well, I'm not -- I know that Andrea McKee was
25 sitting in the room while the statement was being taken,
151
1 but I'm not in a position to say whether she was there
2 for the complete time that the statement was taken.
3 I just cannot remember such detail. But I know she was
4 there at the beginning of the statement.
5 Q. Did you go in and out?
6 A. Yes. I would say that I did.
7 Q. At any time when you came back, was Andrea McKee not
8 there?
9 A. Gosh! I just couldn't remember those details.
10 Q. So, as far as you can say, she was in there, and you
11 never remember her going out?
12 A. I think she did go out. I think she went out once.
13 I know that she went to the toilet, but I'm not prepared
14 to say that she went out once or twice. I just couldn't
15 remember those details.
16 Q. Then we have heard the statement had to be dragged out
17 of her by Mr McAteer. We have also heard that she was
18 reluctant, and she was frightened to give evidence, but
19 that eventually she did give a statement?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, she has, in fact, as you know, resiled from that
22 statement?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You knew that you were going to have to run after her
25 and look after her, to keep her on board.
152
1 A. (Witness nods).
2 Q. Did you ever --
3 THE CHAIRMAN: That is a question preceded by an assertion.
4 Can we have just the question, please? You really
5 should know.
6 MR MALLON: I'm sorry.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Just the question, please.
8 MR MALLON: I will try to be more precise.
9 You spent a lot of time and effort in trying to keep
10 Tracey Clarke and her family happy. Would that be
11 correct?
12 A. I certainly called out to the family on many occasions
13 and certainly, when [Tracey's mother] telephoned me, when she
14 wanted to speak to me, I would most definitely go out
15 immediately to see her.
16 Q. Would you describe yourself at that stage -- that is
17 after the statement was made and during the period
18 immediately after it -- as being the closest person to
19 the family?
20 A. From a police point of view, yes, I would.
21 Q. [Tracey's mother] would have been in contact with you?
22 A. Mm-hm.
23 Q. And you would have dropped everything and gone to look
24 after her?
25 A. That's correct. If she had telephoned, as she did, and
153
1 I would go out immediately to her.
2 Q. Is that because you thought that there is a possibility
3 that Tracey Clarke might withdraw her evidence?
4 A. That was because the lady obviously wanted me to go out
5 to see her in relation to whatever was happening to
6 Tracey Clarke. I know that we were trying to get her
7 employment elsewhere, and I can't remember the details
8 now, but it was -- it was a matter of giving her
9 reassurance.
10 Q. Yes, and the purpose of that reassurance was to provide
11 security for the Tracey Clarke family so that
12 Tracey Clarke would not withdraw her evidence. Isn't
13 that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now, did you ever think that she might withdraw her
16 evidence?
17 A. No, I didn't. I -- this girl came forward. She made
18 her statement. Although she was young and she was
19 reluctant, but she -- I believe she told the truth, and
20 I believe that she would have given evidence.
21 Q. Did you ever have any concerns that she wasn't going to
22 give evidence?
23 A. I was never given any reason to believe that she wasn't.
24 Q. Would you look at page 108 of your statement? I'm
25 sorry, the pagination seems to be different in the
154
1 reference that I have downloaded.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: We will have our break now for 15 minutes,
3 and perhaps you will find out what you want to ask and
4 where.
5 (3.23 pm)
6 (A short break) to here
7 (3.41 pm)
8 MR MALLON: Mr Chairman, we have discovered the difference
9 between the computer records, and the page that I have
10 been asking to be brought up is page 109.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. You have ten minutes left in
12 which to conclude your questions.
13 MR MALLON: Very kind. Thank you.
14 In relation to that, I have asked you if you thought
15 there was any difficulty about her giving evidence.
16 I refer you to the top third of that page. A question
17 from Michael Stephens:
18 "Did you ever have concerns that she wasn't going to
19 give evidence?"
20 Your reply is recorded there as:
21 "I never thought she'd give evidence."
22 A. And that was corrected. You will see that that was in
23 my statement, and I got it corrected. I never thought
24 that she wouldn't give evidence. That was corrected.
25 Q. So you say that the corrected statement is the true
155
1 version of events?
2 A. Absolutely. I went back with that because that was not
3 actually correct.
4 Q. Now, if we look, and if you were absolutely certain
5 about that, and you were sure that she was going to give
6 evidence, let's look a little bit further down that
7 page. The question is:
8 "Would not give evidence?
9 "The idea of me going out and keeping her on board
10 was to make sure that she did, and to avoid that", she
11 would not give evidence.
12 A. "... and to avoid that." Yes.
13 Q. Yes. If you read that in context, I suggest to you that
14 your answer was -- and is correct -- that you did not
15 think she was going to give evidence?
16 A. That is not true, sir.
17 Q. Now, whether you were sure she was or whether you
18 thought she wasn't, you were aware that there was a risk
19 she wouldn't?
20 A. Of course I knew that. This girl lived in a housing
21 estate where there were Loyalist paramilitaries
22 residing, and the girl made her statement. We were
23 looking after her, and I did not think that she would
24 have -- she would have failed to give evidence. The
25 whole idea of me going to meet her family, and any time
156
1 that [Tracey's mother] asked me to call out, was to make sure
2 that she and the family were all right.
3 Q. Now, Tracey Clarke, during this time, was in contact
4 with people in Portadown. She was, in fact, letting
5 them know that she had made a statement to the police.
6 She wasn't hiding. Isn't that correct?
7 A. I wasn't aware of that. I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of
8 that --
9 Q. Well --
10 A. -- nor was that brought to my attention.
11 Q. She didn't move, or you tried to get her to move. Her
12 family didn't want to move, and she stayed there.
13 To your knowledge, was she ever the victim of
14 intimidation?
15 A. No, not to my knowledge.
16 Q. So she was there in that housing estate. She had
17 indicated her position with regard to giving evidence,
18 and she subsequently withdrew that evidence.
19 A. Well, I'm being told that today. I wasn't aware that
20 she went round telling people that she had made
21 a statement.
22 Q. Well, whether she did or not, and whether you were aware
23 of that or not, she did withdraw her statement of
24 evidence?
25 A. Yes.
157
1 Q. She indicated in the portion of that withdrawal that the
2 police, at the time of her questioning, had put her
3 under considerable pressure.
4 You were aware of that?
5 A. No, you are telling me now. I wasn't aware of that.
6 Q. If you weren't aware of that, and you don't know that
7 she has withdrawn her evidence, then you will not be
8 familiar with the statement of withdrawal. Is that
9 correct?
10 A. No, I wasn't in J Division at that time. I was away
11 from it at that time.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: You had left some time after 22 July.
13 A. I had left, J Division. That's right.
14 MR MALLON: So as far as you are concerned, you had no
15 reason to know that she had withdrawn her statement,
16 even though that would have been a very important point
17 in respect of probably the last major investigation that
18 you were involved in.
19 A. Well, with respect, sir, I was away doing another job.
20 I was outside of J Division, and I was made aware, as
21 I have said here in my interview, that I was made aware
22 of that when I returned in or around Christmas time.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
24 MR MALLON: When she made allegations about the way that she
25 was treated in the interview, by police officers, of
158
1 whom you were one, did anyone contact you after that to
2 advise you of that fact and to ask you for your take on
3 what had occurred and to put those allegations to you,
4 and to get your evidence?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Nobody ever did?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Now, could the witness be shown page 3 of
9 Tracey Clarke's statement of withdrawal? I have only
10 got it without a number.
11 MR UNDERWOOD: It may be 45386.
12 MR MALLON: Thank you.
13 MR UNDERWOOD: I am in some difficulties here because I'm
14 not clear what my friend means by "statement of
15 withdrawal".
16 If he means the draft statement that hasn't been
17 signed for the purposes of the Inquiry, that is --
18 that's the one we are looking at.
19 MR MALLON: Yes.
20 MR UNDERWOOD: That is [80184].
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, it's on the screen now.
22 MR MALLON: Have you had a chance to look at this?
23 A. Never. I didn't see this before.
24 Q. Would you like to read it?
25 A. Would you like me to read it aloud?
159
1 Q. No, absolutely not. (Pause). Have you had a chance to
2 look at it yet?
3 A. I'm reading the third part of it now. (Pause).
4 Q. Firstly, given the fact that you thought she would give
5 her evidence, were you surprised that she withdrew it?
6 A. Yes, I was surprised that she withdrew it.
7 Q. The grounds upon which she withdrew it are contained, if
8 we look at it in the body of the Inquiry statement,
9 which unfortunately is not signed, and as yet
10 Tracey Clarke hasn't given this evidence, but this is
11 the evidence that we expect her to give.
12 She said this, paragraph 12, when she is naming
13 persons: Dean Forbes, Allister Hanvey, Stacey Bridgett
14 "Muck" and Rory Robinson:
15 "That part of my statement is untrue."
16 She goes on to say in paragraph 13:
17 "The other person lying near Eastwoods was being
18 helped by Michelle Jamieson."
19 She said that part of her statement is untrue and
20 she did not know Michelle Jamieson.
21 Then paragraph 14:
22 "'At the time, I saw a number of police behind the
23 crowd who were attacking the persons on the ground. As
24 far as I could see, the police were not doing much to
25 stop what was happening.' This part of my statement is
160
1 untrue. I only saw the police Land Rover. I didn't see
2 any police on the street."
3 Then, if you jump to paragraph 16:
4 "In my statement it says that I spoke with Reserve
5 Constable Robbie Atkinson whilst the crowd was being
6 pushed back. I do not remember speaking to him and that
7 part of my statement is probably wrong."
8 Paragraph 18:
9 "I do not remember going to a party at
10 Tracy McAlpine's house at Brownstown. In my statement
11 I said, 'There was a good crowd at the party and everybody
12 was discussing what happened in the town centre and some
13 of the people who had been involved appeared happy about
14 what they had done.' I cannot remember. I don't think
15 this would be true because I was that drunk I didn't
16 even know what was happening or why I would even say that."
17 Then paragraph 20, about speaking to
18 Allister Hanvey. It said:
19 "That is probably true because it would have been my
20 type of thing to have done. I was very vindictive."
21 When she was giving her statement, did you know or
22 sense of any relationship between her and
23 Allister Hanvey?
24 A. Yes, I was aware that she knew Allister Hanvey.
25 Q. Were you aware that they had been going out together on
161
1 and off for 18 months, roughly?
2 A. Well, I probably knew that she had gone out with him,
3 but I don't know -- I doubt very much if I would have
4 known the length of time.
5 Q. Or the depth or nature or degree of that relationship?
6 A. No. As I said, I would have been aware that she had
7 a relationship, a casual relationship with him, nothing
8 more than that. I would not have known that it was
9 an 18-month relationship.
10 Q. Did you subsequently discover they married?
11 A. I was told they were married, I think it might have been
12 at Christmas time.
13 Q. In paragraph 21:
14 "'I remember Robbie Atkinson's name coming up and
15 Allister said that Robbie Atkinson had been very good to
16 him, because on the Sunday morning after the incident in
17 the town centre he rang him about 8 am and told him to
18 get rid of the clothes he was wearing the previous
19 night.' I do not know where this came from. I think
20 that has come from my Auntie, Andrea McKee. She was
21 with me when I made my statement and I believe she had
22 this put into the statement. I also do not remember
23 Allister contacting me after this to ask what I have
24 said to the police because I wasn't going out with him
25 and I was disliking him at the time and I didn't really
162
1 want to speak to him. So I probably made that up or it
2 was put in by Andrea McKee."
3 Did you realise that Andrea McKee was her aunt?
4 A. No, I didn't know that Andrea McKee was her aunt, but
5 I do know that when I was present during the time that
6 Tracey Clarke was making this statement, Andrea McKee
7 never spoke.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Your time is up. In fact, you have had
9 15 minutes, not 10 minutes. Thank you.
10 MR MALLON: With that --
11 THE CHAIRMAN: You have had your time. You have had more
12 than your time.
13 MR MALLON: I haven't had as much time as Mr McGrory.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: You have had as much time as we are prepared
15 to allow.
16 MR MALLON: Thank you very much for your kindness, sir.
17 Examination by MR GREEN
18 MR GREEN: I have two very brief matters.
19 P39, when you received the phone call to come into
20 Portadown Police Station about 6.50, you made your way
21 into the station, very briefly, and I think you were
22 there at about 7 o'clock. Isn't that right?
23 A. Shortly after.
24 Q. Yes, indeed. After assessing the situation as you were
25 told by your colleagues, one of the first directions
163
1 that you issued was for the Land Rover crew either to
2 remain in the station or to come back on to duty if they
3 had gone home. Isn't that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Is it your understanding that they had gone home?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. The direction you issued then was for them then to come
8 in. Is that right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You then went to the scene with a colleague. Is that
11 right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And spent a short time there, before returning to the
14 police station. Isn't that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. It is a journey of about two or three minutes?
17 A. Yes, very short.
18 Q. You did that on foot, did you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Indeed. When you returned to the police station,
21 I think your evidence earlier today was that the
22 Land Rover crew had by that stage got back to the
23 station. Isn't that right?
24 A. Well, I was in the office when they arrived in. So it
25 would have been shortly after that.
164
1 Q. Is it your recollection then that they all returned
2 together, and that the four of them were in the station
3 at the same time?
4 A. Yes, it is my recollection, the four were in the office
5 giving a statement.
6 Q. However they made their statements, that's another
7 matter, but they were in the station at the same time,
8 before their statements were done by them. Isn't that
9 right?
10 A. I'm so sorry. I don't know. I'm sorry. The only thing
11 I can say in evidence is that I saw those officers in
12 the CID room, in the CID office. I didn't see them
13 before that, and I have no idea of when they arrived
14 back.
15 Q. But they were in the CID office prior to making their
16 statements together, the four of them. Is that right?
17 A. They came into the CID office, to make their statements,
18 and as soon as they arrived, they sat down, and I spoke
19 to them.
20 Q. Were they all together? Is that the four of them?
21 A. They were sitting in consecutive seats in the office.
22 Q. All four of them?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. I then want to ask you about the interview of
25 xxxxxxxxxx.
165
1 Now, I know you didn't conduct that, but are you
2 aware that xxxxxxxxxx was a person, a man, identified
3 by Constable Cooke in his statement as being at the
4 scene and taking part in what happened?
5 A. Well, I'm accepting what you say. I can't remember the
6 details, but I'll accept what you say.
7 Q. He was one of the very early arrests. Isn't that right?
8 A. He was one of -- the first three arrests?
9 Q. Indeed, he was one of the first three arrested.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I think you have said already that he was very quickly
12 eliminated after interview from the inquiry. Is that
13 right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Are you aware that when he was interviewed, and I think
16 it was Detective Constable McAteer and Detective
17 Constable Honeyford who conducted that interview, that
18 was done on 6 May, the day of his arrest.
19 Are you aware of that?
20 A. I'll accept that.
21 Q. Did you see a transcript of that interview, or were you
22 made aware of what he said during that interview?
23 A. Gosh, I can't remember whether it was -- whether there
24 was a transcript or a briefing. I just can't remember
25 offhand.
166
1 Q. But he was some time thereafter, and, on 6 May,
2 eliminated from the inquiry. Isn't that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Who eliminated him from the inquiry?
5 A. I would think that it was most probably DI Irwin. I'm
6 not in a position to categorically say.
7 Q. It might help you if I can bring up your interview with
8 the Inquiry, page 55, please.
9 A. Okay. Okay.
10 Q. The pagination might be different. Yes.
11 At the bottom of that page:
12 "What we do know is that Stacey Bridgett,
13 Dean Forbes and xxxxxxxxxx were arrested on 6 May in
14 connection with the GBH. They were interviewed. xxxxxxxxxx
15 apparently had nothing to do with it, and the other two,
16 Bridgett and Forbes, were released."
17 It's the word "apparently". It seems to indicate
18 that it wasn't something that you personally had
19 carriage of in eliminating, but that someone else made
20 that decision. Would that be right?
21 A. I -- at this stage, I cannot tell you. When I was being
22 interviewed, to be quite honest with you, I had to be --
23 my memory had to be refreshed in relation to that
24 incident.
25 Q. I think that is clear. Because I think your
167
1 interview -- your statement to the Inquiry says after
2 being reminded you were able to say that.
3 Could we bring up page [09645], please? That's
4 a statement, and I won't say who that is a statement
5 relating to.
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. But it is the alibi statement of a person, and the alibi
8 is given by xxxxxxxxxx in his interview.
9 Now, have you seen that document? If we could just
10 go through it very briefly, it says exactly where that
11 gentleman and Mr xxxxxxxxxx were throughout the night.
12 Have you seen that document before? If I give you
13 one minute maybe just to look at it.
14 A. Well, it's the last page. I wasn't able to read it, and
15 I'm saying -- I'm assuming that I did, because it's
16 a statement. When was it made? 6 May, yes.
17 Q. It's made on 6 May?
18 A. I most probably did -- I most probably did read it.
19 Q. But your recollection, P39, is that the assessment of
20 that alibi wasn't made by you -- is that right -- it was
21 made by Mr Irwin?
22 A. Well, I genuinely can't remember. That is my answer to
23 that. I just cannot remember. But I'm sure that -- I'm
24 not sure. I will retract that. I would guess that
25 Inspector Irwin would know about that as well, but
168
1 I haven't read that statement recently, and, therefore,
2 I'm not in a position to say.
3 Q. Perhaps just one final question on this, and it's
4 perhaps more to do with procedure.
5 A. Right.
6 Q. When an alibi statement is provided as part of an
7 inquiry, it wouldn't simply be read by an investigating
8 officer back at the station, "Well, that looks all
9 right, we will eliminate him". There's usually a bit
10 more to it than that. Isn't that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. There is usually an enquiry made of the contents of
13 that. Isn't that right?
14 A. Yes. But may I add --
15 Q. Indeed.
16 A. -- that that person was eliminated from the inquiry
17 because the description didn't fit. I think, if my
18 memory serves me right, he was eliminated because his
19 description was similar to that of Marc Hobson.
20 Q. That's right.
21 A. That was the reason why.
22 Q. But he was eliminated from the inquiry, it would seem,
23 on or about 6 May, the very day that that alibi
24 statement was taken.
25 A. What is the question then?
169
1 Q. Well, the last question I left you with, P39, was: when
2 an alibi statement is taken in the course of an inquiry,
3 it isn't simply accepted at face value; there is,
4 generally speaking, more of an enquiry made of it.
5 My question, I suppose, is: who made those
6 enquiries? Are you aware of that?
7 A. I'm satisfied that the description didn't fit the
8 person. We knew that we had the wrong person in at that
9 time, and that's my memory of that, and I can't put it
10 any further than that at this stage.
11 Q. The decision to eliminate xxxxxxxxxx was more to do with his
12 description than the alibi. Is that right?
13 A. Well, I know from memory that, once we had him in, we
14 realised that he wasn't the right person because of his
15 description, that it was Marc Hobson, and, in fact,
16 there is something to do with, if we had to have another
17 witness statement, that would have been clarified before
18 he was even arrested.
19 But I'm not in a position to actually give the
20 details. I've forgotten who that was, but hopefully
21 that will be rectified.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr O'Connor?
23 Examination by MR O'CONNOR
24 MR O'CONNOR: Good afternoon, P39. I represent
25 Michael Irwin, and I have about five minutes of
170
1 questions for you.
2 Mr Irwin came on duty at about 8.15 on Monday,
3 28 April 1997. Is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. That was about 30 hours after the initial assault. Is
6 that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. There was a briefing about the weekend's events?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. That included -- you have mentioned three major
11 incidents --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- one of which was the Robert Hamill incident?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The other incident, I'm going to suggest to you, was
16 an incident which happened on 26 April 1997 at 9 o'clock
17 at night, in which a young boy lost an eye --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- and there were allegations of attempted murder by the
20 family.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Then the other involved an army foot patrol. Is that
23 right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The other incident was on 26 April 1997 at about
171
1 1.45 hours in the morning. That was the incident in
2 Banbridge, in a hot food bar.
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. In that incident a man was kicked unconscious in
5 Banbridge, and five persons were involved in the assault
6 allegedly. Do you remember?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. After the briefing, that was the incident that you sent
9 Michael Irwin to deal with in Banbridge. Is that right?
10 A. That's correct, because I had dealt with the Hamill
11 inquiry that morning, and I had other duties to perform.
12 So I asked him to continue on with those.
13 Q. So he wasn't involved in the Hamill investigation until
14 he returned?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. That was late afternoon on the Monday?
17 A. Well, it was in the afternoon. I can't remember the
18 precise time.
19 Q. I don't have a time myself. I think it's later rather
20 than earlier.
21 When he returned, did he commence action sheets?
22 A. When he came back, obviously we sat down and we
23 discussed the investigation. And I was working on it,
24 and it was suggested the mini-MIRIAM, which would have
25 put better -- a better -- put it in a better sequence of
172
1 events than me working on paper.
2 Q. Yes. Just a couple of specific questions then.
3 I'll finish with the relationship between you and
4 Michael Irwin in the investigations, but I have a couple
5 of specific questions.
6 In answer to a question about searches and a search
7 team, Mr Underwood put it to you that a search team
8 wouldn't necessarily have a detective involved. Your
9 answer was, in relation to Mr Irwin, "But he would have
10 asked a detective to accompany the search team".
11 Was that his normal practice?
12 A. No, no. This was a very intense investigation --
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. -- and for a search team to go out to search a premises,
15 it depends on the seriousness of the offence, and this
16 was taken as being very serious.
17 Q. Was the idea that a CID man would accompany the search
18 in this investigation then?
19 A. Pardon me?
20 Q. Was the idea that a CID man would accompany each search
21 in this investigation?
22 A. In this investigation, yes.
23 Q. Now, when you brief a CID man, if you are yourself, or
24 Mr Irwin, in these circumstances, would you expect the
25 CID man to go to a search and not know what he was
173
1 looking for?
2 A. No, I wouldn't --
3 Q. If he didn't know -- sorry, I beg your pardon.
4 If he didn't know what he was looking for, would you
5 expect that CID man to come back and say, "Look, I'm
6 unclear about this. Can you just tell me again what
7 we're looking for?"
8 A. Yes, of course I would.
9 Q. In relation to the McCaw incident we have been talking
10 about, and Timothy Jameson, you mentioned that Mr Irwin
11 introduced McCaw to yourself and Mr McBurney, and then
12 he went on to do other business. I want to see if I can
13 refresh your memory about the other business he was
14 going to do that afternoon.
15 A. I know the other business that he was going to do. He
16 was going to make contact in a prison.
17 Q. Yes. Can I suggest to you that there was also a -- I am
18 not sure if this is the same thing or something else.
19 It's document [02203]. This is the afternoon of
20 9 May 1997, between 2.05 -- "spoke with Mr xxxxxx between 2.05
21 and 2.45, accompanied by DC" -- I can't make out who that
22 is, "Mc" someone -- "and he related that he had heard
23 that the persons responsible for the murder in
24 Portadown centre were a person called Rory,
25 a Dean Forbes and a person called Stacey?
174
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Is that the same incident?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. He would have had an appointment to --
5 A. Yes, he would have had the appointment that he had to
6 keep.
7 Q. I'm nearly finished.
8 In relation to the relationship you had with
9 DI Irwin, there was a command structure. There was
10 DCS McBurney, yourself, and then DI Irwin?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. In police parlance, he was your DI in the investigation.
13 Is that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Whilst he is named on the front of the murder
16 investigation as the office manager, he did quite a lot
17 more?
18 A. Yes, of course he did.
19 Q. He was fully involved in the --
20 A. Absolutely, yes.
21 Q. But at the same time, you were his immediate superior.
22 Is that fair?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. How did you find the way he ran the investigation or
25 helped you run the investigation?
175
1 A. I found DI Irwin as a very competent police officer.
2 Q. You have been asked to comment on the way
3 Mr DCS McBurney ran his part of things and his
4 investigative techniques. I'm just going to ask you --
5 Mr Underwood began your questioning a long time ago,
6 first thing this morning, with four lines from an
7 Ombudsman's question of Mr Irwin, and that was to the
8 effect that he was managing and you were supervising.
9 Is that fair?
10 That was the answer that was plucked out of the
11 question.
12 A. Yes. Well, we worked very well together, and it was
13 a small -- a small office, and a very important
14 investigation --
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. -- and we were in contact with each other, briefing each
17 other, and working together.
18 Q. Those four lines came out of a 43-page long interview of
19 DI Irwin -- can I suggest that is a very long
20 interview -- and there was an Ombudsman's investigation?
21 I want to ask you if you agreed with -- Mr Mahaffey
22 was the questioner at that time. He's been quoted. If
23 you agree with his findings then about Mr Irwin in the
24 investigation. If I can bring up -- and this is my last
25 topic and brief question -- [80753], paragraph 37, and
176
1 ask you -- I will read out the first half of that
2 paragraph.
3 To explain, this is after all that question with
4 Mr Irwin, and after the Ombudsman's findings, this is
5 apparently what Mr Mahaffey will say to the Inquiry
6 about it, and I just want to see if you agree with that,
7 because this is the only chance I will have to ask you
8 that question:
9 "Michael Irwin had not been a detective inspector
10 for very long, and he made every earnest effort to
11 investigate the murder of Robert Hamill. He went to
12 great lengths to secure evidence and identify those who
13 had assaulted Robert Hamill."
14 Would you agree with that?
15 A. Absolutely.
16 Q. And in relation just -- you have been asked a lot -- and
17 I'm not going to bother -- in relation to Andrea McKee
18 and how DCS McBurney dealt with that. There's also
19 a finding by Mr Mahaffey about how Michael Irwin came
20 into that equation. It is the second half of that same
21 paragraph. This is my last point, if I could just read
22 that out. I want to see if you felt the same way:
23 "I felt", this is Mr Mahaffey, "that Irwin found
24 himself in an extremely difficult position and
25 uncomfortable about what he was being asked to do and
177
1 just felt he had to do so, in respect of Andrea McKee,
2 because he was given an order."
3 Then the last line is irrelevant. Did you find
4 that? Did you feel that way?
5 A. Well, I felt that it should have been officers from
6 outside J Division.
7 MR UNDERWOOD: I don't think this question is being fairly
8 put. We know that this officer wasn't there at the time
9 that DI Irwin had to do on a second occasion with
10 Andrea McKee, and she doesn't know that she's being
11 asked about something that occurred when she wasn't
12 there.
13 I wonder if my friend would like to identify what it
14 is that the difficult position is supposed to be.
15 MR O'CONNOR: If Mr McBurney gave you an order, did you do
16 it?
17 A. Yes, you did. And I answered that question in relation
18 to Andrea McKee. And DI Irwin was in J Division, and
19 I have already given in evidence that I thought that the
20 investigation should be by people outside J Division.
21 MR O'CONNOR: Thank you.
22 Examination by MR LUNNY
23 MR LUNNY: My name is Lunny and I appear for Witness G.
24 I have very few questions, less than two minutes, and
25 you can time me, Chairman.
178
1 P39, I apologise for addressing you in such a cold
2 mode, but that is the way it is.
3 I want to focus on the conflict, or apparent
4 conflict, in relation to the disclosure of the
5 information by Timothy Jameson to Irwin, McBurney, and
6 yourself.
7 Now, it seems that there are two versions of an
8 interview. At one interview, you are in attendance, and
9 at the other interview, you were not in attendance.
10 So, therefore, you and Witness G agree on one thing
11 that, when there was a disclosure made, the initial
12 disclosure was made, you weren't there. You say he
13 wasn't there. So, therefore, there are two descriptions
14 given in the documentation.
15 I don't propose to go through both descriptions, but
16 the first one appears in your statement to the Tribunal
17 at paragraph 21, which is at page [81572], and there are
18 really five segments in that statement.
19 First of all, you were in your office.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You were there with Mr McBurney. Mr Irwin comes in with
22 Mr McCaw.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And no sign of Witness G?
25 A. No.
179
1 Q. Mr McCaw tells you the information: namely, that
2 Timothy Jameson has told him that he was present at the
3 scene. But no more than that. No reference to putting
4 the boot in?
5 A. No reference to putting the boot in.
6 Q. Yes. Then after that information has been imparted to
7 you, Mr Irwin leaves?
8 A. No, no, no.
9 Q. Well, does he not leave before the end of the interview?
10 A. No, Mr Irwin wasn't there when that information was
11 given to Mr McBurney and I.
12 Q. Did he not bring in Mr McCaw?
13 A. Yes, he brought in Mr McCaw, and I have already said
14 that he introduced Mr McCaw to Mr McBurney and I --
15 Q. And then he left --
16 A. Then he left.
17 Q. -- straight away?
18 A. Yes. He had an appointment.
19 Q. After the information was imparted to you, Mr McCaw left
20 alone?
21 A. Well, he left the office. I didn't follow him out.
22 Q. And then left in the office were you and Mr McBurney?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. That's scenario number 1.
25 A. Yes.
180
1 Q. Scenario number 2 is outlined by Witness G at paragraph
2 16 of his statement, which begins at page [81638]. He
3 says he and Mr McCaw went to Mr Irwin's office -- sorry,
4 went to the police station -- let me get this right --
5 and met Mr Irwin in the corridor. Mr Irwin invited both
6 of them into his office, where they told Irwin, not only
7 that Timothy Jameson had been there, but that he had put
8 the boot into someone on the ground. Didn't name the
9 person on the ground.
10 Mr Irwin then took McCaw and Witness G to McBurney's
11 office. That is the second scenario.
12 A. Well, that would have been my office.
13 Q. Now, when Mr McGrory was asking you earlier on about the
14 possibility that others had had the information before
15 you had, I think I remember you saying that that was
16 a possibility; that it was possible that Irwin or
17 McBurney, or both of them, may have been told before you
18 were made aware of any information in relation to
19 Timothy Jameson.
20 What I'm suggesting to you is this: that for all you
21 know, there may well have been the two interviews, one
22 of which involved McCaw, Witness G, Irwin, and then
23 McBurney together, and then the other one, McCaw alone,
24 and the information is different?
25 A. I cannot comment on that. The only evidence that I can
181
1 give is that when this reserve constable came into the
2 office, he gave the -- he gave the evidence -- or the
3 information, I should say, to Mr McBurney, and I was
4 present.
5 Q. Yes. But do you accept there's another version and
6 another description of another interview?
7 A. Well, I don't know, I --
8 MR LUNNY: Well, there is. There is in the statement.
9 Thank you.
10 Examination by MR DALY
11 MR DALY: Briefly, sir.
12 I represent Andrea McKee, P39. In short form, you
13 have been asked a lot of questions about Andrea McKee
14 today. In short form, was there anything untoward about
15 her behaviour in relation to the interview and the
16 statement taken by Tracey Clarke?
17 A. In what respect do you mean?
18 Q. Was there anything in relation to Andrea McKee's
19 behaviour that caused you any concern?
20 A. No, I wasn't concerned -- I was -- the only thing is
21 that she was apprehensive, and concerned, and as
22 a result of that, I went home with her, to her parents'.
23 But --
24 Q. There was nothing in relation to her demeanour or
25 behaviour in relation to Tracey Clarke that caused you
182
1 any concern? Putting words --
2 A. Sorry -- who are you speaking about? Andrea McKee?
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. I will correct that. I beg your pardon.
5 There was no demeanour -- Andrea McKee was present
6 when Tracey Clarke gave her statement, and she sat
7 quietly behind the -- behind Tracey Clarke, and never
8 spoke.
9 Q. If there had been anything to cause you concern,
10 I presume, as an experienced officer, you would have
11 intervened?
12 A. Well, I would have been -- I would have probably have
13 spoken to her privately.
14 Q. Very briefly, page [81571], please. You deal with this
15 at paragraph 19, P39.
16 A. Mm-hm.
17 Q. Six or seven lines from the bottom, there is a sentence:
18 "I remember thinking that we needed to keep both of
19 these women on board for the purpose of the
20 investigation."
21 Is there anything suggestion in that sentence that
22 in any way any inducement was provided to Andrea McKee
23 to keep her on board?
24 A. Absolutely no inducement. I was aware that Andrea McKee
25 was apprehensive and frightened of coming to the
183
1 station. I have already given this evidence, and she
2 was reluctant to come to the station in case she would
3 be seen, and that's what that refers to.
4 Q. That's what that refers to?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR DALY: Thank you.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Adair?
8 Examination by MR ADAIR
9 MR ADAIR: The last person, P39.
10 In relation to the questions you have just been
11 asked about a moment ago about McCaw and possible
12 scenarios, when McCaw came to your office, was there
13 anything to indicate that he had previously been
14 introduced to Mr McBurney?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Now, I just want to ask you about a number of quite
17 different points, just very briefly.
18 A. Mm-hm.
19 Q. You have told us that you initially intended to arrest
20 people on 1 May, three people on 1 May?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In your statement you tell us that you can't remember at
23 that time the reason for not actually going through with
24 the arrests until 6 May.
25 Do you now remember the reason?
184
1 A. Yes, I do, sir. There was an incident, an arson attack
2 in the subdivision in Portadown. There were five
3 prisoners arrested, and in Lurgan there are three
4 interview rooms, and in Banbridge there are two
5 interview rooms. In Portadown there are no interview
6 rooms. So the suspects were arrested and brought to the
7 two stations and it meant that all interview rooms were
8 occupied, and I had to, therefore, cancel the
9 prearranged arrests for the other three people.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Because that would have involved bringing
11 them to an interview room?
12 A. Yes, it would have.
13 MR ADAIR: I want to ask you then, again briefly, about
14 policy books.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In 1997, did either you, or any other officers of your
17 rank, as far as you know, have policy books in relation
18 to crimes such as GBH?
19 A. Never. In fact, I have been made aware that there is
20 a direction in 1998 to say that policy books could be
21 used for serious incidents.
22 Q. Again, on a totally different point, but in relation to
23 journals, if I could ask that page 15 of the transcript
24 of your Inquiry interview that Mr McGrory referred to be
25 brought up, please.
185
1 You will remember you were being asked about whether
2 there were any instructions in relation to journals.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You were telling us that what you meant was that there
5 weren't. Now, if you go to page 16, do you see the
6 question that Mr Stephens asks you, at the top of the
7 page:
8 "What I was actually looking at was, was there
9 instruction within the RUC that on your retirement you
10 handed in your journals?"
11 And you answered:
12 "Oh no."
13 A. That's right. There were no instructions.
14 Q. You were also asked about a -- you will remember the
15 potential -- I'm not going to the transcript on it, the
16 Panel will remember -- the potential ambiguity in
17 relation to your mindset as to whether Tracey would give
18 evidence.
19 Do you remember giving evidence about that?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. You said in your evidence that you corrected that in
22 your Inquiry statement. If I could just, for
23 confirmation's sake, have page [81571], paragraph 20, do
24 you see four lines from the bottom of paragraph 20, do
25 you there set out in your Inquiry statement, which
186
1 arises out of the transcript, you never thought Tracey
2 would not give her evidence, and you don't recall being
3 aware that she was being intimidated?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. The final thing I wanted to ask you about was in
6 relation to Tracey Clarke. You told us that efforts
7 were made to -- I think you said both relocate and get
8 her a job. I'm not sure.
9 Did you say get her a job?
10 A. Yes, get her a job -- get her a job. First of all, we
11 wanted to get her a job elsewhere in Northern Ireland,
12 and, also, there was efforts made to have Tracey enter
13 the Navy.
14 Q. So part of the efforts were to get her into the Navy,
15 which would -- can we assume that that means getting her
16 relocated as well?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. In relation to employment, was the employment to be --
19 I don't think we need mention where it was, but was it
20 to be in premises up in the north of the province?
21 A. In the west of the province.
22 Q. West of the province, sorry. But a long way away from
23 Portadown?
24 A. Yes, a long way away from Portadown.
25 MR ADAIR: Thank you. Again, I have to retract my, "Thank
187
1 you" and ask one final question.
2 In relation to Detective Constable Keys, the
3 gentleman who examined the CCTV footage --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- can you tell us something about
6 Detective Constable Keys? First of all, in relation to
7 your opinion as to his ability as a detective, and
8 secondly, his integrity?
9 A. Yes. Detective Constable Keys is a senior detective,
10 totally reliable, and obviously I relied upon him
11 because -- to get this job done, and I had absolutely no
12 doubt whatsoever that it was done correctly.
13 MR ADAIR: Yes, thank you.
14 Further examination by MR UNDERWOOD
15 MR UNDERWOOD: There is one matter arising out of all that,
16 you will be relieved to hear.
17 Are you aware that in October 1997 Andrea McKee
18 presented herself as an alibi witness for Mr Atkinson to
19 the effect that, contrary to what she had told
20 detectives in May, that in fact her husband, and she,
21 had made the telephone call to the Hanvey household?
22 A. In October 1997, I was no longer in J Division. I was
23 working elsewhere, and I didn't have any input into
24 those investigations at all.
25 Q. I understand that. But have you been told subsequently
188
1 that that's what she did?
2 A. Well, I would be aware of it subsequently, yes.
3 Q. What I want to do is ask you a somewhat hypothetical
4 question with a view to getting some evidence out of you
5 about Mr McBurney and his influence.
6 If you had still been the deputy in October 1997,
7 and if you had been told that Andrea McKee was
8 presenting herself to give an alibi statement for
9 Mr Atkinson which contradicted what Tracey Clarke had
10 said in her interview and which contradicted what
11 Andrea McKee had originally said about that telephone
12 call, would you have been prepared to take that
13 statement from Mrs McKee?
14 A. Well, you are saying that I have the benefit of
15 hindsight, which is an absolutely wonderful thing, and
16 I have obviously -- I'm going to say, no, I wouldn't.
17 If I were -- I could not obviously answer that
18 question if I did not have the benefit of hindsight.
19 It's very unfair, and if you don't mind ...
20 Q. Let me press you a little more. I'm not asking you to
21 use hindsight.
22 Where you have got a situation where somebody like
23 Andrea McKee brings in a young vulnerable witness and
24 clearly subscribes to the information that that witness
25 gives to you, and then that older person comes back,
189
1 some months later and says, "I want to give an alibi
2 statement which flatly contradicts the information
3 I elicited for you earlier on", the question
4 arises: would you take that statement from the person,
5 believing it to be untrue?
6 What would you regard your duty as?
7 A. Well, I would want obviously to speak to the senior
8 officer.
9 Q. If the senior officer said, "Even if you think that this
10 woman is lying in the alibi statement, you go ahead and
11 take an untrue statement"; what would you have done?
12 A. I don't know.
13 MR UNDERWOOD: Very well. That is my supplemental question.
14 Thank you very much for coming.
15 (The witness withdrew)
16 MR UNDERWOOD: Sir, can I just take stock of where we are on
17 evidence?
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
19 MR UNDERWOOD: We were due to have Witness G in this
20 afternoon as well, and obviously we are not going to
21 call him now.
22 We are hoping to rearrange him for Wednesday
23 morning. He wants to come on Wednesday morning, and
24 I want to do everything I can to accommodate that. We
25 won't know until after we rise, I'm afraid, whether he
190
1 can rearrange an appointment he has for that.
2 If we can do that, I wonder if we might sit at
3 10 o'clock?
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
5 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much.
6 I'm also told to announce that although Mr Mahaffey
7 is on the list for Wednesday, he now can't make it.
8 I'm not going to have an announcement by a thousand
9 cuts. If there's any more to tell you, I will make sure
10 it's been vouchsafed behind the scenes.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. 10.30 on Tuesday then.
12 (4.35 pm)
13 (Hearing adjourned until 10.30 am on Tuesday, 5 May 2009)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
191
1 INDEX
2 PAGE
3 WITNESS P39 (sworn) .............................. 1
4
5 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD ............... 1
6
7 Examination by MR McGRORY ................. 60
8
9 Examination by MR McCOMB .................. 126
10
11 Examination by MR MALLON .................. 133
12
13 Examination by MR GREEN .................. 163
14
15 Examination by MR O'CONNOR ................ 170
16
17 Examination by MR LUNNY ................... 178
18
19 Examination by MR DALY .................... 182
20
21 Examination by MR ADAIR ................... 184
22
23 Further examination by MR UNDERWOOD ....... 188
24
25
192
