1 2 3 4 5 6 - - - - - - - - - - 7 8 9 PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO THE DEATH OF 10 ROBERT HAMILL 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - 13 14 15 Held at: 16 Interpoint 17 20-24 York Street 18 Belfast 19 20 on Tuesday, 28th April 2009 21 commencing at 11.30 am 22 23 Day 40 24 25 1 1 Tuesday, 28 April 2009 2 (11.30 am) 3 (In Camera Session) 4 (2.55 pm) 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Underwood? 6 MR UNDERWOOD: I call Mr O'Boyle, please. 7 MR JOSEPH CHARLES O'BOYLE (affirmed) 8 Examination by Mr UNDERWOOD 9 MR UNDERWOOD: Good afternoon, Mr O'Boyle. The noise is 10 coming from here. My name is Underwood and I am Counsel 11 to the Inquiry. It is my task to ask most of the 12 questions. It may well be that, when I have finished, 13 some other of the advocates will have some questions for 14 you. 15 Can I ask you, first of all, your full names? 16 A. Joseph Charles O'Boyle. 17 Q. If I ask you to look on the screen, please, at [81724], 18 I would like you to just look while we flick through the 19 five pages of this document. Is that your witness 20 statement? 21 A. Yes, that is. 22 Q. Are the contents of it true? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. I want to ask some supplemental questions, if I may. 25 The first is a purely technical question about 1 1 decibels and the effect of noise generally. 2 If you have got a background noise, if that's 3 a useful phrase, of, say, 50 decibels and the question 4 arises, can you hear something else as well, does that 5 something else have to be greater than 50 decibels for 6 you to hear it or does it depend on the frequency or 7 what? 8 A. I actually don't know the answer to that question. 9 Q. Okay. What I want to try to understand is the value to 10 the police of what they asked you to do in measuring the 11 Land Rover noise. 12 You discovered that, with the engine running, there 13 was, give or take, about 63, 64 decibels, I think. 14 A. Right. 15 Q. What I want to get at -- and if you don't know the 16 answer, you don't know the answer, and we will ask the 17 officer who directed you to make the test -- is what the 18 police thought would be the value of knowing that noise, 19 because what the police were interested in or should 20 have been interested in is whether people in the 21 Land Rover could have heard noise from outside. 22 Now, you measured the noise the engine made and the 23 fan, and came up, as I say, with 63, 64 decibels. If 24 you can help us, could you answer this then: given 25 64 decibels coming from the engine and the fan and so 2 1 on, would it have needed voices to be more than 2 64 decibels coming from the outside to be heard? 3 A. Again, I don't know exactly the answer to that. I think 4 the point you are trying to get me to say is, yes, the 5 level there at 64 decibels would tend to mask out noise 6 at a lower level. 7 Q. Right. Is this the -- 8 A. I suppose conversely then, in order to distinctly hear 9 something outside it would have to be at a level above 10 64 decibels. 11 Q. So it doesn't matter say that the 64 decibels from the 12 engine was at a low frequency and the other noise may 13 have been at a high frequency? 14 A. The levels that I measured, I applied an A-weighting 15 correction to them, so -- but you are right. That is 16 applied across a frequency range by different amounts 17 and, therefore, something distinctive at another 18 frequency, you may be able to perceive it. For example, 19 a tone or something like that. 20 Q. So as I say, if you have got a low hum at 64 decibels, 21 it may be that a shriek at 64 decibels could still be 22 heard because it is coming in at a different wavelength. 23 Is that correct? 24 A. That may be the case. I'm sorry, I don't feel qualified 25 to -- 3 1 Q. Mr O'Boyle it is not a test of your abilities. What the 2 Inquiry is interested in, amongst other things, is the 3 degree of diligence shown by the police in investigating 4 the murder. 5 If what they did was bring you in to ask you to do 6 a report which didn't take it any further, that may be 7 of itself knowledge that's valuable to the Panel. 8 That's why I'm asking you what value the results 9 could have, you see. It really isn't critical of you. 10 A. Right. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: We have all had experience, no doubt, of 12 sitting in a room where different people are talking. 13 Some speak louder than others. But if our hearing is 14 reasonably good, we may be able to hear both the softer 15 and the louder voices, even though they may be talking 16 at the same time. 17 A. Yes. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Is that right? 19 A. The reason I may appear reluctant to answer that is 20 because what -- the question is around the perception or 21 how you perceive the noise, whereas my expertise is 22 really in measuring the level which is, like, a physical 23 quantity. 24 The perception of noise is a very different field. 25 You can hear somebody -- like, my wife can be talking 4 1 for ages and I can totally ignore her. So I can hear 2 it, but the perception of it -- that's why I'm reluctant 3 to -- there is a distinction between me assessing the 4 noise as a noise level and being willing to say what 5 someone could hear. 6 MR UNDERWOOD: Can I move on to a different aspect, which is 7 the ability of noise to penetrate into the Land Rover? 8 Again, the purpose of this question is to determine 9 how far your tests could have helped the police. 10 You did a series of tests with the engine off, 11 a series of tests with the engine on at various lengths. 12 With the engine off, from time to time, you were able to 13 measure noise or, rather, you were able to discern noise 14 from outside the Land Rover, so girls talking, traffic, 15 et cetera. 16 It happens, and I think, as far as I can see, to be 17 pure coincidence that, with the engine on, you were not 18 able to perceive any such things. 19 The first question must be, I suppose, is that 20 coincidence or could there -- do you know whether there 21 were events happening outside which you couldn't hear? 22 A. I don't know. 23 Q. So nobody was stationed in the Land Rover looking out to 24 see if things were going on which you couldn't hear? 25 A. No, no one was doing that. 5 1 Q. So is anything that you did relevant to the question of 2 how much noise could get into the Land Rover from 3 outside? 4 A. Essentially, what I was set out to do was to measure 5 what the sound pressure level was inside the vehicle 6 with the engine on and with the fan on and with it off. 7 And possibly, with hindsight -- I wasn't instructed to 8 see -- to create a noise outside and to see if that was 9 discernible inside. 10 Q. That was my next question. 11 So nobody asked you to assess noise coming from 12 outside or to create any noise coming from outside to be 13 assessed? 14 A. No. 15 MR UNDERWOOD: Yes. Those are my only questions. It may be 16 you will be asked some more. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Adair? 18 Examination by MR ADAIR 19 MR ADAIR: Mr O'Boyle, I want to go back to page [81724], 20 please. This is the statement that you made that you 21 have told us is true. 22 Now, we know from that statement that obviously you 23 were employed at that stage by -- who were you employed 24 by at that stage? Was it the Industrial Research and 25 Technology Unit? 6 1 A. Yes, it was. 2 Q. That was a Government body? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. We see from paragraph 3 that that body specialised in 5 offering -- thank you for highlighting -- a service to 6 industry and presumably also in this case to the RUC? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Now, I see in paragraph 4 that initially your first 9 dealing with this is being approached by your Principal 10 Officer -- 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. -- who unfortunately, as we see from the report, is now 13 deceased. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Now, can you help us? Had he then been approached and 16 told what was required by the RUC? Is that the 17 impression you had? 18 A. Yes, that's the impression I had -- 19 Q. And -- sorry, go on? 20 A. I think it might be in the next paragraph to that. No, 21 it's in that paragraph. 22 Q. I was coming to it in a second. 23 A. My perception was that he had been approached -- 24 Q. And the RUC had asked him essentially whether or not 25 certain kind of tests could be carried out? 7 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Yes. We will see that what the RUC wanted was -- in 3 line 3 of paragraph 4 -- to know how it would be 4 possible to determine whether someone could hear a sound 5 inside of a vehicle. Is that right? 6 A. That's what he asked me. 7 Q. So the RUC wanted to know what the people inside the 8 vehicle could hear of noise outside the vehicle. That's 9 clear from that. 10 A. Yes, that's what he asked me. 11 Q. We can see -- I will not read it out, but we can see 12 your response was that that was virtually an impossible 13 question because it was subject to so many variables? 14 A. If you read the next few lines in that statement, it was 15 along the lines that -- my answer to him would be: you 16 can't determine with a sound level meter what someone 17 heard. You can -- that depends on their -- as I said, 18 their hearing acuity. It depends on the other noises 19 that were in the vehicle. It depends on what -- the 20 next -- could you just show up the next few lines of 21 that? 22 Q. Yes, that is the next page then, please, [81725]. What 23 was happening outside -- 24 A. It depends what's happening outside and whether or not 25 the vehicle had openings or windows or doors open. So 8 1 the work that I done then was, I couldn't do anything 2 about the hearing acuity, I couldn't do anything about 3 the weather other than check what the weather was like 4 when I done tests, so I opened and closed doors and 5 measured the sound from the engine inside. So really, 6 that explains why I carried out the tests that I carried 7 out. 8 But if I had had an instruction from the RUC, that 9 would have been included in my report. So my report 10 sort of gives you on the -- on the introduction what 11 I was asked to do. 12 Q. But your Principal Officer told you what the RUC wanted 13 you to do? 14 A. No, my Principal Officer asked me how 15 would I determine -- 16 Q. Sorry, I interrupted. I beg your pardon. Carry on. 17 A. He asked me how you would determine whether someone 18 could hear something or not. 19 Q. Outside the vehicle? 20 A. Outside the vehicle. 21 Q. That's what the RUC had obviously made the enquiry about 22 that dealt with this? 23 A. I presume so. 24 MR ADAIR: Thank you. 25 Examination by MR McGRORY 9 1 MR McGRORY: You, of course, had no idea, when you were 2 carrying out your tests, what level of noise you were 3 testing for in terms of what the issue was, whether -- 4 you had no instructions? 5 A. No. In hindsight, when I look back at this -- and, 6 unfortunately, I do not have the notes I made at the 7 time or any of the documentation associated with this 8 because the files were destroyed after six years. But 9 if I had have had a set of instructions, then it would 10 have been in the report -- sorry, what was your question 11 again? I beg your pardon. 12 Q. You say in paragraph 7 of your statement at page 2 that 13 you had no instructions from Mr Irwin about the tests? 14 A. That's right. 15 Q. So I can take it from that you weren't told to consider 16 whether or not someone in the Land Rover could hear 17 shouting from any distance? 18 A. No, that wasn't -- what I was there to do was to measure 19 what the sound pressure level was with the engine on, 20 the doors open, the doors closed, and with the fan on 21 and the fan off. That was pretty -- 22 Q. But that wasn't related to any proposition in terms of 23 what it is that somebody might have been expected to 24 hear? 25 A. No, that was -- may have been what they wanted to find 10 1 out. But I can't tell you that with a sound level 2 meter. I can only tell you what the sound pressure is. 3 I can't tell you what someone can hear. That's 4 different. 5 Q. But, of course, had you some instructions in the context 6 that there was an issue about whether or not people in 7 the Land Rover might or might not have heard something, 8 you might have been able to do specific tests? 9 A. With hindsight, yes. If someone -- and I discussed this 10 when I was interviewed. You could have sat down and 11 devised a series of tests where you created a noise 12 outside and measured what the level due to that noise 13 was inside the vehicle with the doors closed and with 14 the doors open. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: A noise outside you could measure, and then 16 you measure what is heard of it inside? 17 A. Yes, you could set up a sound source, what is known as 18 a sound source, and you can calibrate that sound source 19 and set it up to a certain level and do measurements 20 inside, but I wasn't asked to do that. 21 MR McGRORY: Thank you. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Mallon. 23 Examination by MR MALLON 24 MR MALLON: If I can introduce myself, I appear on behalf of 25 one of the police officers in the Land Rover. 11 1 Can you explain what you meant by "acuity", someone 2 able to hear an outside noise in a noisy area, and how 3 some people may perceive that noise and some people may 4 not? 5 A. What I meant by that was that everyone's hearing ability 6 will vary. Like your eyesight will vary, your hearing 7 acuity will vary. So different people, depending on 8 what age they are, what their lifetime noise exposure 9 has been, will have different hearing acuity. 10 That can be assessed by putting earphones on or 11 muffs on and feeding known sound in and seeing whether 12 they can hear it or not. Those are sorts of tests and 13 medical tests. 14 Q. What a microphone might hear under those circumstances 15 might not be the same as the human ear would perceive? 16 A. The microphone detects sound differently from the human 17 ear, but then there is a correction applied for the, if 18 you like, average human ear, which is an A-weighting 19 correction, and that deducts decibels from the lower 20 frequencies, because the human ear doesn't respond well 21 to low frequencies, and it sort of, if you like, mimics 22 how the human ear will hear a noise. 23 Q. Mathematically -- 24 A. But that's mathematically. But that won't -- I think 25 the point that you are asking me is, that won't tell you 12 1 whether an individual would have heard that or not 2 because the individual will have their own fingerprint, 3 if you like, in terms of what they can hear and what 4 they can't hear. 5 Q. What sort of things would affect a person's hearing over 6 their lifetime? Would rapid gunfire, training with 7 arms? 8 A. It could be -- those are -- you have described types of 9 noise-induced hearing loss. But there are lots of 10 different reasons why you could have hearing loss. 11 Q. The major one would be age. Is that correct? 12 A. Age would be one. It could be infection. It could 13 be -- 14 Q. Explosions? 15 A. Yes. That type of thing, yes. 16 Q. Involved in constant and persistent shooting. That's 17 one of the things that's recognised as affecting 18 hearing? 19 A. Yes, that would cause noise-induced hearing loss. 20 Q. So someone with good hearing might hear something, and 21 someone whose hearing was affected by age or by damage 22 would not hear it? 23 A. Yes. That's true. 24 Q. Now, do you hear better low frequencies or high 25 frequencies or middle frequencies, and what do you class 13 1 as low, middle and high? 2 A. The human ear -- 3 Q. If this is beyond your expertise -- 4 A. It is a bit beyond. I do know that the human ear 5 responds best at round about between 1 and 4 kilohertz 6 which tends to be the level at which voices speak. The 7 human ear doesn't respond as well to low frequency noise 8 or very high frequency noise. 9 So that -- that's -- you mentioned about 10 noise-induced hearing loss, and noise-induced hearing 11 loss tends to be detected at around about 4 kilohertz in 12 the spectrum. 13 Q. So the top end of the spectrum is where the damage would 14 show and the hearing would be less effective? 15 A. Sorry, the top end of the -- at around about 4K, which 16 is -- it's not the top end. I would be talking about 17 low frequency at 31.5 hertz and high frequency at maybe 18 16,000-hertz. It is a big range. 19 Q. Of course it is. 20 A. My expertise isn't in that medical -- 21 Q. I do appreciate that, and I do thank you for your help. 22 I was wondering, if there was noise outside the 23 Land Rover and there was also noise throughout the 24 complete range of the spectrum inside the Land Rover, 25 both mechanical, human voices, maybe conversations, 14 1 machinery noises, would they occupy the whole of the 2 spectrum or would they tend to concentrate in the 3 hearing/audio part of the spectrum? 4 Obviously, if you can hear them, it's in that area. 5 So where would they tend to be, or would they just mask 6 the whole spectrum? 7 A. Which noises? 8 Q. I'm talking about, first of all, conversation within the 9 Land Rover; secondly, the introduction of, say, 10 electrical noise such as, say, a radio calling or making 11 noise in the background; also the fact that there was 12 a fan, an air conditioning system, possibly other noises 13 from the engine. How much noise would that create? 14 You have measured it at 64 decibels as the level of 15 the background noise. But that was without people. 16 There was a fan at 3, I think, and you don't know 17 whether it was directed in or out -- 18 THE CHAIRMAN: This question goes on and on, and it becomes 19 much harder for the witness to answer because he doesn't 20 remember, or may not, the first half of it. Can you not 21 break it up a bit? 22 MR MALLON: I will try. 23 In outlining the whole panorama, what I am really 24 saying is, when you measured the noise inside the 25 vehicle, that was within a vehicle with only two people 15 1 in it. Isn't that right? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Were those people yourself and your assistant or the 4 both of you? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Were you in any way trying to mimic what noise would 7 have been in the vehicle when you were measuring it? 8 A. No, we had to keep quiet in order to do the noise 9 measurement. 10 What may help you is that I did do a frequency 11 analysis of the noise in the vehicle, and that was 12 included in the report. It was done for one of the 13 scenarios at the end, and that was where, rather than 14 take an overall look at the noise and quote it as 15 a single figure, I looked at the individual spectra and 16 quoted -- and the results are on one of the pages of my 17 report. 18 I think what you will see there is that the low 19 frequencies are -- there are higher levels at the low 20 frequencies. 21 But this gets complicated, because that's not what 22 the human ear would hear. I am not sure what page that 23 is in my report. 24 Q. Page [08172], please. 25 A. Yes, at the very bottom there. This was a noise 16 1 frequency spectrum. I don't know if it helps to answer 2 your question, but it is a noise frequency spectrum that 3 was carried out with both doors closed and with the 4 engine idling and with the fan off and with no traffic 5 noise from outside. You can see that they are at 6 63 hertz, 86.2 decibels, 125. Those are decibels in DB, 7 those are linear decibels. 8 To apply an A-weighting correction to that, you 9 would subtract values from each of those across, until 10 you get to about 1,000, where the correction is 0. 11 I can't remember, but I think the correction of 63 is 12 you take 26 decibels off. So the human ear doesn't 13 respond well. It might be 16, 9, 40, something like 14 that. I don't have that information. 15 Q. When I look at that, it appears that the noise spectrum 16 covers all of the range. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And -- 19 A. It's gone up to 8,000 hertz. 20 Q. That was way beyond what the human ear would hear. 21 A. No, the human ear will have a response at 8,000 hertz. 22 Q. It will? 23 A. It will have a response. But the human ear hears best 24 in around 1, 2 and 3, around about there is the best, 25 maybe 4. Again, it is a wee bit beyond. 17 1 Q. Beyond what your experience is. 2 So the noise outside -- if you had been asked to 3 decide or to assist on noise coming into the Land Rover, 4 would you have set up a different experiment for that, 5 in that you would have set up a noise outside that you 6 could control? 7 A. If I was to -- yes, I suspect I would, yes. 8 Q. How would you have known what level that noise was? 9 A. I wouldn't have a clue. 10 MR MALLON: Thank you. 11 MR UNDERWOOD: Nothing arising. Thank you very much. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr O'Boyle. 13 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you, Mr O'Boyle. 14 (The witness withdrew) 15 MR UNDERWOOD: Rachel Murphy, please. 16 MS RACHEL MURPHY (sworn) 17 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD 18 MR UNDERWOOD: Good afternoon. My name is Underwood and 19 I am Counsel to the Inquiry. I have some questions for 20 you. After that, it may well be that some others will 21 have a few more questions. 22 Can I ask you your full names, please? 23 A. Rachel Murphy. 24 Q. Thank you. 25 I want to identify a string of documents with you, 18 1 if I may. First of all, page [81025]. This is 2 a document of two pages. Perhaps we could just look at 3 the second page as well. Can you identify whether that 4 is your witness statement? 5 A. That's my witness statement, yes. 6 Q. Are its contents true? 7 A. They are true, yes. 8 Q. Then you tell us in there that you were involved in 9 a search of a Hobson house on 10 May 1997, Elizabeth 10 and Kenneth Hanvey's house on 13 May 1997, and 11 Thomas Hanvey's house on 13 May 1997. 12 What I want you to do, please, is have a look at 13 documents that relate to those. 14 First of all, if we look at page [09301], is that 15 your statement of 10 May 1997 dealing with the Hobson 16 search? 17 A. That's correct, yes. 18 Q. Moving on to the Kenneth and Elizabeth Hanvey search, is 19 your witness statement -- if we look, please, at page 20 [09299], is that your witness statement dealing with 21 that? 22 A. It is. That's correct. 23 Q. If we look at page [50016], is that your notebook entry 24 typed up for that search? 25 A. I believe so, yes. 19 1 Q. Thank you. Now, on that, we have the typed-up version 2 of the PACE Form 29 of the search record. Perhaps we 3 could have a look at those. At page [50023] -- this is 4 the HOLMES version, so it wouldn't have been the one you 5 compiled, of course, but do you recognise this as the 6 copy Form 29? 7 A. Yes, the information contained would be the same. 8 Q. Is this a standard form which you complete as you go 9 along in manuscript during a search? 10 A. It is, yes. 11 Q. It happens, because this was an investigation that was 12 put on the HOLMES, that it's then transcribed like this. 13 Is that right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. That's right, is it? Thank you. You were responsible, 16 I think, for completing this, were you? 17 A. That is right. I was the search log keeper. 18 Q. If we look down, for example, just on page [50023], you 19 have under "Existing damage/condition on first 20 inspection", you deal with a hole in the wall in 21 bedroom 1, behind the hall handle door, a rip on 22 a telephone stool in the hall. 23 Is that the sort of detail which you would normally 24 have engaged in in doing a search or was there anything 25 unusual about that? 20 1 A. No, there is nothing unusual. When I would go to any 2 search, the first thing I would do before the team would 3 enter is I would go round and do a damage check with one 4 of the property owners or one of the people that were 5 present during the property, and I would note any damage 6 so there would be no allegations that we had caused that 7 damage. 8 Q. Okay. If we look at page [50029], we have the log -- 9 will you confirm this is the log? 10 A. Yes, that is. 11 Q. Thank you. Looking at that, you give a time and event 12 for what was, in fact, the commencement and the 13 termination of searches of bedrooms 1 and 2, hot press 14 and bathroom and bedroom 3? 15 A. Mm-hm. 16 Q. Over the page [50030], kitchen and utility room, et cetera. 17 That, as far as we can see, was a complete search of the 18 premises. 19 Was there anything unusual about that? When you 20 were sent to search a property, would you ordinarily 21 have searched the entire premises? 22 A. Yes, that's correct. 23 Q. Then, if we look finally in terms of the three searches 24 you were involved in that we are concerned with, 25 Thomas Hanvey's house, if we look at page [09300], is 21 1 that your witness statement of 13 May, dealing with that 2 search? 3 A. It is, yes. 4 Q. Going to [50139], we have blanked out the address for 5 which this is the notebook entry, but can you help us 6 with whether this is your notebook entry for that 7 search? 8 A. Yes, it would be. 9 Q. Then finally, at page [50121], there's the -- another 10 Form 29. Is that the Form 29 for the Thomas Hanvey 11 property search? 12 A. Yes, that's correct. 13 Q. Thank you very much. I have just got some more general 14 questions about searches, if I may. 15 Can you help us with what the various roles of the 16 various officers concerned with the search are, starting 17 with the log keeper? What was the duty of the log 18 keeper? 19 A. The duty of the log keeper is to maintain a record of 20 the search whilst it is being conducted. I would not be 21 involved in actually searching the premises, but I would 22 be involved in going to and fro from the relevant search 23 teams, if there was one or if there was two, to note 24 down the timings they would enter or leave each 25 individual room, and if they had recovered any property 22 1 from any of those rooms, I would also note that down in 2 the log. 3 So I would keep a full record of what happens, and 4 if anything occurs within the house, it's noted in the 5 log. 6 Q. Again, help us out with generalities here. Ordinarily, 7 in searching a house that may have had, say, three 8 bedrooms, how many officers would normally be involved? 9 A. It would depend purely on resources. That's all I can 10 say. It would depend on resources. 11 Q. Very well. When you were a log keeper for a search, 12 what sort of documentation would you have in advance? 13 What would be included in the search pack? 14 A. I can't recall now. I can't recall. 15 Q. In terms of the briefing for what was to be searched for 16 and what was to happen during the search, would that 17 always have been a face-to-face discussion or would 18 there have been documentary briefings? 19 A. At that time, I believe it was a face-to-face 20 discussion. 21 Q. I take it you can't recall the briefings for these 22 particular searches? 23 A. No, not -- no. 24 Q. If I take you to page [04562], this is an action record 25 of an interview of a DC McCrumlish who was on the search 23 1 of the Kenneth and Elizabeth Hanvey home with you. You 2 may not have seen this before. Let me take you to part 3 of it. 4 If we look in the body of it, do you see the numbers 5 1, 2, 3, 4 down the left-hand side? 6 A. Mm-hm. 7 Q. This is an interview of DC McCrumlish in November 2000, 8 and just above the number 1: 9 "Salient points extracted from interview record 10 relevant to this action: 11 "1. DC McCrumlish states that he was briefed to 12 carry out a search of", the address has been blanked 13 out, "home of Alistair Hanvey. 14 "2. DC McCrumlish recalls that a dark-coloured 15 jacket with grey sleeves had not been found by police." 16 That refers to an earlier search, I should tell you: 17 "Recalls that he was briefed to search for clothing 18 that Hanvey may have worn on the night of the murder to 19 locate and seize a jacket which fitted or was similar to 20 this jacket with grey sleeves and to search for evidence 21 of burnt material (clothing). 22 "3. DC McCrumlish does not recall who briefed the 23 search team that accompanied him. 24 "4. DC McCrumlish states that while the search team 25 were in the house, he spoke briefly with Kenneth Hanvey 24 1 and searched the area of ground immediately adjacent to 2 the house. States that he did not go beyond the garden 3 area and he did not go into the adjoining fields. 4 States that he did not go into the adjoining land 5 because there was no obvious signs of recent tracks in 6 the grass area surrounding the house. Cannot recall 7 searching any outbuildings. States that examined the 8 immediate ground around the home, the search team 9 searched inside the property." 10 If we jump down to 6 briefly: 11 "6. DC McCrumlish states that he found no evidence 12 of burnt material/debris in the area that he searched 13 and nothing was seized from the search which was 14 conducted inside the house." 15 Does that help you with recalling this search? 16 A. In what regard? 17 Q. Do you recall DC McCrumlish being there? 18 A. I knew that he was there because the search log had told 19 me. So, yes, I did remember. 20 Q. Do you recall that there was specific concern directed 21 to a jacket or to evidence that anything had been 22 burned? 23 A. The only thing I know is from the first entry in my 24 notebook, which was relating to Hobson, that I had noted 25 from the interview that I had from DI Irwin -- or, 25 1 sorry, the briefing that I had from DI Irwin, that we 2 would look for various articles of clothing and within 3 that was a jacket. 4 In my other two notebook entries to do with the 5 later two searches, I did not have that, so I can't say 6 that. 7 Q. As I say, we know that there had been an earlier search, 8 in fact, on 10 May, which had failed to discover 9 a jacket of this description, and failed to discern any 10 evidence of burnt clothing. 11 That being the case, when you were briefed on 12 13 May, would it have been in order for you not to have 13 been told about that? 14 A. No, definitely not. I am sure it could have been in the 15 briefing. All I say is that I can't honestly say that 16 I remember that. 17 Q. I understand that. Can you help us with whether it 18 should have been in the briefing? 19 A. It should have been in the briefing. If that's the 20 items that we were going to look for -- I believe in the 21 PACE 1 I have written that I was searching for items of 22 clothing, and no more specific than that, but the 23 briefing may have been more specific than that. 24 Q. Should the briefing have told you that there had already 25 been a failed search? 26 1 A. There would be no reason why not to say. 2 MR UNDERWOOD: Those are the questions I have for you. 3 Thank you very much. As I said, it may be that others 4 have some more. 5 Further examination by Mr MALLON 6 MR MALLON: As the log keeper on the search, you record 7 people going into and out of the house. Isn't that 8 right? 9 A. That would be normal, yes. 10 Q. You would leave the house secured. Isn't that correct? 11 A. If there was no residents in the house -- 12 Q. Yes -- 13 A. -- no occupiers? 14 Q. Part of your duty is to make sure the house is secure? 15 A. We would try to ensure it is as secure as possible. If 16 it is not, we would have to get a tradesperson out to 17 try to remedy that. There's only so much we could do. 18 Q. You would not leave it until the house was secured? 19 A. Not necessarily. 20 Q. You have left houses unsecured? 21 A. I don't believe it has ever happened to me. Generally, 22 there is an occupier there. If there's occasions, we 23 try to secure it as best we can, and then we try to 24 arrange that they are secured as soon as possible. 25 Q. I see. 27 1 A. I can't talk about hypotheticals, I can only talk about 2 my experience. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you tell us whether there was anyone at 4 the house when you searched it? 5 A. Which house are we talking about? 6 MR MALLON: Either of them. 7 A. I honestly cannot recall. I don't know. 8 Q. In general terms, have you ever been involved in keeping 9 a log in a house which was being searched and in which 10 a team was inserted into the house to plant a covert 11 listening device? 12 A. I have not. Not that I'm aware of. 13 Q. Have you ever received any instructions in relation to 14 recording anything of that nature? 15 A. I have not. 16 MR MALLON: Thank you. 17 Examination by MR GREEN 18 MR GREEN: The search of Mr Hobson's address was conducted 19 on 10 May. Is that right? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. You were detailed the log keeper for that. Have you 22 been shown the actual log for that search as part of the 23 documents for your appearance here today? We've seen 24 the log for the Hanvey household at, I think, page 25 [50029]. Have you seen a log for Mr Hobson's search? 28 1 I see a shaking of the head. 2 A. I don't know, to be honest. 3 Q. Did I pick you up correctly, Ms Murphy, that you do 4 recall the briefing given by DI Irwin that you were to 5 look for specific articles of clothing? 6 A. What I'm saying is in my notebook I had that recorded. 7 Q. Do you have in your notebook the actual items of 8 clothing, or do you recall what the actual item of 9 clothing was that you were meant to look for? 10 A. I remember -- is my notebook entry available? It was 11 shoes, jeans and -- I believe it was a grey sweatshirt 12 or something like that. Just from memory. It is in my 13 notebook. 14 Q. In terms of the clothing that you retrieved, did you 15 retrieve any of the clothing that you were sent to look 16 for? 17 A. No, we didn't. 18 Q. Finally, you were asked about the search pack, that is 19 the information that you would have at your disposal to 20 assist you in the search. That can come from either 21 a verbal briefing. Sometimes it might, in fact, include 22 statements of some witnesses that they might have made 23 perhaps listing -- have you ever had a statement to work 24 from? 25 A. I don't believe so. The search pack generally we would 29 1 have brought with us. My more full briefing -- the 2 person doing the briefing, wouldn't necessarily hand you 3 the briefing pack. They would just be blank documents 4 that we would already have. 5 Q. So the person giving you the briefing, whatever material 6 he would have, he would just give you an oral briefing 7 from whatever documents he had. You, yourself, would 8 not get any statements or documents. Is that right? 9 A. I don't believe that I have in the past. I can't 10 recall. 11 MR GREEN: Thank you. 12 Examination by MR O'HARE 13 MR O'HARE: I represent this witness, Mr Chairman. 14 Just one brief matter, Ms Murphy. Do you recall 15 whether or not items were taken by the police at the 16 search of the Hobson house? 17 A. I don't. I don't. I was too quick to answer that. 18 I don't recall. 19 MR O'HARE: Thank you. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Is this the Hobson house? 21 MR UNDERWOOD: Yes. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 23 MR UNDERWOOD: I have no questions arising from that. Thank 24 you. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 30 1 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much, Constable. 2 (The witness withdrew) 3 MR UNDERWOOD: So that is the evidence for today. 4 I'm very conscious that we have got out of sequence 5 for witnesses as a result of make do and mend while the 6 anonymity applications have been on, and so what was, 7 I trust, a reasonably logical sequence by which we were 8 going to go through the officers at the scene, followed 9 by the officers in the early investigative stages and 10 then the deeper investigative stages, we are mixing and 11 matching. 12 I wonder whether it would be helpful if I gave you 13 some idea in terms of opening of where we are with the 14 investigation? 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, please. 16 Submissions by MR UNDERWOOD 17 MR UNDERWOOD: We are still, of course, awaiting the 18 evidence of most of the officers in the Land Rover, 19 having heard, so far, only P40. 20 The position about that is that Mr Atkinson, 21 I trust, will give evidence on 11 May. Mr Neill will 22 give evidence a little after that. The remaining 23 officer, who I think you understand has been sadly 24 involved in a very serious car accident, is to be the 25 subject of further consideration. 31 1 There are still one or two civilian witnesses who 2 were at the scene, not least Tracey Clarke, who have yet 3 to give evidence. But otherwise, the evidence that we 4 are embarking on now is that of the investigation. 5 Of course, you have already heard some of that, not 6 least Mr Honeyford, completely out of sequence for 7 simple practical reasons early on, and also some 8 evidence so far about the CCTV evidence. 9 If I can collect where we are then, we are going 10 quite shortly to Mr McMullen, who was the uniformed duty 11 officer for J Division over the weekend of 26/27 April. 12 He attended Portadown at about 8.30 in the morning of 13 27 April, having been contacted by Inspector McCrum. He 14 was briefed, and he will tell you that his task was to 15 ensure that there were sufficient resources for the 16 detectives to deal with it, and he will deal with the 17 standard which was to be expected of the early stages of 18 the investigation. I hope he can set that scene within 19 the next day or so. 20 I will also call scientific evidence. There are two 21 aspects to this. By "scientific", I mean what's 22 colloquially called forensic evidence, which is 23 a tautology. 24 There are two aspects. The first is what the 25 forensic scientists were able to discover. The second 32 1 is whether there was any want of due diligence on the 2 part of the forensic scientists on their part. 3 I say that because, as we are now told, in respect 4 of the DPP, it's the task of the Inquiry to look at due 5 diligence of anybody involved sufficiently closely with 6 the investigation, whether or not they were members of 7 the RUC. 8 So dealing first with the substantive results of the 9 forensic science work, the initial work was carried out 10 by a gentleman called Lawrence Marshall. He was given 11 samples which had been lifted from the scene by the 12 Scenes of Crime officer, Mr Ardis. He was given those, 13 we think, on 10 May 1997, and no further samples were 14 submitted after that. 15 He was able to report, as quickly as 12 May 1997, 16 orally, that blood on Mr Hamill's jeans was from 17 Stacey Bridgett. 18 As far as we can ascertain, no other matches of any 19 value were made in the forensic exercise. 20 Wayne Lunt's fingerprints were found on a bottle at 21 the scene, which is uncontroversial, but in case there's 22 any thought that DNA testing might have been of any 23 value of that, the conclusion is that the fingerprinting 24 technique destroyed any DNA evidence there might have 25 been. So if there was any question of whether 33 1 Mr Hamill's tissue got onto that bottle, it would be 2 impossible to know. 3 There was a re-evaluation of the DNA evidence in the 4 light of advances in DNA technology in around 2000, and 5 that was done again by Mr Marshall, and also by 6 a Ms Colette Quinn. 7 Again, it resulted in nothing. 8 There's one intriguing question mark, which is that 9 there was a good deal of blood on the road where 10 Mr Hamill was, and on Mr Hamill's clothing, which hasn't 11 been identified, save that it came from a male. He has 12 been called Unknown A, and we are at a loss to identify 13 anybody who was bleeding at the scene but who has not 14 been tested for DNA. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: When you say it's not known whose it was, has 16 it been established that it was not Robert Hamill's? 17 MR UNDERWOOD: Yes. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 19 MR UNDERWOOD: There are a number of people who were at the 20 scene who, of course, did not give DNA, but we haven't 21 identified any of them who may have been bleeding. At 22 least in the proximity and in the volume that would have 23 given rise to that amount of blood. 24 So far as due diligence is concerned, there appears 25 to be no reason to believe that the testing itself was 34 1 inadequate. Of course, the one crucial piece of 2 evidence -- namely, that Mr Bridgett's blood was found 3 on Mr Hamill's jeans -- was found remarkably quickly, 4 within two days. 5 It's an unfortunate fact that Mr Marshall didn't 6 actually compile a report until 24 October 1997 and it 7 may well be that people were held in custody longer they 8 ought to have been, pending the delivery of that report. 9 Whether that's a want of due diligence that is 10 relevant to the investigation is another matter. But 11 there it is. That's the height of the issue as to 12 whether there was a want of due diligence on the part of 13 the forensic scientists. 14 Another part of the, as it were, technical evidence 15 is the CCTV question. You have seen for yourself the 16 scene several times, and there appear to be no cameras 17 at the address from which we heard the witness last 18 week -- sorry, about three weeks ago now. 19 Monica O'Reilly, whom I, I confess, led into suggesting 20 that what appeared to be cameras on the 21 Alliance & Leicester, might have been cameras. She was 22 very diffident about accepting it from me, and rightly 23 so. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: She thought they were uplights, I think. 25 MR UNDERWOOD: You have also already heard from two of the 35 1 sisters of Robert Hamill, who told you what DI Irwin 2 told them about the viewing of the tapes disclosing that 3 the Land Rover could be seen, but nothing else of 4 relevance. 5 You will be hearing from Detective Constable Keys 6 about seizing and viewing the tapes as well as another 7 detective constable, Mr Lilly. 8 There's obviously an issue to be resolved about what 9 could be seen, and whether, indeed, at the date the 10 tapes were being viewed, what the police regarded as 11 relevant, because at the date they were being viewed and 12 before they were handed back, there was no complaint -- 13 no formal complaint at least -- against the police for 14 neglect of duty. 15 A third aspect of the technical evidence that might 16 have been available to the police is the noise level 17 that could have been heard inside the Land Rover. 18 To be fair, it's difficult to see how this goes to 19 anything other than the neglect complaint. But what you 20 have already got from Mr O'Boyle is that he identified 21 five variables in what would have been necessary to 22 establish whether occupants of the Land Rover could have 23 heard noise from the outside, including the acuity of 24 those inside the Land Rover and what was going on outside. 25 He tested two of those variables: namely, the noise 36 1 inside created by the Land Rover, and what difference it 2 made having the doors open. But that went nowhere, of 3 course, in terms of what given police officers could 4 have heard of given noise outside it. 5 As Mr Mallon established from him, unless you knew 6 exactly what sort of noise was going on outside, how can 7 you test what it was that could have been heard inside, 8 so you may feel that was a fairly futile exercise of 9 asking him to conduct those tests. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: It would be of interest if we hear what 11 consideration was given from the police's side on the 12 kind of investigation required. 13 MR UNDERWOOD: Just so. Of course, Mr Irwin will be asked 14 why it was he briefed Mr O'Boyle to do the tests he did, 15 but only the tests he did, and what value he thought 16 they could possibly give. 17 So that, then, is a very short consideration of the 18 technical sides of the evidence there might have been. 19 We will then go into, of course, the witnesses who 20 dealt with the ground work of interviewing, analysing 21 and progressing. 22 I think reference has already been made to an 23 investigation much later in the day, conducted under 24 Superintendent Karen Kennedy, which found a reasonable 25 amount wanting of the early stages of the investigation, 37 1 and, indeed, Colin Murray, whom I propose to call at the 2 very end of the evidence, will give some support to 3 a suggestion that it was the early aspects of the 4 investigation that were both crucially important and not 5 done properly. 6 The way in which Mr Murray analyses it, and you may 7 find helpful, is to look at this in terms of five 8 aspects. 9 Firstly, whether forensic science was used properly. 10 Secondly, whether there was an adequate strategy for 11 obtaining evidence from civilian witnesses, including 12 the use of press releases there. 13 Thirdly, the use of a policy book. 14 Fourthly, arresting suspects. And wrapped up in 15 arresting respects is the question of how the allegation 16 against Mr Atkinson should have been dealt with. 17 Fifthly, searching. 18 What I will do is, under each of those five heads, 19 give a preview of the evidence I'm proposing to lead on 20 those issues, including the documentary evidence such as 21 the diagram drawn by Mr Ardis, who was the Scenes of 22 Crime officer, showing what he picked up from where and 23 how that was tracked through, the standards by which the 24 scene should have been preserved and so forth. 25 I suspect there's probably about half an hour to 38 1 an hour's worth of material to go through, to set that 2 scene. I don't know whether it would be more convenient 3 to do it now or tomorrow morning. I'm entirely in your 4 hands. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you do part of it now? 6 MR UNDERWOOD: Certainly. The forensic strategy, to start 7 with, then, as I have said, samples were taken by 8 Mr Ardis. If we look at page [08161] on the screen, we 9 can see the -- this is the HOLMES version of it -- 10 document compiled by him. 11 Looking down, about half a dozen lines down here, we 12 see date, time of request. So the request for his 13 intervention is 0800 on 27 April 1997. So whatever else 14 DC Keys may have been criticised for at various stages, 15 he can't be criticised, I would suggest, for being slow 16 at getting a Scenes of Crime officer on the ground. 17 Date and time of arrival, 27 April 1997, 10 o'clock. 18 Then, if we go over the page, [08162], this is his 19 statement of what he picked up. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: This is the Scenes of Crime officer? 21 MR UNDERWOOD: This is Mr Ardis, yes. 22 Again, when you come to see the Kennedy report, 23 there was a very critical analysis conducted of whether 24 adequate samples, as it were, were taken. But here you 25 see -- taking the text: 39 1 "I found at the scene at Market Street, Portadown, 2 between the junctions of Thomas Street and 3 Woodhouse Street, a number of small areas of 4 bloodstaining, some pieces of broken timber, some broken 5 green bottle glass (separate areas on each side of the 6 street), an empty beer tin (at the junction of 7 Woodhouse Street) and, in a flowerbed on a traffic 8 island on the Church Street side of the junction, a 9 half-full bottle of Buckfast wine and an empty bottle of 10 Buckfast wine. I took from the scene the following 11 items, marked on rough maps as to the locations from 12 which they were taken." 13 You see MAA1 to MAA4 are blood samples. 6 is broken 14 pieces of wood, 7, broken pieces of wood. He tells you 15 there where they were taken from. MAA8 is broken 16 bottle glass, as is 9. 10 is a beer tin. 11, 17 a half-full wine bottle. 12, an empty wine bottle. 18 If we go to page [08164] we see the sketch where he 19 sets out those MAA numbers. 20 Then I don't know whether we can twist that 21 90 degrees or, better still, 270 degrees. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 23 MR UNDERWOOD: So again, of course, this having been 24 a criminal investigation with chain of evidence 25 procedures, when we come to see the analysis by 40 1 Mr Marshall, then, he analyses blood stains by reference 2 to these MAA numbers, so we can track through where 3 particular stains were found on the road. 4 Certainly -- as I say, whatever criticism there may 5 have been at various stages of Mr Ardis failing to pick 6 up pieces of debris, certainly nothing our team has been 7 able to discern calls for criticism there at this stage. 8 Obviously that is a matter for you, but he has 9 picked up what he has seen and what he has described, 10 and nobody else that I have been able to see has been 11 able to say there was anything else he should have 12 picked up and didn't. 13 The standards by which the scene should have been 14 preserved and samples taken was set in a Force Order. 15 We see that at page [10768]. I could take this fairly 16 quickly. The introduction, the first four paragraphs, 17 says: 18 "Sophisticated scientific and fingerprint 19 examination and comparison techniques are available to 20 investigators to realise maximum evidential value from 21 forensic examinations of scenes of crime. However, the 22 value of any forensic connection of a suspect to the 23 scene of an offence can be lost in the absence of basic 24 scene preservation procedures. Scene preservation is 25 a significant factor in any criminal investigation. All 41 1 members must recognise their responsibility to 2 acknowledge, adhere to and implement the ethos of scene 3 preservation. 4 "2. Terrorists and criminals have learnt how best 5 to avoid being made amenable to the courts. Defence 6 scientific examinations are increasingly prevalent in 7 investigations, and arising from these examinations 8 defence counsel explore and challenge all aspects of 9 scene preservation, contamination, notes, continuity of 10 possession of exhibits in the case and general 11 evidential integrity. 12 "3. Expert scene examiners and support services 13 staff may have to give evidence of their findings. If 14 good scene preservation is demonstrated, then the 15 evidence of findings reinforces the Crown case. If bad 16 scene preservation is disclosed, the case can be 17 considerably weakened. 18 "4. It is essential, therefore, that the basic 19 principles of preservation and examination are strictly 20 adhered to. This should be the case at all crime scenes 21 and not solely at serious outrages such as bombings, 22 shootings and murders." 23 Again, the reason I go to this, is, although, so far 24 as one can tell, no criticism could be levelled at 25 Mr Ardis, he doesn't get there until 10 o'clock, and 42 1 there is a question mark over whether there was any 2 attempt at scene preservation, as it were, overnight, 3 from about 3 o'clock in the morning until roughly 4 8 o'clock, when his services were called for. 5 Again, the standard by which the preservation should 6 have been set is demonstrated over the page at [10769]. 7 The first paragraph 4 on the page, in upper case: 8 "Except for the purposes of preserving life or 9 preventing further injury, scenes must only be entered 10 by persons under the direct control of the (senior) 11 investigating officer [(S)IO]. These persons will always have 12 a function to fulfil for the (S)IO. No unauthorised 13 persons may be allowed to enter." 14 Going back to the substance of the text here, 15 "3. Duties at a scene", if we can pick up paragraphs 2, 3 16 and 4 under that: 17 "(1) One set of instructions cannot cover duties and 18 procedures for all scenes of crime. The following 19 paragraphs outline the general procedures to be followed 20 and can be augmented by officers using initiative and 21 common sense to suit prevailing circumstances. 22 "(2) The primary duty of the first police officer on 23 arrival at a scene involving casualties must be directed 24 towards the preservation of life. This duty must be 25 immediately followed by the necessity to 'preserve the 43 1 scene', to enable correct scene interpretation and 2 identification and collection of all available evidence. 3 "(3) When the primary duty referred to above has been 4 attended to, police should withdraw from, 'seal off' and 5 preserve the scene. All unnecessary personnel, 6 including police, military, public or the news media, 7 must be excluded until otherwise directed by the (S)IO. 8 "(4) In respect of serious incidents, preservation of 9 a scene will invariably mean taping off the immediate 10 scene area (incident scene) and, if considered 11 necessary under the circumstances, taping off another 12 wider area (holding area). The incident scene should, 13 where appropriate, include ..." 14 Then we have "paths of entry", et cetera. 15 Then if we go down to 6 and 7: 16 "(6) When the extent of the incident scene has been 17 identified and taped off, the first officer will act as 18 Scene Log Officer (SLO). When several police officers 19 arrive at a scene, the senior member will appoint the 20 SLO and take charge pending the prompt arrival of the 21 (S)IO." 22 You will recall Officer A operated as the log keeper 23 at least. 24 Then at 7: 25 "(7) The SLO will be positioned at a suitably identified 44 1 Incident Control Point (ICP) within the holding area adjacent 2 to the entry path to the incident scene. Consistent 3 with security, the ICP should be clearly marked by 4 an appropriate sign or other means of identification. 5 On arrival at the scene, all support and other 6 agency personnel should report to the holding area for 7 briefing by the (S)IO and subsequent controlled access to 8 and exit from the incident scene past the ICP." 9 Then over the page, at [10770], under paragraph 4, 10 "Scene examination", if we just pick up the first two 11 numbered paragraphs under 4, "Scene examination": 12 "The (S)IO has responsibility for having the scene 13 properly examined. In liaison with support personnel 14 and other relevant agency personnel, thorough and 15 systematic examination of scenes must be carried out to 16 obtain as much evidence and information as possible. 17 "Only personnel essential to the examination of the 18 scene should enter the scene, irrespective of rank or 19 professional status." 20 Then finally, over at page at [10771], paragraph 6, 21 "Statements of evidence": 22 "1. Current serious crime investigation procedures 23 require all persons entering the incident scene and 24 named on scene log sheets to submit statements of 25 evidence detailing their duty at the scene. Failure to 45 1 do so could jeopardise the admissibility of forensic 2 evidence which could be crucial to the Crown's case." 3 Now, as I say, because of the way in which the 4 evidence has got rather out of sequence, you have 5 already heard from officers about what happened. 6 The thrust of it is that the area was cleared by 7 about 3 o'clock or so of youths -- if I can use the term 8 that broadly -- but that the scene wasn't taped off 9 until after 8 o'clock in the morning. There doesn't 10 seem to have been a point at which, before it was taped 11 off, it was regarded as a crime scene to be preserved. 12 Again, you have heard evidence that police didn't 13 leave the scene, but there was no question of anybody 14 being appointed log keeper before Constable A, no 15 question of all those officers, who, as it were, 16 trespassed on it, being forced to give evidence or make 17 statements saying what they did. 18 When we come to Mr Murray's expert evidence, he will 19 say that this was the start of a series of failings 20 which appears to have compromised the investigation. 21 While we are on the question of forensic strategy, 22 as I say, there appears to be no basis for criticising 23 Mr Ardis. Insofar as there's any question mark over 24 Mr Marshall, it's simply about the time which it took to 25 produce a report. 46 1 But having said that, there appears to have been no 2 strategy in respect of this. Mr Ardis turned up, did 3 his job, left the scene, and disappeared from the 4 matter. Mr Marshall took the materials, was able to do 5 his tests or do the one match there was within a couple 6 of days, and then -- if I can be this loose and flippant 7 about it -- floats along before doing his report, 8 without any apparent supervision from anybody or chasing 9 or system by which there was rigorous testing of when he 10 was to produce his report and whether there was anything 11 else to produce. 12 The next set of factors then is the obtaining 13 evidence from civilian witnesses. 14 We know that, as a matter of principle, where police 15 officers at the scene were able to identify any 16 witnesses by name, then they were seen. These 17 questionnaires, QPFs, were administered to those 18 witnesses and some of those witnesses then gave 19 statements. 20 In the course of that process, where those witnesses 21 were able to name other witnesses or prospective 22 defendants, then, likewise, QPFs were administered. 23 Where this perhaps fell down is that a number of 24 officers at the scene seem to have been less than 25 diligent in coming up with names and identities of those 47 1 they might have seen. 2 It's very notable -- for example, we have seen 3 Mr Warnock and Mr Cooke, who were able to name loads of 4 people. One of them actually toured the scene at 5 5 o'clock the next morning and was able to come up with 6 names then of people he had seen at the relevant time. 7 Whereas you have other officers who lived and worked in 8 the area for years and who were at the scene for quite 9 a long time, who appear to have been unable to recognise 10 anybody or more than one or two people. We have yet to 11 see most of those witnesses and in due course it will no 12 doubt be necessary to decide why it is they weren't more 13 forthcoming. 14 Again, that may have been a matter of debriefing, it 15 may have been a matter of recollection, it may have been 16 deliberate. That is obviously a matter for 17 investigation. 18 There's also this. Once people were identified, one 19 has to, of course, get evidence from them. 20 You have seen some people were just about prepared 21 to have a QPF administered to them, and then steadfastly 22 refused to give a statement. Other people refused to 23 turn up to the police station to give any sort of 24 statements whatever, and you have graphically, 25 I suggest, seen just what sort of difficulties the 48 1 police might have faced in getting people to come 2 forward. 3 However, there are two aspects which call for 4 careful investigation. One is the way in which the 5 neglect complaint investigation was allowed to become 6 entangled with the murder investigation. 7 The relevance of that is that people were very often 8 asked to come twice to the police station, and asked in, 9 as we will see, quite odd terms. 10 The other aspect of this is that the police had the 11 facility of issuing press releases which may have been 12 able to galvanise evidence, and you are aware, I think, 13 already, that there's been for quite some time 14 controversy about the way in which those press releases 15 were worded. It may be helpful to look at them at this 16 stage. 17 If we look at page [15068], this is a convenient 18 compendium of them, showing date of issue, who issued 19 them and to whom and when they were issued. 20 If I just pick up the first two and a half pages of 21 this, on the first page, if we can highlight the 22 substance of the middle text. 23 First release: 24 "Two youths have been detained in hospital with head 25 injuries following a clash between rival factions in 49 1 Portadown around 1.45 am this morning. Police moved in 2 to separate the groups who encountered each other at the 3 junction of Thomas Street and Market Street. Bottles 4 were thrown during the hostilities and police themselves 5 came under attack by a section of the crowd. Order was 6 restored around 3 am." 7 Now, if you took the view that that wasn't a very 8 fair analysis of 20 or 30 people attacking perhaps half 9 a dozen people, one of whom subsequently died from the 10 injuries, then you may think that wasn't liable to bring 11 forward witnesses to a serious crime. 12 The second release: 13 "One of the youths injured is still detained in 14 hospital. Police at Portadown are anxious to speak to 15 anyone who was in the area of Market Street, 16 Woodhouse Street and Thomas Street between 1 am and 2 am 17 this morning, and who witnessed the incident. The 18 detectives at Portadown can be contacted on ..." 19 And it gives the number. 20 Here you have, of course, active soliciting, but you 21 still have the context that this is said to be basically 22 a punch-up between a couple of gangs in which the police 23 were involved. 24 Then "Against Enquiry only": 25 "Any response to ... allegations that police sat and 50 1 watched this assault and that the press statement was 2 not true?" 3 The response to be given -- and this I should say 4 appears to have been 30 April -- is over the page at 5 [15069]. As I say, this was a briefing to be given 6 against enquiry only: 7 "A police Land Rover crew in Portadown town centre 8 was alerted to a disturbance and immediately intervened 9 to gain order and prevent assaults. The numbers 10 involved, however, were such that these police officers 11 were unable to contain the situation and became 12 themselves the subject of an attack." 13 You have heard from the one officer in the 14 Land Rover who doesn't support that: 15 "Police reinforcement arrived and calm was restored. 16 "Detectives are continuing their investigations into 17 this very serious assault and disturbance and take this 18 opportunity to make a further appeal for witnesses to 19 contact them at Portadown RUC station." 20 And it gives the number. 21 As I say, it is interesting to see the date on which 22 the RUC was being defensive, or prepared to be 23 defensive, and expecting hostile queries. Quite a long 24 time before the 6 May complaint was actually made. 25 If we go down the page then, 7 May: 51 1 "Portadown police are renewing their appeal for 2 witnesses to a very serious assault which took place in 3 the town centre around 1.30 am on the morning of Sunday, 4 27 April. 5 "A special team was set up to investigate this 6 incident and a number of people have already been 7 interviewed. It now appears clear that four people, two 8 couples, who had left a social event in 9 St Patrick's Hall, were set upon by a large crowd. The 10 two men in the group of four were knocked to the ground 11 and viciously beaten. One young man remains very ill. 12 "On separate occasions during the incident, two men 13 approached the police. One of these men has come 14 forward and the detectives are particularly anxious to 15 speak to the second. They would also appeal to anyone 16 who was in the area of Market Street, Woodhouse Street 17 and Thomas Street between 1.00 am and 2.00 am on the 18 morning of Sunday, 27 April to get in touch with the 19 CID..." 20 And it gives the numbers: 21 "All information will be treated with the utmost 22 confidentiality." 23 That is a press release which you may think could 24 have been issued on the morning of 27 April. 25 Then we see at the bottom of that page: 52 1 "Victim of this sectarian attack died in 2 hospital this afternoon. A murder enquiry has now 3 commenced." 4 Then finally, at page [15070], for our purposes, 5 that top passage: 6 "Detectives at Portadown have now launched a murder 7 enquiry into the death of Robert Hamill, one of 2 8 men set upon by a crowd in Portadown town centre around 9 1.45 am on 27 April. The ACC for the region, 10 Mr Freddie Hall, tonight expressed his deep sympathy to 11 Mr Hamill's family and again called for witnesses to the 12 incident to come forward. He said, 'A special team was 13 set up last week to investigate the assault and a number 14 of people have been interviewed. We would still like to 15 hear from anyone who was in the area of Market Street, 16 Woodhouse Street and Thomas Street between 1.00 am and 17 2.00 am on Sunday 27 April to get in touch with the 18 CID..." 19 And it gives the details. 20 Then: 21 "... I can assure Mr Hamill's family that my 22 officers will be unrelenting in their search for the 23 culprits'." 24 Save for what we have seen as an almost organic use 25 of these QPFs, by which, if there was a piece of 53 1 information, it would be followed up by another QPF and 2 perhaps a statement, and save for those press releases, 3 my team has been unable to find any evidence of any 4 strategy for getting witnesses to come forward. 5 Indeed, for example, there was a series of 6 arrests -- we will come to arrest strategy later, but 7 a series of arrests on 6 May for grievous bodily harm, 8 and nothing in the documents shows why it was those 9 arrests were carried out, or who decided to do it and 10 why. 11 It may be that there were perfectly good strategies 12 in place for getting witnesses to come forward, and 13 translating evidence into arrests, but it certainly 14 isn't documented. 15 That leads me to the next factor which Mr Murray 16 lights upon and others have lit upon, which is the use 17 of a policy book. 18 A policy book was in fact opened on 9 May 1997, and 19 was maintained by the detective chief inspector, whom we 20 are calling P39. She left the team not many days later 21 and handed over the policy book. It fell into disuse. 22 Nobody made any further entries after she handed it 23 over. 24 We can see from it the sort of things that it should 25 have dealt with and how useful it might have been as 54 1 a mechanism for directing minds to what should go on. 2 We find it at page [00913]. You can see -- if we go 3 back to [00913], you can see it is a standard form 4 policy file. The offence is murder (and GBH) and 5 Robert Hamill and D. You see the senior investigating 6 officer is Detective Chief superintendent McBurney. The 7 deputy SIO is P39 and the murder inquiry commenced on 8 8 May 1997. 9 Looking at policy decision number 1, taken at 10 9.30 am on 9 May, so immediately then in the morning of 11 the day after the murder at page [00914]. The officer 12 making the decision is Detective Chief 13 Superintendent McBurney, and it's to transfer the manual 14 MIRIAM system to the computer HOLMES system. The 15 reasons -- this investigation is now the murder of 16 Robert Hamill, 25 years, and the reason is to facilitate 17 an efficient investigation. The officer making the 18 entry, we see, is P39. 19 Over the page, [00915], policy decision number 2, 20 the same day, pretty much the same time. The officer 21 making the decision is again Detective Chief 22 Superintendent McBurney, and the decision is that the 23 SIO -- and this is the murder, of course -- is 24 DCS McBurney. The deputy SIO is P39. The Office 25 Manager, so described, is Detective Inspector Irwin. Of 55 1 course, there is an issue of what that meant in 2 Mr Irwin's case and what role he actually took. 3 The receiver of disclosure is Detective 4 Sergeant Bradley. The HOLMES receiver, of course, is 5 the person through whom everything which comes into the 6 inquiry passes so that he can decide what action to 7 take, or allocate actions based on what revelations 8 emerge. 9 "The team of detectives carrying out the 10 investigation of GBH will now be increased by a further 11 five detectives", it says, and the reasons are: 12 "To lead, organise and carry out a thorough 13 investigation." 14 Then if we go over to [00916], policy decision 15 number 3, same day, 11 am. Detective Chief 16 Superintendent McBurney is the person making the 17 decision, and the decision is: 18 "ICPC appointed to supervise the investigation of 19 the complaint made by Miss Diane Hamill re police 20 inactivity at the scene on the early hours of 21 27 April 1997." 22 The reason for that was that there was a direction 23 received from ACC Hall. We will be hearing from 24 Mr Hall, but, of course, this is an important and 25 difficult question, the interplay between the neglect 56 1 complaint and the complaint -- or, rather, the 2 possibility that Mr Atkinson had colluded with Allister 3 Hanvey. We see immediately here that the ICPC is 4 involved explicitly only in the neglect complaint. 5 Over the page, decision number 4, page [00917], 6 still the same day, only 11.45 pm. In fact, that's 7 consistent. Quarter to midnight. Detective Chief 8 Superintendent McBurney is making another decision: 9 "The following will be arrested on Saturday morning, 10 10 May 1997: Stacey Bridgett, Dean Forbes. 11 "The following arrested and premises searched for 12 evidence (clothing): Wayne David Lunt, Allister Hanvey, 13 Paul Rodney Marc Hobson and Rory Robinson." 14 The reasons are: 15 "Having now obtained evidence in relation to 16 suspects involved in this crime, arrests, seizure of 17 evidence, interviews, to obtain further evidence in 18 connection with the murder." 19 Again, nobody can complain about the speed of action 20 of that decision, because this is before Tracey Clarke 21 has even signed her statement. 22 Then intriguingly, decision number 5 at page 23 [00918]. The decision -- again, it's 9 May 1997 at 24 11.50, so only 5 minutes after the decision to arrest, 25 search and interview. The officer making the decision, 57 1 Detective Chief Superintendent McBurney, and the 2 decision: 3 "To obtain records of incoming and outgoing 4 telephone calls in respect of E Hanvey and R Atkinson." 5 So the police snap on to it while Tracey Clarke is 6 still giving her statement: 7 "Reasons: to establish the authenticity of 8 intelligence." 9 Over at page [00919], decision number 6. The 10 officer making the decision is Detective Chief 11 Superintendent McBurney again. Decision: 12 "Two witnesses have been identified and to be known 13 as A and B. 14 "Reasons: intimidation. Ongoing reassessment 15 necessary." 16 Of course, that's consistent with what Mr Honeyford 17 has told you about checking with Mr McBurney whether 18 Timothy Jameson could be given a cipher. 19 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: That is 9 am the 20 following morning? 21 MR UNDERWOOD: On the next morning, yes. 22 So you recall Tracey Clarke came into the police 23 station something like 11 o'clock, I think, on the 9th 24 and finished her statement in the early hours of the 25 10th. So 9 o'clock that morning, they, as it were, are 58 1 regularising the position that appears to have been 2 obtained overnight. 3 Decision number 7 at page [00920]. 10 May again, at 4 about 9.05 am, "Rory Robinson not located, now circulated 5 for arrest." 6 So you can see the value of a policy book because it 7 shows you the degree to which decisions which have been 8 made have been managed to be implemented. 9 Over at page [00921], at decision number 8, still 10 10 May, it's only 10.00 am. Detective Chief 11 Superintendent McBurney makes the decision. "Detective 12 Chief Superintendent to contact Mr xxxxxxxxxx, ICPC, to 13 brief him re arrests and interviews." 14 Again, nobody can complain about that. The middle 15 passage of this is "unable to contact and more efforts 16 made". The reasons, underneath: 17 "To keep ICPC appraised of developments and to give 18 them the opportunity to be present at interviews if they 19 so wish." 20 Over at [00922], decision number 9, again it's 21 a Mr McBurney decision. It's made again on 10 May by 22 3 pm. "Decision: re Constable Neill to attend Lurgan 23 station for confrontation identification." That's the 24 confrontation, you will recall, by which he identified 25 Marc Hobson. 59 1 It goes on: 2 "Suspect refused all other forms of identification. 3 Other police officers were not requested to attend, as 4 it was necessary to interview them re their ability to 5 identify suspects and, due to ICPC not available, the 6 interviews were not carried out." 7 Reasons: 8 "To obtain evidence by identification." 9 You will recall me asking a number of officers 10 whether they were asked to attend any form of 11 identification process, and they weren't. The only 12 identification that was carried out in any way was the 13 one confrontation by Constable Neill of Mr Hobson. 14 Obviously here you can see that minds were put to 15 the obvious which is that if other officers saw people 16 doing things, that they could usefully either attend an 17 identification parade or a confrontation, and put names 18 to faces. 19 In particular, the officer whom you have already 20 seen, who was in the Land Rover, told you candidly that 21 there were people he saw whom he could, as it were, 22 identify by face, but not by name, taken nowhere. There 23 may have been, as appears here, a good reason for not 24 doing it on a particular day: namely, that Mr McBurney 25 wanted to have interviews supervised by ICPC before that 60 1 happened, but it went nowhere. 2 If we go to page [00923] then -- 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Just remind me. At this time PACE was in 4 force here in Ireland? 5 MR UNDERWOOD: Yes, as I understand it. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: That provides for various methods of 7 identification, does it not? 8 MR UNDERWOOD: Certainly, including the confrontation. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: It is a descending order? 10 MR UNDERWOOD: More or less last resort, but not even 11 showing mug shots -- to use the vernacular -- was 12 engaged in. 13 If we go then, page [00923] is decision number 10. 14 We are still on 10 May. It's Detective Chief 15 Superintendent McBurney. It is a decision to charge the 16 following with the offence of murder. There are five 17 here. It's Bridgett, Forbes, Lunt, Hanvey and Hobson. 18 Rory Robinson is not included in that list because, of 19 course, he hasn't yet been tracked down. 20 Reasons: "evidence to prefer the charges". Of course, 21 they had Timothy Jameson and Tracey Clarke having given 22 their statements that day. 23 Then page [00924] is decision 11, still on 10 May. 24 The decision is: 25 "Rory Robinson located. Directed that he be 61 1 arrested and detained for questioning to obtain evidence 2 in connection with the offence of murder." 3 You may wonder whether that was entirely fair, if 4 they had enough evidence in the witness statements of 5 Tracey Clarke and Timothy Jameson to charge. 6 Then at page [00925], decision number 12, 11 May. 7 Things move on fast. The decision-maker is Mr McBurney 8 again, and the decision is to charge Rory Robinson with 9 murder because there was evidence. 10 Then page [00926] is decision number 13 on the 12th. 11 It's Mr McBurney again and the decision is: 12 "Meeting held with ICPC." 13 This is more a memo than a decision, to be fair. 14 But those present were: a blank, a Mr Mullan, 15 Mr McBurney, Superintendent Anderson of complaints and 16 discipline, and, again, this is going to come back to 17 the question of who knew what about the question of 18 Mr Atkinson. So there's somebody from complaints and 19 discipline present. And DCI P39. 20 It goes on: 21 "Mr McBurney briefed ICPC of incident and 22 investigation so far. Mr xxxxxxxxxx outlined his role in 23 supervising the complaints made by Ms Hamill, which was 24 police inactivity at the scene." 25 So again, perfectly clear. As far as ICPC was 62 1 concerned, it was no part of its brief to deal with 2 Mr Atkinson. In fact, it's not clear at all whether it 3 knew about the complaint about Mr Atkinson. 4 Detective Chief Superintendent to continue with 5 murder investigation. Detective Chief Superintendent to 6 be in charge of investigating complaint. ICPC to obtain 7 copies of all documents so far in investigation. 8 The reasons: 9 "All strands of the incident are inextricably 10 linked. At this stage of the investigation it is 11 necessary to examine all strands of the incident." 12 So there will be criticism of the decision to have 13 one SIO in charge of both of those, because it allowed, 14 whether by design or otherwise, Mr McBurney to obscure 15 the question of what was going on with Mr Atkinson, and 16 also almost get it lost between the two investigations. 17 We will see how that pans out in the crime files. 18 SIR JOHN EVANS: Does Mr xxxxxxxxxx accept this log, this 19 policy book, or what's written in it? 20 MR UNDERWOOD: He's dead, I am afraid. It's one of the 21 grave difficulties in this particular difficulty in the 22 whole Inquiry is just what he was told. For example, 23 whether, if he was told enough about Mr Atkinson, he 24 could and should have gone to the Chief Constable and 25 asked the Chief Constable to refer the matter to him. 63 1 But we simply can't ask him. 2 SIR JOHN EVANS: There is no signature there and there is no 3 indication that xxxxxxxxxx ever saw that article. 4 MR UNDERWOOD: That is correct. Mr Mullan, on the other 5 hand, who was his assistant, will give evidence, and may 6 be able to help to a degree about what was said and to 7 whom. 8 At page [00927] then is decision number 14. The 9 decision on 13 May is a direction from the DPP, "Speak 10 to Professor Crane", and the reasons are: 11 "To establish his findings and views as to the cause 12 of death." 13 It seems a long time ago now that we heard from 14 Professor Crane and the reason why he took so long to 15 produce a report. This is the first record we have of 16 people being concerned about what was the cause of death 17 and what the Professor would say. 18 This will also have a resonance when we come to the 19 question of the Director of Public Prosecutions and his 20 role and whether there is any question properly to be 21 investigated of due diligence on the part of his office. 22 It's fair to say that his documents -- the documents 23 we have received from the DPP that is -- do not reflect 24 a direction made by the DPP at this stage. If you 25 conclude that he was giving a direction, then you may 64 1 well conclude that there's a a fairly close link with 2 the murder investigation from a very early stage. You 3 may, on the other hand, find that 'direction' is 4 a misnomer and this is a piece of advice or just a piece 5 of -- almost a casual interest by the DPP. 6 Over at page [00928], policy decision number 15. 7 Made on 14 May, decision by Mr McBurney, it's 8 a simulation. The next is: 9 "To seek views of ICPC regarding the asking of the 10 police officers to relocate the police vehicle at the 11 scene. To have forensic scientists present: photographer; 12 mapping; noise experts." 13 The reason is: 14 "To obtain evidence." 15 It's why I said earlier on that the question of 16 whether Mr O'Boyle was properly briefed or, indeed, 17 properly used at all goes more to the question of the 18 policing of the complaint than it does to the murder 19 investigation, and that's made good by this. 20 But you may wonder, if there was all this effort to 21 attempt to put things back where they were with 22 photographers, mapping, noise experts, relocating the 23 Land Rover, why on earth they didn't bother to do it 24 properly and have some noise, but no doubt they can tell 25 us when Mr McBurney comes. 65 1 Page [00929] is decision number 16. The decision is 2 "to arrest Andrew Allen (Fonzy) on 15.5.97". The 3 reason is: 4 "To interview and obtain further evidence in 5 connection with the murder." 6 It is a very interesting aspect of the matter, 7 because the one person whom Timothy Jameson named as 8 a kicker, whom Tracey Clarke did not name as a kicker, 9 is "Fonzy". It became clear quickly that "Fonzy" was 10 likely to be Andrew Allen, but he wasn't arrested until 11 this stage -- no decision was made to arrest him until 12 this stage, 14 May. 13 He was then released without charge after interview, 14 largely on the basis of a mistyping of the word "Fonzy" 15 in the statement of Timothy Jameson when it was typed 16 up. That was then carried over into the crime file in 17 which the -- when DI Irwin wrote the crime file, he 18 essentially justified the decision to take Mr Allen no 19 further because of a misidentification by name, without 20 pointing out that it was simply a typo, and also because 21 of lack of willingness to attend an identification 22 parade. It's not at all clear he was not willing to 23 attend an identification parade -- perhaps Detective 24 Inspector Irwin can tell us when he comes -- and why it 25 is that, if they were deciding to arrest a number of 66 1 people on the basis of these two statements, they didn't 2 immediately arrest Mr Allen. 3 In fact, what will emerge is that the only reason 4 Mr Allen was arrested was that other people subsequently 5 named him. It wasn't based on the Jameson statement, 6 and that may all shed some light on the treatment of 7 Timothy Jameson as a witness or potential defendant, 8 because, if his evidence was to be taken seriously, then 9 you might have thought that all those whom he named as 10 attackers might have been arrested on the strength of 11 it. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything in the records to show that 13 some alternative form of identification was ever 14 considered in any of these cases? 15 MR UNDERWOOD: No, nothing at all. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: I am reminded we have been sitting now for 17 some time. Is it convenient to break off now? I'm 18 thinking of the stenographer. 19 MR UNDERWOOD: It is a matter for you. There are five more 20 pages in this policy file. We could deal with those if 21 the stenographer could bear it. 22 Very briefly then, page [00930], policy decision 23 number 17, on 15 May, "to arrest David Woods". That's 24 because he's named by Allen. 25 At page [00931], decision number 18, 15 May, the 67 1 decision to release Allen from police custody on bail, 2 and the reason is: 3 "Insufficient evidence to charge at present." 4 What Mr Jameson had said was that "Fonzy" had kicked 5 Robert Hamill in the face a couple of times. 6 Page [00932] is decision 19, made on 15 May. What 7 this says is to make contact with xxxxxxxxxx re 8 seeking co-operation with witnesses and the Hamill 9 family, and the reasons are: 10 "To obtain evidence for this investigation and to 11 pursue family liaison." 12 Decision number 20, on 16 May, is "to release Woods 13 from police custody" because of "insufficient evidence to 14 charge". And the final decision we have in the policy 15 file, on 17 May, is at page [00934] and that is "to 16 continue to have close liaison with Witness A" because of 17 "vulnerability of witnesses". 18 It may be no coincidence that the cessation of the 19 policy file appears to coincide with cessation of 20 activity. There's plenty of interviewing, plenty of 21 statement-making, but you may think nothing very 22 material appears after this because the evidence which 23 appears in the eyes of the police to have been the be 24 all and end all was Tracey Clarke's and 25 Timothy Jameson's, and the murder charges lasted as long 68 1 as their evidence did, or at least their professed 2 willingness to attend to give evidence. 3 So, although the cause of death wasn't properly 4 established, and although the forensic science materials 5 didn't emerge until much later in the year, that was the 6 case. They have got two witnesses, full stop. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: 10.30 then tomorrow morning. 8 MR UNDERWOOD: Please. 9 (4.45 pm) 10 (The hearing adjourned until 10.30 am 11 on Wednesday, 29 April 2009) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 69 1 INDEX 2 PAGE 3 MR JOSEPH CHARLES O'BOYLE (affirmed) ............. 1 4 5 Examination by Mr UNDERWOOD ............... 1 6 7 Examination by MR ADAIR ................... 6 8 9 Examination by MR McGRORY ................. 9 10 11 Examination by MR MALLON .................. 11 12 13 MS RACHEL MURPHY (sworn) ......................... 18 14 15 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD ............... 18 16 17 Further examination by Mr MALLON .......... 27 18 19 Examination by MR GREEN ................... 28 20 21 Examination by MR O'HARE .................. 30 22 23 Submissions by MR UNDERWOOD ...................... 31 24 25 70