- - - - - - - - - - PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO THE DEATH OF ROBERT HAMILL - - - - - - - - - - Held at: Interpoint 20-24 York Street Belfast on Thursday, 21st May 2009 commencing at 10.30 am Day 53 1 Thursday, 21st May 2009 2 (10.30 am) 3 MR UNDERWOOD: Morning, sir. Before I call my first 4 witness, can I say something about the way in which, 5 after the summer recess and after the evidence is 6 concluded, potential criticisms may be dealt with? 7 A protocol is in the process of being drafted so 8 everybody will know where they stand on this, but can 9 I just float in public what I have floated behind the 10 scenes with a lot of my learned friends? 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 12 MR UNDERWOOD: We have endeavoured throughout this process 13 to ensure that where we have conceived that any 14 potential criticism may be made of a witness, then they 15 have been notified of that. They have been categorised 16 as a category B witness, given legal representation, and 17 given notice of what we think the criticism might be and 18 its source. 19 We recognise that there is a possibility after all 20 the evidence is out that criticisms which we have not 21 thought of may arise. That's not to pre-judge what the 22 ruling will be, of course, just merely to point out that 23 criticisms may be made in the course of final 24 submissions, and may be made in the report in due 25 course. 1 1 Although we are a long way from finishing the 2 evidence, I thought it prudent to make it clear at this 3 stage that we will have processes for ensuring that when 4 written and/or oral final submissions are made , if any 5 new criticism which has not yet been put to somebody 6 emerges, I will take it on myself to ensure that our 7 team informs that person of it and that reasonable steps 8 are put in place for them to deal with it at that stage. 9 Likewise, if, in due course, in a draft report 10 something emerges by way of criticism that has not been 11 floated before, again my team will take it on itself to 12 ensure that the recipient of that can deal fairly with 13 it. 14 As I say, a protocol will be drafted in due course 15 to deal with that, but I just want to make it clear that 16 there are steps that will be in place in due course 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. It seems to me that almost every 18 criticism which is likely to be considered will have 19 been made clear by the end of submissions and no-one 20 will have been deprived of the opportunity to respond to 21 them. 22 If one party makes criticisms of another that the 23 other party hasn't had the opportunity to deal with, 24 then we shall afford a brief opportunity to the counsel 25 for that particular person to give a response, but if 2 1 people have different ideas about it, then they will 2 have to say that there is not just one way of behaving 3 fairly and making sure that all concerned have the 4 opportunities to know what potential criticisms they 5 face and to be able to deal with them. 6 MR UNDERWOOD: Quite. I was going to keep it, I have to 7 confess, quite open in the protocol -- 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 9 MR UNDERWOOD: -- so that whatever fairness dictates in 10 a particular circumstance will be permitted by it. 11 Whether that's legal representation and oral argument or 12 whether it is a letter -- 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 14 MR UNDERWOOD: -- will depend on the circumstances. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, of course. Very well. 16 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't imagine anyone wants to say anything 18 at this stage. 19 MR ADAIR: No, sir. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Good. 21 MR UNDERWOOD: Certainly the interested parties will have 22 an opportunity to look at the protocol and comment on 23 it. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 25 MR UNDERWOOD: That having been said then, can I call 3 1 Albert McIntosh, please? 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 3 MR ALBERT NOEL McINTOSH (sworn) 4 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD 5 MR UNDERWOOD: Morning, Mr McIntosh. 6 A. Good morning. 7 Q. You will find the questions coming from this direction 8 but the voice coming from the opposite direction. 9 A. I am just getting some water here. Thank you. 10 Q. My name is Underwood. I am Counsel to the Inquiry. 11 I have a few questions for you. After that, it may be 12 that some others have some supplementals. 13 May I ask your full names, please? 14 A. My name is Albert Noel McIntosh. 15 Q. Let's see if we can identify your witness statement. If 16 I call up on screen page [80917], we find a document 17 that runs to nine pages. 18 Can I ask you just to keep your eyes on the screen 19 as we scroll through it quite briefly? Do you recognise 20 that as your witness statement? 21 A. Yes, that is. 22 Q. Are the contents true? 23 A. They are. 24 Q. Thank you. You know, because you were interviewed for 25 the purposes of this statement, that what the Inquiry is 4 1 concerned about is how allegations against Mr Atkinson 2 were dealt with within the RUC. 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. It is for the Panel to decide whether there was due 5 diligence in the investigation of the murder, which may 6 entail analysis of whether the part played by 7 Mr Atkinson was properly considered. 8 One of the possibilities, of course, is that there 9 was, as it were, suppression of the evidence against 10 Mr Atkinson at some level in the RUC. 11 Do you understand that that's the concern? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. I think you knew Mr Atkinson. Is that right? 14 A. I did know Mr Atkinson. I joined the part-time reserve 15 of the RUC in 1971, in September, and I was stationed in 16 Portadown. I subsequently was transferred to Tandragee 17 in about 1972 and I remained there until 1976 as 18 a part-time Reserve Constable. 19 During that time, Robert Atkinson came as 20 a full-time Reserve Constable to Tandragee. I would say 21 it was probably 1973/1974. I don't think it would be as 22 late as 1975. 23 Q. I think your evidence is this, is it, that when you were 24 interviewing Mr Hanvey on 10th May and subsequently saw 25 the Hanvey parents on 11th May 1997, you did not know it 5 1 was Atkinson who was the alleged tip-off? 2 A. I can't remember for definite, but I don't believe that 3 we knew who actually was the tip-off, as you stated. 4 Q. Can you recall, after all this time, what impact it made 5 on you when you were told there was a possibility that 6 a policeman had tipped off a suspect? 7 A. Well, if a policeman has tipped off a suspect, that's 8 disgusting, and certainly in no way would it hinder me 9 doing my duty in relation to investigating the offence, 10 which obviously by that time was a murder. I would hope 11 it wouldn't make any difference to any other police 12 either. 13 Q. I know from your statement you are telling us that this 14 is one of many murders you investigated and it was 15 a long time ago and that your recollection is pretty dim 16 about it -- 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. -- but can I just press you to see how far we can get 19 with some of the matters? 20 You would have been briefed by presumably the 21 detective inspector before you interviewed Mr Hanvey. 22 Would that be right? 23 A. On the Saturday, the day of the interviews with 24 Allister Hanvey, as in all murder inquiries, there are 25 daily briefings first thing in the morning, another 6 1 second briefing in around lunchtime and another one 2 later in the evening. 3 I would record all of these. I'd refer to them as 4 a conference and I would have them in my notebook. 5 I have no doubt -- little or no doubt that we -- either 6 myself or Detective Constable McCrumlish, who was with 7 me, would have been briefed fully in relation to the 8 interviews with Mr Hanvey before interviewing him 9 Q. Again, doing the best we can after all this time, we 10 know you must have had some information about the 11 tip-off, by the look of it. 12 A. We must have had some information, because obviously 13 before coming here I have read a transcript of the 14 interview, and we had some knowledge, but at this stage, 15 I cannot remember exactly what knowledge I did have. 16 Q. Let's see whether we can help by what other experience 17 you have of similar situations. 18 Was this the only occasion in your career where you 19 had to interview a suspect whom you thought had been 20 tipped off in some way? 21 A. I believe so. I can't remember any other. 22 Q. So it's likely that this would have been a pretty 23 singular event for you, the briefing? 24 A. I would agree with that, yes. 25 Q. If you had been told to conduct it in any particular 7 1 way, is that likely to have stuck in your mind, do you 2 think? 3 A. If a senior officer briefs you before going into 4 an interview and outlines the format of what he would 5 suggest to be the running order in the interview, you 6 would try to follow his guidelines as best as possible. 7 Q. But nothing sticks in your mind that was jarring about 8 this? You weren't, for example -- let me put it 9 clearly. 10 If somebody said to you, "Right. There is this 11 tip-off. I want you to make no mention of it", or, 12 "There is this tip-off. I want you to go so far and no 13 further", would that have been such an unusual sort of 14 request that you would remember it now, do you think, or 15 what? 16 A. Well, that would be an unusual request, but I can't 17 remember that happening. 18 Q. All right. One other matter I want to ask you about is 19 that you went to see the Hanvey parents on 11th May. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. We know you regarded what happened as so significant 22 that you stopped just down the road to make your notes 23 up about it. 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. We infer if you knew about something of the tipping-off 8 1 on the 10th, that when you went to see them on the 11th, 2 you would have had that in mind. Would that be 3 reasonable? 4 A. That would be correct, yes. 5 Q. Again, can you help us with whether there was any 6 briefing about that, how you would deal with them? 7 A. I do know that there was a conference that morning, and 8 after that conference, Detective Constable McCrumlish 9 and myself were detailed to go to interview 10 Allister Hanvey's uncle and to do a search there, and 11 I believe we had a warrant for that purpose. 12 After doing that, we returned to Portadown station 13 and after lunch we then went out to the Hanvey home and 14 we there spoke to Mr and Mrs Hanvey. 15 I can't remember exactly, but I'm sure we were told 16 what approach we should take to our interview with them. 17 Q. Again, nothing jarring in that stands out? 18 A. Nothing that comes to mind, no. I can't remember. 19 Q. This may be an obvious point, but let me make it clear 20 anyway. Is it your evidence then, that as far as you 21 are concerned, nothing in the briefings or instructions 22 to you struck you as wrong? 23 A. No, sir, nothing. 24 Q. One final matter, which is this. As you said, you, with 25 Mr McCrumlish, interviewed Hanvey, went to Thomas 9 1 Hanvey's place and spoke to his parents. 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Presumably it was no coincidence, was it, that the two 4 of you operated as that team to do all of that? 5 A. No, that's -- normally -- at that stage, I was in the 6 Regional Crime Squad. We would normally work in pairs, 7 and sometimes, because of other people being on courses, 8 on annual leave or in courts, the pairs would move about 9 a wee bit, but at that time -- I didn't normally work 10 with Paul McCrumlish, but for that inquiry, certainly at 11 the beginning of it I did. 12 I think later in the inquiry I moved over to some 13 other detectives. 14 Q. Sure. Sorry. I said it was one final matter. There is 15 something we forget, which is we didn't ask you in your 16 statement to identify a statement that you have made. 17 Can I just ask you to look at page [17363]? 18 Is that a statement you made on 10th November 2000? 19 By all means take time to read it. 20 A. That's correct, yes. 21 MR UNDERWOOD: Good. Thank you very much, Mr McIntosh. As 22 I say, other people may have some more questions. 23 A. Thank you. 24 Questions from MR McGRORY 25 MR McGRORY: I just want to draw your attention to one 10 1 matter, please. Sorry. My name is McGrory and 2 I represent the family of Robert Hamill. 3 A. Good morning, sir. 4 Q. Good morning. There is just one matter I want to draw 5 your attention to. It is page [80924]. It is page 23 6 of your statement -- sorry, paragraph 23. It is too 7 early in the morning. 8 I just want to see if you can give us a little bit 9 more information about this than is in your statement. 10 You see from your notebook that when you go to Mr and 11 Mrs Hanvey they said that: 12 "... Allister had told them about a policeman at the 13 scene asking Allister to assist in keeping the crowd 14 back and that he did so. But Mr Hanvey refused to give 15 details of this policeman. I found this unusual." 16 Can we take it then that the Hanveys volunteered 17 this information? This is a time, of course, when 18 Allister is in the police station being questioned about 19 this murder, and you go out to the house. Isn't that 20 right? 21 A. Well, I had interviewed Allister the previous day. 22 Q. Yes. 23 A. I'm not sure whether he was still in custody that day or 24 not. 25 Q. Well, would you take it from me that he is still there? 11 1 A. Okay. I certainly will. 2 Q. He is actually charged with the murder after this and 3 remains in custody for quite a while, but in any event, 4 you go out to the house the next day. You had been 5 interviewing Allister the previous day. Independently 6 they say to you, "There is a policeman that Allister 7 helped, actually helped on the night". 8 Is this what happened here? 9 A. Yes. Well, we were obviously discussing with Mr and 10 Mrs Hanvey at that stage what Allister had told to them, 11 his account when they were questioning him or 12 discussing -- 13 Q. Yes. 14 A. -- and this is what Mr Hanvey had told us. Beyond that, 15 I say here that Mr Hanvey refused to give details of 16 this policeman. I found this unusual. 17 At this moment in time I can't distinctly remember 18 the incident, but obviously from this statement here 19 I would agree with that. If he was simply asked, "Look, 20 will you give us a hand here? We are getting things 21 tight. There is a fight going on in the street", 22 I can't think of any purpose why he would want to 23 refuse. 24 Q. In fact, it would be in his direct interests -- 25 A. It would. 12 1 Q. -- to tell you who the policeman was. 2 A. Well, I have said I found this unusual. 3 Q. And obviously you say Mr Hanvey refused to give details. 4 You wouldn't have noted that he had refused to give them 5 if you had not asked him for them? 6 A. I have no doubt that we would have. We just didn't 7 simply say, "Who was this?" and leave it at that. We 8 would have progressed the situation, but I have used the 9 word "refused". 10 MR McGRORY: Yes. Thank you. 11 Questions from MR O'CONNOR 12 MR O'CONNOR: Mr Chairman, I don't have a number. My 13 statement is signed but does not have the Inquiry 14 numbers. I am looking for paragraph 8 of this witness's 15 statement. 16 MR UNDERWOOD: Page [80918]. 17 MR O'CONNOR: I am obliged. If that can be put up on the 18 screen, please, [80918]. 19 Mr McIntosh, this is paragraph 8 of your signed 20 statement to the Inquiry. It refers to briefings. 21 I just wanted to rehearse that to you and then ask you 22 about briefings, if you don't mind. 23 A. Sorry. Could you just introduce yourself to me, please? 24 Q. Sorry. My name is Hugh O'Connor. I appear for 25 Detective Inspector Irwin. 13 1 A. That's fine, yes. 2 Q. Also for, then, Inspector McCrum, but these are really 3 I suppose in relation to DI Irwin. You said: 4 "We normally received regular briefings each day 5 about the investigation." 6 You have touched on this, but I just want a little 7 more detail: 8 "To start with, when there was a murder involved, we 9 would have briefings at 9.00 am or thereabouts; then 10 another briefing at lunchtime some time between 1.00 pm 11 and 2.00 pm; then a further briefing in the evening 12 which could vary in time from 5.00 pm to 7.00 pm, 13 depending on what was being done at the time and who was 14 available to take the brief. After a period of time, it 15 is possible that the number of briefings may have 16 reduced down to two per day." 17 [80919]. 18 Did you feel you were properly briefed throughout 19 the investigation? 20 A. Oh, yes. In all inquiries I have been involved in that 21 would have been the routine, morning, lunchtime and 22 evening, three briefings, certainly for the first 23 number of days, because things generally at the 24 beginning of an inquiry would sometimes move at a fairly 25 hectic pace. Therefore, you had to be kept up-to-date 14 1 and we were. 2 Q. This particularly inquiry, was this a busy murder 3 inquiry, in your view? 4 A. I would say it was, but all murder inquiries are busy 5 murder inquiries. I have never yet been on one that 6 wasn't. 7 Q. Now, in the interview of Allister Hanvey that you and 8 Mr McCrumlish were involved in asking questions, did you 9 ask any questions that would deliberately tip 10 Allister Hanvey off about what you knew or what you had 11 been told about a policeman giving information to him? 12 A. Well, when you say "you", do you mean me, myself, or 13 either of us? 14 Q. Either of you. 15 A. Either of us. Most definitely not. We wouldn't be 16 going down that line. 17 Q. Were you careful not to do that? 18 A. I would say we were. 19 MR O'CONNOR: Thank you. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Atchison? 21 Questions from MR ATCHISON 22 MR ATCHISON: Mr McIntosh, I appear on behalf of Mr Hanvey 23 and his parents. 24 Would it be fair to say, whenever you attended at 25 their property, although they were reluctant to furnish 15 1 a written statement, they did cooperate with you? 2 A. Yes, they did cooperate. They invited us into their 3 home. We sat in their -- I don't know whether they 4 would call it their living room or kitchen. 5 Q. Certainly they volunteered information in answer to your 6 question? 7 A. They answered our questions. Perhaps on occasions, 8 certainly like the one that has been highlighted about 9 the identity of the policeman, they weren't possibly as 10 forthcoming as they could have been. 11 Q. For example, they freely volunteered the jacket that 12 Allister was wearing on the evening and the clothing 13 that he had on? 14 A. Well, I think by that stage the description we were 15 looking at of the jacket was something different to what 16 they were telling us. 17 As far -- it was a black jacket with "CAT" on it, 18 I believe, whereas we were looking, I think at that 19 stage, for a jacket with grey or striped sleeves or 20 something. 21 Q. Well, if I could show you page [53667], please, this is 22 a word processed copy of your notebook. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. If we can highlight the first two-thirds, please, if 25 I could just refer you to the fact that: 16 1 "Mr Hanvey, who said that rumours were that the 2 first police at the incident were being untruthful about 3 what had happened and had actually instigated the 4 incident ..." 5 Is that right? 6 A. That would be right, because my notebook entry in 7 relation to the interview, it commenced in the Hanvey 8 home, where I recorded details of both Mr and 9 Mrs Hanvey. 10 However, as we progressed to speak to them, we 11 just -- I just remembered what had been said, and after 12 leaving the Hanvey home, we travelled down the country 13 road, probably round the first or second corner, pulled 14 into a grass verge and wrote up the notebook before 15 anything would be forgotten. 16 Q. Just focusing upon what you say Mr Hanvey told you, 17 given that it was alleged that Reserve 18 Constable Atkinson, who was a police officer at the 19 scene, was apparently helping Mr Hanvey, did you find it 20 remarkable that Mr Hanvey was, in fact, implicating 21 Reserve Constable Atkinson, amongst others? 22 A. I don't think I looked at it, at that time, as being 23 remarkable, but, to be truthful, I have to rely now on 24 my notebook entry, because it is 12 years ago. I can't 25 remember just from the top of my head at the moment from 17 1 my memory, and I am simply relying on what is written 2 here before me in my notebook. 3 MR ATCHISON: Very well. Thank you. 4 MR ADAIR: I have no questions. 5 MR UNDERWOOD: Nothing arising. Thank you very much. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 7 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you, Mr McIntosh. 8 A. Thank you very much. Thank you. 9 (The witness withdrew) 10 MR UNDERWOOD: Mr Wallace, please. 11 MR DANIEL BLAIR WALLACE (sworn) 12 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD 13 MR UNDERWOOD: Good morning, to you. 14 A. Good morning. 15 Q. You will find the questions coming from over this side, 16 even though the sound comes from the other side. 17 My name is Underwood. I am Counsel to the Inquiry. 18 I have some questions for you. 19 A. Right. 20 Q. When I am done, it may well be there will be some 21 supplemental questions from some of the others. 22 May I ask your full names to start with? 23 A. Daniel Blair Wallace. 24 Q. If we look on the screen at page [81594], we will see 25 a six-page document. May I ask you just to keep your 18 1 eyes on it while we scroll quite briefly through it? 2 Is that a witness statement you kindly signed for 3 the Inquiry? 4 A. It is, yes. 5 Q. Is it true? 6 A. It is. 7 Q. Mr Wallace, we have a document that you may not have 8 seen before. It is a journal entry of an ACC, Mr Hall. 9 Can I ask you to look at it? It is at page [74231]. 10 Now, there is an entry down the bottom there, just 11 above the blacked-out section for 12th May 1997. The 12 second column deals with the working hours of Mr Hall 13 that day. 14 What the text says, as far as we can make out at the 15 moment, is, "Attend meetings at RHQ", which we take to 16 be Regional Headquarters. Then "C.C. I/C", which we take to 17 be "chief constable in the chair". Then, "Also briefed 18 CC, DCC and ACC 'C' re allegation against R/Con Atkinson 19 Portadown by Miss S Clarke",or, "T Clarke." 20 What we have here is a contemporaneous journal entry 21 from 12th May at which Mr Hall attended a briefing in 22 the presence of the chief constable and a DCC in which 23 he raised the question of the tip-off allegation against 24 Atkinson. 25 Can you help us with whether that was you, that DCC? 19 1 A. No, it wasn't. I wasn't at that meeting. 2 Q. There were two DCCs I think at the time. Is that right? 3 A. There was an establishment for two DCCs. Now, whether 4 there was a second DCC actually in post, again I am not 5 sure. 6 Q. But you are positive you weren't there in any event, are 7 you? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. Can I ask why you can be positive about that? 10 A. Well, I would have recalled being present at a meeting 11 if there was an allegation of the nature referred to. 12 That's something that I would have remembered, I think. 13 Q. Thank you. I want to ask then just about structural 14 matters. 15 First of all, one of the issues the Panel is going 16 to be interested in is how matters got referred to the 17 ICPC and in what circumstances. I wonder if you can 18 help us about that. 19 Now, we know that the ICPC had no original 20 jurisdiction in the sense that it had to wait for things 21 to be referred to it as a matter of law. We have also 22 heard that it could, and on occasion did, raise matters 23 itself with the chief constable if it thought that they 24 ought to be referred to it. Can you comment on that? 25 A. Yes. I believe that was the procedure, yes. 20 1 Q. Now, having cleared out of the way the possibility that 2 you were present at any of this, we are left with your 3 evidence that you knew nothing about the allegation of 4 Mr Atkinson, I think. Is that correct? 5 A. Not until at least two to three months after the event. 6 Q. Sure. So all I can ask you about is your understanding 7 of what should have happened in relation to the ICPC 8 rather than what you knew at the time was happening? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Right. Now, if the ICPC had been told on 12th or 11 13th May 1997 of this sort of allegation, is that the 12 sort of thing you would have expected them to raise with 13 the chief constable or whoever it may be to ask for 14 a referral? 15 A. In all probability, yes. 16 Q. If that hadn't happened, what would have been the normal 17 system by which somebody who was in a position to make 18 a referral got to know about the allegation? 19 A. Well, if the circumstances of the allegation were then 20 known to the senior investigating officer of the 21 incident, he would be the trigger. He would then assess 22 the evidence that he had, and, at a time when he thought 23 it was most advantageous to the investigation, he would 24 then have made a recommendation to the ACC in charge of 25 Complaints & Discipline that here was a man who should 21 1 have been suspended as he was suspected of a serious 2 criminal offence. 3 Q. I will come to that, the suspension question, but at the 4 moment I am trying to keep it limited to the way in 5 which it would have got to the ICPC. 6 A. Again, he would have -- it would have started with the 7 senior investigating officer. He would have 8 communicated that to the ACC C&D. If he had considered 9 the matter to be a matter that was serious enough and 10 would require ICPC supervision, he would then have 11 referred the matter to the ICPC. 12 Q. Right. So it is the Complaints & Discipline direction 13 it goes through, is it? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. As we understand it, Complaints & Discipline were also 16 responsible for service of any Form 17(3)s. Is that 17 your understanding? 18 A. Where an allegation was made concerning the conduct of 19 an officer, the investigating -- the ACC C&D would have 20 directed an investigation. He would have appointed 21 an investigating officer and one of his first tasks 22 would be to serve a Form 17(3), which would have put the 23 alleged offending officer on notice that he was being 24 investigated, and, basically, he would have been given 25 an outline of the allegations that were being made 22 1 against him. 2 Q. The question of suspension, would that have been 3 considered at the same time? 4 A. Dependent on the state of the investigation at that 5 time, all the evidence that was going to be available, 6 had it been procured, was there other lines of enquiry 7 that still had to be followed, and, indeed, whether or 8 not the allegation was, in fact, going to be 9 substantiated. 10 Q. Can you help us also with the degree of formality that 11 was necessary to get Complaints & Discipline involved? 12 Here let me just put to you what happened, which is 13 that Mr McBurney was the SIO for the murder and he was 14 also investigating a complaint of neglect of duty of the 15 four officers in the Land Rover. It was in the course 16 of those investigations that he got a witness statement 17 which made this allegation against Mr Atkinson that he 18 tipped off one of the alleged murderers. 19 There he is, the SIO, in possession of information 20 which is second-hand, to be frank, that Mr Atkinson had 21 done this allegedly very serious thing. 22 Now, would it have taken any formal step to get 23 Complaints & Discipline involved in that? 24 A. Complaints & Discipline were already involved, because 25 they had appointed Mr McBurney as the senior 23 1 investigating officer for the original complaint arising 2 out of the incident. 3 Q. Yes. 4 A. That being the case, that -- matters that would then 5 have arisen in the course of the investigation were then 6 already encompassed within the overall investigation. 7 Q. Yes. Can I come back on that point to the ICPC? 8 Do I understand your statement to be saying that you 9 would have expected the ICPC simply to wrap up this new 10 allegation into the supervised investigation it was 11 already conducting? 12 A. I don't know how the ICPC would have viewed it, but 13 I would certainly have viewed the original complaint and 14 then the further allegation concerning the Reserve 15 Constable which arose as a result of the investigation 16 into the original complaint as being one complete 17 investigation, in that the aspect of the Reserve 18 Constable couldn't be left hanging in the air and 19 couldn't have been dealt with separately, in that it was 20 very much involved in the totality of the overall 21 investigation into the original complaint. 22 Q. Can I go this far and suggest to you that the perception 23 in the RUC would have been that the ICPC was supervising 24 the investigation which encompassed Mr Atkinson? 25 A. That would be my interpretation of it, and, indeed, 24 1 I would have found it very difficult for the supervisor 2 not to have been fully aware that, not only was there 3 the main complaint arising from the initial incident, 4 but the tangent to that complaint was, in fact, a very 5 serious complaint arising from the alleged activities of 6 Reserve Constable Atkinson. 7 Q. That's kind. Thank you. 8 There is only one other matter I want to ask you 9 about. That's in paragraph 12 of your witness 10 statement. We see that at page [81597]. If we can 11 highlight paragraph 12 and draw it to your attention. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. You say: 14 "I can recall having answered questions about the 15 Robert Hamill case at Police Authority meetings, 16 questions that were raised by Mrs xxxxxxxxxx, who is now 17 the Ombudsman, and was at that time a member of the 18 Police Authority. She asked on at least three meetings 19 questions regarding the Hamill investigation. I can 20 recall reassuring her that the matter was the subject of 21 investigation, which Detective Chief 22 Superintendent McBurney, if my memory serves me right, 23 was the investigating officer and the matter was being 24 thoroughly investigated by us and viewed very seriously, 25 that it was being supervised by the ICPC and that we 25 1 would be reporting to the DPP in due course. In so far 2 as going into detail about the case, that would not have 3 been proper. I do not have a note ..." 4 Can you recall whether the Police Authority knew 5 about the tip-off allegation? 6 A. I certainly at no stage made any reference to the 7 tip-off allegation. So I don't know whether they would 8 have been aware of it from any other source, but they 9 certainly wouldn't have been aware of it as a result of 10 questions that were raised at Police Authority meetings 11 and which I gave answers to. 12 Q. Is that because of what you say there about you not 13 regarding it as being proper to go into detail with 14 them? 15 A. Whilst the Police Authority had a requirement to know, 16 first of all, that there was a serious complaint made, 17 and it was my responsibility to reassure them that, yes, 18 we were aware of the complaint, that we had appointed in 19 this case a senior detective to investigate the 20 complaint, and that the matters were being supervised by 21 the ICPC, and that in due course the full report would 22 be submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions to 23 consider whether or not prosecutions should ensue. 24 Q. This is no criticism of you, but let me ask something 25 about the system here. We know, of course, that the 26 1 allegation against Mr Atkinson of tipping him off was 2 not part of the original complaint, because the family 3 didn't know about that? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. In fact, as I understand the evidence, the family didn't 6 come to know about that until June of 2000, when the 7 chief constable told them directly. 8 Likewise, on your evidence then, you had no reason 9 to believe that the Police Authority knew about it. Is 10 that right? 11 A. Certainly I do not recall specifically telling the 12 Police Authority in the context of those questions at 13 Police Authority meetings that there was 14 an investigation concerning another allegation. 15 Q. So would this be fair: that, in 1997, there was no 16 system in place by which an allegation which emerged in 17 the way the Atkinson allegation emerged would become 18 known to either a complainant or the Police Authority? 19 A. Sorry. I don't understand. 20 Q. I will do that again. 21 The Hamill family made a complaint, which is that 22 the officers didn't get out of the Land Rover. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. They didn't know what emerged in the course of 25 investigating that complaint: namely, this other very 27 1 serious allegation that Atkinson tipped off Hanvey. 2 There was no system in place for letting them know, 3 was there? 4 A. Not that I'm aware of. There was no system. Whether or 5 not it would have been discussed between them and the 6 police investigators, I have no knowledge of that. 7 Q. Sure, but there wasn't something like a force order to 8 the effect that, where there is a complaint and 9 something emerges of real significance, you go back to 10 the complainant? 11 A. No, no. 12 Q. Likewise, there was no system in place for ensuring that 13 the Police Authority got to know of a revelation like 14 the Atkinson tip-off. Is that fair? 15 A. Well, there was no system as such, but when a complaint 16 would be referred to the ICPC, then obviously the Police 17 Authority would become aware that there was a complaint 18 under supervision by the ICPC. 19 Q. So they know it to the degree that the ICPC is 20 supervising it. Is that fair? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR UNDERWOOD: Good. Thank you very much indeed, 23 Mr Wallace. Those are the questions I ask. As I say, 24 others may have some questions. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you just help about two things? You said 28 1 that once the senior investigating officer knew of the 2 tip-off allegation, he would inform the ACC C&D, who, if 3 he thought it serious enough to require ICPC 4 supervision, would inform the Commission. 5 He would do that, I take it, under delegated powers 6 from the chief constable? 7 A. That's correct, sir. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you -- or are you able to form 9 a judgment about this: would you have thought it serious 10 enough to be passed on to the ICPC? 11 A. I would. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Would that be done by letter or informally? 13 How would this work? 14 A. It was normally done by letter and done under the Police 15 (Northern Ireland) Regulations, I think they were. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you know whether, in fact, the ICPC was 17 informed of the tipping-off allegation? 18 A. Not in my time of service. I have since learned that 19 that did, in fact, happen, but that was at least two, 20 possibly three years after I had retired. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: But there was a letter, was there? 22 A. I have no idea. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: You don't know. You say you would find it 24 difficult to believe that the ICPC wouldn't be aware, 25 but, in fact, you would expect they would be aware 29 1 because of the view you think should have been taken of 2 the gravity of the allegation? 3 A. That's correct, sir. During the course of the initial 4 investigation which the ICPC were supervising, when that 5 allegation came to light, they would have been aware 6 that that allegation had been -- had come to the fore. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: You mean simply through the act of 8 supervising it? 9 A. Yes. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, finding out what's going on 11 in the investigation? 12 A. Yes, and, indeed, that would have been part and parcel 13 of their responsibility, so that they were fully au fait 14 with the course of the investigation. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Would it be the practice of the Commission to 16 make sure that it kept au fait with what was happening? 17 A. Well, in my experience of working with the Commission 18 and dealing with complaints that were being supervised 19 by the Commission, they were very much intent on being 20 au fait with the course of the investigation, and 21 bearing in mind that, at the end of the investigation, 22 they were required to issue a certificate to the fact 23 that the investigation had been carried out properly. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: So they don't just wait to be told? 25 A. Oh, certainly not. Their function would have been 30 1 completely negated had they decided to sit back and not 2 be actively involved. 3 In my experience, I found that they were actively 4 involved in investigations, and, once the additional 5 dimension appeared in respect of Reserve 6 Constable Atkinson, in my view, despite the fact that 7 the official notification didn't go to the ICPC until 8 June 2000, I think it was, they weren't at 9 a disadvantage or working in the dark, in that they were 10 fully aware that that allegation was part and parcel of 11 the entire investigation into the facts surrounding the 12 death of Mr Hamill. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 14 SIR JOHN EVANS: May I? 15 Mr Wallace, in 1997, can you recall, were there 16 subcommittees of the Police Authority? 17 A. Oh, there were subcommittees in the Police Authority, 18 each dealing with aspects of the Police Authority work. 19 SIR JOHN EVANS: Was one of them called Complaints and 20 Discipline? 21 A. That's correct, yes. 22 SIR JOHN EVANS: Which was the chief officer who reported to 23 it? 24 A. It was the Assistant Chief Constable Complaints and 25 Discipline. 31 1 SIR JOHN EVANS: Direct? You didn't do it yourself? 2 A. No. 3 SIR JOHN EVANS: Would it be normal practice for them to 4 take the members of that subcommittee into their 5 confidence? 6 A. Not being present, I don't know, you know, of the degree 7 of interchange that occurred between them. 8 What I can say is that, in fifteen years as a chief 9 officer dealing with Police Authorities and various 10 committees of the Police Authority, I never had any 11 difficulty in dealing with them about confidential 12 matters and feeling completely assured that those 13 matters remained confidential, and, indeed, during that 14 time I was never let down on any occasion by the Police 15 Authority. 16 SIR JOHN EVANS: That would be that you might share 17 a confidence even on the understanding that it wouldn't 18 be reported into the main committee, the main Police 19 Authority? It would remain a confidence? 20 A. Well, one didn't have to get undertakings of that type. 21 When I was answering questions to the Police Authority, 22 obviously the answers I gave were considered answers 23 against the background of the question, but, as I have 24 said, at no stage did I find that matters that I had 25 referred to then suddenly appeared in the press the next 32 1 day or were the subject of discussion outside the 2 confines of meetings. 3 SIR JOHN EVANS: Were those meetings of subcommittees held 4 in public? 5 A. No, they weren't, no. 6 SIR JOHN EVANS: Okay. Thank you, Mr Wallace. 7 A. Thank you. 8 Questions from MR McGRORY 9 MR McGRORY: If I may, sir. 10 Mr Wallace, my name is McGrory. I want to ask you 11 some questions on behalf of the family of Robert Hamill 12 A. Right. Thank you. 13 Q. I think you are the most senior former police officer we 14 have had here so far at the Inquiry. 15 A. That makes me feel very old, Mr McGrory. 16 Q. You also come across as a man, if I may say so, who has 17 perhaps reflected on the trials and tribulations and on 18 the responsibilities on the shoulders of senior 19 policemen in a jurisdiction such as this. 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. So I just want to ask you a few questions about that, if 22 I may, because they go perhaps directly to the heart of 23 this whole case. 24 In any society, the police force is clearly a very 25 important element in keeping law and order? 33 1 A. That's the primary responsibility, yes. 2 Q. With that responsibility come certain difficulties, in 3 that in any ordinary society you are going to meet with 4 resistance from certain quarters, particularly those who 5 perhaps are offending or connected with those who have 6 been offending -- 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- in terms of cooperation. 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. The police, of course, have to work around that. That's 11 part and parcel of the job in terms of meeting 12 resistance in the course of investigations? 13 A. That's correct, yes. 14 Q. It goes without saying, but, of course, you have 15 an extra dimension here in this jurisdiction. We have 16 had throughout many, many years, and still do, 17 regrettably, various paramilitary groups that are 18 engaged in serious violence. 19 A. Yes, that's correct. 20 Q. And indeed, whose tentacles perhaps stretch throughout 21 the community in terms not just of the violence they 22 perpetrate, but the influence they have on others who 23 might be able to assist the police in their 24 investigations. 25 A. That's correct, yes. 34 1 Q. So it might make the job of policing even more 2 difficult, because the paramilitaries might be 3 exercising their influence to suppress evidence in 4 various ways? 5 A. That again is correct, yes. 6 Q. But also in this jurisdiction we have a situation where, 7 whether you agree with it or not, a substantial 8 section of the population have not perhaps got the 9 confidence in the police force that you would like them 10 to have -- 11 A. Yes, that's correct. 12 Q. -- for historical and political reasons. 13 I am not going to go into the rights and wrongs of 14 it, but that was one of the realities of policing in 15 Northern Ireland? 16 A. Yes, that, and, indeed, as you alluded to, that made the 17 job that much more difficult. 18 Q. But, of course, one of the realities of the fact that 19 a section of the population perhaps hadn't -- didn't 20 retain the confidence of the police -- or the police 21 force didn't retain the confidence of that section of 22 the population was that having some independent scrutiny 23 of policing came all the more important -- 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. -- in this jurisdiction. 35 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Because, of course, for a police force to properly 3 police a community, it has to have the consent of the 4 community to police it. Isn't that right? 5 A. That is correct, yes. 6 Q. One of your difficulties was that there was a part of 7 the population in this jurisdiction that was withholding 8 its consent -- 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. -- for whatever political or historical reasons that 11 might have existed. 12 Now there were, of course, mechanisms in place to 13 some extent to try to ensure that those who didn't have 14 the confidence of the police force might be persuaded 15 otherwise. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Amongst those mechanisms were, of course, the Police 18 Authority, on which perhaps there were members from the 19 Catholic community, not those of strong Nationalist 20 views, who were invited onto the Police Authority so 21 they would feel they were at least somehow represented 22 on that body. 23 A. Yes. The Police Authority was mixed insofar as the 24 religious make-up of the members were concerned. 25 Q. From your point of view as a senior policeman who was 36 1 concerned that you would be able to do your job 2 properly, that was a good thing? 3 A. Of course it was, yes. 4 Q. Also, of course, there was the ICPC, which was set up in 5 1987 -- 6 A. That's right, yes. 7 Q. -- which was another mechanism by which the public might 8 hope or expect that the police would be to some extent 9 policed -- 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. -- or at least that there would be some independent 12 observation of how the police policed themselves? 13 A. That's correct, insofar as complaints and matters 14 arising from complaints were concerned, yes. 15 Q. Of course, the police did still police themselves 16 between 1987 and 1999, but the ICPC had a supervisory 17 role? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. Of course, there is another guardian of the public 20 interest in all of this and it is the Executive, it is 21 the Government, that was entitled perhaps to ask 22 questions about policing issues. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Indeed it might go to national security. It goes 25 without saying that the Government has a direct public 37 1 interest in having some degree of liaison and contact 2 with the police force? 3 A. That's very much the case, yes. 4 Q. Indeed, in terms of public order and -- 5 A. And especially against a background of an ongoing 6 terrorist campaign. 7 Q. Indeed. Of all places, in this jurisdiction it was 8 imperative that the Executive, that the Government, had 9 a good relationship with the chief constable and the 10 upper echelons of the police so that it could be 11 assisted in its very important job of governing? 12 A. Well, there was a definite demarcation line in that 13 relationship -- 14 Q. Yes. 15 A. -- in that the chief constable was responsible for the 16 operational discharge of the policing function. The 17 Northern Ireland Office or the Secretary of State and 18 his ministers had obviously a responsibility for the 19 good governance of the province as a whole, but the 20 Secretary of State and his ministers did not tell the 21 chief constable how to exercise his powers as the chief 22 constable in dealing with the enforcement of matters of 23 law and order. 24 Q. Absolutely, and, of course, under no circumstances 25 should the Executive, in the form of a Secretary of 38 1 State, have any operational control over the affairs of 2 the police? 3 A. That's basically what I am saying. 4 Q. Of course, but apart from that, if the Secretary of 5 State asked the chief constable for some information or 6 detail about serious public concern about the conduct of 7 the police in a certain respect, it was entitled at 8 least to be told in some detail what was going on? 9 A. Oh, yes. There were meetings, either formal or 10 informal, where matters of mutual interest would be 11 discussed and exchanges would have taken place. 12 Q. Of course, if it came to the Secretary of State's 13 attention that there was talk in the community that 14 a policeman from the Protestant community was tipping 15 off a Loyalist suspect in the murder of a Catholic, that 16 this comes to the attention of the Secretary of State, 17 if the Secretary of State asks the chief constable, "Is 18 this true, and what's going on about this?", that the 19 Secretary of State would be entitled to be given some 20 real amount of information about that? 21 A. That would be correct, yes. 22 Q. At the very least, verification of the fact this was 23 known to the senior police -- 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. -- and that it was being investigated? 39 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Indeed, that there might be some substance to the 3 rumour? 4 A. Well, whether or not there would be substance to the 5 rumour would be based on the evidence that was available 6 to substantiate the allegation that was being made. 7 Q. But the Secretary of State would be entitled to know the 8 nature of the evidence, if not the final detail? 9 A. I never recall on any occasion when I spoke to the 10 Secretary of State of him ever seeking the finer detail. 11 That -- 12 Q. No, but, of course, he might have said to you, "Deputy 13 chief constable, what's going on here? There is 14 a suggestion here that has come to my ears that 15 a policeman has done something like this." 16 A. Certainly -- 17 Q. "What is the story? Is there an investigation? Is 18 there any evidence? Is there -- are you concerned about 19 it? Are you looking into this?", I mean, that you would 20 give the Secretary of State some sense of what was going 21 on. 22 A. Well, I can only tell you -- we are talking very 23 hypothetical here -- of what my response would have been 24 if the Secretary of State or one of the Ministers of 25 State had put that proposition to me. I would have told 40 1 him that, had I been aware that there was an allegation, 2 I would have viewed it as a serious allegation and one 3 that was the subject of detailed investigation. 4 In the case of this particular one, where it was 5 part and parcel of another major investigation that was 6 already underway, I would certainly have indicated that 7 to him, but, you know, one can't be precise insofar as 8 what one would have said or one wouldn't have said, 9 because you were talking in the context of a situation 10 that insofar as the Secretary of State was aware, he 11 would have required certain information and it would 12 have been dependent on how much of that information the 13 chief constable had as to what he could divulge to him. 14 Q. Yes. Sorry, sir? 15 THE CHAIRMAN: It might be helpful, because I think you have 16 seen correspondence between the police and the Secretary 17 of State and will know what information the Secretary of 18 State was given, to suggest, if there is any matter that 19 the Secretary of State was not informed about, what it 20 was and enquire why he wasn't informed, rather than just 21 a very general approach. 22 MR McGRORY: Yes, indeed, sir. Can we take a two-minute 23 break to allow me to get my hands on that 24 correspondence? 25 THE CHAIRMAN: We would be more helped, I think, if there 41 1 are specific questions. "The Secretary of State was not 2 told this. Is there a reason why not?" 3 MR McGRORY: Of course, sir. I was beginning to realise 4 I needed to go here. Had this witness said "Not at all. 5 I need not go there". If I might be allowed two minutes 6 to get that correspondence. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. We will give you a few minutes. 8 MR McGRORY: Just one minute. 9 (11.05 am) 10 (A short break) 11 (11.10 am) 12 MR McGRORY: I am grateful to you, sir. I hope I now have 13 my tackle in order for this series of questions. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Good. 15 MR McGRORY: Mr Wallace, I want you to have a look at 16 a document, and then, before we go into any detail of 17 it, I am going to tell you how it came into existence. 18 It begins at page [15385]. This is headed: 19 "Subject: meeting with Robert Hamill's family - 20 Monday 24.11.97. 21 "Staff officer to chief constable." 22 This is a briefing paper that was prepared for the 23 chief constable following receipt of a letter in the 24 chief constable's office from the Secretary of State 25 asking for information about the Hamill case following 42 1 a meeting that the Secretary of State had with the 2 Hamill family probably on Monday, 24th November. This 3 is the information that was prepared by ACC White which 4 went to the chief constable. 5 Now, the document runs for a number of pages and 6 there are a number of headings. So while we don't have 7 the letter that the Secretary of State sent to the chief 8 constable, we can presume that it probably was set out 9 under those headings. 10 If we scroll forward to page [15388], at the bottom 11 of that page headed 7, it says: 12 "Relationship between Accused and Police Officer." 13 Can you see that at the bottom? 14 A. I can indeed, yes. 15 Q. There is a four-line answer there to the chief 16 constable, which is: 17 "7.1. This matter is the subject of a criminal 18 investigation and a file will be forwarded to the DPP in 19 due course. It would", overleaf, [15389], "not be 20 prudent to make any comment about this at this stage, 21 nor to pre-empt the decision of the DPP." 22 Now, this is ACC White advising the chief constable 23 that there is an investigation, but that it wouldn't be 24 prudent obviously to say too much to the Secretary of 25 State about it. 43 1 We have a situation here where a reserve constable 2 is accused by a witness from within the community of 3 tipping off one of the murder suspects by phoning him 4 the next day. 5 Now, by any stretch of the imagination, Mr Wallace, 6 that is a very serious allegation to be made of a police 7 officer? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. One of the ways in which the witness has said the 10 contact was made between the police officer and the 11 suspect was by telephone. 12 Very quickly, the investigating police, Detective 13 Chief Superintendent McBurney -- well, it would have 14 been a different police officer at that point initially -- 15 P39 seeks authority to look at the telephone records 16 and, lo and behold, there is telephone contact between 17 the police officer's home and the suspect's home within 18 hours of the incident. 19 So for investigative purposes, the information has 20 some grounding. Do you agree with that? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Now, the police officer is interviewed in September of 23 1997 under the supervision of the ICPC, and again in 24 October. 25 The police officer, by October, has put forward 44 1 an innocent reason as to how the phone call might have 2 been made, and that is being investigated. 3 Now, all of that information is within the 4 possession of the police by the time they are asked for 5 some information by the Secretary of State's office 6 about what was, at this time, a rumour going round that 7 those in the Land Rover might have helped those who 8 committed the crime, because they knew each other, but 9 that appears it be the height of it, or somebody knew 10 each other. 11 What I just want to ask you is the Secretary of 12 State, obviously acting in the public interest as 13 a member of the Government, asked the chief constable 14 for information about this rumour, obviously concerned 15 about it. 16 First of all, in view of what you have said about 17 the confidence briefing that senior police would give 18 committees of the Police Authority, one would expect 19 that the Secretary of State could hold a confidence as 20 to the nature of evidence and the nature of the 21 allegation if she was told? 22 A. What's your question then? 23 Q. The question is: you would have expected the Secretary 24 of State to have honoured the same confidence about 25 information given to him or her as a subcommittee of the 45 1 Police Authority? 2 THE CHAIRMAN: There is a preliminary question before that: 3 is this the kind of information which should have been 4 provided to the Secretary of State? 5 You have to ask that question first and see what the 6 answer is before the question arises of whether the 7 Secretary of State can be trusted. 8 A view about whether or not there might be a risk of 9 a leak is obviously relevant to the first question, but 10 the first question should come first. 11 MR McGRORY: Well, it would be my preference to ask it the 12 other way round, but by all means, sir. 13 Can I answer that question, Mr Wallace? Would the 14 type of information that I have given you, that was in 15 the domain of the police, be expected to be given to the 16 Secretary of State? 17 A. That is very difficult for me to answer out of the 18 context of the overall investigation, but certainly in 19 my experience in dealing with various people, 20 Secretaries of State down through the years, the precise 21 detail of investigations and how they were progressing 22 were not matters that one would have disclosed, or, 23 indeed, have been -- would have been asked for 24 disclosure from the Secretary of State. 25 Q. Maybe not the precise detail, but would you agree with 46 1 me, Mr Wallace, that really no information has been 2 given -- really the chief constable is being advised to 3 really tell her nothing other than that the matter is 4 the subject of a criminal investigation; in other words, 5 the Secretary of State really could have been told, 6 "Well, you know, there is a specific officer in respect 7 of whom we have information that he might have been 8 tipping off a suspect and we are investigating that." 9 A. Yes, that -- had I been -- in the circumstances that you 10 have alluded to, and in the circumstances of this case, 11 had I been specifically asked, "Was there suspicions 12 arising concerning the loyalties and the actions of 13 a particular police officer in a particular case?", 14 I would have confirmed, yes, that there were suspicions 15 and that the matter was being fully investigated and 16 that in due course the matter would be referred to the 17 Director of Public Prosecutions. 18 Q. Indeed, the Secretary of State might have been advised, 19 "Well, in fact, the suspicion seems to be focusing on 20 an officer"? 21 A. If there was a specific officer, as there appears in 22 this case to have been, the subject of the investigation 23 or that aspect of the investigation, yes, then the 24 Secretary of State would have been told, "Yes, there 25 is". 47 1 Obviously, for the Secretary of State to write in 2 the first instance, the Secretary of State must have 3 been aware that there were allegations concerning 4 an individual police officer having been involved in 5 making phone calls to some of the prime suspects in the 6 murder case, and I would have confirmed that to the 7 Secretary of State, that there was and that the matter 8 was being investigated. 9 Q. Yes, because, of course, the context in which it is 10 taking place is that there are rumours going around and 11 the Secretary of State wants to know is there any basis 12 for this. 13 A. I would have confirmed to the Secretary of State that 14 that was one of the avenues of investigation that were 15 being followed and would form part of the overall 16 investigation. 17 Q. Of course, while the Secretary of State has no say and 18 shouldn't have any say in whether or not that police 19 officer is suspended, the Secretary of State might ask 20 the question of the chief constable, "Is that officer 21 still working?" 22 A. Oh, the Secretary of State could ask any question in 23 relation to it, but the question of suspension was 24 outside the ambit of the responsibility of the Secretary 25 of State. 48 1 Q. Oh, of course. Totally outside the Secretary of State's 2 responsibility. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. But the Secretary of State is entitled to know whether 5 or not there is a matter -- 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Why? Yes, why? 7 MR McGRORY: Do you want me to say why, sir? 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I do. That's why I have asked you the 9 question. 10 MR McGRORY: Because the Secretary of State has a function, 11 as the guardian of the public interest, to know whether 12 or not there are members of the police still walking 13 about in policing duties who shouldn't be. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: What do you say about that? 15 A. Well, I would have thought that the question of 16 suspension or internal disciplinary matters was entirely 17 a matter for the chief constable and not any 18 responsibility of the Secretary of State. 19 The Secretary of State, in my knowledge, and in my 20 time as a chief officer spreading over 15, 16 years, 21 never interfered with the disciplinary processes that 22 they followed. 23 MR McGRORY: I am going to leave this particular point in 24 a moment, but let me make it very clear I am not 25 suggesting in any way that the Secretary of State had 49 1 a say in whether or not a police officer should be 2 suspended, but it is something in which she had 3 an interest, on whether or not it was of such a serious 4 nature. 5 A. Well, I am quite sure the Secretary of State, if the 6 matter had been referred to her, had an interest. 7 Q. Thank you, Mr Wallace. 8 Now, what I want to show you next is what the 9 Secretary of State said -- what the chief constable 10 actually said to the Secretary of State about this. 11 A. Right. 12 Q. If we could look, please, at page [15376], at point 5. 13 I need not show you the first page. This is the second 14 page of the letter the chief constable wrote to the 15 Secretary of State on 23rd December in reply. You see 16 there it is headed, "Relationship between some officers 17 and some of the defendants"? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. All the Secretary of State is told is: 20 "This allegation has been included in the criminal 21 investigation and will be considered by the Director of 22 Public Prosecutions." 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Now, the Secretary of State really -- I am going to 25 suggest to you that the Secretary of State really is 50 1 being kept in the dark about the fact that there is 2 indeed a live investigation into a grounded allegation 3 that a police officer made a phone contact with one of 4 his suspects that is the subject of a serious criminal 5 investigation. She is told really nothing of it at all 6 in this letter. 7 A. Well, the letter confirms that an allegation -- now, it 8 refers to "this allegation", so if we go back to the 9 heading, "Relationship between some officers and some of 10 the defendants", again not having sight of the Secretary 11 of State's letter, I don't know what request she made 12 for information -- 13 Q. No. 14 A. -- but that would suggest to me that she was aware that 15 there was some relationship between some of the officers 16 and some of the defendants, and what that letter is 17 doing is confirming that this allegation obviously then 18 had been made and had been included in the criminal 19 investigation and that the evidence amassed from that 20 criminal investigation would be passed to the Director 21 of Public Prosecutions for his consideration. 22 Q. But, of course, what it is not telling her is that, in 23 fact, "There is an investigation into an allegation we 24 have received that a police officer was in contact with 25 one of the suspects". 51 1 A. Well, is that surely not inferred by, at 5, 2 "Relationship between some officers and some of the 3 defendants"? 4 Q. It is only saying it is being looked into in the context 5 of the criminal investigation. It doesn't inform the 6 Secretary of State, "In fact, we are investigating 7 an officer about this." 8 A. Well, it suggests to me, Mr McGrory, that the Secretary 9 of State was already aware, bearing in mind that one of 10 the paragraphs is specifically underlined as, 11 "Relationship between some officers and some of the 12 defendants". 13 So the fact that there was a relationship ongoing is 14 being confirmed and further confirmation that this 15 allegation -- that is about that relationship -- has 16 been included in the criminal investigation. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Wallace, if you were answering the 18 Secretary of State's letter, would the fact that one 19 witness connected with the allegation was regarded by 20 the police as a very vulnerable witness influence how 21 guarded you would be? 22 A. Well, without seeing the context of what the Secretary 23 of State initially requested, certainly that there would 24 be one of the considerations -- first of all, to confirm 25 that we had a witness would again be something that 52 1 probably would want to be held on a very close network 2 within the investigation team; and, secondly, the 3 allegation that witness was making would also be 4 something that would want to be held pretty close within 5 the investigation team. 6 MR McGRORY: You could say to the Secretary of State, "Look, 7 there is a serious investigation going on here against 8 a police officer, but some of the evidence is pretty 9 sensitive, so you should be aware of that, and would you 10 be careful about how you deal with that information?" 11 That's a perfectly proper way to inform the 12 Secretary of State that there is, in fact, a serious 13 investigation into a police officer without jeopardising 14 the investigation in any way. 15 A. I think paragraph 5 would make that pretty obvious, that 16 there was a relationship which, bearing in mind it was 17 part of a criminal investigation, must have been 18 considered as an illicit relationship between some 19 officers and some of the defendants, and that that was 20 part and parcel of an investigation which would be 21 eventually sent -- the result of which would be 22 eventually sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. 23 Q. You see, I have been given today the answer that the 24 family received from the Secretary of State. The 25 heading in their letter is, "Relationship between 53 1 officers and defendants", and there is 2 a two-line answer, which is: 3 "The allegation that some officers and some 4 defendants had links has been included in the criminal 5 investigation and will be considered by the DPP." 6 A. Yes. That there was obviously a direct lift from the 7 letter from the chief constable to the Secretary of 8 State. 9 Q. You see, is it not slightly misleading, because 10 really -- 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Forgive me. You see the need for care. The 12 Secretary of State passed on the information she had 13 been given to the Hamill family. The fact that the 14 Secretary of State might regard herself as a conduit for 15 information may indicate the care which has to be taken 16 to avoid endangering operational measures in what 17 information is disclosed. 18 MR McGRORY: You see, Mr Wallace, one of the difficulties 19 that we have about this case is that of all the 20 mechanisms in existence for protecting the public 21 interest, in the sense that the police are not left 22 entirely to police themselves -- and those mechanisms 23 include, as we have discussed earlier, the Police 24 Authority, the ICPC, and indeed the Executive in the 25 form of the Secretary of State. Of all of those 54 1 mechanisms, none of them succeeded in having 2 an investigation into this allegation that was 3 supervised to its conclusion. 4 Now, you may not be in a position to comment on 5 that, because you are not privy to all of the 6 information that we are. 7 A. I am not. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: For myself, I think that that point you are 9 making just now is wide of the mark that you have been 10 aiming at: namely, criticism of the police for not 11 providing more information to the Secretary of State. 12 The Secretary of State can't say, "I want you to do 13 more about this", and if she is going to make anything 14 public, there is a problem. 15 MR McGRORY: Absolutely. What the Secretary of State can 16 say is, "Have you used your powers to make sure every 17 aspect of this is being supervised by the ICPC?" 18 That's a perfectly proper function of the Executive. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: I hear you. 20 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: That kind of 21 conversation might very well have taken place but not be 22 recorded in a formal letter, an exchange which, you 23 know -- all supposition. 24 MR UNDERWOOD: I am so sorry to intervene. This has all 25 become a bit abstract, because we do have the documents. 55 1 Perhaps it would be helpful if I put them to the witness 2 out of fairness? 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 4 MR UNDERWOOD: Mr Wallace, can we just look at page [60487]? 5 I am sorry. It is going to take them a few minutes to 6 get them onto the system. They are material. They have 7 been disclosed. They are simply not available here. 8 Perhaps we can look at page [60818]. 9 MR McGRORY: It would help if I knew the documents 10 Mr Underwood is referring to. 11 MR UNDERWOOD: [60818] is the letter from the Hamill family 12 to the Secretary of State. 13 MR McGRORY: Well, I haven't seen this, sir. 14 Further questions from MR UNDERWOOD 15 MR UNDERWOOD: 21st November 1997. 16 "Dear Dr Mowlam. 17 "I am writing to confirm our meeting on Monday, 18 24th November 1997 at 2.00 pm at Stormont. I had 19 indicated to your secretary that my solicitor ... is 20 unable to attend," etc. 21 Two paragraphs down: 22 "I also thought it might be useful if I outlined 23 some of the areas which we wished to discuss with you." 24 If I go down to 2 at the bottom: 25 "We would be grateful if you could update us as to 56 1 the progress made to date in the investigation of our 2 complaint. It is still the case that the police 3 officers involved have not been suspended. We would 4 have thought that in a case as grave as this suspension 5 would have been a matter of course. Why have the 6 officers not been suspended? 20,000 people, many from 7 our area", overleaf, [60819], "have signed a petition 8 calling for the officers to be suspended. This shows 9 how local people feel about this case. Is it true that 10 the officers are on sick leave? Is it also true that 11 they have put in claims as a result of what happened? 12 "Apart from the failure of the officers concerned to 13 save Robert, we are also concerned that they apparently 14 allowed a crowd of up to 30 people to assemble at what 15 is known as a sectarian flash point and failed to warn 16 Robert and his friends of the presence of this crowd. 17 Has an explanation been given for this failure?" 18 If we go down to 4 and just highlight 4 and 5 for 19 the moment: 20 "4. We believe that one of the problems faced by 21 the DPP in pressing charges against the accused was the 22 lack of forensic evidence. This problem was obviously 23 caused by the failure of the police to immediately 24 arrest individuals at the scene. Why was this not done? 25 We also understand that at least one of the accused was 57 1 identified by an officer as kicking Robert. If this is 2 the case, was he arrested at the scene or that night 3 and, if not, why not? 4 "5. There have been press reports that have claimed 5 there were links between some officers and some of the 6 defendants. Have these alleged links been 7 investigated?" 8 This will lead to a question, Mr Wallace. Trust me. 9 So, you know, specifically that numbered 10 5 paragraph dealing with the alleged links. I think -- 11 I hope we can now go to the Secretary of State's letter 12 to the chief constable at [60487]. 13 Here is the Secretary of State's letter. What this 14 does is send a copy of the letter we have just seen from 15 the family to the Secretary of State on to the chief 16 constable and this is the covering letter doing that. 17 What she is saying on 28th November 1997 is in the text 18 of it: 19 "I met with Diane Hamill together with three of her 20 sisters, [blank] from the Committee on the Administration of 21 Justice and Father [blank] at Diane Hamill's request to 22 receive the 20,000-signature petition calling for an 23 independent Inquiry into the death of their brother in 24 May this year. The petition also called for the 25 suspension of four police officers who allegedly failed 58 1 to intervene to stop the murder." 2 If we go down halfway into the next paragraph on the 3 right-hand side there is a sentence which starts: 4 "I explained to them that I could not comment on 5 their detailed questions because they either fell to you 6 or to the Attorney General. I also sought on more than 7 one occasion to get the family to encourage their 8 relatives and friends to cooperate with the processes 9 that exist for investigating the murder and the 10 complaint against the police officers." 11 Overleaf, [60488]: 12 "It is clear that the family are not helping 13 themselves, although this may well be as a result of the 14 advice they are receiving." 15 If we skip a paragraph: 16 "Notwithstanding this, they are clearly upset, not 17 just by the death of their brother but also by the 18 alleged police inaction (why didn't they intervene/why 19 were no arrests made on the evening or the next morning 20 after the attack/why were no charges brought until after 21 the death, etc), and by what they see as a cover-up by 22 the authorities (the police did not want the case to go 23 to court because of the bad publicity it would give/ 24 the Hamills fully expected the sixth person to be 25 charged to be released and believed a recent 59 1 conversation with Mr Kitson in the DPP's office was 2 simply preparing them for this). I am concerned to make 3 the system stand up to their criticism. I want to 4 defend it where this is possible and, if necessary, to 5 explain why things have happened the way they have and 6 where we have now got to. For example, they may not 7 have received information because it was under 8 investigation. 9 "I should be grateful, therefore, if you would 10 supply me with as much detail as possible on the points 11 in the attached letter and annex so that I can reply to 12 Diane Hamill. I have sought to mark those which I think 13 are for you and I have also written to the Attorney 14 General. If the matters are sub judice, then I will say 15 so, but I want to answer as many of the points as I can 16 and to be as open as circumstances permit - I think they 17 deserve to be told all we can. I would like to", 18 overleaf, [60489], "try and set the record straight with 19 them and not to miss this opportunity to inform them of 20 the considerable amount of work that has gone into 21 investigating the murder and the complaint. 22 "I know that you and the Attorney General will have 23 reservations about what I want to do, and I appreciate 24 this. I want, however, to give these people an honest 25 response to what they see as reasonable questions on 60 1 which they have had no response to date. 2 "I said would I try to respond to them within two 3 weeks (or three weeks at the latest) and it would be 4 very helpful, therefore, to have your report in a couple 5 of weeks so that I can do this." 6 Bearing in mind that the annex to that was the 7 letter containing paragraph 5, and I shall just read it 8 again to you: 9 "There have been press reports that have claimed 10 there were links between some of the officers and some 11 of the defendants. Have these alleged links been 12 investigated?" 13 That was the question. Now, if we go to the answer, 14 which is page [15376]: 15 "5. Relationship between some officers and some of 16 the defendants. 17 "This allegation has been included in the criminal 18 investigation and will be considered by the Director of 19 Public Prosecutions." 20 Here is the question: after all of that, do you 21 think that was a fair response? 22 A. Yes, in that the request was for confirmation that 23 an allegation -- that there was a relationship between 24 some officers and some of the defendants. That was the 25 rumour that was circulating, and the answer clearly 61 1 indicates this allegation had obviously been taken on 2 board, because it was included in the criminal 3 investigation, and the findings of that investigation 4 would then be considered by the DPP. 5 Q. Thank you. I am so sorry to intervene -- 6 A. I would have -- 7 Q. I am sorry, Mr Wallace. Do go on. 8 A. I would have thought that was an answer to the question 9 posed in the original letter. 10 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you. As I say, I am sorry to 11 intervene. I hope that's fair to the witness. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr McGrory? 13 Questions from MR McGRORY (continued) 14 MR McGRORY: That's enormously helpful to have that 15 material. 16 I am going to suggest to you, Mr Wallace, that, in 17 fact, that is not a proper answer, because what the 18 Secretary of State is saying to the chief constable is 19 "Look, chief constable, I have met these people. There 20 are these rumours going round. They are very upset that 21 there may have been some connection between these police 22 in the Land Rover, any of them, and these people who 23 killed their brother. Now, I want to help them and 24 I want to satisfy them that we are looking into this as 25 thoroughly as possible". 62 1 So what the Secretary of State is asking herself is, 2 "Is there anything I need know here to make sure that 3 the chief constable and his people and his mechanisms 4 are operating?", because, you see, the Secretary of 5 State also, I suggest to you, had a relationship with 6 the ICPC. 7 Are you aware of that, that she could ask them 8 questions? 9 A. Oh, of course, yes. 10 Q. Of course. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. I think we had evidence from Mr Mullan here last week 13 that, in fact, the Secretary of State sent an official 14 down to read the ICPC file at one point. 15 A. Oh, I wasn't aware of that, Mr McGrory. 16 Q. No, but in any event, the Secretary of State is clearly 17 performing her public duty as accepted by you, "Look, 18 wearing my hat as guardian of the public interest and as 19 guardian of the interest of the Hamill family and the 20 wider public, that if there is any hint whatsoever that 21 there is police corruption here, I want to be satisfied 22 as Secretary of State that the police force and whoever 23 else has responsibility for this are looking into this." 24 A. Yes, and that's -- with respect, Mr McGrory, I would 25 have thought that's what paragraph 5 clearly confirms to 63 1 the Secretary of State based on the question that she 2 posed to the chief constable, that, yes, in relation to 3 the relationship between some officers and some of the 4 defendants, that this allegation is -- has been 5 investigated and has been included as part of the 6 criminal investigation. 7 That, in fact, is confirming that an allegation of 8 that nature had been made and that it was taken on board 9 by the investigators, included in the criminal 10 investigation and would then form part and parcel of the 11 total file being sent to the Director of Public 12 Prosecutions. 13 Now, I would have thought that the Secretary of 14 State would then have been in a position, and indeed 15 I am presuming she was then in a position, to confirm to 16 the family, yes, the allegation concerning 17 a relationship between some officers and some of the 18 defendants was, in fact, established, and that the 19 allegation of that relationship has been investigated 20 within the context of the overall criminal 21 investigation, and that the results of that 22 investigation will be put before the Director of Public 23 Prosecutions for his consideration. 24 Q. Yes. You see, what the Secretary of State is not told, 25 and does not know, is that there is actually some 64 1 evidence against a police officer which is a specific 2 police officer, which is specifically being 3 investigated. She is not told that. 4 A. And indeed, in my experience, Mr McGrory, I wouldn't 5 recall -- do not recall circumstances in which 6 the minute details of investigations were communicated 7 to the Secretary of State in respect of what evidence 8 there was available, what evidence was likely to stand 9 up, what evidence was likely to be sufficient to enable 10 the DPP to level charges and to sustain those charges. 11 Q. Mr Wallace, I am not talking about minute details -- 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McGrory, forgive me. It is quite clear 13 that you see the Secretary of State's role in this as 14 one of acquiring information from the chief constable 15 that she can then, perhaps filtered, supply to the 16 family. 17 Would you like to put in plain terms what is the 18 information which should have been provided for 19 forwarding to the Hamill family? 20 MR McGRORY: I think I have done that, sir, and I was -- 21 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think you have. 22 MR McGRORY: -- about to do it again. 23 Surely it was incumbent on the chief constable to 24 inform the Secretary of State not that, "Yes, that's 25 being looked into. It is part of the investigation", 65 1 but, "Yes, in fact, an element of this investigation 2 involves a specific allegation from a member of the ..." 3 even just that information, "information has been 4 received that one of those police officers did know one 5 of the suspects and did engage in corrupt behaviour." 6 A. Mr McGrory, I can only assist the Inquiry by indicating 7 what I would have answered to the Secretary of State and 8 the answer I would have given based on the information 9 that I have had an opportunity to read this morning 10 would have been in line with paragraph 5. 11 Q. I can ask you to do no more than that. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: You appreciate, Mr McGrory, the kind of 13 information you are saying should have been provided 14 would have been provided and very likely disseminated, 15 would have led to questions about the name and 16 speculation about the name, and one can see why all of 17 this may be an obstacle to proper police investigation. 18 Is that right? 19 A. I would agree with that, sir. 20 MR McGRORY: No, no, sir. I have one more question on this 21 point, which is -- 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Just one more, yes. Let it be a question and 23 not a speech, please. Your opportunity to question is 24 not an opportunity to make public pronouncements, and 25 that's largely what you have been doing. 66 1 A question, please. One. 2 MR McGRORY: Sir, I actually do dispute that. In any event, 3 I am performing a very important function here on behalf 4 of the family and I am asking questions -- 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Your function is to ask questions, not to 6 make speeches. Whatever your function, that is what you 7 are here to do. 8 Now, if you have a question, please put it. 9 MR McGRORY: My question is this, Mr Wallace: are there not 10 occasions when the Secretary of State may be given some 11 information and can be asked or expected not to reveal 12 it to anybody? 13 A. Are we talking here in general terms? 14 Q. No, no. Let's just deal with the specifics of this. 15 Could the Secretary of State not have been told "Look, 16 Secretary of State" -- I have already asked this 17 question -- "Look, Secretary of State, there is actually 18 a specific allegation here. There is some information, 19 the detail of which we don't think it appropriate to 20 give you, that one of those officers might well have 21 done something corrupt or wrong, but we would rather you 22 didn't just tell the family that for operational 23 reasons"? 24 A. Mr McGrory, I can only reiterate what I have already 25 said, that in my view the answer as illustrated at 67 1 point 5 in that letter was, in fact, a proper answer to 2 the Secretary of State's request. It was confirming -- 3 and I'll say it again, and I appreciate I may well be 4 boring everyone -- the relationship between some 5 officers and some of the defendants, that this 6 allegation was investigated as part of the overall 7 criminal investigation, and that the findings of that 8 investigation would be placed before the DPP. 9 Now, I can only say, Mr McGrory, that I believe that 10 that response to that part of the letter was, in fact, 11 adequate. 12 Q. You have already said that, Mr Wallace, and that, with 13 respect, is not my question. 14 My question is: could the Secretary of State not 15 have been given more information than she was, but asked 16 not to convey that on to the family for operational 17 reasons? A very specific question. 18 A. Well, if you are asking me, "Would I have included 19 another" -- 20 Q. No, I am not. Go on. Answer, please. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Let him answer. He is answering the 22 question. 23 A. If you are asking me, "Would I have included another 24 sentence to that effect?" I wouldn't have. 25 MR McGRORY: You wouldn't have, but that's still not my 68 1 question. My question is: would you have trusted the 2 Secretary of State not to pass on information if she had 3 been asked not to? 4 A. Well, that's an entirely different question, 5 Mr McGrory -- 6 Q. It is. 7 A. -- insofar as the relationship between the chief 8 constable and the Secretary of State, and again, I can 9 only speak from my personal experience of having worked 10 with almost every Secretary of State who was in 11 Northern Ireland. 12 At no stage did I have any problems with any 13 breaches of confidentiality where one talked on 14 a one-to-one with the Secretary of State. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: You do appreciate, don't you, Mr McGrory, 16 your last question was inconsistent with your earlier 17 line of questions that information should have been 18 given which could be passed on to the Hamill family. 19 MR McGRORY: Absolutely not inconsistent, sir. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. I hear you. I don't agree. Very 21 well then. Thank you. 22 MR McGRORY: Thank you, Mr Wallace. 23 Now, I want to just ask you briefly just about this 24 issue of suspension and the extent to which the chief 25 constable or deputy chief constables would be involved 69 1 in that. 2 Isn't there a clear difference between disciplinary 3 issues and the issue of whether or not a police officer 4 has committed a serious crime? 5 A. Yes, of course there is, yes. 6 Q. Obviously suspension would be considered if a police 7 officer is accused of, or might have been involved in, 8 a serious crime? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. That would be considered right at chief constable or 11 deputy chief constable level? 12 A. It could be considered by the assistant chief constable 13 in charge of C&D or it could be referred to my level. 14 Now, I had cases where suspension requests were 15 referred to my level and there were other cases where 16 members were suspended that hadn't been referred to me 17 because the matter had been dealt with by the assistant 18 Chief Constable Complaints & Discipline 19 Q. Now, one other very minor issue, Mr Wallace. It is not 20 minor, but it will not take me very long. You have 21 already said that in your meetings with the Police 22 Authority that xxxxxxxxxx took a particular interest 23 in this case. 24 A. Yes. That's correct. 25 Q. She had asked you some specific questions? 70 1 A. Well, the format was that members who had questions 2 to -- that they required answers for, gave prior notice 3 of questions that they intended to ask. 4 I attended Police Authority meetings either in my 5 capacity as the deputy chief constable acting for the 6 chief constable or accompanied the chief constable to 7 Police Authority meetings. 8 At at least two, or possibly three, of those 9 meetings, which were on a monthly basis, Mrs xxxxxxxxxx 10 asked questions insofar as related to the Robert Hamill 11 Inquiry and I answered, to my recollection, at least on 12 three occasions, that, yes, there was a very serious 13 incident in which a person lost their life, that it was 14 the subject of investigation, that the investigating 15 officer was Detective Chief Superintendent McBurney, 16 that the matter was being supervised by the ICPC, and 17 that, in due course, a full report on the matter would 18 be submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions. 19 Q. Of course, xxxxxxxxxx was due to become the Ombudsman 20 in November of 1999. Isn't that correct? 21 A. Oh, yes, but at the time she was asking the questions, 22 she didn't know that was what the future held. 23 Q. Well, can you be sure about that -- 24 A. Oh, yes. 25 Q. -- because she became Ombudsman in 1999? 71 1 A. Yes, and the setting-up of the -- you know, the process 2 that brought about the Ombudsman was still very much in 3 an embryo stage in 1997. 4 Q. Well, I don't know if -- in fact, a little bit later 5 I think. It wasn't until after the Northern Ireland 6 Act, the Good Friday Agreement -- no, it was a separate 7 Act. It was still very much -- thank you for that. 8 In 1997/1998, it was still being discussed? 9 A. Mr xxxxxxxxxx -- not xxxxxxxxxx, but Dr xxxxxxxxxx -- was 10 given the task of looking at the whole ICPC set-up and 11 the whole question of how complaints could be dealt with 12 and that the Ombudsman -- the office of Ombudsman arose 13 out of that, sir. 14 Q. Thank you for that. 15 As we know, the Ombudsman -- one of the big issues 16 is whether or not the Ombudsman's Office should have 17 powers to self-refer, which the ICPC may not have had in 18 terms of choosing itself independently to investigate 19 matters. 20 A. Oh, yes. 21 Q. Indeed. That was one of the big issues in debate and, 22 of course, one of the other issues was whether or not it 23 should have independent investigative powers -- 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. -- as opposed to the supervisory powers that the ICPC 72 1 had. 2 A. And those were matters that Dr xxxxxxxxxx inquired into 3 at great length, and I gave evidence, too, in the course of 4 his inquiry about what was felt to be the right course. 5 Q. So it would have been well-known, of course, within the 6 entire police force, particularly in the upper ranks, 7 that significant change was imminent? 8 A. Indeed, I can tell you that I was one of the promoters 9 of change, because I believed that the situation could 10 only be resolved with the appointment of someone 11 completely outside the police to investigate the police. 12 Q. Of course, at some point in 1999, the appointment of 13 xxxxxxxxxx as the Ombudsman was made public? 14 A. Yes. 15 MR McGRORY: Thank you. 16 MS DINSMORE: No questions. 17 MR McCOMB: No questions. 18 MR ADAIR: I have no questions, sir. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Wolfe, do you desire to ask any questions 20 arising out of Mr McGrory's questions? 21 MR WOLFE: What I would raise with the Inquiry is the 22 question of whether Mrs Mowlam, the then Secretary of 23 State, had any concerns about the nature and extent of 24 the information provided by you. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: I was going to enquire whether the Secretary 73 1 of State protested she had not been told enough. 2 MR WOLFE: Exactly, sir. I think that's the answer to my 3 learned friend's questions, with all due respect. If 4 she was upset, that is the litmus test, I think. 5 MR McGRORY: Can I add something to that, sir? I have 6 written to Mr Underwood this morning putting him on 7 notice that this was a line of enquiry I had, which is 8 that we might wish to receive evidence, not just as to 9 whether or not the Secretary of State felt afterwards 10 that she should have been told more, but what the 11 Secretary of State's office would be expected to be told 12 in this or in any other case. 13 It is a line of enquiry which Mr Underwood and the 14 Inquiry might make, sir. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the letter of the Secretary of State 16 which has been shown on our screens does set out certain 17 limitations on the answers she expects. 18 I wonder, because there was one passage which was 19 not referred to, could we have that on the screen again? 20 MR UNDERWOOD: [60487] is the Secretary of State's letter. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 22 MR UNDERWOOD: I took Mr Wallace to a few lines on that 23 page and most of [60488]. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we just go back to the previous page, 25 please, [60487]? The paragraph beginning: 74 1 "Briefly, the background ..." 2 MR UNDERWOOD: Yes. I should, in fairness, have put that. 3 Let me just let you see that, Mr Wallace: 4 "Briefly, the background is that Diane Hamill wrote 5 to me in August requesting a meeting. I agreed, as they 6 were raising issues about the system", underlined, "for 7 investigation, but explained that I could not comment on 8 the investigations into the death or the complaint 9 themselves. Having arranged to see me on 24th November, 10 Diane Hamill sent me a letter on Friday, 21st November 11 listing a number of points. This became the focus of 12 the meeting, but the delegation also raised a few 13 additional points." 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Thank you. 15 MR UNDERWOOD: To anticipate your question, sir, we are not 16 aware of any response back from the Secretary of State 17 saying, "That's inadequate", and from what we have seen, 18 of course, she adopted paragraph 5 in the reply that she 19 did give to Mrs Hamill -- Miss Hamill, rather. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, but no doubt PSNI will be able to say if 21 that is the position. 22 MR UNDERWOOD: Yes. Can I just conclude on this as well? 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 24 MR UNDERWOOD: We also have the documents which reflect this 25 that went on to the Attorney General for his commentary. 75 1 I seem to recall that got a rather dustier response than 2 the chief constable gave. 3 MR WOLFE: Certainly, if I become aware of any letter sent 4 from the Secretary of State to the police, I will tell 5 you. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Thank you. 7 MR McGRORY: Can I make an additional short submission on 8 this, sir? It doesn't have to be done in the presence 9 of the witness. It is just in terms of what further 10 enquiries ought to be made. I don't know whether this 11 is an appropriate time or whether you would prefer me 12 to -- 13 THE CHAIRMAN: You had better tell us now. 14 Submissions by MR McGRORY 15 MR McGRORY: Yes. The Secretary of State may not have been 16 unhappy, because she never knew just what it is she 17 could have been told and wasn't told and, secondly, 18 I think it is perhaps -- 19 THE CHAIRMAN: She would have been able to see that the 20 answer was a guarded one, wouldn't she? 21 MR McGRORY: Well, we can't know that. She is deceased, so 22 I think my -- 23 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we could perhaps attribute to the 24 Secretary of State a certain astuteness. 25 MR McGRORY: Not if she is being misled, sir. 76 1 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Then what else do you want 2 investigated? 3 MR McGRORY: I think, sir, it would be proper for the 4 Inquiry to ask an official in the Northern Ireland 5 Office whether or not the NIO or the Secretary of 6 State's office would expect to have been told more about 7 this. If the answer is "no", well, so be it, but if the 8 answer is "yes", then there is a live issue before the 9 Inquiry. 10 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: Of course, it is true, 11 isn't it, had she been told something and told to keep 12 it to herself, we would never know it? 13 That was your suggestion earlier: could she have 14 been told something which she was not at liberty to 15 divulge to others. In which case, how could we possibly 16 know that that had happened if she had not divulged what 17 she knew? 18 MR McGRORY: My point was that she could have been told it 19 in that letter and then we would know that she had been 20 told it, but that she was someone who could be trusted 21 to hold a confidence. 22 With respect, Madam, that's a separate issue. 23 I make the submission, sir. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McGrory, Counsel to the Inquiry will take 25 it into consideration and make a decision. 77 1 MR McGRORY: Thank you, sir. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr Wallace. 3 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much, Mr Wallace. 4 (The witness withdrew) 5 MR UNDERWOOD: One more witness, who is Mr Bingham, who 6 I anticipate might be quite quick. 7 MR MICHAEL ANDREW BINGHAM (sworn) 8 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD 9 MR UNDERWOOD: Morning, Mr Bingham. 10 A. Morning. 11 Q. My name is Underwood. I am Counsel to the Inquiry. 12 I am sorry we have kept you waiting. 13 Can I ask you your full names, please? 14 A. It is Michael Andrew Bingham. 15 Q. Can we have a look at page [81500] on the screen? This 16 is an eight-page document. Can I ask you to keep your 17 eyes on it while we scroll through it quite briefly? Is 18 that your witness statement? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. Is it true? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. I want to ask you questions about the search of the 23 Hanvey home on 10th May 1997. Can you tell us whether 24 you have any independent memory of that at all? 25 A. Vaguely. 78 1 Q. Right. Let me show you the warrant. It is at 2 page [51350]. This is the HOLMES version. If we look 3 underneath the second line: 4 "Whereas it appears from the application on 5 affirmation of Dereck Bradley, a constable of the Royal 6 Ulster Constabulary of Portadown, that there is 7 reasonable cause to believe that certain articles, 8 namely trainers and clothing sought in connection with 9 the offence of murder, are on the premises of 10 Allister Hanvey", and it gives the address, and then you 11 get the warrant. 12 So what we know from the warrant then is that it 13 authorised the seizure of trainers and clothing. Do you 14 recall that? 15 A. I can't honestly recall it, no. 16 Q. Okay. Then if we look at your paragraphs 14 and 15, 17 which we find on page [81504], you tell us about how the 18 search went. Looking at paragraph 14, you say: 19 "When we arrived at the house, Mrs Hanvey met me. 20 As outlined above, as team leader I had to explain to 21 her the legislation and the circumstances surrounding 22 the search to satisfy her why we were there. I then 23 conducted a house damage check through all the bedrooms, 24 bathrooms, kitchen, outhouses and any vehicles to ensure 25 that any damages was recorded in advance of the search." 79 1 Now, I would like to contrast that with what you 2 noted on the search log. If we look at page [73990], do 3 you see about halfway down there is a box which has: 4 "Existing damage/condition on first inspection." 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. What you have noted is: 7 "Bedroom in fair condition." 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Now, what that suggests is that it is only the bedroom 10 that you checked for damage. Would that be fair? 11 A. I can't honestly recall from memory. 12 Q. We also, sticking with this, can see from the log that, 13 in fact, it was only a bedroom that was searched, 14 because if you look at page [73996] -- 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. -- we see the way in which you have logged the actions. 17 A. Uh-huh. 18 Q. "0721. Admitted entry by Mrs Hanvey. Explained ..." 19 20 "0727. Team A entered house. Commenced search of 21 bedroom 1. 22 "0730. Constable Porter seized", three items of 23 clothing. 24 A. Uh-huh. 25 Q. "0740. Team A out of bedroom." 80 1 And that's it. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Again, it is not a memory test. Just helping us as best 4 you can with the way in which you conducted searches and 5 the way you wrote them up on a log, does that suggest to 6 you in fact you concentrated yourself on that bedroom? 7 A. That would appear to be the case. 8 Q. You tell us, going back to your witness statement at 9 [81504], paragraph 15: 10 "According to Form 29, the search commenced at 11 7.21 am and terminated at 7.45 am. Generally speaking, 12 this would be a reasonable time for searching a small 13 dwelling with specific information about what to look 14 for." 15 That's what I want to ask you about. The suggestion 16 we have had from the other constables or other officers 17 involved in the search is that that's precisely what was 18 going on here, that you arrowed in on -- that's my 19 words, not theirs -- bedroom 3 and specific clothing and 20 stopped the search once you got that clothing. 21 Does that seem to you to be consistent with the way 22 you have noted the matters? 23 A. Yes, that would be reasonable. 24 Q. The question for the Panel is how it came to be that 25 from a warrant which gave you this broad power, clothing 81 1 and trainers -- 2 A. Uh-huh. 3 Q. -- you were in possession of information which caused 4 you to stop the search at that point. 5 Now, can you help us with that at all? 6 A. I can't honestly recall other than to say we were very 7 much guided by the detective that was with me. 8 Q. That was DC McAteer, I think. 9 A. Uh-huh. 10 Q. We have had him giving evidence and he says that that 11 wasn't the case, that he was just there to arrest Hanvey 12 at the end of it. 13 A. Uh-huh. 14 Q. He had no briefing about what to look for and no part in 15 stopping the search. 16 Would you like to comment on that? 17 A. I can't comment further than that, simply to say, you 18 know, they would be privy to more information than 19 I would have had. 20 Q. Let me put to you three possibilities. 21 One is you were briefed to look for specific 22 clothing and once that had been recovered, you stopped 23 the search? 24 A. Uh-huh. 25 Q. The second alternative is that the detective was guiding 82 1 the search and, as it were, brought it to an end. 2 The third is this was a completely hopeless search. 3 Now, which of those alternatives, would you think, 4 in the light of your experience, in the light of the way 5 you logged this, is the real one? 6 A. From memory, I would consider it to be reason number 2, 7 the detective, I would've said. 8 Q. If the Panel were to find that the detective didn't, in 9 fact, have information, would it follow then your 10 preference would be for number 1: namely, that you had 11 been briefed, although you can't now remember it, to 12 look for specific clothing? 13 A. Yes. Uh-huh. 14 Q. You see, I won't not bother taking you to it, but in the 15 crime file that was eventually compiled in November 1997 16 relating to this -- 17 A. Uh-huh. 18 Q. -- what Mr McBurney wrote was in essence that Hanvey had 19 said on 7th May 1997 what he was wearing on the night 20 and that the search recovered that clothing. 21 Now, on 7th May 1997, he had only been interviewed 22 as a witness, not as a suspect. The inference that 23 could be drawn is that whoever briefed you told you to 24 look for the clothing that Hanvey had said on 7th May 25 that he had been wearing. 83 1 Can you comment on that as a possibility? 2 A. It could well have been a possibility, but, as I have 3 said, I can't recall the specifics of it. 4 Q. Is that the sort of thing which could have happened or 5 was likely to happen in the normal run of things, where 6 when somebody is interviewed, they said, "I was wearing 7 X, Y and Z"? 8 How likely would it have been that police, when 9 searching a home, would just have looked for X, Y and Z? 10 A. It could well happen, yes. 11 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much, Mr Bingham. It may be 12 that other people have some questions for you. 13 MR WOLFE: No questions. 14 MR McGRORY: No questions. 15 MR ADAIR: I have no questions. 16 MR UNDERWOOD: Nothing arising. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Bingham. 18 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much for coming. 19 A. Thank you. 20 (The witness withdrew) 21 THE CHAIRMAN: That concludes the present sittings. 22 MR UNDERWOOD: It does. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: We shall assemble later in the year. 24 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much. 25 (12.15 pm) 84 1 (The hearing adjourned) 2 --ooOoo-- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 85 1 I N D E X 2 3 MR ALBERT NOEL McINTOSH (sworn) .................. 4 4 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD ............... 4 Questions from MR McGRORY ................. 10 5 Questions from MR O'CONNOR ................ 13 Questions from MR ATCHISON ................ 15 6 MR DANIEL BLAIR WALLACE (sworn) .................. 18 7 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD ............... 18 Questions from MR McGRORY ................. 33 8 Further questions from MR UNDERWOOD ....... 56 Questions from MR McGRORY (continued) ..... 62 9 Submissions by MR McGRORY ........................ 76 10 MR MICHAEL ANDREW BINGHAM (sworn) ................ 78 11 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD ............... 78 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 86