- - - - - - - - - - PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO THE DEATH OF ROBERT HAMILL - - - - - - - - - - Held at: Interpoint 20-24 York Street Belfast on Wednesday, 29th April 2009 commencing at 10.30 am Day 41 1 Wednesday, 29 April 2009 2 (10.30 am) 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Underwood? 4 MR UNDERWOOD: Morning, sir. I am reminded by Mr Adair that 5 I haven't actually handed out copies of the opening that 6 I am in the middle of. I think, while it's being 7 printed off, it might be helpful if we called the next 8 witness, who is Andrew Hill. That won't be out of 9 sequence, because he is one of those witnesses who 10 should have been called earlier in any event, and so is 11 covered by an earlier opening. So I will call him now. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Underwood, perhaps you will remind me if 13 I forget about the shorthand writer's need for a break? 14 MR UNDERWOOD: Of course. 15 MR ANDREW IVAN HILL (sworn) 16 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD 17 MR UNDERWOOD: Mr Hill, can you give us your full name, 18 please? 19 A. Andrew Ivan Hill. 20 Q. We are interested in events of 27 April in the early 21 hours. Were you in the centre of Portadown then? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Can you tell us how you got there for a start? 24 A. I walked. 25 Q. From where? 1 1 A. My friend's house. 2 Q. Whereabouts was that? 3 A. xxxxxxxxxx 4 Q. Who were you with when you walked into town? 5 A. Simon McNally, Kyle Woods, Gareth Cust, Lisa Hobson. 6 Q. What time was that? Can you help? 7 A. I can't really remember. It must have been after 12.00. 8 Q. What was going on in the town when you got there? 9 A. There was scuffling at the top of Woodhouse Street, 10 people arguing and shouting. 11 Q. Sorry, I missed the first word. Was that "scuffling"? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Where were you when you saw that? 14 A. Just at St Mark's Church, at the front of St Mark's 15 Church. 16 Q. Were you still with the people that you came into town 17 with? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. How far away were you, do you think, from the scuffling? 20 A. Probably about 100 metres. 21 Q. Did you see any police? 22 A. I recall seeing a police Land Rover sitting outside the 23 Halifax at the top of Woodhouse Street. 24 Q. Did you see any policemen or policewomen? 25 A. No. 2 1 Q. Did you hear any noise? 2 A. Yes. There was people shouting and arguing, scuffling, 3 as I said. 4 Q. Was this sectarian shouting? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. On both sides? 7 A. Well, yes, there would have been. 8 Q. Did you recognise anybody? 9 A. No. 10 Q. How old were you? 11 A. I think I was about 15. 12 Q. Did you see anybody kicking anybody or kicking at 13 anybody? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Did you see any other police vehicles arrive? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Did you see an ambulance arrive? 18 A. No. 19 Q. How long do you think you stayed there watching it? 20 A. A few minutes. 21 Q. What made you leave? 22 A. Well, it was just the fact that, as I said, I was 15, so 23 I shouldn't have been in the town centre at that time of 24 night. 25 Q. Was the scuffling still going on when you left? 3 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did you get involved? 3 A. No. 4 Q. I want to show you some documents and get your comments 5 on them. 6 First of all, can we have a look at page [06367], 7 please? This is a statement of a police officer called 8 Mr Warnock. It was made on 27 April 1997. He was 9 a back-up officer who turned up after the fighting 10 started. 11 If we pick this up about half a dozen lines down, he 12 says, looking at the top line, middle of the page on the 13 top: 14 "On arrival in the town centre at about 0150 hours 15 and in the area of Thomas/Market, I observed 16 police and a large crowd numbering approximately 30 - 40 17 persons having a confrontation." 18 If we go down to the bottom there, four lines from 19 the bottom, towards the right-hand side of the page: 20 "I then returned to the town centre where the crowd 21 on my arrival was still disorderly. Police then 22 started to push the crowd back towards Church Place and 23 into West Street. Whilst doing so, I noticed the 24 following persons in the crowd ..." 25 If we go over the page, [06368], and highlight all 4 1 the text there: 2 "... and what they were wearing: namely, 3 Allister Hanvey, who was wearing jeans with 4 a dark-coloured baseball type jacket with greyish 5 coloured sleeves and also a person known to me as ..." 6 We called you P51 here, but take it from me that 7 underneath that sticker is your name, Andrew Hill: 8 "... who was wearing jeans, blue in colour, and 9 a navy bomber type jacket." 10 Were you wearing blue jeans and a navy bomber 11 jacket? 12 A. No, I was wearing blue jeans and a denim jacket. 13 Q. Were you there when people were being pushed up the 14 street? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Were you in the crowd described by this officer? 17 A. No, definitely not. 18 Q. Can you explain why he said you were? 19 A. You would need to ask him that, but that definitely 20 wasn't me. I was wearing a denim jacket. 21 Q. If we look then at page [06332], this is a statement of 22 another police officer, Mr Neill, again made on 23 27 April 1997. 24 If we go to page [06335] in this statement and if we 25 highlight all of that text, you see there is a sticker 5 1 there, two stickers with the word "A", or letter "A", 2 on. After the second one, he is talking about seeing 3 a person called Stacey Bridgett with blood around his 4 mouth. Then he says: 5 "I again assisted at the line, trying to move the 6 crowd back up towards West Street. Robinson was still 7 in the front line and squared up to me on a couple of 8 occasions when asked to move back, drawing his arms 9 behind him. I also saw P51", that is you, and he gives 10 your address, "in this crowd wearing a soft denim-type 11 jacket and jeans. He appeared to be injured. The 12 situation calmed down somewhat after this." 13 So there's you with your soft denim jacket and your 14 jeans, identified in a hostile crowd, that had to be 15 forced up the road by a line of police officers, 16 containing aggressive youths. Is that true? 17 A. No, definitely not. 18 Q. Can you tell us why Mr Neill would make that up? 19 A. He must have been mistaken, because I definitely didn't 20 receive any injuries that night. 21 Q. So he identifies you by what you are wearing and by your 22 address as well, and you have no explanation for that? 23 A. You would need to ask him really. 24 Q. Very well. 25 Then if we look at a third police officer at page 6 1 [06363], this is a Mr Cooke, again a statement of 2 27 April, and to pick this up four lines from the 3 bottom: 4 "Persons in the crowd were shouting and jeering 5 towards police and the injured persons and members of 6 the crowd were constantly trying to push past police to 7 try and get towards the injured persons." 8 If we go over the page, middle of the page, do you 9 see roughly in the centre of that there are two stickers 10 with "P51" on? Let's pick up that sentence: 11 "I also recognised the following persons among the 12 crowd, Timothy Jameson and Andrew Hill. Andrew Hill was 13 wearing a navy jacket and blue denims." 14 Any comment about that? 15 A. That definitely wasn't me. I wasn't that far down. 16 Q. Three police officers who identified you at the scene? 17 A. With varying descriptions. Like, one said I appeared 18 injured. 19 Q. You made a witness statement, didn't you? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. We can look at that on page [09131]. That was made on 22 21 May 1997. In that you tell us what you said, rather, 23 what you said to me earlier on in your evidence today. 24 If we pick this up -- if we highlight the bottom half of 25 that page. You say: 7 1 "I can't be sure of the time. Simon, Gareth Cust and 2 Kyle and I left the house to walk to the Chinese. We 3 met Lisa Hobson and Wayne Lunt," you say. 4 You go on. [Gareth Cust] is Gareth Cust. If we pick it up 5 halfway down, you say: 6 "We walked down through McGowan Buildings to the big 7 church. We all sat down on the summer seats at the 8 front of the church." 9 You still maintain that, do you, that you were all 10 together? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. If we look at page [08145], this is a questionnaire 13 administered to somebody called Sarah McCartney, which 14 we see from this page on 7 May. If we look over the 15 page at [08146], can you see Q8 there? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. "Is there anything else you would like to add?" she was 18 asked. She said: 19 "Heard on Sunday from [somebody] that there had been 20 a fight between Protestants and Catholics. Heard from 21 Angela Buckley ... that Andrew Hill ... had jumped on the head 22 of one of the fellas." 23 Did you give anybody any reason for saying that to 24 the police? 25 A. No. I actually wasn't aware of this until a few weeks 8 1 ago. 2 Q. Uh-huh. 3 I now want to put to you statements that 4 Simon McNally and Kyle Woods made to the police. If we 5 look at page [09160], this is Simon McNally's statement 6 made on 21 May 1997 about the same time you made your 7 statement to the police. If we pick up all of it: 8 "On Saturday night, 26 April 1997, me and Gareth Cust, 9 Kyle Woods and Andrew Hill were listening to music in 10 the shed at the back of our house." 11 If we go down a few lines, right-hand side, this is 12 a sentence which starts: 13 "We didn't go into the Chinese ..." 14 Do you see that? Are you with me? 15 A. Mm-hm, yes. 16 Q. "... but walked on towards the town. I think 17 Andrew Hill got separated from us at about the 18 footbridge in West Street. He stopped to talk to 19 somebody there. Gareth Cust, Kyle and I walked along 20 West Street, turned into Mandeville Street, then got on 21 to Church Street. Then walked down to the church. 22 I could see a crowd of people in the town walking up 23 towards the church. They were somewhere near the 24 Alliance & Leicester branch where a police Land Rover 25 was. I could see people near the Land Rover and the 9 1 Land Rover doors were open. We knew we shouldn't have 2 been there, so we walked into West Street, heading back 3 in the direction of home. At about Intersport I met my 4 mum who had come into town to look for us. I looked 5 back and saw Andrew Hill coming up towards from us the 6 church direction." 7 What do you say about that; that one of the people 8 you say you were with, doesn't say you were with them? 9 A. You would need to ask him that, like. 10 Q. Uh-huh. Now let's look at Kyle Woods's account at page 11 [09133]. It is a statement made on 28 May 1997, and 12 he says: 13 "On Saturday, 26 April 1997, I was staying at my 14 friend Simon McNally's house. Two other friends, 15 Andrew Hill and Gareth Cust were there as well. On 16 Sunday 27th April 1997, about 1.20 am, we left Simon's 17 house to go to the Chinese take-away at the top of 18 Jervis Street to get something to eat. We didn't get 19 something at that time. Andrew Hill went over to talk 20 to a boy and a girl at the red footbridge." 21 Was that Wayne Lunt and Lisa Hobson? 22 A. I don't recall who that was. Because, as I said in my 23 statement, we had actually met Wayne and Lisa in 24 xxxxxxxxxx. 25 Q. "There was some commotion in the centre of the town, so 10 1 Gareth Cust, Simon and I walked down towards the church. 2 We walked down West Street then up the wee lane at the 3 back of the church and then turned left and walked down 4 towards the centre of the town, but stopped when we 5 reached the front of the church." 6 He goes on to describe what he saw there. 7 If we go over the page, do you see the sticker with 8 P51 on it? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. "Andrew Hill had met with us as we walked out of the 11 town again and he walked with us too." 12 So the other person you say you were with says you 13 were separated. What do you say about that? 14 A. Again, you would need to ask him. 15 Q. If we asked all these people and they stood by their 16 statements and say that what they are telling the police 17 there is the truth, these three police officers and 18 these two boys you say you were with, and they all say, 19 "No, that's what happened", now what do you say about 20 it? 21 A. Obviously they were mistaken. I didn't go any further 22 than the church. 23 Q. Would you like to tell us the truth? 24 A. That is the truth. 25 Q. They are all telling something else, are they? 11 1 A. You would need to ask them. 2 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much. 3 Examination by MR ADAIR 4 MR ADAIR: Mr Hill, are you aware that there are a number of 5 issues that this Inquiry is trying to deal with? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And are you aware that one of the issues is to try to 8 find out the truth for the Hamill family as to what 9 happened here? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Are you aware that one of the other issues is that there 12 is a cloud hanging over a number of policemen about 13 their actions, who were in the Land Rover that night in 14 Woodhouse Street in Market Street area. Are you aware 15 of that? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Are you aware that those are very serious issues, not 18 just for the Hamill family, but for the policemen whom 19 I represent? They are serious issues about their 20 character, about their professionalism. Are you aware 21 of that? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Well, what I want you to do is reflect a bit and now 24 tell us the truth about what you saw. Do you understand 25 me? 12 1 A. I have already told you exactly what I saw. 2 Q. You have told us, I suggest to you, a bundle of lies, 3 Mr Hill. 4 A. I am telling you that it's not a bundle of lies. 5 Q. Now, when you were in the area, where you say you first 6 arrived and you saw a scuffling going on down at the 7 junction of Woodhouse Street, you have told us you saw 8 a police Land Rover but didn't see any police out in the 9 street? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. Is that a lie? 12 A. No, that's the truth. 13 Q. Are you saying that throughout the whole time you 14 watched this, you did not see police out in the street? 15 A. It was the space of a minute. 16 Q. You said a few minutes? 17 A. Well, a few minutes. So, no, I didn't see any police on 18 the street. 19 Q. So is your evidence to this Inquiry that for those few 20 minutes you saw no police out on the street? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. That is just a lie, Mr Hill. 23 A. No, that's the truth. That's what I seen. 24 Q. You also didn't see any other police vehicles arriving? 25 A. No. 13 1 Q. Didn't hear any sirens? 2 A. I didn't say that I didn't hear any sirens. 3 Q. Did you hear any sirens? 4 A. No. 5 Q. You see, we know that other police vehicles arrived and 6 we know that people have heard sirens, but you didn't 7 hear any of that? 8 A. No. Well, obviously I didn't, if I was away before the 9 other police vehicles arrived. 10 Q. If you are right, as Mr Underwood has said to you, but 11 let me make it absolutely clear to you, two of the 12 officers who identified you at the scene in the crowd 13 actually arrived in those other vehicles -- not from the 14 Land Rover, actually arrived in the other vehicles and 15 saw you there. 16 Now, have they just totally made that up, Mr Hill? 17 A. Well, they did give varying descriptions and one said 18 that I was injured, and nobody else in their statements 19 mentioned any injuries. 20 Q. Do you know a Constable Warnock or -- 21 A. No. 22 Q. Can you help the Inquiry, or me, or anybody, as to any 23 even remote reason as to why they would name you being 24 there when you weren't? 25 A. Mistaken identity. 14 1 Q. Mistaken identity by a total of three people? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. So throughout the few minutes, is your evidence, 4 throughout the few minutes that you watched this going 5 on, you did not see one single solitary police officer 6 out on the street? 7 A. No. 8 Q. That's nonsense, isn't it? 9 A. No, that's the truth. 10 Q. You didn't see police trying to push the crowd up the 11 street towards the church? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Do you know Rory Robinson? 14 A. I know him to see. 15 Q. Did you see him there that night? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Do you know Wayne Lunt? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Did you see him there that night? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. What was he doing? 22 A. Well, walked into West Street with him, from West Street 23 into town. He was in our company. 24 Q. What was he doing at the time the scuffling was going 25 on? 15 1 A. We left at that stage, and walked back up West Street. 2 So we left him and Lisa in the town. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Forgive us, you were there for a few minutes? 4 MR ADAIR: During the few minutes you were there, what was 5 Wayne Lunt doing? 6 A. Just standing about. 7 Q. So Wayne Lunt wasn't down amongst this hostile crowd 8 either. Is that your evidence? 9 A. Whenever I was present, no, he wasn't. 10 Q. So you didn't see him being chased by a police officer 11 and put into -- well, let's start with that. You didn't 12 start see him being chased by a police officer? 13 A. No. 14 Q. You didn't see him being put in the back of 15 a Land Rover? 16 A. No. 17 Q. You saw nothing? 18 A. No. 19 Q. You are just another one of those, Mr Hill, I suggest to 20 you, that see nothing, hear nothing? 21 A. No, I have already told you what I seen. 22 Q. Stacey Bridgett. Do you know him? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Did you see him there that night? 25 A. No. 16 1 Q. Dean Forbes, do you know him? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Did you see him there that night? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Allister Hanvey, do you know him? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Did you see him there that night? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Marc Hobson, do you know him? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Did you see him there that night? 12 A. No. 13 Q. You saw none of these people? 14 A. No. 15 Q. We know they were all there, Mr Hill. 16 A. Well, obviously it was after I had left. 17 Q. You know, subject to one exception, that nobody is going 18 to be prosecuted for anything out of this. Do you know 19 that? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Would you not tell us the truth? 22 A. That is -- I have already told you the truth. 23 MR ADAIR: All right. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: You have told us what you didn't see. What 25 did you see of the scuffling? 17 1 A. It was just people pushing and shouting. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: That's all? 3 A. Yes. 4 Examination by MR McGRORY 5 MR McGRORY: My name is McGrory, and I represent the Hamill 6 family. 7 Now, you are lying to us today, are you not, 8 Mr Hill? 9 A. No. 10 Q. And you are lying to us, I'm going to suggest, for one 11 of two reasons, or for both of these reasons. 12 The first one is that you saw exactly what went on, 13 because you were down there? 14 A. No, definitely not. 15 Q. You are someone who is in a position to identify those 16 who attacked and murdered Robert Hamill? 17 A. No. 18 Q. That's one reason why you might lie. Do you agree with 19 me? 20 A. No. 21 Q. But you do know some of these people. You know 22 Stacey Bridgett? 23 A. I have already said, yes. 24 Q. And you know Dean Forbes, and you know Allister Hanvey? 25 A. Mm-hm. 18 1 Q. If you were down there in the thick of it, you would be 2 only too aware of what they did to Robert Hamill? 3 A. Yes, if I was in the thick of it, which I wasn't. 4 Q. Well, we have already heard plenty of material which 5 contradicts your version of events. I'm not going to go 6 through it all in detail, Mr Hill, but no less than 7 three policemen have identified you as being down in the 8 thick of it. Isn't that right? 9 A. Yes, but they are clearly mistaken, varying descriptions 10 they have each given. 11 Q. I'm going to suggest to you the descriptions aren't that 12 varied. 13 First of all, what is common to all three of them, 14 Mr Hill, is that they know you by name. They recognised 15 you. Do you understand me? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Each and every one of the three -- that's Warnock, Neill 18 and Cooke -- identify you by name. 19 You heard that, didn't you? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And insofar as their descriptions are concerned, it only 22 relates to your clothing. Isn't that right? 23 A. And an injury of some sort. 24 Q. Leave the injury out of it. You were wearing jeans. 25 Isn't that right? 19 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And you say you were wearing a denim jacket? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Was it a blue denim jacket? 5 A. Light blue. 6 Q. But it was blue nonetheless? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And each of these three officers has named you because 9 they know you? 10 A. Apparently, yes. 11 Q. You accepted in your statement to the Inquiry that you 12 would have been known to the police -- isn't that 13 right -- because you had been in trouble the odd time 14 for teenage drinking? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Not only do these three police officers recognise you in 17 the thick of it, Mr Hill, but your two friends also 18 contradict you, don't they? 19 A. Contradict me in what way? 20 Q. They give a different version of events as to your 21 movements and the version you give? 22 A. Well, a slight variation, but they still didn't place me 23 in the town centre in the thick of anything. 24 Q. But they both say you left them at the footbridge? 25 A. That's before the town centre. 20 1 Q. Exactly. That's exactly it. You left their company. 2 Isn't that right? 3 A. Yes, apparently, according to the evidence. But I don't 4 recall that. 5 Q. That is not what you say happened. So both of your 6 friends independently, on different days, give the same 7 evidence to the police that you left them at the 8 footbridge. 9 Now, do you agree that differs from what you say? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. You can offer no reason why three policemen and your two 12 friends might make things up about you? 13 A. You would need to ask them. 14 Q. I suggest to you that they are telling the truth and you 15 are telling the lies. 16 A. No, I'm telling the truth. 17 Q. This Inquiry has received evidence, Mr Hill, from 18 a witness called Tracey Clarke? 19 A. Mm-hm. 20 Q. Have you heard of Tracey Clarke? 21 A. I have heard of her, yes. 22 Q. What have you heard about her? 23 A. I just know her name. 24 Q. How do you know her name? 25 A. I have seen it in the Portadown paper. 21 1 Q. In what context have you seen it in the Portadown paper? 2 A. Well, to do with the Inquiry. 3 Q. You are aware that she is a key witness to the Inquiry? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Are you aware that she made a statement of evidence 6 naming people who were involved in the murder of 7 Robert Hamill? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Are you aware who she named as being involved in the 10 murder of Robert Hamill? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. So you are aware that her estranged husband, 13 Allister Hanvey was one of those? 14 A. Mm-hm. 15 Q. You have already told us you knew Allister Hanvey. 16 A. To see. 17 Q. To see. But you would have recognised him? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And you knew Stacey Bridgett? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And you knew Dean Forbes? 22 A. Mm-hm. 23 Q. She made a statement to this Inquiry in which she named 24 all three of those people, plus others, as people who 25 were jumping on Robert Hamill. Are you aware of that? 22 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And jumping on his head when he lay on the ground. Are 3 you aware of that allegation? 4 A. Mm-hm. 5 Q. Of course you are aware of that allegation, Mr Hill. 6 Because the second reason why you might be lying, apart 7 from who else you can identify as being involved in 8 this, is that you may well have been involved in it 9 yourself. Is that correct? 10 A. No, that is definitely not correct. 11 Q. The height of the evidence we have of your involvement 12 is a rumour? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. But were you involved? 15 A. No, definitely not. 16 Q. It would certainly be a reason to try to distance 17 yourself from those events, wouldn't it? 18 A. It's possible, but, sir, as there's no prosecutions, 19 there's no reason to lie to the Inquiry. 20 Q. Is there not? Are you saying that if you were involved 21 in the murder of Robert Hamill, you would come and tell 22 us? 23 A. I'm saying that I definitely was not and that's the 24 truth. 25 Q. Of course, there would have been a reason to lie to the 23 1 police in May 1997. Isn't that right? 2 A. What reason would that be? 3 Q. If you put yourself down in the thick of it, you might 4 be implicated. 5 A. No. Well, as I wasn't in the thick of it, so I wasn't 6 telling lies in 1997. 7 Q. But do you agree that if you were in the thick of it, it 8 would be a good reason to lie, to keep yourself out of 9 it, wouldn't it? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Are you just lucky that Tracey Clarke didn't know you? 12 A. You would need to ask Tracey Clarke if she knows me or 13 not. 14 Q. How did you feel about the death of Robert Hamill? 15 A. It was tragic. 16 Q. Tragic. Have you any difficulty with Catholics at all? 17 A. No. 18 Q. How do you feel about the idea of a Catholic being 19 beaten up to the extent that he dies of his injuries? 20 A. Sad, like. 21 Q. Are you telling the truth about that? Is that the 22 truth? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. I'm going to suggest to you that you have taunted the 25 Hamill family about this incident. 24 1 A. No, I haven't. 2 Q. You are well aware of the public campaign by the Hamill 3 family for an Inquiry, are you not? 4 A. It has been very publicised recently. 5 Q. It's been publicised for many years, hasn't it? 6 A. It's just recently I have took interest. 7 Q. Have you not taken an interest in it since the event 8 happened, Mr Hill? 9 A. No. 10 Q. You see, we have heard evidence from Diane Hamill that 11 when you saw her driving past in a car, when you were in 12 the Park Road area, you jumped up and down, as if to 13 mimic someone jumping up and down on her brother? 14 A. I don't recall that incident. 15 Q. She described you as someone who had dark hair. 16 A. There's probably 10,000 people in Portadown with dark 17 hair. 18 Q. And she said thinly made up or finely made up. She 19 could have said anything, couldn't she; fat, tall? She 20 wasn't too far out, was she? 21 A. From what is in her description, someone slim with dark 22 hair? 23 Q. From her description of the man who jumped up and down, 24 taunting her. And the name Andrew Hill was given to 25 her, when she described the person, by her sister. 25 1 A. So her sister was able to identify me from "slim, dark 2 hair"? 3 Q. Diane Hamill is here today and I'm going to suggest to 4 you that she confirms you were the person. What do you 5 say about the allegation of taunting the Hamill family, 6 Mr Hill? 7 A. No, it definitely wasn't me. 8 Q. Did you taunt them because you were involved and you 9 were the one that got away? 10 A. No. 11 MR UNDERWOOD: I have no further questions. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you. You are free to go. 13 (The witness withdrew) 14 MR UNDERWOOD: Sir, I want to hand out the hard copies of 15 the opening I'm engaged in giving, and I also want to 16 hand out copies of the ruling which you have made on 17 Mr McGrory's objections yesterday to the screening 18 decision. 19 I wonder if that could be done and now might be 20 a convenient moment for a break? 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, very well then. 15 minutes. 22 (11.10 am) 23 (A short break) 24 (11.30 am) 25 26 1 Submissions by MR UNDERWOOD (continued) 2 MR UNDERWOOD: By way of opening, I was discussing the five 3 aspects of the, as it were, opening part of the 4 investigation, and I was just about to get to the 5 arresting suspects strategy. 6 As I think I suggested yesterday, the best one can 7 derive of a suspect arrest strategy we get from the 8 policy book, from which it appears that those people who 9 were named by Tracey Clarke or Timothy Jameson were 10 treated, with the exception of one person, Andrew Allen, 11 as suspects to be arrested. But Andrew Allen, it 12 appears, was arrested on the basis of some other 13 material which has not been divulged. 14 Equally, despite the fact Andrew Allen was named by 15 Timothy Jameson as somebody who had kicked Robert Hamill 16 twice in the face, he was released. 17 As I said, one ought perhaps usefully to consider 18 the question of Mr Atkinson and the allegation made by 19 Tracey Clarke against him in this, and you will be 20 hearing this afternoon from DC McAteer, who dealt with 21 the way in which the revelation about Mr Atkinson was 22 first made to the police and was made the subject of 23 evidence. 24 He will tell you that when detectives were first 25 notified by a reserve constable that they had heard some 27 1 information from Andrea McKee, what it was that was 2 relayed was the allegation against Mr Atkinson, not the 3 allegation that Tracey Clarke had known who had kicked 4 Mr Hamill, and it was that information which led to 5 Andrea McKee being interviewed: namely, the allegation 6 against Mr Atkinson. 7 So it was regarded as a very important allegation at 8 the outset, in fact not to the exclusion of, but more 9 primarily than the information about what Tracey Clarke 10 may have been able to say about the murderers. 11 You will recall she came in late on the night of 12 9th May and her statement was signed on the 10th because 13 it was given overnight. 14 I have already said that we see from the policy 15 documents how seriously the allegation against 16 Mr Atkinson was initially taken, and that's made good. 17 If we look at page [24696], we see a form dated 9 May, 18 so obviously late at night when we see the subject of 19 it. It is a "request for details of telephone calls, 20 murder investigation, Robert Hamill", to Detective 21 Inspector CID Portadown: 22 "I respectfully request that all telephone calls 23 between the following two telephone subscribers between 24 12 midnight on 26 April 1997 and present date be 25 supplied urgently as they are required in relation to 28 1 the above murder investigation: 1. E Hanvey, 2 2. Robert Atkinson." 3 This is signed off by Mr McAteer. It's then 4 countersigned, we see "D/Supt" at the 5 bottom: 6 "I request all incoming and outgoing calls in 7 respect of the above telephone numbers, please." 8 Then we see bottom right, "approved". We take this 9 to be Mr McBurney's signature, Detective Chief 10 Superintendent, all on 9 May. 11 So it was signed off by Mr McAteer, countersigned, 12 and signed off by Mr McBurney, all before the statement 13 was completed. So you can see that the allegation 14 against Mr Atkinson wasn't treated lightly at that 15 stage. But, of course, he wasn't arrested, wasn't 16 suspended, wasn't interviewed. Nothing happened until 17 9 September. 18 The next of the factors which Mr Murray deals with 19 about the early stages of investigation is the searching 20 of premises. 21 You know now, of course, that those who were 22 arrested had their homes searched. The interesting 23 part, I would respectfully suggest, is the way 24 Mr Hanvey's home was searched. We know of course that 25 he was identified by at least one police officer as 29 1 having a jacket with grey sleeves. Mr McAteer will tell 2 you that when Tracey Clarke was interviewed, she did say 3 what it was that Mr Hanvey was wearing but it was not 4 recorded in the statement. So police were certainly 5 aware of what it was alleged Mr Hanvey was wearing, and 6 they were certainly aware, of course, of the allegation 7 that his clothing was the subject of the tip-off. 8 Nonetheless, the search of his premises might, with 9 great charity, be called woeful. 10 You, of course, saw and heard from 11 Detective Constable Murphy yesterday about the 12 subsequent search which she carried out, or for which 13 she was the log keeper, which was conducted on 13 May. 14 You saw the Form 29 she completed. You saw the log she 15 completed. 16 So, for example -- and we can go back to it if you 17 want -- on the front page she recorded with care what 18 damage she noticed in the premises. She recorded, of 19 course, in the log which rooms were searched. You saw, 20 because I put to her, a note of an interview conducted 21 a few years later, with one of the officers, who was 22 present at the search, who was of course told off on 23 13 May to look for clothing. He did a search outside 24 for burnt clothing. 25 And importantly, DC Murphy, who was the log keeper, 30 1 was not told, "Go and make a good search because we have 2 made a rubbish search". She wasn't doing anything out 3 of the ordinary, she was doing what she regarded as the 4 normal job. It is against that context that I would 5 invite you to have a look now to see what happened on 6 10 May. 7 If we look at page [73989], we see the manuscript 8 version this time of the Form 29 for 10 May. [73989] is 9 just the front sheet. [73990] -- and you will recall 10 the equivalent version of this which was typed up for 11 13 May had the damage in the hall, et cetera, et cetera. 12 So here we have, for example, in the middle of the 13 page, "Existing damage/condition on first inspection: 14 bedroom in fair condition". 15 The fact that it only refers to the bedroom is 16 a good indicator of where we go next. If we go to page 17 [73996] we see the log. Again, of course, on 13 May, 18 you have a record of each room being searched, when the 19 officers went in and when they came out. Here, notably, 20 at 0721, admitted entry by Mrs Hanvey. Explained the 21 authority, et cetera. 22 At 0727, Team A entered house, commenced search of 23 bedroom 1. 24 0730, Constable Porter seized one pair of dark blue 25 jeans, one white/black Asics trainers, one black 31 1 padded bomber jacket. 2 As far as one can tell, there was no reason why they 3 would be looking for a black bomber jacket because no 4 officer had identified that as the jacket being worn. 5 0740, Team A out of bedroom. 6 0745, Detective Constable McAteer arrested 7 Allister Hanvey. No reply. 8 0746, search terminated. 9 So 25 minutes. 10 You will recall from Mr Hanvey himself that he 11 shared a bedroom, at least by the time -- rather later 12 on, he was at least sharing a bedroom, so there is 13 reason to believe he might have been sharing a bedroom 14 at the time. 15 If we go to page [73999], there is a sketch of the 16 area searched: namely, bedroom 1. Two beds in it. So 17 reason to believe he was sharing it. 18 Go over the page, page [74000] and we can see -- 19 perhaps if we can turn this to the right by 20 90 degrees -- back and front of the house, and you can 21 see that you can only get to this bedroom, bedroom 1, by 22 going through bedroom 2. There are, of course, three 23 bedrooms in the house as well as the bathroom, kitchen, 24 living room, linen press. 25 So even though the officers had to get through 32 1 bedroom 2, they didn't bother to stop and search it. 2 They went to a bedroom, grabbed a jacket, a pair of 3 jeans and a pair of shoes, and left after 25 minutes. 4 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: Can I just ask, at this 5 time, they were expected to have known about the 6 suggestion of the burning of the clothes. Yes? 7 MR UNDERWOOD: Yes. As we have just seen, they were so 8 excited about the prospect that Mr Atkinson might have 9 tipped Mr Hanvey off, that late at night on 9 May, even 10 before Ms Clarke's statement was signed off, they got 11 the approval for the telephone records to be grabbed. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you just remind me, because I have not 13 noted it, the date of this search, please? 14 MR UNDERWOOD: 10 May. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 16 MR UNDERWOOD: If ever there was a classic case of shutting 17 the stable door, sending people back to do a proper 18 search on 13 May, after you had alerted the household 19 that the son had been arrested, and, indeed, interviewed 20 and asked about his jacket, you may have thought wasn't 21 much use. 22 BARONESS RICHARDSON: He was hardly likely to have burned 23 the clothes in his bedroom. 24 MR UNDERWOOD: Assuming it was his bedroom. For which, 25 presumably, they had the words only of the occupiers. 33 1 THE CHAIRMAN: And the log shows by silence that the garden 2 was never searched. 3 MR UNDERWOOD: Yes. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Nothing at all of that nature. 5 MR UNDERWOOD: We will call the searchers of course. I'm at 6 a loss to suggest whether they were briefed to look for 7 clothing, whether they were briefed to do a proper 8 search, whether they chose not to follow the briefing. 9 No doubt that will all become clear. 10 In the original opening, I made mention of a number 11 of officers who feature. Perhaps it would be helpful if 12 I ran through some of the officers who are to be called 13 in the near future, dealing with the issues that we are 14 looking at now. 15 As you know, DC Donald Keys was the detective 16 constable on call on 27 April. So he was the first 17 detective to be called out. He asked for the Land Rover 18 crew to be recalled to give statements. 19 He attended the scene and he briefed Mr Ardis, the 20 Scenes of Crime officer, and indeed briefed the 21 photographer. 22 He then briefed his immediate superior, Detective 23 Chief Inspector P39, as we are calling her. And 24 importantly, DC Keys also dealt with seizing and viewing 25 CCTV records. 34 1 DCI P39 was, as I say, initially the senior officer 2 on the case, and was so until Detective Chief 3 Superintendent McBurney took over, as we have seen from 4 the policy book. 5 DCI P39 liaised with the Hamill family and that's 6 not a task I belittle, because, of course, that was 7 a matter that required great sensitivity. She also took 8 what might be described as a pastoral role with 9 Tracey Clarke, again not a small role, because it was 10 clear from the outset that Tracey Clarke needed careful 11 management in order to get her to give evidence. 12 She also visited Catholic priests in the Portadown 13 area to get their help in getting Catholic witnesses to 14 come forward. 15 As far as one can tell, she did all those things off 16 her own bat. She can obviously help you with the early 17 stages of the investigation, therefore, and why it was 18 she did things that appear to have had no policy book 19 justification, but which clearly were important things 20 to do. 21 She'll also have to deal with the contention that 22 she and other detectives were told that Timothy Jameson 23 had admitted putting the boot in. Again, you will 24 recall that is one version of the way in which 25 Timothy Jameson came to the attention of police. 35 1 John McAteer was a detective constable and, as 2 I suggested about five minutes ago, he is one of those 3 who was involved in Tracey Clarke and Andrea McKee 4 coming forward. 5 Importantly, not only did he deal with Andrea McKee, 6 but he interviewed Tracey Clarke. So the question 7 whether the statement which Tracey Clarke gave to the 8 police was her statement or whether somehow it was 9 forced out of her or imposed upon her by Andrea McKee or 10 the police is something for which she is a central 11 witness. 12 SIR JOHN EVANS: Wasn't P39 present at that interview? 13 MR UNDERWOOD: Yes. As you have seen, of course, it was 14 DC McAteer who initiated that call for the telephone 15 records for the possible Hanvey/Atkinson connection. 16 He was also involved in the search of the Hanvey 17 house on 10 May 1997, and he, too, went to see parish 18 priests in the company of DCI P39, and indeed dealt with 19 the Hamill family. 20 You will also be hearing in this phase from 21 Mark Ardis, the SOCO. Again, insofar as there was 22 a forensic strategy and there were briefings about it, 23 he can tell you. 24 Also on that topic, we will be calling 25 a Mr John McDowell, who I think is probably properly 36 1 pronounced "McDole". He dealt with the transmission of 2 the forensic forms, and, again, may be able to deal with 3 any forensic strategy there was. 4 Also in this phase I will be calling DC Bradley. He 5 questioned all of the Land Rover crew, and we have seen 6 some notes of additional notes that were taken from the 7 Land Rover crew. He was only involved on 28 April, and 8 it's not entirely clear when he took those notes, but, 9 again, he can help on the degree of what might be 10 regarded as a debriefing of the officers. 11 Then we come to another detective constable, 12 Mr Williamson. He spoke to two potential witnesses who 13 had seen something from their windows on the night of 14 the attack. Those are P45 and xxxxxxxxxx. 15 Regrettably, both of those are unavailable to us as 16 witnesses. One has died and one is in Bulgaria. So 17 what it is that they said to Mr Williamson, may be of 18 value. 19 He also made some inquiries of Pauline Newell, of 20 whom we have seen commentary that she may have seen more 21 than she told you. 22 The next DC we will be dealing with is 23 Paul McCrumlish. He interviewed Allister Hanvey and can 24 help you with the quality of the briefing for that 25 interview. He also dealt with Kenneth and 37 1 Elizabeth Hanvey. 2 Importantly, he interviewed Andrew Allen, and he may 3 be able to assist you on how it was Andrew Allen was 4 treated in the way he was. 5 There is another detective constable, Mr McIntosh, 6 who accompanied Mr McCrumlish in most of those 7 activities. 8 Then the searchers for 10 May are Charles Andrews, 9 Michael Bingham, Michael Porter, and another who is 10 currently ciphered as P34. They will tell you about the 11 search. 12 You have already heard from Rachel Murphy. There 13 are two other officers, whom I may well call to deal 14 with the search of 13 May and how unusual it may have 15 been to do the search in the way that second search was 16 done. Those officers are Ian Ritchie and Geoffrey Ward. 17 Then finally, in this group, there will be 18 Karen Kennedy and Desmond Jackson. Those are the senior 19 officers who dealt with what I have kept calling the 20 Kennedy report, which was an investigation internally 21 into the early stages of the investigation. We owe 22 a lot to that investigation because it uncovered a lot 23 of what I'm about to be able to elicit from the 24 witnesses in this phase. 25 That's a very bald explanation then of roughly where 38 1 we are. The next witness I call is Mr McMullen. 2 MR HENRY GABRIEL McMULLEN (sworn) 3 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD 4 MR UNDERWOOD: Good morning. My name is Underwood. I am 5 Counsel to the Inquiry. It's my task to ask most of the 6 questions and then other people may ask some 7 supplementals when I have finished. 8 Can I ask you your full name, please? 9 A. Henry Gabriel McMullen. 10 Q. Can we look at page [80940]? This is a witness 11 statement, it says "draft" at the top. You have signed 12 one, haven't you? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. If we have the several pages of this flicked through 15 quite quickly on screen. I just want to satisfy you 16 that this is, in fact, your document. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Is that your statement? 19 A. It is indeed, yes. 20 Q. Are the contents true? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Thank you very much. I've got some supplemental 23 questions for you, if I may, Mr McMullen. You were the 24 weekend duty officer? 25 A. Yes. 39 1 Q. You have told us in your statement that, in essence, in 2 this instance that we are concerned with, the assault on 3 Robert Hamill, what you were concerned to do was ensure 4 that there were adequate resources available to those 5 conducting the investigation? 6 A. That's right. 7 Q. Can you explain how that worked in practical terms? 8 Was your task to search out what was required by way 9 of resources or were you asking people what they wanted 10 or what? 11 A. Basically, what they wanted. To ensure that those who 12 were responsible for an investigation, a job, an 13 operation, that they were happy that they had the 14 resources there to do it, or, if there was any problems, 15 they could come to me about it. 16 Q. It is a truism, of course, that there are never enough 17 resources to go around in any organisation. 18 A. Absolutely. 19 Q. Have you any recollection that in relation to the 20 investigation into the attack on Mr Hamill, there was 21 any shortage of resources? Was there any stress between 22 you and those who needed the resources? 23 A. No. No. 24 Q. I take it that you had no involvement in the 25 investigation itself, in terms of oversight? 40 1 A. No. 2 Q. You told us in your statement that you had a briefing by 3 the Detective Inspector we are calling P39. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. You know who she is. You say that you were briefed from 6 something called an incident log. Can you tell us what 7 that was? 8 A. Over the years, there were various systems, and sitting 9 here now, looking back, I'm not sure what system was in 10 operation at that time. But an incident log could well 11 have been the print-out of the command and control 12 computer that would have given you the -- 13 a chronological list of what happened, the time it 14 happened and so on. 15 Q. Right. But that's, if I might respectfully say so, 16 a degree of hindsight and speculation? 17 A. That's right. But no matter what system it was, it 18 would be basically the same thing. It would be a list 19 of: this is what we have; this is what occurred; and 20 these are the times it occurred at. 21 Q. Do you mean that just in relation to this incident or in 22 relation to the events that are generally overtaking the 23 police station on that night? 24 A. Well, here -- and it's all in hindsight -- you would 25 only concern yourself with this particular incident when 41 1 I was talking to her. But there would be one, as you 2 suggest, for everything. 3 Q. Is this a fair picture then? DCI P39 would have 4 explained to you what had been going on and would have 5 shown you a document, whichever form of document was 6 being used at that time? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you recall then what was actually discussed about the 9 need for resources in relation to Mr Hamill? 10 A. I don't recall now precisely what was required. All 11 I recall is that I was satisfied that she had it in 12 hand. 13 Q. Right. Can I attempt to get from you your best 14 recollection about how seriously the assault was viewed? 15 Was it regarded as a very serious assault, as 16 potentially life-threatening, or just a Saturday night 17 assault? 18 A. No, it was regarded as serious. I recall there were two 19 assaults that I regarded as very serious. In fact, my 20 recollection is that there were three, maybe. 21 Q. We certainly heard of one other. 22 A. There was the one in Portadown and there were two in 23 Banbridge, which I was a duty officer for as well. 24 I know in Banbridge that one of them was serious, 25 very serious. In fact, to the effect that the 42 1 individual might die. 2 The one in Portadown, certainly serious, but my 3 recollection is that there was no imminent danger of 4 them dying. But I do know it was very serious. 5 Q. So regarded as serious, and you regarded DCI P39 as 6 having it in hand? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. So no call on you for more resources, in other words? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Again, the Panel may be helped by a picture of what 11 might have happened, had you been asked for more. 12 If, for example, you were told that an urgent need 13 for house-to-house enquiries had been presented and 14 perhaps you needed half a dozen detective constables to 15 conduct that, was it in your power to authorise that? 16 A. I would -- it would be my power to go and get them from 17 somewhere. There would be a chain of command for that, 18 and I would have to make the case along with the 19 detective chief superintendent. We have got to have 20 them and this is why we need them. 21 As you said, there's always a strain on resources, 22 but if she made that request, it's essential to have 23 them, then action would be taken to get them. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: But that, in fact, didn't arise? 25 A. No, it didn't arise. 43 1 MR UNDERWOOD: The last matter I want to ask you about is 2 debriefing. You have told us in the final paragraph or 3 so of your witness statement about how uniformed 4 officers going off duty were debriefed by a sergeant or 5 inspector. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Just help us how this worked in 1997. If you were an 8 officer in uniform, you were out doing public order 9 duties, and you hadn't been involved in any particular 10 incidents. So a fairly quiet night, perhaps you had 11 spoken to a few people to get them to go home, shut up, 12 whatever it might be, and you clock off duty at 13 3 o'clock or whatever it is in the morning, would there 14 be a debriefing of sorts, even though nothing particular 15 had happened? 16 A. Yes. Sometimes people think that debrief is to sit down 17 at a desk and go through things. It could mean that, or 18 it could mean simply meeting the sergeant in the doorway 19 and saying, "Sergeant, nothing happened tonight", or, 20 "Sergeant, I have perhaps a form to fill in, I have 21 something to do", and the sergeant would keep that in 22 his journal of -- to ensure that it was followed up 23 later. 24 For example, if an officer used his baton, normally 25 he would fill in his baton report form at the end of 44 1 a tour of duty, but as you suggest, in the middle of the 2 night, and -- an officer going home in the middle of the 3 night means that he has been on a long tour of duty. If 4 he was going home at, say, 2, 3, 4 o'clock in the 5 morning, it would mean he had started 4 o'clock the 6 previous day, maybe midday the previous day, and it 7 could well be that he wouldn't fill in the form. He 8 would say, "Look, Sergeant, I will do that when I come 9 back tomorrow." 10 Q. That is helpful. I started at one end of the scale, as 11 it were, and asked you about a quiet night -- 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. -- and you helpfully interposed the concept that, if 14 somebody was on an extra-long shift, they may be asked 15 less or may be required -- have a lesser requirement to 16 fill in forms than somebody who has come off the normal 17 shift as at the end of the shift. Is that fair? 18 A. Yes, but it would be established what he had to do; what 19 he did do and what he still had to do. 20 Q. What about notebook entries? Again, take a quiet shift. 21 Take the alternatives, whether someone has done a normal 22 shift or done an extra-long shift, would they be 23 expected to complete the notebook relating to that shift 24 before they clocked off? 25 A. Notebook entries are made as one goes along. It is 45 1 a notebook. He would make an entry when he started duty 2 at midday, 2 pm, whatever, directed to do whatever he 3 was to do. If he was dealing with incidents and 4 matters, whatever, he would have made the notes at the 5 time. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: In effect, after each incident? 7 A. After each incident. Or, if somebody told him 8 something, he would write it down. 9 MR UNDERWOOD: Let me put you the English perspective from 10 my own experience. It may be nobody else's experience 11 at all, but let's get it out of the way, in case it 12 influences any evidence that I might lead. 13 In England, one would expect of a police officer 14 that he would make his notes up in relation to any 15 particular incident, as soon as practicable after that. 16 A. Yes, that's right. 17 Q. That was the situation, was it? 18 A. Yes, that would be right. 19 Q. Again, let me get out of the way any preconceptions that 20 English lawyers might bring to this. We are wedded to 21 this great thing called proportionality now. I want to 22 put to you how that might apply, and I don't want any 23 preconceptions here to get in the way of the evidence. 24 In relation to debriefing, what would your reaction 25 be to this proposition: the more serious an incident 46 1 that had occurred to officers, the more debriefing was 2 needed? 3 A. Debriefing -- that's where the problem arises. Do you 4 mean debriefing right now at the time? Do you mean 5 debriefing later on? 6 Q. At the end of the shift. 7 A. At the end of the shift. Well, it's difficult for me 8 looking back, because I don't know exactly what was 9 going on. But to give an example of what might be, it 10 probably was very busy. It may well have been the 11 sergeant wasn't even in the station when some of them 12 were going home in the middle of the night. It would be 13 the duty of the officers going home, and the sergeant, 14 to ensure that there was a debriefing of a kind. Now, 15 that could -- debriefing might be, "What have you done? 16 What have you still to do?" 17 Then you could say very little briefing was done. 18 Sorry, very little debriefing was done. But they would 19 know that it still had to be done. 20 Q. Right. There may be colliding imperatives here. 21 You say that officers who had been on a particularly 22 long shift might not be expected to do everything at the 23 end of their shift, but they would have to identify what 24 they still had to do? 25 A. That's right. 47 1 Q. On the other hand, you have the concept that officers 2 would make up their notebooks as soon as practicable? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. How do those things coalesce where you have officers at 5 the end of a long shift in which there has been 6 a significant incident? 7 Would it have been proper, normal, for them not to 8 have completed their notebooks? In relation to the 9 incident, I mean. 10 A. It would be normal for them to make note in their 11 notebook, and an officer going home, finished duty at 12 whatever, and he might say to do -- he might make 13 a to-do list, complete baton report forms, anything that 14 he hadn't time to do or was too tired to do. 15 Q. Let's say you have officers who are present at the scene 16 of a serious assault where they identify people, some by 17 name, some by description, as it were. They recognise 18 somebody who is 6 feet tall, with a goatee beard or 19 whatever it might be, whose name they don't know, and by 20 the time they go off shift, it's known that this is 21 a serious assault. Take those premises for the moment. 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. How reasonable would it have been for officers not to 24 make any notes about their descriptions of people they 25 had identified before they went off? 48 1 A. Well, I can see that -- I would have expected them to 2 put something in their notebook of, "Need to make 3 a statement later on". They might have took the view 4 that, "Well, there is no point in writing all this into 5 the notebook. I'm going to have to make a full 6 statement about this, and I will do that in due course." 7 I can see the point of view that if there was a lot 8 of things that they thought, "I must remember that 9 specific point or I may forget this", to make a sort of 10 a like a shopping list of points. They might do that. 11 They might think, "I have this clear in my mind, and 12 I'll not put pen to paper about this until I make 13 a statement about it." 14 Q. In an answer earlier, a moment ago, you said the 15 sergeant may not even have been in the police station. 16 But assume for a moment that a sergeant or an inspector 17 were in the police station when a crew signed off, 18 having been involved in a serious incident where they 19 may have identified people, would you have regarded it 20 as the responsibility of the sergeant or the inspector 21 to ensure that some note was taken of what the police 22 had seen? 23 A. That would depend on what was on the command and control 24 log. It might -- all that could have been captured on 25 it. You have two or three, half a dozen officers at the 49 1 scene. They might well all be listed on the command and 2 control log, time they went to the scene, time they left 3 the scene. Whether they went to the hospital, what they 4 did. It would be on the log, Constable so-and-so called 5 for an ambulance, so-and-so went to the hospital. It 6 would all be recorded there. 7 Q. What I'm getting at is this. Where you have, say, half 8 a dozen police constables who are at the scene of 9 a serious incident, who can perhaps identify either 10 witnesses or potential wrongdoers, they come back to the 11 police station, they are about to sign off, and there is 12 a sergeant or an inspector there, would you regard it as 13 the duty of the sergeant or the inspector to ensure that 14 those officers didn't go without making a note of what 15 they had seen while it was still fresh in their mind? 16 A. I don't think it would be the -- you wouldn't have to 17 tell them to make -- the sergeant or inspector wouldn't 18 have to tell them to make a note. They should be making 19 a note. 20 Now, the sergeant or inspector would know these 21 individuals will have to make full statements 22 eventually. 23 Q. That's finally what I want to ask about. It is the 24 interplay between the responsibility as perceived by the 25 sergeant or inspector in that situation and the 50 1 detectives who the sergeant or inspector would know were 2 going to come in. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. So let's take a situation where at, say, 4 o'clock in 5 the morning or so, you get officers signing off in dribs 6 and drabs, as they finish particular duties. It's known 7 to a sergeant or inspector at the station that these 8 officers have seen important events, and it's known that 9 detectives are likely to come in in the morning to deal 10 with the aftermath. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. At what stage do the uniformed officers, the sergeant 13 and the inspector, regard it as no longer their problem, 14 no longer their responsibility? Do they hold the ring 15 as it were, until the detectives get there? Do they 16 have to do any investigation themselves? What's the 17 position? 18 A. They wouldn't be doing investigation themselves. They 19 would be preserving evidence, ensuring that everything 20 was in order, as far as it could be, for the detectives 21 to carry on with it. To ensure that everything would 22 be -- nothing was lost, really. And officers coming in 23 off duty, going home at that time of the morning, their 24 details would be there. Supervisory officers would know 25 it was all captured on command and control. They 51 1 wouldn't be sitting down to take detailed statements off 2 them. 3 Q. Insofar as there was a duty to compile notebooks, that 4 was a duty of the individual? 5 A. It would be an individual's duty that, yes. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you help us about the purpose of the 7 notebook? An important purpose -- it may not be the 8 only one, but an important purpose, you said, is that 9 the officer may use it in court proceedings to refresh 10 his memory. 11 A. Yes. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Any officer worth his salt knows that he will 13 always be open to cross-examination about, "When did you 14 make that note? Why didn't you make it sooner? Was it 15 fresh in your memory?" 16 A. Yes. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you regard it as important, therefore, 18 that if it's the kind of thing which may be important in 19 evidence, the sooner the note is made, the better? 20 A. I totally agree, yes. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you expect a sensible officer to know 22 that? 23 A. He would know that, yes. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: So would it be important, even if he were 25 tired, to say, "Well, tired I may be, but I've got to 52 1 get this done now, while I can remember it." 2 A. Yes. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Or at least enough of a jotting to be able to 4 enlarge on it? 5 A. Yes, that is what I had in mind if he made a sort of 6 a shopping list of points, or, "In case I forget this", 7 to make a list, even. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: But he shouldn't simply go off duty and say, 9 "I shall not write anything down until the morning", if 10 it's the kind of thing that may come up in court and he 11 may be cross-examined about why not earlier? 12 A. Yes. You could take all sorts of examples. If there 13 was something concise that he was of the view -- you 14 know, "I have no difficulty in recalling this, I will be 15 able to come in the morning or when I come on duty and 16 get this all written down", but if there was a number of 17 things and things happening quickly, and he suddenly 18 thinks of, "Ah!" -- something jumps in -- yes, that's 19 right, that's when you would make a note of it. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: The more there is to remember, the more 21 important to get at least something down as soon as 22 possible. 23 A. That's right. A sort of a list of things. Yes, I would 24 agree with that. 25 BARONESS RICHARDSON: A statement could take the place of 53 1 a notebook entry. If he knew he had to make 2 a statement, would he do it in both automatically, or 3 say, "I've got to make a statement, so I won't put it in 4 the notebook"? 5 A. There would be officers who would say that, yes. 6 It's difficult to describe in circumstances like 7 this what it's like in the middle of the night, and 8 I have seen officers going home, some of them are 9 shattered, and how long would it take you to write -- to 10 make all -- you know, to write a statement? You know, 11 that statement of mine, which is a couple of pages, it 12 took two solicitors -- I think it was about two hours to 13 write it. And it's -- in fact, it took someone an hour 14 to go through it. 15 You know, those officers would have known this was 16 a serious assault. You know, even taking the minimum, 17 they would have known, this chap is -- has got a fairly 18 serious injury. He is taken to hospital. Now, if he is 19 taken to hospital, while it is not inevitable, it is 20 always in the back of your mind, he might die. 21 They would have known that somebody chased this 22 character, so it was -- they intended to do it. So you 23 are talking about grievous bodily harm, that you could 24 get life in prison for. So they obviously knew this was 25 serious, and they would not be writing out a statement 54 1 themselves. The statement would be taken by an 2 experienced officer. And they would -- 3 MR UNDERWOOD: In fact, it wasn't. What do you say to that? 4 A. It would be taken by -- 5 Q. No, it wasn't. They were left to make their own 6 statements. What do you say to that? 7 A. If they were left to make their own statements, an 8 experienced officer would have gone through it with them 9 afterwards, and fully understood what was in it. "What 10 are you saying here?" 11 Now, my recollection is that there were reserve 12 officers. 13 Q. Three were reserve, one was a constable. 14 A. Well, reserve officers would have been interviewed, 15 would have been spoken to by senior or experienced 16 detectives. They would go through it as, "You say here 17 that ... is that all you saw?" 18 They would go through it with a fine-toothed comb 19 and see what they were saying. "Have I got it? Do 20 I understand what you are saying? Is it correct?" 21 THE CHAIRMAN: This is what good practice would require? 22 A. Yes. That's what they would do. If an officer in 23 a serious case like that made out a statement, an 24 experienced detective would go over it with them. 25 If he hadn't made it out, an experienced detective 55 1 would interview him, go through it, get the story, and 2 start and write it out, and it would take a length of 3 time. 4 MR UNDERWOOD: Of course. Mr McMullen, that's extremely 5 helpful. As I said, other people may have some 6 questions for you. 7 Examination by MR WOLFE 8 MR WOLFE: Mr McMullen, Portadown existed in what was known 9 as J Division? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. That comprised, as I understand it, Portadown, Lurgan 12 and Banbridge? 13 A. That's right. 14 Q. Coming on to that Sunday morning, you received word 15 of -- I think you alluded to two incidents in Banbridge 16 and one in Portadown? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. One of the incidents, in Banbridge at least, was 19 particularly serious. Is that your recollection? 20 A. My recollection of it is that there was a very serious 21 assault in Portadown. There was a similar one in 22 Banbridge, and I recall somebody saying, you know, this 23 chap might die. 24 Q. Yes. 25 A. In Banbridge. 56 1 Q. Now, you were responsible, as I understand it, for the 2 allocation of resources, if I could put it that way, or 3 perhaps the management of resources? 4 A. To ensure that they were available. 5 Q. Yes. I understand that there is a command structure 6 that you must go through -- 7 A. There is. 8 Q. -- if you have particular requests. Is that correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Now, when you refer to resources, are you talking about 11 uniformed as well as non-uniformed resources? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Both? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Is it fair to say that the fact of a serious incident in 16 Banbridge would have required input from the same 17 investigative resources? In other words, J Division's 18 resources that were also required for the Portadown 19 incident? 20 A. It could do that, yes. 21 Q. So it was -- is it the same pool of resources we are 22 talking about in terms of CID, for example? 23 A. The management of CID changed quite frequently. 24 Q. Yes. 25 A. It may well have been -- I suspect at that time that 57 1 there were a pool of detectives in each subdivision. 2 I would be reasonably confident, looking back, that that 3 was the case, that there were Banbridge CID, 4 Portadown CID and Lurgan CID. I stand to be corrected 5 on that. And there would be -- each subdivision would 6 be using their own officers. 7 Q. Yes. 8 A. The detective chief inspector would have been in charge 9 of them all. 10 Q. I think we know who that is. Mr McBurney would have 11 had -- 12 A. Well, there would be other people under him. I was 13 thinking of the detective chief inspector who would have 14 been doing the management on that day. 15 MR WOLFE: Very well. Thank you. 16 Examination by MR McGRORY 17 MR McGRORY: My name is McGrory and I represent the family 18 of Robert Hamill. 19 Would it be fair to say, in terms of the scale of 20 offences against a person, that a serious assault 21 occasioning grievous bodily harm, perhaps with intent to 22 cause GBH, is right up there? 23 A. It is. 24 Q. Just below attempted murder and murder? 25 A. It could be a murder. 58 1 Q. Yes, indeed. In fact, it turned out that that is 2 exactly what it was in this case. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And that police officers on the ground, if they are in 5 close proximity to the commission of an offence like 6 this, their first priority is the preservation of life? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Then their next priority is to catch the criminals -- 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. -- who may have been involved in the incident? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. That often involves hot pursuit? 13 A. It does. 14 Q. You would agree, as an experienced police officer, that 15 the more time that elapses after a serious incident, the 16 more difficult it becomes to catch the criminals? 17 A. Generally, that would be right. 18 Q. A number of events can intervene in terms of the 19 destruction of evidence? 20 A. Yes, it can rain or it can -- streets swept, things like 21 that. 22 Q. Indeed, and clothes can be discarded? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Criminals can get together and get stories together? 25 A. That's right. 59 1 Q. All that sort of thing. 2 And, of course, in a situation where you have police 3 officers who are on the ground, who are potential 4 witnesses to the incident, would you agree that it's all 5 the more important that those officers are debriefed or 6 spoken to? 7 A. Well, yes. 8 Q. It goes without saying, doesn't it? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. What we have here, in terms of this incident, and 11 correct me -- I think you are fairly familiar with the 12 circumstances here. Do you need me to tell you anything 13 about it? 14 A. I think I'm familiar enough, yes. 15 Q. In other words, there is an incident where someone is 16 attacked and on the ground, is beaten. This leads to 17 very serious injury. There are police officers who are 18 on the scene when this happens -- 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. -- and who come over to the scene and disperse a crowd. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. You are aware of all that? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. So in terms of your responsibilities on that night as 25 someone who is there to authorise from a subdivisional 60 1 commander level the resources that are required to do 2 the best possible job, that would have been your role. 3 Is that right? 4 A. I wasn't there in the night. I wasn't there until -- 5 what was it? 8.30 in the morning, I think it was. 6 Q. The next morning? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Would there have been someone there overnight to 9 authorise those resources? 10 A. They could be got. The person in charge was the 11 inspector, the duty inspector. 12 Q. Yes. But in terms of somebody at subdivisional 13 commander level, I think -- correct me, did I read in 14 your statement to the Inquiry that you were called out 15 fairly early on the Sunday morning? 16 A. I think it was half past eight. 17 Q. It had to have been something serious for you to be 18 called out so early. Is that right? 19 A. On Sunday morning, I usually didn't go in until about 20 11.00 in the morning. 21 Q. So it was significant that you were called out at half 22 past eight? 23 A. Yes, it was. 24 Q. Could you have been called out even earlier? 25 A. Well, I could have been. But I would have been called 61 1 out for a specific reason. It could be to assist to 2 get, for example, Mobile Support Units down from 3 Headquarters. 4 Q. In other words, you were technically on duty during the 5 course of the night -- 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. -- but you were not called out until half past eight? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Thank you. What we have here is a situation where we 10 have a number of police officers who were right on the 11 scene. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Three reservists and a full-time police officer. They 14 come back to the police station. Now, I'm suggesting 15 that these were police officers who were potential 16 witnesses to what happened. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Do you agree that the sort of information they might 19 have been able to provide would have been identification 20 of some of those who might have been involved? 21 A. That is a possibility. 22 Q. By name, if they knew them? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Indeed, would it be fair to say that reservists would be 25 expected to know the community and perhaps potentially 62 1 identify individuals? 2 A. Well, everybody is expected to get to know the 3 community -- 4 Q. Yes. 5 A. -- and to know suspects, to know who is likely to commit 6 crime, know the sort of crime that's likely to be 7 committed. 8 For example, in the centre of Portadown, the 9 incident which occurred and unfortunately had tragic 10 results, it wasn't an uncommon incident. That sort of 11 thing happened night after night, every weekend, many of 12 them. 13 Police officers would rush to the scene, and by the 14 time they would get there, everybody would have 15 scattered. Everybody, including the victim. And nobody 16 sees anything, nobody knows anything when you question 17 people. It's gone. 18 Q. Of course, in this situation the victim was unconscious 19 and went to hospital? 20 A. That's right. 21 Q. Do you agree then that it's all the more important that 22 if officers have information that might directly 23 identify someone by recognition, or in a secondary way 24 might identify someone by description, either of 25 clothing or of their person, that it is all the more 63 1 important that that information be taken from those 2 officers as quickly as possible? 3 A. Well, that's right. 4 Q. And that the method by which that would be done would be 5 by somebody speaking to them, as you have described? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. That's the best method. In other words, a debriefing? 8 A. I have difficulty with this term "debriefing", because 9 people sometimes read more into it than what it actually 10 means. 11 Would you like me to sort of say something on what 12 it actually means? 13 Q. Yes, well, will you tell us what you think it means? 14 A. Debriefing means collecting the information from 15 officers going off duty to ensure that you have done all 16 the things -- completed all the things you should have 17 completed. Anything that you haven't completed, that 18 there is a record of it there to carry on and have it 19 completed, either to hand it over to somebody coming on, 20 to hand it over to detectives, whatever. 21 If it's down simply to the filling of a form, that 22 the sergeant knows I have to get that form from officer 23 so-and-so some time. But it is not an investigation of 24 an incident. It is not an investigation. You could say 25 it is a management thing. 64 1 THE CHAIRMAN: But the complexity of the debriefing will 2 depend upon the incident itself, will it not? 3 A. That could be true, yes. Say in an example like the 4 serious assault which turned out to be murder, the duty 5 sergeant wouldn't go into a full debriefing of it 6 because he's not investigating. He would say, "You were 7 at the scene". Right? He has the officer's name. He 8 has the details of when he arrived there. Quite a few 9 details of it. 10 Now, he will know that the investigating officer or 11 investigating team, this will be available to them. So 12 he has done his part of the debriefing. He will be able 13 to ensure that that is channelled in the right 14 direction. 15 MR McGRORY: Would you agree with me, Mr McMullen, that we 16 don't want to get hung up on the label of a "debrief". 17 What we are talking about here is a process by which the 18 relevant and important information can be taken from the 19 police officers to allow a proper investigation? 20 A. I wouldn't even say taken from them. It would be aware 21 that they have it, even. 22 Q. Exactly. But in a situation where we have a very 23 serious assault, and where you have accepted, I suggest 24 to you, that there is a priority, once life has been 25 preserved, to chase after those who committed the 65 1 assault -- 2 A. Yes, that would be right. 3 Q. -- that it is important to get that information as 4 quickly as possible? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And that the first opportunity is on the return of the 7 police officers to the police station? 8 A. No, it wouldn't. The first opportunity would be on the 9 radio. 10 Q. Well, even better. 11 A. It would be -- I wasn't there and I don't know exactly, 12 but from the description and so on, if you have officers 13 at the scene, they will say on the radio, "There 14 were" -- whatever they know. "There were two or three 15 people", "There was a crowd involved in this. They went 16 in such a direction". The communication officers could 17 have said, "There is a car somewhere, maybe we can get 18 them" -- you could speculate a lot. But they wouldn't 19 be waiting to the debrief. That would be an ongoing 20 matter that they would be reporting over the radio or 21 calling for extra help or whatever. 22 Q. But the next opportunity is when they return to the 23 police station, after the incident? 24 A. Well, I don't know that you would call it 25 an opportunity. They are going home, and they simply 66 1 say, "This is what I have done. This is what I didn't 2 get done. This is what somebody will need to follow up 3 on. This is what I know." 4 Q. But what those in charge, I suggest to you, did know was 5 that these police officers were witnesses -- 6 A. Absolutely, yes. 7 Q. -- either to the incident itself or to the immediate 8 aftermath of the incident? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And in circumstances where a sergeant or an inspector 11 knows that police officers were witnesses to an 12 incident, there is an imperative to sit them down and 13 say, "What did you see?" 14 A. No. That is for an experienced investigator to do. The 15 duty sergeant is not investigating it. He is there to 16 do all that can be done at the time. 17 Q. Is that not something that can and should be done at the 18 time? 19 A. Well, at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, you are not 20 going to get a senior detective in the station. It 21 is -- the best you can do is to ensure that all the 22 evidence that is available is captured, is caught, will 23 be available. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: It's part of preserving evidence? 25 A. Preserving evidence. 67 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Like making a note in a notebook? 2 A. Absolutely. 3 MR McGRORY: Is that not all the more reason for the 4 inspector or the sergeant on duty, if there isn't 5 a detective handy, to make sure that that is done? 6 A. What way are you suggesting that he does it? 7 Q. Well, he can say to the four officers, before they go 8 home, "Have you taken -- put down a record of what you 9 saw?" 10 A. Well, I don't know that he would, you know, hold them by 11 the hand that closely. I think what he would do is he 12 would satisfy himself that he knew who was at the scene. 13 He knew that the procedures were followed, and that 14 there was a record of that. 15 Q. Would he not need to satisfy himself if there was any 16 evidence that those officers could offer to catch the 17 criminals? 18 A. Yes. But I would expect he would have done that as the 19 incident was in progress. He wouldn't wait until 20 a debrief to start to do that. 21 Q. I want to get away from this title of a debrief and talk 22 about common sense policing priorities -- 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. -- Mr McMullen. 25 A. Yes. 68 1 Q. So what happened here on this night was that because of 2 the, I suggest, immediate priority of preserving life -- 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. -- police officers might be excused, might be excused, 5 from immediately catching those who had committed the 6 assault because their immediate priority was to prevent 7 any further assault. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. But in terms of their next priority, that any sensible 10 police officer would know that in the absence of 11 catching those who had done it, they needed to get out 12 the information, to allow maybe others to do so -- 13 A. That is right. 14 Q. -- and that the best way of doing that is to record 15 it -- 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. -- either without being asked to record it, as I think 18 you are suggesting they should have done -- 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. -- or at least that their immediate superior would be 21 informed of the nature of the information they had. 22 A. That's right. 23 Q. Do you not agree that if the immediate superior wasn't 24 informed without him inviting them to tell him, that he 25 should have asked? 69 1 A. Well, if you look at it like that, yes, that's right. 2 But an ongoing incident like that, those things that you 3 are speaking of now, I would have expected those to have 4 been reported across the radio. "We are at the 5 scene" -- you know, if you are suggesting that there 6 were a number of people involved in this, they would 7 have said, "There is a group of people and they have 8 gone in whatever direction". 9 Those things should be reported verbally, over the 10 radio, a note made of them. Yes, they should be 11 recorded in some of those ways. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you just help us about the radio? The 13 radio log would be a recording, wouldn't it, of all that 14 was said over the radio? 15 A. That's right. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: So that would be available for inspection? 17 A. It would, yes. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: So we can find out from that what was said? 19 A. Yes. 20 MR McGRORY: Of course, if that's not done, for whatever 21 reason, that the duty sergeant or duty inspector, 22 whoever is the superior of those officers when they come 23 in, has a responsibility to make sure that the 24 information is taken from the officers? 25 A. That's right. Of course it is. 70 1 Q. Now, can I move on just to another issue, please, 2 Mr McMullen, in terms of Scenes of Crimes procedures? 3 Would there have been resources to call out a Scenes of 4 Crimes officer during the course of the night? 5 A. There would be, yes. But, you know, if you mean someone 6 to be there within 10, 15 minutes, no, there wouldn't. 7 Q. Even within an hour. 8 A. Well, it should be there probably within an hour, yes. 9 Q. You see, one of our difficulties in this case is that 10 the Scenes of Crime officer from whom he shall hear 11 later today isn't on the scene until the next morning, 12 well into daylight. 13 What I wanted to establish from you is that there 14 could have been a Scenes of Crime officer there within 15 an hour or two of the incident, had one been asked for? 16 A. Well, there is -- there was a call-out rota for Scenes 17 of Crimes officers. It would be expected and hoped that 18 one would be there in that length of time, although 19 I have had experience of calling out a Scenes of Crime 20 officer and he is already out at another scene, and you 21 go to another one and another one, until, eventually -- 22 it can be a long time until one would arrive. 23 Now, I don't know the circumstances in this 24 particular case, but I have experience of four or five 25 hours later before we got a Scenes of Crime officer. 71 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Presumably there would be a record of who was 2 on duty and how it came about that there was such 3 a delay? 4 A. Absolutely. There should be, yes. 5 MR McGRORY: Thank you. Can you just help us with one other 6 issue, Mr McMullen, in respect of practice and procedure 7 in the preservation of notebooks and journals and so 8 forth? 9 You were a deputy subdivisional commander at the 10 time? 11 A. That's right. 12 Q. What rank would that be? 13 A. Chief inspector at that time. 14 Q. Chief inspector at that time. So you would be in the 15 territory of journals, rather than notebooks? 16 A. That's right. 17 Q. Can you help us: in 1997, rank and file officers up to 18 inspector, their main method of recording the events 19 when they were on duty was by way of a notebook? 20 A. That's right. 21 Q. Then at inspector level you keep a journal? 22 A. I kept a journal. 23 Q. Sometimes you keep both a notebook and a journal? 24 A. Yes, you could do. 25 Q. Would it be fair to say that the emphasis was on the 72 1 journal once you got to inspector rank? 2 A. I don't know what you mean, "emphasis". 3 Q. In terms of where you kept a record of what happened on 4 duty, as an inspector, if you were keeping a record in 5 the journal, would you bother with the notebook? 6 A. If you were an inspector, you might do, because, for 7 example, if you were out on patrol, you could be dealing 8 with things that a constable or a sergeant might be 9 dealing with. It might be a good idea to have your 10 notebook and do it. If it was likely that would happen, 11 then you would keep a notebook. 12 Q. As well as the journal? 13 A. Yes. If you were a chief inspector and above, the need 14 for -- the need for a notebook, I don't really see the 15 need for a notebook, because things you were writing 16 in -- for example, that particular day that I was on, 17 I made just simply in my journal the times I was on, but 18 things I did would have been written in some other 19 document. 20 I notice I said there I went to Lurgan Police 21 Station about arrests the following day. Well, that 22 would be all written up in the arrest forms, what I did 23 about that. So I wouldn't be writing it double, really. 24 Q. But your journal would still be, in terms of it being 25 personal to you -- 73 1 A. Being personal to me, yes. 2 Q. -- your record of events? 3 A. Yes. Yes. 4 Q. You would put in it important events? 5 A. I wouldn't put any detail of important events, no. None 6 at all. 7 Q. In terms of what you do with your journal after you 8 leave the force -- are you retired or are you -- 9 A. I'm retired. 10 Q. What did you do with your journal when you finished? 11 A. I kept my journal. 12 Q. You kept your journal? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. When you retired, was there any procedure about what you 15 are supposed to do with journals when you retire? 16 A. Not that I'm aware of, no. 17 Q. It's left up to your individual choice? 18 A. Yes. I looked on the journal as my -- belonging to me. 19 It is a record of what I did, and I have it in my 20 possession for things like this, or anything that ever 21 occurs. 22 Q. Yes, of course. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: You might need it for your memoirs. 24 A. Unfortunately, I didn't keep enough record for that. 25 MR McGRORY: But in terms of -- the notebooks you hand back. 74 1 Isn't that correct? 2 A. The notebooks you hand back. 3 Q. And they are kept for ten years. Is that right? 4 A. I think that is the regulations. Probably more. 5 Q. But you understand the reason for that? 6 A. Yes, of course. 7 Q. Events may -- court cases may come up? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Memories need to be refreshed? 10 A. Officers may go away, officers may die, and they are 11 available, yes. 12 Q. But certainly, you were prudent enough to keep your 13 journal? 14 A. Yes, I would keep it, yes. 15 MR McGRORY: Thank you. 16 SIR JOHN EVANS: May I ask a question about the radio? 17 You have been asked about the use of a radio when 18 officers are out on operational duties. 19 A. Yes. 20 SIR JOHN EVANS: Would I be right in thinking there are two 21 schemes, VHF and UHF? 22 A. There was -- at that time -- I don't remember at 23 that time. As I was speaking, I was thinking simply of 24 the UHF. But now that you mention it, I'm not sure if 25 there were the two systems at that particular time or 75 1 not. 2 SIR JOHN EVANS: Can we assume, whether or not the date 3 change had come in, that if they were VHF normally in 4 the vehicles, normally taped? 5 A. Well, I certainly remember two huge machines in the 6 communications room, recording everything, and I think 7 I would be fairly safe in saying that that was in 8 operation at this particular time. 9 SIR JOHN EVANS: But was that same system in operation for 10 UHF? 11 A. I think it was there for everything. 12 SIR JOHN EVANS: The hand-held? 13 A. Yes. The hand-held -- since I left, there is yet 14 another system in, but the one that was there while 15 I left was good really. It was the same radio working 16 on two different channels, and everything was recorded. 17 SIR JOHN EVANS: Are you sure of that? 18 A. I am sure at the time I left it was, but was it that far 19 back? I'm not absolutely certain, but I suspect it was, 20 because it was -- that system was in for quite a while, 21 but that would need to be checked up on. 22 SIR JOHN EVANS: Thank you. 23 Examination by MR O'CONNOR 24 MR O'CONNOR: Mr McMullen, in terms of the term 25 "debriefing", you have said that -- you give the 76 1 impression you didn't like that term because it didn't 2 tell exactly what that meant in the circumstances. 3 Isn't that right? 4 A. What I meant was that some people read more into 5 "debriefing" than what it actually means. 6 Q. Yes. So at the time of this incident in 1997, 7 debriefing for the officers coming from the Land Rover 8 in this case, the four officers, coming back in the 9 middle of the night, they would want to get home? 10 A. Absolutely. 11 Q. You have given the impression that incidents of unrest 12 in Portadown around that time weren't unusual? 13 A. Sorry, incidents? 14 Q. Of unrest, of this type of unrest? 15 A. No, it was a regular occurrence. 16 Q. In this case, for example, as I understand it, there was 17 more than one person taken to hospital by ambulance. 18 Isn't that right? 19 A. I've forgotten now -- 20 Q. I think it might be five in total. 21 A. I don't know, but that sort of thing was a regular 22 occurrence in any case. 23 Q. When officers came on duty, they were briefed about what 24 their duty would be during their term for that day or 25 that night? 77 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. How long was a shift? 3 A. A shift should be eight hours from 8.00 in the morning 4 to 4.00 in the afternoon; 4.00 in the afternoon to 5 midnight; midnight to 8.00 am. 6 But over the weekends, officers were brought in for 7 sometimes double turns, sometimes for 12-hour turns. 8 Officers who were employed on what was referred to as 9 other duties, doing something else other than ordinary 10 duty, on a weekend, could maybe start at midday, and 11 could work until 4.00, and maybe not be allowed to go 12 home, and kept -- that sort of thing. 13 Q. Again, it wasn't unusual for officers, coming back in 14 the middle of the night off a Land Rover, to go home and 15 fill their notebook in when they came back on duty? 16 A. I can't say about the notebook, because the notebook is 17 a personal thing, a personal responsibility, but I do 18 know that officers would say, "Look, Sergeant, I've 19 a baton report to perform, but I'll do that when I come 20 in on my next turn of duty." 21 But the point in the debrief is that that might not 22 take place sitting down at a desk. It might take place 23 meeting the sergeant at the door and saying, "I have 24 this to do", and telling him what had to be done. So 25 for the management of the shift, the sergeant knew what 78 1 was done, what still had to be done. 2 Q. Was there, at that time, a funding issue about briefing 3 and debriefing? 4 A. Sorry, was there a ...? 5 Q. Was there a funding issue, a pay issue in relation to -- 6 A. There was always -- 7 Q. Yes. The point I'm coming to is this -- and if you have 8 any memory of this, perhaps it will help the Inquiry -- 9 around that time, was there a situation that officers 10 would be paid to be briefed during the time they were 11 being briefed, but when they came off duty, there was 12 a dispute about payment for that half hour that it would 13 take to debrief? 14 A. I know what you are talking about. The shift was, say, 15 4.00 pm to midnight. 16 Q. Yes. 17 A. An officer then was in at half an hour, a minimum of 18 15 minutes, before the time ready for briefing. 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. Whenever he was finished, then he was held on for 21 another 15 minutes, half an hour. So that could have 22 meant anything from a half hour to an hour's overtime 23 every day. 24 Q. Yes. 25 A. And that -- yes, there was always questions about that 79 1 for efficiency. 2 Q. In particular in relation to debrief, if officers 3 weren't getting paid to hang around and be debriefed, 4 and there was nothing unusual had happened, was it 5 normal for them just to get themselves off home as 6 quickly as they could, or would they hang around? Do 7 you remember? 8 A. I'm not absolutely certain I know what you are saying. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: I think you are probably being asked: if 10 officers do overtime, as you have just described, 11 because of the debriefing, were they paid for that or 12 not? 13 A. What you are saying is there was dispute about it? Yes, 14 they were paid. There were times they certainly were 15 paid. Then there was discussion. Right? You only 16 start at 4.00 pm. But a manager, a sergeant, an 17 inspector, a superintendent, couldn't allow that because 18 it is too dangerous. You can't have a shift coming in 19 to finish at 4 o'clock and another one coming in to 20 start. There will be a gap there of 15 minutes to half 21 an hour, and it will not take too long for the criminals 22 to discover that and commit their crime when the police 23 are in the police station. So you have to have an 24 overlap. 25 If you are alluding to, was there problems and 80 1 pressure to reduce overtime, yes, there was problems and 2 pressure to reduce overtime. 3 MR O'CONNOR: Yes, that's the point. Thank you. 4 MR ADAIR: I take it nobody else has any questions? 5 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think so. We are all waiting for you 6 now. 7 Examination by MR ADAIR 8 MR ADAIR: Mr McMullen, I want to ask you something about -- 9 do you understand the difference between -- in relation 10 to the questions I'm about to ask you, there is 11 a difference obviously between whether you and I or 12 anybody else thinks that something should have been 13 done; for example, a notebook filled in after an 14 incident -- 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. -- and whether in fact it was the practice that it was 17 done. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Do you understand the difference between the two 20 concepts? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Going back to 1997, I just want to ask you a number of 23 straight questions, just to get your straight answer. 24 In circumstances -- I don't know how much you know 25 about the Hamill incident, but if I might summarise it, 81 1 and, if I'm unfair, no doubt I'll be stopped. 2 The police were aware -- when I say the police, the 3 police in the Land Rover, and the police in charge, the 4 sergeant, the inspector -- they were aware that a man 5 had been taken to hospital unconscious and that some 6 others had been taken walking wounded, but they weren't 7 aware of the extent of the injuries otherwise -- do you 8 follow me -- 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. -- until 4.00 am in the morning. So I'm dealing with 11 the time period before 4.00 am. So that's the first 12 scenario. 13 The officers in the Land Rover had been on duty from 14 something like, I think, 3 or 4 o'clock in the 15 afternoon, right through until about 3.00 am in the 16 morning. Okay? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And had dealt with a violent situation. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Would you have expected them to fill in their notebook 21 before going home after that period of duty back in 22 1997, having, as Mr McGrory has said, witnessed things 23 and seen people, and possibly be able to identify people 24 and so on? Would you have expected them to fill it in, 25 or would you have thought it probable or possible, or -- 82 1 just tell us what the position is about that, in that 2 scenario. 3 A. I would have expected them to make a rough note like 4 I said, a shopping list, if there was a number of things 5 that they said, "I must remember to write about this, or 6 to make a -- put it in my statement". 7 If there was simply one simple thing and they said, 8 "Right, I've got that", and make a full statement, and 9 the answer to it is that it could be that they wouldn't 10 make any note of it and wait until the following day 11 when they were bright and more able to do it. 12 On the other hand, there are some individuals who 13 are intensely dedicated, and they have everything 14 meticulously written up. They go in the opposite 15 direction. You get every sort of individual. 16 Q. I'll just stop you there. So it would vary -- sorry, 17 I thought you'd -- 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Fine. 19 MR ADAIR: My understanding of what you say is it would vary 20 from officer to officer as to how much detail, if any, 21 they would put in their notebook, if any, before they 22 went home? 23 A. It would. It would. But I'm not trying to suggest that 24 it would be normal to write nothing. 25 Q. I understand. 83 1 A. I wouldn't say that. 2 Q. Can you help us? Was there any force directive in 3 relation to that type of circumstance which guided 4 a police officer as to whether he should fill in his 5 notebook before going home and, if so, how much detail 6 to go into? 7 A. Not that I'm aware of. There certainly was instructions 8 about completing notebooks and the need to complete 9 notebooks. 10 From what I remember off the top of my head, it is 11 things like when they are dealing with an investigation, 12 date, time and place, caution given, exact reply after 13 caution. Those sort of things. There certainly was 14 specific details about that. But if you are talking 15 about a narrative, I don't recall instructions on 16 narratives. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you help us whether training would 18 involve training about the proper use of a notebook? 19 A. That's right. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: What, when and where should go into it? 21 A. Yes, that's what I was just talking about. 22 MR ADAIR: At the risk of leading, it would seem to a lay 23 person like us that it might seem reasonable that in 24 circumstances such as happened in the Hamill incident, 25 the police officer should fill in his notebook before he 84 1 went home. Are you with me? 2 A. Yes. That is a perfectly reasonable assumption. 3 Q. For the obvious reasons. He might forget a name. He 4 might forget some clothing and so on? 5 A. That's right. 6 Q. You know, at the risk of saying something that might 7 come back to haunt me in due course, that might seem 8 a reasonable proposition? 9 A. That's right. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: I must make a note of it. 11 MR ADAIR: So what I'm trying to discover is whether or 12 not -- and there was guidance about this. Is there any 13 document that I can look at, or any directive that we 14 can look at, to see whether -- or any training manual 15 that I have missed somewhere to give us more guidance on 16 this, back in 1997? 17 A. Well, the only guidance that I can think of is the 18 direction about date, time and place when you are 19 dealing with -- an officer out dealing -- say, he deals 20 with a common assault in the middle of the street. 21 Name, age, occupation, address, any caution given, what 22 he said after caution, or even dealing with a motoring 23 offence, all that sort of thing. Those are specific 24 instructions and training about that. 25 But if you are talking about a narrative of 85 1 a description about the incident that the Inquiry is 2 about, I can't think of specific directions about the 3 like of that. That is making a statement. I can think 4 of lessons and training about making of statements. 5 Q. I will come to statements in just a second, very briefly 6 about statements. 7 So if you had found out -- just to go back to this 8 scenario, if you had walked into the station the 9 following morning, after this incident -- 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. -- and had discovered that none of these officers had, 12 in fact, filled in their notebooks, would you have 13 criticised them for it, or would you have said, "You 14 should have done that", or would you have said, "That's 15 okay, make out your statements"? What would your view 16 have been? 17 A. My view would be: get a note made now. 18 If I had come into the station and -- I wouldn't be 19 coming in, as a chief inspector, to look at those sorts 20 of things. But let's say I was coming in as the duty 21 inspector, I would say, "Right, boys, time you sat down 22 and got this recorded." 23 Now, I wouldn't be getting them to write the 24 statement. I would be getting an experienced officer to 25 interview and take the statement. They could maybe make 86 1 the notes, the shopping list I talked about, points, 2 words. 3 Q. Okay. When you say you would get a detective to take 4 the statement from them -- well, just I'll ask you, was 5 it not the practice that police made their statements 6 and then that was possibly gone through by a senior 7 detective? 8 A. Absolutely. 9 Q. I thought that is what you told us earlier. 10 A. That could be done. That is a way of doing it. It 11 could be done, absolutely. 12 Q. What about the making of a statement in the same 13 circumstances I have described to you, being on duty 14 since 3.00 pm, through to 3.00 am? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Would you have regarded it as proper that they should 17 have made the statement before they went home, or 18 reasonable that they made it the next morning? What's 19 your position on that? 20 A. Making a statement in those circumstances, by officers 21 in those -- like, after 12 hours, finishing duty, it is 22 not a good idea to sit down to start to write 23 a statement of that length at that time. They are 24 tired. Likely stuff to be missed. You need someone who 25 is bright and alert, and to go through it. 87 1 How long would it take to write a statement like 2 that? This is 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. It 3 could take two, three hours to write that statement. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Does it help to have a notebook to draw on 5 when you do come to make it? 6 A. It would be a good idea if you had one. It is not 7 absolutely essential, but it would be a good idea. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: I suspect there is a deal left to common 9 sense in this, and I daresay a police officer learns 10 fairly quickly about when he ought to have made a note 11 is when he gets cross-examined about it in court. 12 MR ADAIR: Very much so. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm only speaking for myself. I don't want 14 to stop you. 15 MR ADAIR: How much, for example, would P40 have been 16 in court? Maybe you can't help us about that. 17 A. Well, I would doubt he was ever in court. 18 Q. What about the other reserve men? Reserve men -- tell 19 us about reserve men. Were they initially brought in 20 for Sangar duty and security duty and that sort of -- 21 A. They were initially brought in basically for security 22 duty, yes. Some of them graduated to out on patrol and 23 others went out on patrol for security duty. But there 24 would be very few of them who were involved in the 25 investigation of crime, or any matter, really. 88 1 MR ADAIR: Thank you very much, Mr McMullen. 2 BARONESS RICHARDSON: If writing a statement at the end of 3 a duty of 12 hours is considered not the appropriate 4 time to do it, how about sending for those same people 5 after two hours' sleep, bringing them back into the 6 station to do it then? Was that the proper time to do 7 it? 8 A. Well, not a good idea. If you bring them in, what are 9 you bringing them in for? Is it to collect information? 10 What is it for? 11 But to -- a statement. The only way I can describe 12 it. If it was me, at that time of the morning I would 13 say, "Have I got it clear in my mind? Do I need to make 14 a note of it?" If I need to make a few notes, make 15 a few notes, but I would write a statement when I'm 16 fresh and I can sit down. 17 Now, some people think you can sit down and write 18 a statement in half an hour. No, you can't. 19 A statement like that takes a long time. The couple of 20 pages there, and it's in double space, it took over two 21 hours for two solicitors. 22 Now, you are talking about a reserve officer writing 23 a statement at 3 o'clock in the morning. In my view, 24 the time to write a statement is when an officer is 25 bright and alert and capable of thinking and getting it 89 1 down. 2 Further examination by MR UNDERWOOD 3 MR UNDERWOOD: There's only one matter arising out of that 4 I want to ask you about, if you can help us. 5 There are two schools of thought about officers who 6 may, between them, have seen an incident and whether 7 they should get together to compare notes before they 8 write their statements. 9 One school of thought is that you can, in that way, 10 help invigorate the memory of others and perhaps between 11 you construct an accurate picture of what happened; the 12 other is that you are liable to be criticised for 13 collusion and conspiracy. 14 Can you help us with what the perception was of 15 those two possibilities in 1997, whether it was regarded 16 as a good idea to put your heads together or a bad idea? 17 A. The law books are full of it, and you can read all about 18 it. All I can say is my personal point of view, and 19 from experience, I think it's a good idea, because when 20 you discuss it, you will see incidents that you will 21 realise, "I was wrong". 22 In fact, I used to teach it in a training centre, 23 and I gave an example. The example was of two people 24 witnessing a road traffic accident that I investigated. 25 One individual was absolutely adamant that the wheel of 90 1 a bus ran over the victim's hand. The other witness 2 said, "No, it didn't. It just hit the top of the wheel 3 and it went round with the wheel and the wheel went past 4 it." 5 I pointed out to the individual who said the wheel 6 ran over his land, that if a bus ran over your hand, it 7 would be a mush, but, yet, this fellow's hand was grand. 8 But he wouldn't accept it. He actually saw the wheel 9 going over his hand. 10 So that is a clear example. But that happens in 11 many, many cases, and police officers getting together, 12 writing statements, makes a far better picture of the 13 truth than individuals contradicting each other. 14 Q. Can we take it that, in 1997, officers were not told to 15 avoid getting together? 16 A. I remember that discussion came up quite frequently, and 17 in 1997, I don't know or recall what the thinking was on 18 it at that time. But over my service, it changed many 19 times. Training schools wrote many essays on that. 20 MR UNDERWOOD: Fair enough. I have as much as I can 21 possibly get. That's very kind of you. Thank you very 22 much for your help. Unless there is anything arising 23 out of that, that's the conclusion of your evidence. 24 Thank you very much. 25 (The witness withdrew) 91 1 MR UNDERWOOD: Sir, we have got DC McAteer coming this 2 afternoon. For the avoidance of doubt, we were supposed 3 to have the SOCO, Mr Ardis, but he couldn't make it this 4 afternoon, so it's just Mr McAteer. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. We will break off until 2.05 pm. 6 Ms O'Kane, I think you have an application that you 7 are proposing to make? 8 MS O'KANE: Not at this stage, unfortunately, sir. 9 I haven't had a chance to confer yet with counsel, so it 10 may be tomorrow morning. 11 I didn't request, in fact, to make the application 12 this morning, so I was somewhat taken by surprise that 13 you had been notified. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: I see. Well, tomorrow's list will be as it's 15 planned then. I don't know whether that causes any 16 inconvenience, but there it is. 17 MS O'KANE: In summary, perhaps I can advise you of the 18 nature of the application. It concerns witnesses Robert Atkinson 19 and Eleanor Atkinson in respect of whom I'm informed they are due 20 now to give evidence on 11 May. That date does not suit 21 Mr Emmerson. He's had a long standing commitment on 22 11 May. 23 What I have suggested as a possible solution is that 24 those witnesses be brought forward to either 5 or 6 May, 25 but until I know counsel's movements, I can't really 92 1 make the application formally. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: I daresay Mr Underwood knows what the 3 problems are with witnesses. 4 MR UNDERWOOD: Ms O'Kane and I have been talking about this. 5 It may be that it's not necessary to make the 6 application, and that's why it may be helpful if she 7 were to have a little more time. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. You shall have it. We will say 9 2.10 pm now. 10 (1.07 pm) 11 (The short adjournment) 12 (2.30 pm) 13 MR UNDERWOOD: Sir, I call John McAteer, and I have 14 a confession to make, which is that Mr McAteer should 15 have been treated as a category B witness before this. 16 The reason he hasn't been is my fault. I missed it. So 17 he is regarded as being screened while giving evidence. 18 He has kindly accepted the family being in while he is 19 being screened, but we are treating this as a screened 20 hearing. 21 MR ADAIR: Just before the witness comes in, obviously, sir, 22 I had consulted with this witness some time ago. 23 Although, strictly speaking, he was a category A 24 witness, I consulted briefly with him. I have told him 25 he has the opportunity, if he wishes, to reconsider his 93 1 position now to further consult, but he is content to 2 proceed today. Just I want to put that on the record 3 that he is content to proceed today, sir, and is happy 4 that the family is in. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 6 MR JOHN MCATEER (sworn) 7 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD 8 MR UNDERWOOD: Good afternoon, Mr McAteer. My name is 9 Underwood and I am Counsel to the Inquiry. I primarily 10 will ask questions, although there may be some follow-up 11 questions from others afterwards. 12 Can I ask you your full names, please? 13 A. John McAteer. 14 Q. If we can have a look at page [80776] on the screen, 15 this is a statement that runs to a dozen pages or so, 16 and -- 13 pages. If we could scroll through it briefly. 17 I would like you to look to see if it is yours. 18 Is that your statement? 19 A. Yes, that is the statement compiled from the interview 20 I did. 21 Q. Are the contents true? 22 A. Yes, they are. 23 Q. Thank you. I want to ask you about some parts of it. 24 In paragraph 19, which we find on page [80780], you say: 25 "On 8 May 1997, Reserve Constable McCaw came to me and 94 1 gave me information about Reserve Constable Atkinson..." 2 Do you know who Reserve Constable McCaw is? Do you know who we are 3 talking about? 4 A. Yes, I do. 5 Q. It goes on: 6 "... who in turn was said to have heard it from 7 Tracey Clarke. Andrea McKee had told him that Reserve 8 Constable Atkinson telephoned Allister Hanvey on 9 27 April 1997, the morning after the incident, and told 10 him to burn his clothes." 11 You then took steps to make sure that got up the 12 chain. 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. We know, of course, that Tracey Clarke had what could be 15 described as two sets of information. 16 One was what she saw on the night, and the other was 17 this recounting of what Allister Hanvey had told her 18 about the conversation between him and Reserve 19 Constable Atkinson. 20 You discovered that afterwards, I gather. 21 A. The main thrust of the investigation at that time was to 22 establish what Tracey Clarke had seen on that night in 23 relation to the assault on Robert Hamill. 24 Q. That is the reason I'm asking you about this, because 25 the way we have constructed this statement, if I may say 95 1 so, makes it look as if the primary thing you were 2 concerned with there in dealing with Andrea McKee was 3 the allegation against Mr Atkinson. Is that accurate? 4 A. No, that is not correct. The main thing was to find out 5 what Tracey Clarke had seen that night or what 6 information she had in relation to the persons 7 responsible for the attack on Robert Hamill. 8 Q. So would this more accurately be formulated as saying 9 that Reserve Constable McCaw came to see you, gave you information received 10 from Andrea McKee, which dealt with both what 11 Tracey Clarke saw and the allegation against 12 Mr Atkinson? 13 A. From what I can remember, the main item he spoke to me 14 about was of what Tracey Clarke had seen on the night of 15 the incident. 16 Q. All right. Then you very quickly after that attended 17 a meeting with Andrea McKee inaccurately called 18 a graveyard meeting. Is that correct? 19 A. What was arranged was the detective inspector and myself 20 arranged with Reserve Constable McCaw, who told us that 21 Andrea McKee was reluctant to come into Portadown Police 22 Station. So I left it with him to arrange where we 23 could meet her to try and further the investigation of 24 whatever information she had that Tracey Clarke was in 25 possession of. 96 1 It was later that he contacted us and we arranged to 2 meet Andrea McKee and him at Kernan playing fields which 3 is near the cemetery at Kernan. 4 Q. In the discussion there with Andrea McKee, how did you 5 evaluate her as an accurate and truthful relayer of 6 information? 7 A. From what she told the detective inspector and myself, 8 we were convinced enough that she had obviously heard 9 information from Tracey Clarke that was relevant to the 10 investigation, but we could not establish how truthful 11 that was until such time as we interviewed 12 Tracey Clarke. 13 Q. You administered a questionnaire, a QPF, to 14 Tracey Clarke. That's correct, isn't it? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. Was that a sort of tester? 17 A. What we decided to do in that was we had completed 18 questionnaires from a large number of people who were at 19 the scene of the incident on that night or in Portadown 20 town centre, recording what they had seen and who they 21 had seen and who they had been with. 22 There was none completed by Tracey Clarke, so 23 I decided that the initial step was to speak to her and 24 find out what exactly she did see. So I completed the 25 pro forma -- 97 1 Q. Right. 2 A. -- after that. 3 Q. We can look at it, if necessary, but in the pro forma, 4 of course, she said nothing of any particular value, 5 I think? 6 A. Absolutely nothing. 7 Q. You were left with this: Andrea McKee told you that 8 Tracey Clarke had told her that (a) she had seen people 9 attacking Mr Hamill, and (b) she could give an account 10 of this alleged telephone call from Mr Atkinson, but 11 when you interviewed very quickly afterwards, 12 Tracey Clarke didn't vouchsafe any of that. 13 How did that leave you thinking about what to do 14 next? 15 A. I don't know how it came about, but it was decided that 16 the only alternative was to interview Tracey Clarke, 17 which was -- arrangements were made to do that. 18 Q. Andrea McKee got involved in the mechanism of that, 19 didn't she? 20 A. That is correct. 21 Q. Were you comfortable with Andrea McKee being part of 22 that? 23 A. Well, I had nothing to turn me any other way. She 24 seemed to be quite prepared to assist us to arrange to 25 interview Tracey Clarke, and we were prepared to accept 98 1 what she was doing. 2 Q. Did you perceive a risk that perhaps Andrea McKee might 3 be putting words in Tracey Clarke's mouth or trying to 4 force her to say things which weren't true? 5 A. No, I did not. 6 Q. In respect of the allegation still at this stage before 7 you interviewed Tracey Clarke formally, when you were in 8 possession of the allegation against Mr Atkinson, how 9 seriously did you regard that as a piece of behaviour? 10 A. If it was true, it would have been a serious allegation. 11 But neither myself nor the senior officers who were 12 present then were in a position to decide on whether 13 this was truthful or not. 14 As I say, the main objective at that time then was 15 to interview Tracey Clarke in order to establish what 16 she was going to tell us in relation to, first of all, 17 the assault on Robert Hamill, and, secondly, who was 18 involved in it, and, if Allister Hanvey was involved in 19 it, what part he played in that. 20 Q. You then -- if we go to your paragraph 32, on page 21 [80783] -- perhaps we should make it paragraphs 31 and 22 32. In paragraph 31 you deal with the mechanics of the 23 interview. You say: 24 "Before we started, we explained the procedure to 25 Tracey, and from the outset we recorded the statement 99 1 with the name 'Witness A'. We had to drag the information 2 out of Tracey in bits and pieces. The words did not 3 flow, but once she got talking about it, she explained 4 the whole thing. She was quite upset and she could not 5 believe that Allister had done it. Tracey said that as 6 long as her name did not come out, she was happy to talk 7 about it and she would give evidence in court." 8 Now, as I understand it, she would suggest that 9 either police put words into her mouth, or Andrea McKee 10 put words into her mouth before she got into the 11 interview room, and that this was basically a farce of 12 an interview in which she was telling things which she 13 hadn't seen, presumably in order to get out of the 14 police station. 15 Now, what do you say about that? 16 A. I think that is a lot of nonsense, because she was quite 17 prepared to come into the police station. She sat down 18 and Andrea McKee was present. I explained in the 19 statement the way the interview would take place, what 20 it required that we keep her name out of it, and she was 21 prepared -- she was requested, "Are you prepared to make 22 a witness statement to this?", which she did. We went 23 through the facts, first of all, and then I asked her to 24 make the statement in relation to it, which she did, and 25 signed. 100 1 Q. If I may say so, you give the impression of giving 2 a very precise and careful man. 3 Is the demeanour you are giving today to us the sort 4 of demeanour you would exhibit when interviewing 5 a witness? 6 A. Yes, it would be. Yes. 7 Q. You had been a detective since 1969, I think? 8 A. 1974. 9 Q. So for 25 years by the time you conducted this 10 interview? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. Presumably, you had conducted quite a number of 13 interviews in those 25 years, had you? 14 A. Yes, that would be correct. 15 Q. How did you assess Tracey Clarke in terms of 16 truthfulness as a witness? 17 A. When I went through what she was -- the information that 18 she was in possession of, and the way she explained it 19 to me on that night in question, I had absolutely no 20 doubt that she couldn't have told me the facts and the 21 parts of what had occurred without having a fair 22 knowledge or having been present while the incident 23 occurred, and I had no doubt that she was telling me the 24 truth on that occasion. 25 Q. Were you the only person asking questions? 101 1 A. I asked most of the questions and ran the interview, 2 yes. 3 Q. You recorded the statement yourself? 4 A. I recorded the statement myself, yes. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: As far as she and any suggestion she was 6 saying what she did to try to get out of the police 7 station is concerned, she had of course come 8 voluntarily, hadn't she? 9 A. That's correct. She was a voluntary attender at the 10 police station, and she came in of her own free will and 11 could have left at any time she wanted to. 12 MR UNDERWOOD: In relation to the allegation which she 13 passed on about what Mr Hanvey had told her about what 14 Mr Atkinson had done with him, did you regard her 15 version of that as truthful as her version of what she 16 had seen herself? 17 A. You can only take that on the fact that she was telling 18 us something that Allister Hanvey had told her. Part of 19 that statement includes what she saw during the assault 20 on Robert Hamill. She saw it herself and was able to 21 give us -- she was a witness to that, whereas she was 22 telling us third-hand of what Hanvey had told her. 23 Q. Of course, but did you believe that Hanvey had told her? 24 A. Yes, I did at that time, yes. 25 Q. You go on then in paragraph 32 to say: 102 1 "From what I recollect, Tracey gave us a description 2 of what Allister Hanvey had been wearing on the night, 3 but I accept that this does not appear in the 4 statement." 5 How clear are you now that she did give you 6 a description? 7 A. What I'm clear about now, having read that, is, if she 8 had given me a detailed description, and she identified 9 a specific garment or clothing or whatever, I would have 10 recorded that in the statement that I took from her, as 11 you would from any witness. 12 The fact that I didn't record that would appear to 13 me that what she gave me was a description that was 14 quite vague or whatever. It was just a vague 15 description. It certainly wasn't a detailed description 16 or I would have recorded it. 17 Q. We know, for example, there is a contention that 18 Allister Hanvey was wearing a silver lightweight jacket 19 with orange stripes down the sleeves. Would you have 20 regarded that as sufficiently detailed to record? 21 A. If that had been told to me, I would have recorded that, 22 yes. 23 Q. I'm going to move on to the search the next day in 24 a moment that you were present at, but would it follow 25 then that in conducting a search for clothing that 103 1 Hanvey might have been wearing and which might have been 2 destroyed afterwards, all options were open, as it were? 3 Do you want me to be more precise about that? 4 A. Yes, please. 5 Q. Nobody would have known what they were looking for? 6 A. I did not do the briefing of the search team, but if 7 Tracey Clarke had given me a specific description on the 8 night in question, I would have certainly informed the 9 detective inspector who was doing the briefing the next 10 morning. 11 I was at Hanvey's house during the search, and if 12 I had a description of a certain garment that was 13 relevant to the investigation, I would have certainly 14 told the sergeant in charge of the search team what they 15 were looking for. 16 Q. Quite. To take this in stages, though, your evidence 17 is, if you had been told anything more than a vague 18 description, you would have put it in the statement 19 anyway? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. So it would follow from that that the searchers couldn't 22 have been told anything specific to look for? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. But your evidence is also this: even if you had made 25 a mistake in not putting in a detailed description which 104 1 you had been given, then, nonetheless, you would have 2 told the searchers? 3 A. No. I want to make that clear. I wouldn't have made 4 a mistake in that. If she had given me a description, 5 I would have recorded the description. 6 Q. So there is no possibility then that she gave you 7 a description which was passed on to the searchers but 8 was omitted from the statement? 9 A. No. 10 Q. So I come back to the question: all options were open in 11 the search because nobody knew what they were looking 12 for? 13 A. No, what -- I didn't do the briefing for the search, so 14 I don't know what the briefing was that they were 15 looking for, but I understood that they were looking for 16 clothing that may have been bloodstained, et cetera, 17 that is possible could have been bloodstained and would 18 have been -- he'd been wearing on the night of the 19 incident. 20 Q. Do I take it that you weren't at the briefing? 21 A. I wasn't at the briefing. 22 Q. Because your role in the search was simply to arrest 23 Mr Hanvey at the end of it? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. I'm sorry to press this point. There was no information 105 1 on which anybody could have been briefed what to look 2 for, other than from you, is there? 3 A. No, I don't agree with that at all. 4 Q. Were you conscious of other information about what 5 Mr Hanvey might have been wearing? 6 A. I have just explained to you there that if I take it 7 that they were looking for any clothing that was likely 8 to have been worn by Hanvey on the night of the 9 incident, that would have been bloodstained, such as any 10 type of clothing, footwear, anything like that, there 11 was a full search of the house in relation to that type 12 of thing. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: But you couldn't give them, yourself, any 14 clue as to what kind of garment to look for? 15 A. No. 16 MR UNDERWOOD: But were you conscious of anybody who could? 17 A. No, I was not. 18 Q. So just to elaborate on an answer you gave a moment ago, 19 you would have expected a full house search to look for 20 any clothing that might be forensically capable of 21 linking Mr Hanvey with Mr Hamill. Is that correct? 22 A. That is correct. 23 Q. Have you any recollection of the search? 24 A. Not really, other than the fact of the arrest of Hanvey. 25 Q. If we look at page [73989], we see the search record. 106 1 I'm not suggesting, of course, that you were responsible 2 for taking this, and I just want to run you through it 3 briefly to show you what it shows us. 4 If we go over the page, please, [73990], you can see 5 under, "Existing damage/condition on first inspection": 6 "Bedroom in fair condition." 7 Which tends to suggest that all that was being 8 looked in was the bedroom. Can you comment on that? 9 A. No. 10 Q. If we go to page [73996], this is the log, and, of 11 course, you weren't the log keeper. 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Let me just run you through very briefly what it says. 14 0721, admitted entry by Mrs Hanvey. Explained what 15 was going on. 16 0727, Team A entered house, commenced search of 17 Bedroom 1. 18 0730, Constable Porter seized one pair dark-blue 19 jeans, one white/black Asics trainers, one black padded 20 bomber jacket. 21 Then, 0740, Team A out of bedroom. 22 0745, you arrested Allister Hanvey, no reply. 23 At 0746, search terminated. 24 So it's looking here as if all that happened was 25 that one bedroom, namely Bedroom 1, was searched, and 107 1 a pair of jeans, a pair of trainers and a jacket were 2 taken. 3 Can you comment on whether anything else was done? 4 A. I have no idea whatsoever. 5 Q. If we look at page [74000] it is a sketch -- if we could 6 turn this to the right, please -- that somebody in the 7 team drew. I take it it wasn't you? 8 A. No. 9 Q. This showed the layout of the house in which Bedroom 1 10 is on the right-hand side, and you can see it can only 11 be reached through Bedroom 2. 12 Did you go through the house yourself? 13 A. I may have done. I don't remember. 14 Q. So would this be fair: that you regarded, or would have 15 regarded, a full house search as necessary to look for 16 any clothing that would forensically link Mr Hanvey to 17 Mr Hamill, and you can't actually help us with whether 18 the search team did that? 19 A. It would appear from that record they would have done 20 probably a quick search of the thing, but the main 21 search was in Bedroom 1. 22 Q. What makes you say they might have done a quick search 23 of the thing? Is there any evidence in what I have just 24 shown you that they searched anything other than 25 Bedroom 1? 108 1 A. Well, there is no evidence to say they didn't. 2 Q. Would a log have as its purpose to record what the 3 searchers did? 4 A. Yes, it would. 5 Q. If searchers had gone into Bedroom 3 and caused some 6 damage and not recorded that they had gone into 7 Bedroom 3 at all, or an issue had arisen whether 8 something had been taken or planted in Bedroom 3, how 9 serious an omission would it have been on the part of 10 the log keeper to omit any mention of going into 11 Bedroom 3? 12 A. I can't really answer that, but all I would be aware of 13 is that on the completion of the search of the premises, 14 the log keeper, or the person in charge of the search, 15 would have taken the occupier around the house and asked 16 him to point out any damage to anywhere, which he would 17 have recorded. 18 Q. But it's not unknown, is it, for people, after their 19 house has been searched, either to complain that 20 something has been taken or planted? 21 A. I can't answer that really. 22 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much. As I say, other people 23 may have some more questions for you. 24 Examination by MR McGRORY 25 MR McGRORY: I think that's me, sir, if I may be permitted. 109 1 Mr McAteer, my name is McGrory. I think we have 2 known each other over the years in various cases. 3 A. That is correct. 4 Q. I want to ask you some questions. I represent the 5 Hamill family, by the way. I want to ask your 6 clarification in respect of a number of things. 7 If I could just begin with this issue of the 8 clothing and whether or not there should or should not 9 be a more detailed note of that, what you have said is 10 that, had you been given a description voluntarily by 11 Tracey Clarke of the precise clothes that 12 Allister Hanvey was wearing, you would, of course, have 13 included that in your record for the very purposes of 14 the search team knowing what to look for? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. But as an experienced officer, Mr McAteer, is it not 17 correct that in a situation like this, you would be 18 conscious of forensic issues possibly arising? 19 A. That is correct. 20 Q. And that it would perhaps be prudent to ask a witness 21 such as Tracey Clarke precisely what the suspect was 22 wearing in order to go down that forensic trail? 23 A. If we can just answer to that, if Tracey Clarke -- if 24 I had asked Tracey Clarke what Allister Hanvey was 25 wearing, and she had given me a description of what he 110 1 was wearing, outlining some specific garment or trousers 2 or shoes or whatever, I would have recorded that within 3 the statement. 4 Q. Yes. So can I take that as confirmation that you didn't 5 ask the question? 6 A. No, you can't. I would take it that she didn't tell me. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: There is a difference between whether she 8 volunteers or whether you ask her and she either says 9 something or doesn't say something. Can you remember, 10 did you ask her? 11 A. I can't remember whether I specifically asked her, but 12 I can assure you that I would have asked her the 13 description of what he was wearing. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: You would? 15 A. I would have. That would be a normal practice. 16 MR McGRORY: Would one expect a note to say that, "Witness 17 asked what Hanvey was wearing, but unable to tell me"? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Would that not be an important answer to note? 20 A. I can't understand why you would include that in 21 a witness statement. 22 Q. No, not necessarily in the witness statement, but in 23 terms of any notes or records of the general interview. 24 A. No, because if you wrote down everything that people 25 weren't telling you, it would be a bit stupid. You only 111 1 write down what specific thing a person tells you that's 2 relevant to the investigation. 3 Q. You see, we only have your own belief in your own 4 experience and ability as a questioning officer to rely 5 on the suggestion that you must have asked her but got 6 a negative answer. 7 Do you understand me? 8 A. The only thing I could be sure of is that she did not 9 give me any description. Otherwise, I would have 10 recorded it. 11 Q. But you can't be certain that you asked her, so you 12 can't? 13 A. I would be sure that I did ask her. But she obviously 14 didn't give me an answer. 15 Q. Well, I think we will move on from there. Can I ask you 16 just, please, to look at paragraphs 18 and 19 of your 17 statement? I'm sorry I don't have the page reference. 18 It is 80779. I'm grateful to Mr Adair for that. 19 Paragraphs 18 and 19 must be over the page, sorry. 20 [80780]. It's really 19 I'm interested in. This is the 21 section of your statement in which you describe how 22 Reserve Constable McCaw came to you and gave you the 23 original information. Do you see that? 24 A. That's correct, yes. 25 Q. Now, you see that the context in which it is suggested 112 1 he came to you there is in the context of what he had to 2 say about Reserve Constable Atkinson? 3 A. Yes. I don't agree that that is the right way the 4 transcript is recorded. It certainly wouldn't be 5 a proper way to do it, because, as I already explained, 6 the thrust of the investigation and that was to obtain 7 what Tracey Clarke -- what information she had. 8 Q. Nonetheless, Mr McAteer, what he had to say to you about 9 Reserve Constable Atkinson was still very significant? 10 A. I would agree with that, yes. 11 Q. In the sense that he was telling you that he had 12 information, not just about an individual who may have 13 been involved in the attack, but information about 14 a policeman who was in cahoots with that individual 15 involved in the attack? 16 A. That is correct, yes. 17 Q. Indeed, for a policeman to be involved in tipping off 18 a suspect, that is a very serious matter? 19 A. It would be a serious matter, yes. 20 Q. I'm going to suggest to you that it's as much a part of 21 the investigation into the crime as anything really. 22 A. I think the main investigation into the crime at that 23 stage was to establish who had been involved in the 24 attack on Robert Hamill which resulted in his death. 25 At that stage, Tracey Clarke -- the information 113 1 would appear that she was in possession of information 2 that Allister Hanvey was the person responsible for 3 that, and I think that was the general line of the 4 investigation at that particular time. 5 Q. Well, if, Mr McAteer, this was an investigation into an 6 IRA bombing, for example, and a reserve constable or 7 anybody came to you and said, "I've got information 8 about this IRA bombing. I know something about the 9 people who planted the bomb, but I also know something 10 about what happened immediately afterwards", in that 11 those who planted the bomb, gave their clothes, say, to 12 another individual, who took them away, now, would you 13 not have regarded both of those bits of information as 14 vital and central to the investigation into the crime? 15 A. Yes, I agree with you on that. But at the end of the 16 day, this was information coming from third or 17 fourth-hand that this person was involved in it. 18 I did take steps, as I'm sure the Panel is aware, 19 that I did have a telephone trace done on the telephone 20 lines over that period between Atkinson and Hanvey. 21 Q. You did indeed, and let me make this clear to you, 22 Mr McAteer. I'm not seeking in any way to criticise you 23 in respect of the information you recorded from Reserve Constable 24 McCaw because, in fact, what you did do was to record both the 25 evidence about what Allister Hanvey did, and also, in 114 1 equal measure, what it was said that Reserve 2 Constable Atkinson did. So let me make that clear to 3 you. 4 But what I want to find out from you, in terms of 5 policing practice, is that this was one investigation 6 into a serious crime? 7 A. That's correct, yes. 8 Q. And that in terms of the investigation, the principals 9 of the crime -- do you understand what I'm saying about 10 that -- 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. -- were regarded of equal importance to those who might 13 be accessories? 14 A. That is correct, and I can assure you that the 15 investigation team at that time, their objective was to 16 get the persons responsible for the murder of 17 Robert Hamill, and that would have included, if Reserve 18 Constable Atkinson was involved, him as well, yes. 19 Q. You are familiar with the phrase "an accessory after the 20 fact"? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. As an experienced criminal investigator, you would have 23 been every bit as interested in pursuing an accessory 24 after the fact as someone who was principally involved? 25 A. But what I have already said is that we carried on with 115 1 the investigation to interview Tracey Clarke after that. 2 Immediately in receipt of the other information in 3 relation to Atkinson, I arranged at the earliest 4 possible thing, which was, I think, the next day, 5 a telephone trace on both telephones, which takes some 6 time to do. 7 Q. Indeed you did, and I'm going to come to that in 8 a moment or two, but if I could just pursue this 9 a little bit further. 10 In terms of those whom you have prosecuted, as 11 a policeman, throughout the years of serious crime in 12 this jurisdiction, it wasn't uncommon to see someone who 13 was an accessory after the fact in the dock, alongside 14 those who were the principals in the crime? 15 A. That's correct, yes. 16 Q. That's all I ask of you, Mr McAteer, in terms of 17 policing practice, because I'm accepting that you did 18 what you needed to do in respect of Reserve 19 Constable Atkinson, but it's what others did after you 20 that will be in issue here. 21 Now, indeed what you did do on 9 May was you sought 22 a telephone trace. Isn't that right? 23 A. That's correct, yes. 24 Q. I think that document is at page [24696]. Do you 25 recognise that document? 116 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Do you see it's stamped? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. I should await your answer. Do you recognise it? 5 A. Yes, I do recognise that. That's my handwriting. 6 Q. Is that your handwritten request for a trace on certain 7 telephone numbers? 8 A. That's correct, yes. 9 Q. That would be a trace on the number of E Hanvey? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. And the blacked out bits were probably an address and 12 a telephone number? 13 A. That's correct, yes. 14 Q. And then C, I think we can say that that's Reserve 15 Constable Atkinson? 16 A. That's correct, yes. 17 Q. And you give a telephone number? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And it's signed by you? 20 A. That's right. 21 Q. Then it's countersigned by a detective superintendent. 22 Is that right? 23 A. It's signed by -- 24 Q. There is an officer mentioned in that -- 25 A. P39. 117 1 Q. Thank you. 2 A. That's then -- it's approved by the Detective Chief 3 Superintendent McBurney. 4 Q. That's McBurney, yes. 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. It's dated 9 May? 7 A. He dated that the 9th as well, yes. 8 Q. Indeed, that request was made before Tracey Clarke had 9 even finished making her statement? 10 A. That's correct, yes. 11 Q. So I'm suggesting to you that is an indication of how 12 serious the information was. 13 A. Yes. I have no doubt about that. That was a serious 14 thing, and steps were taken at that time. 15 Q. Indeed. Immediate steps. 16 A. Correct. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: The information about what was suggested 18 Mr Atkinson had done had a twofold significance, hadn't 19 it? 20 If it was true, it showed appalling behaviour on his 21 part, but, also, if it was true, it showed that there 22 was a danger that what could be valuable evidence of 23 someone's guilt for the murder was in the course of 24 being destroyed. 25 A. That's correct, yes. I agree with you on that. 118 1 MR McGRORY: So can you assist us -- I think I know the 2 answer to this question because you have said you 3 weren't involved in the briefing the next morning. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. But here we have on 9 May that yourself and the senior 6 police officer, P39, and the superintendent are all 7 party to making a move and getting these telephone 8 records. So there's a consciousness at a high level 9 about this allegation of the destruction of clothing. 10 Can you tell us if that was passed on in any way to 11 the search team, that there might be an issue about 12 destruction of clothing? 13 A. I can't answer that. I have no idea. 14 Q. Well, as an officer, an experienced investigative 15 officer, bearing in mind that there was now a live issue 16 about the destruction of clothing, would you expect any 17 search to be pretty widespread in terms of looking in 18 every corner on these premises? 19 A. Again, I can't answer that because I didn't do the 20 briefing for the search team. I would have expected the 21 search team to have been briefed of what they were 22 looking for, and they would have carried out the search 23 according to their regulations and what way they do the 24 searches. I don't ... 25 Q. Never mind your personal contact with the briefers. You 119 1 didn't have any, so nobody is blaming you for this. 2 I am saying, what would you expect, as an 3 investigating officer, in terms of the need to conduct 4 a comprehensive search? 5 A. All I can say from my own experience in this is looking 6 at it from the point of view that if the search team had 7 been detailed to look for any specific object or item, 8 there would have probably done a more detailed search 9 than is shown on the search record of the thing. But 10 they obviously -- it would appear from the search 11 record, that the only detailed search they did was of 12 the room frequented by Hanvey. 13 Q. Indeed, in a situation where, for whatever reason, we 14 don't have information of specific clothing that Hanvey 15 was wearing? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. On top of that, we have information that he would be 18 alive to the need to dispose of whatever he was wearing. 19 Do you agree that in that situation, then there's 20 all the more need to make sure that the search is very 21 comprehensive? 22 A. I wouldn't have taken that decision, but the decision 23 obviously was taken to search for clothing that, as 24 I have already explained, they may have obtained 25 possibly blood or whatever. Footwear and that type of 120 1 thing. But I have no idea why they wouldn't have 2 searched the rest of the place or what way they did 3 search it. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McAteer, if you had been giving the 5 instructions, what would you have told them to look for, 6 and how extensive would you have said they were to 7 search? 8 A. On the information, which would appear to have been 9 quite vague, that they were looking for clothing which 10 was possibly bloodstained or footwear, the only place 11 that that was likely to be in a small house of this size 12 would have been Allister Hanvey's bedroom. And that was 13 the one where they done the extensive search. 14 BARONESS RICHARDSON: But you are already in possession of 15 the information that -- the suspicion that the clothing 16 might have been burned. So would you not have been 17 looking for -- 18 A. This was information that was coming fourth-hand. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: It doesn't mean you ignore it, does it? 20 A. You don't ignore it, but there was nothing confirmed of 21 what had been taking place, until after the telephone 22 trace was completed. 23 MR McGRORY: You are just not going to accept, are you, 24 Mr McAteer, that there was an imperative here in this 25 case, to carry out a thorough and wide search of the 121 1 Hanvey property for all clothing in view of the 2 information that you had? 3 A. No, I didn't have any information. 4 Q. You had information, Mr McAteer, that this suspect was 5 alive to the issue of the need to dispose of clothing. 6 A. That issue would have been quite clear, but it wouldn't 7 have taken the situation any further forward, because 8 again, I would only -- they would only have been briefed 9 to look for clothing with -- bloodstained clothing, 10 et cetera, and, again, his room was the only place that 11 they looked, I take it, from the search record. 12 Q. We will pursue the matter with those who were more 13 involved in the search at another time. 14 Can I ask you to look at another document, please? 15 It's [02723]. Now, this is -- do you recognise this 16 document? 17 A. No, I don't. 18 Q. It goes over the page, just as a name at the bottom of 19 page [02724]. It's P39. 20 Sorry, if we could go back now to [02723], I will 21 tell you what I think it is. It's dated 12 May, and it 22 appears to be a more formal request for itemised 23 telephone billing. Do you see that? 24 A. Yes, I do. 25 Q. It is a request that: 122 1 "... this application be forwarded to BT liaison 2 branch for the itemised telephone billing from 3 1 February 1997 for the following numbers."? 4 A. Yes. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: It appears to be filling out your request. 6 A. Again, I'm not too sure whether any of those numbers 7 recorded in that are those that I requested. 8 MR McGRORY: You see, there are four numbers on this. 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. They are all 01762 numbers, and I take it at that time 11 that was the area code for the Portadown district? 12 A. That's correct, yes. 13 Q. Without getting the other document back again, there 14 appeared to be only two numbers in it? 15 A. The only request I made was for two numbers. 16 Q. Yes. So that was 9 May, and this is 12 May. So between 17 the 9th and the 12th, somebody has added in two more 18 numbers? 19 A. I don't know whether any of those numbers are either of 20 the two I requested. 21 Q. Indeed, or maybe these are four completely different 22 numbers? 23 A. It's not unusual, during a murder investigation, to 24 request -- get an itemised bill, like. 25 Q. No. You see, there is some talk later on that the 123 1 number of an individual called xxxxxxxxxx was 2 being analysed. Are you aware of that? 3 A. No, I'm not. 4 Q. Is this the first time you have heard of that? 5 A. That's correct, yes. 6 Q. Well, just while we are on the subject of 7 xxxxxxxxxx, does the name mean anything to you? 8 A. Yes, it does. 9 Q. Who was he? 10 A. He was a gentleman who lived in Portadown. 11 Q. Can you tell us a little bit more about him than that? 12 A. Just that he died. He committed suicide in prison. 13 Q. Was he regarded in police circles as a highly dangerous 14 Loyalist terrorist? 15 A. I can't say. I had my own opinion of him, which was 16 that he was involved with the LVF in Portadown area, but 17 I wouldn't just go as far as to give the description 18 that you give of him there ... 19 Q. So he was suspected of being a Loyalist terrorist? 20 A. Correct, yes. 21 MR McGRORY: I don't think you can help us any further with 22 that, Mr McAteer. I have no further questions. Thank 23 you. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Ms Dinsmore? 25 Examination by MS DINSMORE 124 1 MS DINSMORE: Mr McAteer, I appear on behalf of Mr and 2 Mrs Robert Atkinson. I want to explore briefly this 3 afternoon with you a little cameo in the timescale when 4 you were involved with Tracey Clarke and Andrea McKee. 5 Now, if we could just start at the very beginning, 6 one of your colleagues comes in and tells you some 7 hearsay, and you take the very proper approach, "That's 8 really a matter for my senior", and go through the 9 appropriate channels in relation to that? 10 A. Yes, that's right. 11 Q. So you have really very little in the way of details 12 apropos that initial, and I think what you have said 13 several times during your evidence today is that any 14 matters that you were dealing with that pertained to 15 Mr Atkinson were very much in the realms of hearsay, 16 double hearsay and further out again? 17 A. That is correct, yes. 18 Q. Therefore, you say that was not a position to judge 19 anything in; that level of credence that can be given to 20 multiple hearsay has got -- one has got to approach it 21 very warily? 22 A. That is correct, yes. I agree with you. 23 Q. That is the approach which you considered appropriate? 24 THE CHAIRMAN: I think this is more a matter of submission 25 to us, isn't it? 125 1 MS DINSMORE: Well, yes. It will be utilised in that 2 context also, but if you would facilitate me in 3 indulging me a little in relation to setting the context 4 of this gentleman's thinking in relation to the approach 5 which he then took. 6 So you did the obvious thing. You went to see the 7 girl who was named: namely, Tracey Clarke or Witness A? 8 A. When I went to see her, I went to give her the 9 opportunity, if she was in possession of any 10 information -- 11 Q. Yes, and what you did is you prepared the pro forma 12 questionnaire? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. You arrived at her home and you were welcomed, according 15 to your evidence, co-operatively, and -- maybe friendly 16 might be stretching it, but on very acceptable terms by 17 her parents? 18 A. That is correct, yes. 19 Q. She had been upstairs. You waited for her to come back 20 down, and she came back down to you, and you have said 21 that her approach was one of co-operation. 22 A. Yes, it was. 23 Q. Yes, it was. So what you encountered therefore is 24 a co-operative young lady, and she fills in the 25 questionnaire for you. The completed questionnaire 126 1 which we have seen for the Inquiry? 2 A. She gave me information to questions that I asked her 3 from the questionnaire and I wrote down the answers that 4 she gave me at that time. 5 I'm not saying that those answers were acceptable to 6 me at that time, but ... 7 Q. But it is always the role of the investigating officer 8 to question and question. So suffice to say, you asked 9 her questions, "Who were you with?", and she gives you 10 a number of names of persons who she was with? 11 A. That is correct, yes. 12 Q. Well, are there any questions that you asked her over 13 and above the pro forma? 14 A. Not at that time, no. 15 Q. Did you deem it inappropriate to ask outside the 16 pro forma bearing in mind the knowledge which you were 17 apprised of? 18 A. The knowledge that I had been apprised of, of the 19 information that she was alleged to be in possession of, 20 I would have been reluctant, at that time, to go outside 21 the questions within the pro forma. 22 Q. So your thinking was: regardless of what is alleged, and 23 regardless of whether there's any truth or a scintilla 24 of truth in it, and regardless of the very grave 25 circumstances under investigation, I do not deem it 127 1 appropriate to ask this girl, who is being co-operative 2 in an ambience where I'm being received appropriately, 3 any question outside the form? 4 A. I took that decision at that time, yes. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you help us? The questions that you had 6 written in the pro forma, would you have been helped by 7 what you had been told to formulate those questions? 8 A. The questions on the pro forma, that was a pro forma 9 that had been completed in relation to dozens of people 10 who were there that night. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: So it's simply a standard pro forma? 12 A. A standard pro forma, and I was completing that 13 pro forma. 14 MS DINSMORE: Well, if perhaps we could avail of the 15 opportunity of seeing that pro forma, which we will find 16 at [22660], now, isn't it correct to say, therefore, you 17 asked, "Where are you coming from?", you get an answer 18 to that, and then you ask, "Who was with you?", and she 19 gives you the name of five persons. 20 Did you press her as to whether there was anybody 21 else with her? Did you say anything other than the 22 words, "Who was with you?" in relation to that? 23 A. I would have asked just the names of the persons who 24 were with her, and I would have asked was there anybody 25 else, just a normal conversation. 128 1 Q. Yes. Well, did you get an answer? Was there anybody 2 else? 3 A. Well, I have written down a number of names there, and 4 she has told me, obviously, the people who were with 5 her. 6 Q. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you now, and I apologise if 7 I am, but you have said, "Who is with you?", she gives 8 you a number of names, you write them down. 9 Am I correct in understanding that you then said, 10 "Was there anybody else with you?" 11 A. You have to take the circumstances. I'm saying that in 12 the text of I asked her, "Who was with you that night?" 13 She may have given me one name. She may have given me 14 two. I have then said, "Anybody else with you?" and 15 then written down another name. That is a possibility. 16 I don't know. 17 Q. So are you saying, then, that getting the five names was 18 at the end of gentle coaching? 19 A. No. I don't agree with that. 20 Q. Just tell us. I just want to know how you drew the line 21 at the end of number 5. 22 A. It was very obvious that she didn't give me any more 23 names. 24 Q. Did you ask her then, after number 5, "Was there anybody 25 else?" 129 1 A. That is a possibility. I don't know. 2 Q. You don't know? 3 A. No. 4 Q. The next question is a question which must have been one 5 that was of -- obviously, it's very difficult when one 6 has very limited writing space, but, no doubt, with 7 these questionnaires there is nothing to stop 8 a policeman of your experience attaching an additional 9 page to the end of the form if more details become 10 available. 11 So you don't have to condense anything you can get 12 into those four lines. It could be expanded upon. Is 13 that right? 14 A. That is correct, yes. 15 Q. So we find then the question is: who else was in the 16 vicinity? 17 Now, that question then had a number of aspects to 18 be further explored: describe location in relation to 19 themselves and their account of movement through town 20 centre. 21 Now, apprised of the allegations you were apprised 22 of, surely that was an opportunity to probe further for 23 what was going on in that town centre as allegedly 24 witnessed by this witness? Who else was in the 25 vicinity? 130 1 A. I would have asked her exactly what I have written down 2 there. Who was in the vicinity when they got off the 3 bus or what happened, and she explains there that she 4 got off the bus, walked up the town, saw a police 5 Land Rover at the Halifax, walked up to Mandarin House, 6 heard shouting coming from the town centre, saw two 7 persons lying in the road at the junction of 8 Thomas Street and Market Street. 9 She obviously didn't elaborate on anything further 10 than that to me. 11 Q. Did you, with the skills of your years in the force, 12 probe her gently in relation to that or probe her at 13 all? 14 A. No, I probably did not, because it was just a matter of 15 completing the pro forma with whatever information she 16 was going to volunteer to me. 17 Q. What I'm really trying to get at is just what -- from 18 whence did the information from Tracey Clarke emanate in 19 the absence of Andrea McKee? 20 We now know the scenario. You are in there, in her 21 home. She is being co-operative. You are asking her 22 appropriate questions. As far as I'm understanding from 23 you, she is showing no reluctance whatsoever to answer 24 those questions. You haven't suggested that at all. 25 Isn't that right? 131 1 A. I think you should repeat that. I don't understand what 2 you mean. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: There were about three questions in one. 4 That may be the difficulty. Can we have them one at 5 a time, please? 6 MS DINSMORE: Certainly, Mr Chair. Was this girl reluctant 7 to answer any of the questions? 8 A. Not that I can remember. 9 Q. Does that mean that you literally remember nothing of 10 this interview, or are you saying that this girl was not 11 reluctant? 12 A. To be honest, I probably can remember very little of the 13 interview, rather than the fact that her mother and 14 father were present. 15 Q. But this was an interview that you were attending, 16 forewarned of very grave allegations. Forewarned that 17 this is the person who might be a key in relation to the 18 very serious matters that were the subject of police 19 investigation. Isn't that right? 20 A. Well, I don't agree with just the way you put that. 21 Q. Tell us the way you would put it. 22 A. I went to the house, the home of Tracey Clarke, in order 23 to complete the pro forma and answer the -- help her 24 answer the questions that are contained within it. 25 I was aware of what had been told to me by Reserve Constable McCaw. 132 1 Again, we are talking about some information that 2 Tracey Clarke may have which was third or fourth-hand. 3 I was not in a position of or in possession of any 4 information that I could counteract or criticise any 5 answers she gave me to complete that pro forma. So 6 I wrote down exactly what she had told me, and I gave 7 her the opportunity to answer the question set out in 8 the pro forma, but I didn't question her in relation to 9 her answers. 10 Q. Well, when you have given evidence to the Inquiry 11 through your Inquiry statement, that you suspected she 12 was not telling the truth, what possible basis had you 13 for that, as you had not probed her whatsoever? 14 A. But it's quite obvious that she -- from the information 15 I had had from Reserve Constable McCaw, and from what Tracey Clarke told me 16 during that interview, I had no alternative but to 17 suspect that she wasn't telling the truth. 18 Q. Just so the Panel understand what weight -- and I don't 19 show any disrespect to your capacity for judgment, but 20 it's important that the Panel have a clear understanding 21 of what weight they can give to a statement by you, 22 "I suspected that she was not telling the truth", that 23 we understand, does that suspicion arise from anything 24 other than these third/fourth-hand unsubstantiated 25 allegations you had heard? 133 1 A. Taking the whole situation thing, the first thing I had 2 to do in relation to the information that Tracey Clarke 3 may have been in possession with, I had to give her, 4 through this pro forma, the opportunity to answer those 5 questions and give an account of what she remembered 6 about the night in question. 7 I did not consider that I was in a position, at that 8 stage, in her house, in the presence of her parents, to 9 tell her that she wasn't telling the truth, because at 10 that stage we had no confirmation in relation to what 11 Reserve Constable McCaw told me. 12 Q. That's very helpful. 13 Therefore, is it fair to suggest to you that you are 14 not suggesting to the Panel at all that there was 15 anything about the girl's demeanour or approach to you 16 or the answering of the questions, which would have 17 raised any suspicion, had you not had this alleged 18 evidence for what it was allegedly worth? 19 A. Yes, I agree with that. 20 Q. Thank you. So that's the questionnaire. 21 Then the next point is that you -- I understand 22 later that evening, you phoned back into the office. 23 Am I correct in that? 24 A. What? I didn't hear the question. 25 Q. Subsequent to that, you phoned back into the office and 134 1 you find out that Andrea McKee is not willing to come to 2 a police station. 3 A. No, I didn't phone. I was back in the office. 4 Q. You were back in the office. Sorry, I apologise. 5 So the next thing you know is you are back in the 6 office and you know that Andrea McKee, who is the font 7 from which these allegations have originally emanated, 8 she's not prepared to come near the police station. 9 Isn't that right? 10 A. That was correct, yes. 11 Q. Can we just clarify, is that Andrea McKee who wasn't 12 prepared on the evening of 8 May, the very same 13 Andrea McKee who not only came but brought young 14 Tracey Clarke with her the next night? Is that the same 15 person? 16 A. That is correct, yes. 17 Q. But to accommodate what her emotional orientation 18 towards police stations was on the night of 8 May, isn't 19 it correct that you and Detective Inspector Irwin then 20 set out to accommodate her at a rendezvous point? 21 A. That is correct, yes. 22 Q. And, in fact, the Police Service of Northern Ireland 23 also provides a police officer to accompany her as well. 24 Isn't that right? So there are three police officers at 25 the rendezvous? Reserve Constable McCaw also? 135 1 A. Reserve Constable McCaw was there, but he was not there in a capacity of 2 a police officer. 3 Q. I'm not suggesting -- is he a sort of friend of 4 Andrea McKee, that he was there in that capacity, or was 5 he there as a policeman? 6 A. He was there as a friend, I take it. 7 Q. So we have established now that Reserve Constable McCaw and Andrea McKee are 8 actually friends, but in the support of friendship, he 9 then accompanies her to this rendezvous with your good 10 self and Detective Inspector Irwin? 11 A. Yes, that's what happened, yes. 12 Q. The rendezvous point now, there seems to be a bit of 13 confusion as to whether it's the Kernan playing fields, 14 which is the road adjacent to the cemetery, but I don't 15 think there's really any confusion as to whether the car 16 park there is where this rendezvous took place? 17 A. That's correct, yes. 18 Q. Andrea McKee gets out of the car -- she was in with her 19 friend, Reserve Constable McCaw -- and gets into the police vehicle? 20 A. That is correct, yes. 21 Q. That's where the meeting took place? 22 A. That is correct, yes. 23 Q. According to your evidence, that is a meeting in the 24 region of 15 minutes long? 25 A. I'm not sure exactly how long it took. 136 1 Q. I suggest to you that you have suggested that. 2 A. I don't have anything in front of me to verify that. 3 Q. I can take you to it, but if you are content enough, 4 that was -- is it your recall that the meeting was 5 around that length of time? It wasn't a two-hour 6 meeting or a two-minute meeting either? 7 A. No, it was not. 8 Q. There was you and Detective Inspector Irwin. 9 You were the person, was it, who was asking most of 10 the questions? Just explain to us, what happened in 11 that car? 12 A. Detective Inspector Irwin introduced himself to 13 Andrea McKee and explained to her that -- what we were 14 doing, the investigation we were in, and she then 15 related to us that she had been talking to 16 Tracey Clarke, who was related to her, and then she 17 related to us certain information in relation to what 18 Tracey Clarke had told her. 19 Q. Can you just tell us what you remember her saying in the 20 car? 21 A. I can't -- I would not be able to remember that now. 22 Q. No recall at all? 23 A. No, other than she confirmed what Reserve Constable McCaw had said earlier. 24 Q. Well, can you give us some indication of the level of 25 detail that she went into in the car? 137 1 A. No, I have no recollection of that. 2 Q. None at all? 3 A. None at all. 4 Q. Right. Well, did she mention Mr Atkinson at all? If 5 you say, "No, I actually can't remember her mentioning 6 Mr Atkinson", please feel free to say it. If you can't 7 remember, you can't remember. 8 A. Well, the information that was given to us originally by 9 Reserve Constable McCaw in detail, which included the information in 10 relation to Tracey Clarke and Atkinson, would have been 11 discussed with Andrea McKee, because the detective 12 inspector and myself would have had to verify what she 13 had said in relation to both these persons to Reserve Constable McCaw. 14 Q. Well, I'm very apprised of those matters, of which there 15 is much documentation, but we have the benefit of you 16 here today, and you were the person sitting in that car, 17 and Andrea McKee is the start of a significant chain of 18 allegations which go to the root of matters being 19 investigated at this Inquiry. 20 Therefore, if you can assist us at all, not with the 21 broad wealth of all the reading that you have done over 22 the years, but if you can assist in explaining to the 23 Panel exactly what you remember the approach of that 24 lady was in that car, and what she told you, 25 particularly about Mr Atkinson. 138 1 A. No, I have no recollection in detail of what she 2 discussed about Mr Atkinson. But, again, we would have 3 been -- would have ran her over the facts of the thing. 4 Again, she would only have been relating to us what 5 she had heard and been told by Tracey Clarke. 6 Q. Yes, but Tracey Clarke hadn't told you that at that 7 stage at all. Isn't that right? 8 A. That is correct. 9 Q. Well, let's look then. You were actually interviewed by 10 Detective Inspector K -- is it -- on 30 November 2000? 11 A. Yes, I was. 12 Q. Do you remember that? I wonder, could you be good 13 enough to have document [53302] up, please? 14 Now, if I could just -- 15 THE CHAIRMAN: I see the time. I think we will give the 16 shorthand writer a break, and then we can continue with 17 this after the break. 18 MS DINSMORE: Certainly, Chair. 19 (3.44 pm) 20 (A short break) 21 (4.00 pm) 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Ms Dinsmore? 23 MS DINSMORE: Thank you. Mr McAteer, just before we rose 24 for a brief comfort break, I was exploring with you -- 25 and you have quite frankly said that you can't remember 139 1 much by the way of detail that you were -- that you can 2 hear, that you heard in the car, and I did press you 3 a little to see if we could -- or, as Mr Underwood would 4 say, if I could assist you a little. 5 Has the 15 minutes' reflection allowed you 6 an opportunity to think? Can you remember anything more 7 about what was actually said in the car? Who did most 8 of the talking? 9 A. I don't remember. 10 Q. Well, what I ask then -- perhaps it may be of some 11 assistance to you if we look at document [53302]. You 12 indicated that you recall having been interviewed on 13 30 November, and this document, which is in front of you 14 now, relates to the document, a record print of the 15 Inspector K who was conducting the interview. 16 I'm going to give you an opportunity, if you would 17 like to take a quick read through the first 10 or 18 12 lines of that. (Pause). 19 Maybe if you would be good enough to move on down, 20 ending on "the Brownstown Road", please. Thank you. 21 Now, this was in November of 2000 which was a number 22 of years -- 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Do we want the officer or Mr McAteer to read 24 this? Because, if you do, I think you have gone on 25 before he has finished reading it. 140 1 MS DINSMORE: I apologise. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: You tell us when you are ready, Mr McAteer. 3 A. Thank you very much. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want to go back to the first passage? 5 A. Yes, please. 6 MS DINSMORE: It starts with what Andrea McKee -- you recall 7 them relating to you. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Just let him read it, will you? 9 A. Yes. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want him to read the next part? 11 MS DINSMORE: No, I'm quite content if you have read to the 12 end of where it ends, "Brownstown Road". 13 Have you had an opportunity? 14 A. I have, just. 15 Q. Has that jolted your recollection at all? 16 A. That was obviously what occurred when I spoke to 17 Inspector K at that time. 18 Q. Those are grave matters which you recalled that are set 19 out there. Would you agree with that? 20 A. Yes, that was probably -- possibly nine years ago. 21 Q. Yes, but I'm on a slightly different point now. The 22 point I'm really going to is: if you were hearing that 23 from Andrea McKee in the car, why on earth didn't you 24 make any note of it? 25 A. I don't understand why I would have made a note of it. 141 1 I was quite aware of what she was telling me, and she 2 was telling me something that she was hearing from 3 somebody else. 4 Q. Well, are you seriously suggesting that when you have 5 been at a meeting of that potential gravity, you, with 6 your experience as a police officer, did not consider it 7 appropriate to note what this witness told you? 8 A. At that time, I did not make any note, nothing had been 9 confirmed in any shape or form of what had occurred, or 10 of what information Tracey Clarke had, and the only way 11 we were going to confirm with any of this was the truth 12 was to interview Tracey Clarke. 13 Q. That's very helpful. Thank you. So what you are saying 14 is really you cannot form a view of this hearsay 15 evidence at all until -- 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Forgive me, it doesn't matter what 17 Mr McAteer's view is about this. That is for us to say, 18 and this is -- this question is just comment. It's just 19 comment. 20 MS DINSMORE: Well, in the context, with enormous respect, 21 Mr Chair, it's no more comment than when Mr Underwood 22 asked this witness if he believed him. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: No, I'm sorry. 24 MS DINSMORE: I'm in the Chairman's hands, and I will move 25 on. 142 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 2 MS DINSMORE: In hindsight, do you accept, particularly in 3 the circumstances we find ourselves in today, it would 4 be most helpful indeed if you had made a note? 5 A. I can't answer that. 6 Q. Well, can I ask you to look at a document at page 7 [27118]? This is a statement which Andrea McKee made to 8 the Police Ombudsman's office in June 2002. 9 Now, here is what she said. Again, I'll allow you 10 an opportunity. If you could just highlight, please, 11 the second paragraph. 12 Now, I wonder, would you be good enough just to read 13 that paragraph? (Pause). I'm going to -- have you 14 finished reading it? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. I'm going to suggest to you that there Andrea McKee 17 doesn't recall any of the level of detail that you, 18 unaided by notes, were able to recall in 2000. Isn't 19 that right? 20 A. I can't answer for what Andrea McKee has said in the 21 statement. 22 Q. But you can answer that it's quite different from the 23 detail in November 2000 given by you, can you not? 24 A. Yes, it's completely different. 25 Q. Yes. Thank you. Now, so that meeting takes place on 143 1 the evening of the 8th and then the next morning you 2 make the expedious and proper enquiry requesting 3 telephone billings. Isn't that right? 4 A. I can't remember exactly what date I made the telephone 5 request. 6 Q. If I suggest to you it was 9.00 am on 9 May -- 7 THE CHAIRMAN: We have seen the document. 8 MS DINSMORE: You have seen the document. 9 A. I accept that, yes. 10 Q. Can you remember being at any conferences within the 11 police station during the day of 9 May? 12 A. There would have been a conference in the morning and 13 the afternoon. 14 Q. So that's two conferences? 15 A. Yes, that's correct. 16 Q. Isn't it correct that the details of that meeting that 17 had taken place the night before, which we have 18 explored, were not mentioned? 19 A. That is correct, yes. 20 Q. Why on earth were they not mentioned at a meeting? What 21 is the purpose of these conferences? 22 A. That particular bit of information, that had not been 23 verified one way or the other at that stage, was what 24 I would describe as delicate information concerning 25 Robbie Atkinson, and it would certainly not have been 144 1 brought out at an open conference. 2 Q. I don't want to misrepresent you, but just so 3 I understand your answer, are you saying really: what we 4 had at that stage we didn't think was worth mentioning? 5 THE CHAIRMAN: He is not saying that. 6 A. I'm not saying that. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: He is not saying that at all, Ms Dinsmore. 8 MS DINSMORE: Can you tell us what you are saying then? 9 A. What I'm saying is that the allegation that had been 10 made, or the information passed about what another 11 person had said, had not been verified in any shape or 12 form, and it was only by -- my telephone tracing was one 13 way we could establish if there was any contact between 14 Atkinson and Hanvey, and I had taken the steps on that 15 morning to do that, but until such time as that was 16 verified, it wasn't something that was to be mentioned 17 or talked about in an open conference. 18 Q. So then the next thing that happens is that late on the 19 night of 9 May, going into the early hours of the 20 morning of 10 May, you conduct an interview with 21 Tracey Clarke? 22 A. That is correct, yes. 23 Q. That interview was arranged with Andrea McKee? 24 A. That is correct, yes. 25 Q. Andrea McKee accompanies Tracey Clarke? 145 1 A. That is correct, yes. 2 Q. Andrea McKee sits through the entirety of the interview? 3 A. That is correct, yes. 4 Q. Andrea McKee intervenes at times? It's not as if she's 5 sat saying nothing from she came in, according to your 6 Inquiry statement. 7 A. It's possible. I can't remember that. 8 Q. Perhaps if you will allow me a moment, I'll just take 9 you to the page where your Inquiry statement deals with 10 that. 11 Well, in the meantime, tell us all that you remember 12 about that interview. 13 A. The interview with Tracey Clarke -- 14 Q. Yes, in the presence of Andrea McKee. 15 A. -- and witness P39? 16 Q. Yes. 17 A. Yes, I can remember that, as I have already explained, 18 I explained to her exactly the position regarding it. 19 I believed she was in possession of information 20 regarding what had occurred on the serious assault and 21 death of Robert Hamill, and that I believed that she was 22 in possession of information that may be of assistance, 23 that she hadn't told us the complete truth about what 24 had occurred that night. 25 As far as I remember, she ran through the 146 1 circumstances that I later recorded at her dictation. 2 I explained to her that -- she stated that she was 3 prepared to give evidence in court. We would -- as long 4 as she wasn't identified. I explained to her that 5 I would record her on the statement as Witness A, and 6 she seemed happy enough about that. And she related 7 what is set out in the statement that I recorded on that 8 night. 9 Q. It was a long interview, wasn't it? 10 A. I can't remember now the exact length of it. 11 Q. Well, she arrived at 11 pm -- isn't that right -- on the 12 night of the 9th? And the statement was recorded in the 13 early hours of the following morning? 14 A. That is correct, yes. 15 Q. Then, I wonder, could we have page [80784], please, and 16 if we could highlight paragraph 34, the first paragraph 17 on that statement? 18 Now, I bring this to your attention, Mr McAteer, to 19 facilitate, if that could aid you at all in recalling 20 the role which Andrea McKee played during the course of 21 that interview. I'll allow you a moment. 22 A. Yes, I have read that. 23 Q. So what we know there is that you could recall, when you 24 made your Inquiry statement, that Tracey was -- she was 25 speaking during this interview -- addressing, sorry. 147 1 I apologise. Andrea McKee was addressing Tracey during 2 this interview? 3 A. No, what I have said there is, as far as I can recall, 4 Andrea remained in the interview room while she made her 5 statement. She said things to support Tracey like, 6 "Don't worry about it". 7 She may have talked a bit when we were running 8 through the facts, but she did not say anything during 9 the recording of the statement. 10 Q. Do you have any idea how long it was that matters were 11 discussed before pen was put to paper? 12 A. No, I have no idea. 13 Q. Have you any idea how long it was to record the 14 statement? 15 A. No, I have no idea. 16 Q. Was it you who recorded the statement? 17 A. It was, yes. 18 Q. Now, could you give us an indication as to how you went 19 about recording that statement? Did you suggest 20 a sentence and say, "Have I got that right, Tracey?", 21 and she says, "Yes", or does Tracey say, "Well, now, 22 Mr McAteer, my words are as following", and you just 23 start a script? 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Why not let him tell us how the statement was 25 written down? 148 1 A. The facts that are recorded in that statement, I would 2 have went through the details of that, or let Tracey go 3 through those, and she would have explained exactly 4 what's recorded in the statement before I commenced to 5 record the statement in writing. 6 I would then have explained to her how I was going 7 to go about recording the writing. I would have 8 recorded the statement at her dictation. I wouldn't 9 have -- I would have maybe only asked her questions of 10 something like, "What happened then?", "Who was there?", 11 or, "What do you mean by that?" Only to verify points 12 in the thing. 13 It was her statement and the wording in it is hers 14 and the content of it is hers. 15 MS DINSMORE: I'm still a little unclear about what you mean 16 by "dictated". If I dictate to my secretary, I say, "On 17 the ... day of ..." 18 Now, is that the way this statement was made? 19 A. The statement was made and recorded -- when I say 20 "dictation", the words in that statement are the words 21 of Tracey Clarke. They were verified as I wrote them 22 down. 23 When she would say, "I was with such-and-such 24 a person at such-and-such and we were walking along 25 towards such-and-such", I would have repeated that as 149 1 she had said it to me before I wrote it down to make 2 sure she was happy and correct with the content. 3 When I completed the -- everything in that 4 statement, I then read that statement over to 5 Tracey Clarke in detail, and I invited her then to make 6 any changes or alterations she wanted to. I would have 7 verified that she was happy that the content was 8 correct, and then I would have asked her to sign it. 9 Q. Thank you. Just to recap on a matter which you raised 10 in your evidence-in-chief, you very properly made 11 a distinction between what Tracey Clarke knew and what 12 Tracey Clarke had heard. 13 Did you see a distinction in that at that time? 14 A. I think you need to explain that to me in detail. 15 I don't understand what you mean. 16 Q. What I mean is this: you said what you were interested 17 in primarily was what she saw because that was the best 18 evidence that you could get from her, things that she 19 witnessed with her own eyes. 20 A. Yes. What I said was that it was -- when questioned 21 about what Reserve Constable McCaw had said to me originally, as far as 22 I remember, I said that that was coming third-hand 23 information of something that Tracey Clarke had said or 24 witnessed or whatever, but the investigation at that 25 stage would not have been content until such times as 150 1 Tracey Clarke was interviewed and verified of what 2 exactly she did say. 3 Q. Yes, and that is what you did, but you also recorded 4 matters which she says she heard or was told by another 5 person. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Forgive me, Ms Dinsmore. If she says, 7 "Hanvey told me this about Mr Atkinson", that may be 8 part of the case against Mr Hanvey. 9 MS DINSMORE: That is correct, Mr Chairman, but insofar as 10 it -- 11 THE CHAIRMAN: It doesn't form a part of a case against 12 Mr Atkinson in a criminal court. It's different here. 13 MS DINSMORE: Well, if that is the case, we may need to 14 explore it a little further then. 15 In relation to what people had told her, did you 16 explore with her in any detail this, about how she heard 17 these things and what she heard, so that you could 18 provide the best hearsay evidence that would be 19 available to a court or an Inquiry? 20 A. I recorded in that statement from Tracey Clarke exactly 21 everything she was able to tell me of what 22 Allister Hanvey had told her. 23 Q. Are you aware now that -- well, of course -- do you 24 recall accompanying Tracey Clarke to Belfast for 25 a consultation with Crown Counsel? 151 1 A. I do. 2 Q. Yes. Isn't it correct to say that Tracey Clarke 3 withdrew her evidence? 4 A. That is correct, yes. 5 Q. Thank you. 6 Are you aware that Tracey Clarke has made subsequent 7 statements? 8 A. No, I'm not. 9 Q. Well, we can perhaps be fair -- it wouldn't perhaps be 10 fair to ask you to explore that. 11 Can I just explore one other aspect with you? 12 Mr Underwood asked you about your evaluation about the 13 truthfulness of Andrea McKee. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You took the view that you did consider her to be, in 16 your valued judgment, truthful. 17 Of course, that is a matter for the Chair, but as it 18 has been put in evidence what your view is -- 19 THE CHAIRMAN: His evidence was that he considered 20 Andrea McKee was telling him the truth about what she 21 had been told. He wasn't being asked by Mr Underwood to 22 express any view about whether what she was told was 23 truth or not. Mr Underwood -- 24 MS DINSMORE: I apologise if I have misunderstood that. 25 I am subject to the Chairman's note and LiveNote. 152 1 So you are not giving any evidence to this Inquiry 2 that you formed any view about Andrea McKee? 3 A. No, I'm not. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: No, no. It's about what Andrea McKee 5 reported she had been told by Tracey Clarke. He doesn't 6 express any view about whether what Andrea McKee was 7 being told was true. 8 MS DINSMORE: But simply that she was told it? 9 THE CHAIRMAN: That's right. 10 MS DINSMORE: I wonder if you could just look at document 11 [33918]? 12 THE CHAIRMAN: What is this document? 13 MS DINSMORE: This is an opinion from senior counsel in -- 14 for the Department of Public Prosecutions. It is an 15 evaluation of Andrea McKee as a witness. But 16 I appreciate, Mr Chair, that you may take the view that 17 this witness is not in a position to comment further on 18 that, but I have -- at this juncture, in light of the 19 comments that have been made, I consider it's 20 appropriate that it be brought to the attention -- 21 paragraph 20, the final paragraph. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: If you are doing this to draw our attention 23 to it, the time for that is not now. 24 MS DINSMORE: In relation to drawing your attention to it, 25 you, as a police officer dealing with whether, when 153 1 making recommendations to the Public Prosecution 2 Service, would you form views as to whether or not 3 witnesses could be put forward as witnesses capable of 4 belief? 5 A. As a police officer, I would have used my judgment to 6 decide and -- plus other evidence, whether a person was 7 telling the truth or not. 8 As I say, it's impossible for me to give any 9 judgment of the likes of Andrea McKee because I only 10 spoke to her on two occasions and that was 12 years ago. 11 MS DINSMORE: Thank you very much. 12 MR UNDERWOOD: Can I just explain, the reason why I asked 13 Mr McAteer what the view taken of Andrea McKee's 14 credibility was, was in order to assist you in 15 determining whether the police properly acted on their 16 own view thereafter, not in order to try to influence 17 your view of her credibility. 18 Examination by MR GREEN 19 MR GREEN: Sir, two matters. 20 When Tracey Clarke arrived at the police station on 21 10 May, you were expecting her. Isn't that right? 22 A. That is correct, yes. 23 Q. She had arrived with Andrea McKee and her statement was 24 taken over the course of a number of hours, and it was 25 a very complicated and detailed statement. Isn't that 154 1 right? 2 If one compares it with the statement she had made 3 the day before, the pro forma questionnaire, there was 4 a lot more detail in this. Isn't that right? 5 A. There was more detail, but I should make it clear there, 6 that pro forma was one of dozens upon dozens of similar 7 pro formas that were done out. That was another one 8 completed of people in the area at the time of the 9 incident. 10 Q. You believed, when she arrived at the station, that she 11 was going to give you information different from that 12 she had given you the previous day -- isn't that 13 right -- or you hoped that was what she was going to do? 14 A. I probably hoped that was what she was going to do. 15 Q. You perhaps even expected that was what she was going to 16 do? 17 A. I didn't know until such time as I interviewed her. 18 Q. Part of the reason may be that that statement would have 19 taken a little more time was because there were issues 20 of sensitivity surrounding it. Isn't that right? 21 For instance, she sought assurances from you. Isn't 22 that right? 23 A. Not that I can remember. 24 Q. Well, what was the circumstances leading to her being 25 given the Witness A protection? 155 1 A. She was -- I explained to her the position regarding 2 giving evidence in court, giving evidence against -- of 3 what she had seen on that night in question, and that we 4 would make application to have her identity protected, 5 and, as a result of that, I would record on the 6 statement her name under Witness A. 7 I would then have had to make application through 8 the Director of Public Prosecutions' Office, et cetera, 9 to have that verified. 10 Q. Did you get the authority of a senior officer to proceed 11 on that basis with her that night? 12 A. I was with a senior officer that night in question. 13 Q. But during the interview itself, this would have been at 14 another time, at a different part of the police station? 15 A. No, that was not. That would have been done at the 16 time. We would have done that as the interview went 17 through. 18 Q. Was it a condition precedent to her giving a statement 19 that she, for the time being at least, would have 20 protection -- 21 A. There was no conditions set out prior to her giving 22 a statement. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: You mean no conditions stipulated by her? 24 A. No conditions stipulated by her, no. 25 MR GREEN: But you were aware, and she had raised it as an 156 1 issue with you, that she wished to have some form of 2 protection. Isn't that right? 3 A. No, I explained that to her as a matter of course, and 4 she seemed quite happy with that arrangement. 5 Q. Do you think that she would have been as co-operative 6 without that matter being raised and discussed amongst 7 you? Did it give her some comfort, the fact that this 8 was something that was going to be -- 9 A. I can't really answer for her, but it probably did. 10 Q. It was an important strategy, was it? 11 A. No, it wasn't any strategy whatsoever. 12 Q. But it was something that was done by the interviewing 13 team. Isn't that right? 14 A. No. I was there to -- my only objective was to 15 establish what information Tracey Clarke had in her 16 possession, where that would take us in relation to the 17 murder investigation and how it would assist us to deal 18 with the persons responsible for the assault and the 19 murder of Robert Hamill. 20 Q. Now, if I could just ask you some questions about the 21 information that she then proceeded to give you during 22 the course of this interview. 23 Did you lay your cards on the table with her, that 24 you didn't believe what she had said from the previous 25 day, or was this a free-flowing narrative that she then 157 1 went into? 2 A. No, it wasn't a free-flowing thing. I can't remember in 3 detail what I would have said regarding what she had 4 completed in the pro forma, but I certainly would have 5 no doubt that I mentioned -- would have mentioned to her 6 that what she has told us in relation to the thing, we 7 now believed it was not the truth. 8 Q. Yes. And you let her know that. Is that right? 9 A. I would have done that. I have no doubt that I would 10 have done that, yes. 11 Q. This would have been at a very early stage? 12 A. It may have been. I don't know. 13 Q. Were you aware that Timothy Jameson was at the same time 14 in a different part of the police station being 15 interviewed? 16 A. No, I was not. 17 Q. The information that she then proceeded to give you was 18 information at that time received by you, and was the 19 most important development in the investigation to date. 20 Isn't that right? 21 A. I'm too sure whether there was anybody else being 22 interviewed in the police station at that time or not. 23 Q. What I'm asking about is: according to your assessment 24 of the situation -- assuming for the moment you weren't 25 aware of Mr Jameson's interview -- this was a major 158 1 development, it was the first breakthrough in the 2 investigation. Isn't that right? 3 A. It was a development, yes. 4 Q. Before you started recording the statement, did you have 5 an idea of what she was going to say? 6 In other words, had she given you highlights of what 7 she wished to say? 8 A. As I would have normally done, I would have gone through 9 the story with her, see what exactly she was going to 10 relate in relation to information. I then would have 11 explained to her how I would have went about writing 12 that down at her dictation in statement form. 13 Q. Therefore, before the details of her statement were 14 given, did she give you any indication that she was 15 about to change what she had said from the previous day? 16 A. I have no recollection, but she probably did, because 17 I would have went through -- what I recorded in the 18 statement, I would have gone through that with her, 19 exactly the same as contained in the statement, talking 20 to her beforehand, before I started recording it. 21 Q. So does that mean you would have had an idea of what she 22 was going to say? 23 A. No, that doesn't mean that at all. 24 Q. What does it mean? 25 A. The content of the statement, the story that she related 159 1 to me in the statement, which I recorded, I would have 2 went through that in a conversation with Tracey Clarke 3 prior to taking the statement. She would have related 4 the story to me. 5 Q. The details of -- 6 A. Verbally. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: From whom did the information come? 8 A. From Tracey Clarke. 9 MR GREEN: So if I understand what you are saying, she gave 10 you an outline of what she was about to tell you, and 11 that would have included what she saw on the street, as 12 well as other details with telephone calls and suchlike. 13 Isn't that right? 14 A. What I recorded in the statement, yes. 15 Q. That would have enabled you then to structure the 16 statement and begin the relevant portion -- isn't that 17 right -- 18 A. That is correct. That is correct. 19 Q. -- and run through sequentially what you knew she was 20 going to tell you about in greater detail no doubt in 21 the statement? 22 A. Well, it would have been much the same really, but 23 I might have elaborated a bit. You could have maybe 24 verified something, or she could have asked me 25 something, or I could have asked her something, but that 160 1 was virtually the truth of what she said. 2 Q. You were then asked in your evidence today about your 3 assessment of Tracey Clarke. If I could just bring that 4 up on the -- if we have a transcript, and it might be of 5 assistance to you perhaps if we bring up the transcript 6 of what you did say in answer to a question. It's 7 page 97 of today's transcript, line 17. Can we get that 8 up? No, sorry. The facility doesn't exist. Well, 9 I have a transcript of what you said. 10 The question that was asked of you is: 11 "Question: How did you assess Tracey Clarke in 12 terms of truthfulness as a witness?" 13 Mr Underwood asked you that question -- 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. -- earlier today. 16 Your answer to that was: 17 "Answer: When I went through what she was" -- 18 For the assistance of everyone else, sir, it is at 19 page 97, line 17. I'm reading now from line 19: 20 "Answer: When I went through what she was -- the 21 information that she was in possession of, and the way 22 she explained it to me on that night in question, I had 23 absolutely no doubt that she couldn't have told me the 24 facts and the parts of what had occurred without having 25 a fair knowledge or having been present while the 161 1 incident occurred, and I had no doubt that she was 2 telling me the truth on that occasion." 3 Do you remember that answer? 4 A. Yes, I agree with that, yes. 5 Q. Now, your assessment of her as a witness of truth made 6 during the taking of that statement was based 7 primarily -- maybe not exclusively, but primarily on the 8 quality of your perception of the evidence that she 9 could give in that statement. Isn't that right? 10 What you are saying in that passage there is that, 11 "Because of the details that she was able to give me, 12 and the way she gave it, but particularly the details of 13 what she was giving me, I had no doubt that she was 14 telling the truth". Isn't that right? 15 A. Yes, I agree with that, yes. 16 Q. Does that relate to all of the information that she gave 17 you? And what -- perhaps what do you mean by that? 18 A. What I mean by that is that what she related to me, the 19 content of the statement, I believed that she was -- it 20 was as near the truth regarding detail of what she saw 21 or knew about on that night as we could possibly get to. 22 Q. You wanted to believe what she said. Isn't that right? 23 A. No, it is not a question of that. 24 Q. Well, this was a major breakthrough and a major 25 development in the Inquiry. 162 1 A. If I had not believed that what she was telling me that 2 night, I would not have recorded a statement. 3 Q. Part of the information she gave you -- and if we can 4 just go to her statement, page [00263], and if we can 5 highlight the middle section of that. If I read from 6 that: 7 "It was at this time that I saw a number of persons 8 gathered around the person lying in the centre of the 9 road. These persons were kicking the person on the 10 ground around the head and body. I saw them jump on the 11 person on the ground. They jumped all over him and 12 kicked him. I saw the persons who were doing this and 13 I can identify them as (1) Dean Forbes, (2) Allister Hanvey, 14 (3) Stacey Bridgett, (4) 'Muck', (5) Rory Robinson." 15 Did it not strike you that there was very little by 16 way of detail in what she was saying each of these 17 individuals was doing? 18 A. No, I disagree with you on that. 19 Q. Well, did you not ask her when she reached that stage, 20 and she gave you those five names, "What was Dean Forbes 21 doing? What do you recall him doing exactly?" 22 She lumps them in as a group and doesn't try to 23 ascribe any individual role to them. Isn't that right? 24 A. I took it from that, and my interpretation of that, of 25 what I have written down there, that these persons were 163 1 kicking the person on the ground around the head and 2 body. "I saw 'them' jump on the person on the ground. 3 They jumped all over him and kicked him", and she saw 4 the persons doing this, jumping on him and kicking him, 5 as such and such, and I think that is enough detail in 6 that because it describes exactly what they were doing. 7 Q. It describes in a general sense what they were doing, 8 but not -- it doesn't try to get into the individual 9 roles of what each of the persons she says she saw 10 behaving in a violent way were doing. 11 You didn't ask her, "What", for instance, "was 12 'Muck' doing in particular? Was he kicking the body? 13 Was he kicking the head?" 14 You don't ask that question, or that information 15 isn't provided. 16 A. I did not think at the time that was necessary. 17 Q. You didn't want to get into the details of it because 18 you didn't want to shake the can. Isn't that right? 19 You wanted to just get the information into a statement 20 and move on. Isn't that right? 21 A. No, I did not want to do anything, I suggest, other than 22 find out the truth of the incident and find out what 23 evidence that Tracey Clarke was capable of providing. 24 Q. You weren't seeking while she was giving you this 25 information to probe, I suppose is what I'm asking. 164 1 THE CHAIRMAN: You have asked, haven't you, and you have 2 your answers. 3 MR GREEN: I would like an answer to that specific question. 4 A. Can you repeat that question, please? 5 Q. In your handling of this particular part of her 6 statement, you were not seeking to probe her any further 7 than the information she gave you? 8 A. Well, I consider that is down to your opinion. My 9 opinion of the thing is that I included enough detail in 10 that to describe what these persons did to Robert Hamill 11 when he was on the ground. 12 Q. Because I suggest, when you got that information, you 13 were quite willing and happy to move on and deliberately 14 and consciously maybe didn't probe her any further? 15 A. I disagree with that completely. 16 Q. That information contained in that passage was general 17 rumour in the Portadown area. Isn't that right? 18 I will be more specific. That persons -- a group of 19 persons had attacked Robert Hamill, kicking him to the 20 head and body. That was a general word on the street at 21 that time. Isn't that right? 22 A. It was quite obvious to everybody what had occurred. 23 Q. Yes. It had formed part of press releases that that's 24 what happened, in a general sense. Isn't that right? 25 A. I have no idea. 165 1 Q. And it was the general word on the street that 2 Robert Hamill at this stage had been killed as 3 a consequence of receiving a kicking to the head and 4 body by Protestant people in the area of Market Street 5 on 27 April. Isn't that right? That was the general 6 word on the street. The dogs on the street knew that. 7 Isn't that right? 8 A. No, I don't agree with that. 9 Q. What was so unique about that? Everyone knew. 10 A. I don't understand your question. What's so unique 11 about what? 12 Q. What I'm saying is the only material or the only 13 information in that, that a general member of the public 14 wouldn't have been able to give based on the rumour 15 circulating in Portadown was the identity of persons. 16 The fact that someone had been kicked and beaten 17 about the head was general rumour. Isn't that right? 18 A. No, it was not. And, in fact, I consider that there is 19 enough detail contained in the statement of 20 Tracey Clarke to describe what those persons did to 21 Robert Hamill, and it's quite clear from that, that that 22 came from her and she witnessed that at the scene, and 23 I accepted that at that time. 24 Q. But that's your assessment of her, and that is what you 25 were asked by Mr Underwood: what was your assessment of 166 1 her as a witness? That is your individual assessment of 2 her. But there's nothing in that material, nothing in 3 that information, that she couldn't have known from 4 rumours on the street? 5 A. I can't answer for Tracey Clarke. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: I thought you had just said "except the 7 names". 8 MR GREEN: Except the names. Yes. 9 That then would be down to her motivation then, to 10 name people, for whatever reasons she might have 11 personal to herself. 12 A. No, I disagree with that. 13 Q. You just believed what she said. Isn't that right? 14 A. I could see no other reason other than believe her. 15 There was no reason not to believe her. 16 Q. You had -- just moving on to another issue, you had 17 a few days previously arrested a xxxxxxxxxx. Isn't 18 that right? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. Can I just refer you to paragraph 18 of your statement? 21 If you could bring Mr McAteer's statement up, please. 22 [80780]. 80776, thank you. 23 Now, the name is redacted but it is a name that we 24 have already had mentioned in the Inquiry, 25 a xxxxxxxxxx -- isn't that right -- 167 1 A. That's correct, yes. 2 Q. -- at Portadown Police Station? Is that because he had 3 attended by agreement at the police station? 4 A. I can't remember offhand why he attended at the police 5 station. 6 Q. You interviewed him, and he provided an account of where 7 he was that night. Isn't that right? 8 A. From what I can remember, he provided an alibi and he 9 was released. 10 Q. Yes, and that alibi was then checked. 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. It wasn't checked by you? 13 A. Not by me, but it was checked and he was released. 14 Q. He was released, and as far as you are concerned, that 15 was the last xxxxxxxxxx played in this investigation? 16 A. That's correct, yes. 17 MR GREEN: Thank you. 18 Examination by MR ATCHISON 19 MR ATCHISON: Mr McAteer, you have candidly conceded you 20 don't enjoy any notes in relation to your attendance to 21 Mrs McKee in the car. 22 A. Yes. I don't have any notes, no. 23 Q. But you have said in your statement that you do not 24 think that she was scared while she was relating the 25 information to you. 168 1 A. Andrea McKee? 2 Q. Yes. 3 A. I do not think she was, no. 4 Q. Would it be fair to say that she didn't appear to be 5 reluctant to co-operate with the police? 6 A. She didn't appear to be reluctant, no. 7 Q. Can you recall, did she appear flustered or emotional at 8 any time? 9 A. I can't say really. I don't think she was emotional 10 really. 11 Q. In fairness, in your evidence earlier you said that she 12 was quite prepared to assist you. Is that a fair 13 impression you got? 14 A. That was the impression I got, yes. 15 Q. Did you ever question her motives for co-operating with 16 the police? 17 A. No, I did not. 18 Q. Were you aware at that time, or perhaps even at today's 19 date, of the background as regards the relationships in 20 relation to both Allister Hanvey and Reserve 21 Constable Atkinson at that time? 22 A. In relation to what? 23 Q. The relationships, first of all, if we look at Hanvey. 24 Hanvey -- her husband, Michael McKee, owned the 25 Tae Kwon Do club. 169 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. Did you know that Hanvey was his prize student -- 3 A. No, I did not. 4 Q. -- who competed at quite a high level? 5 A. I knew he was a member of the club, that's all. 6 Q. And, therefore, was a customer of her husband. Did you 7 know that Reserve Constable Atkinson was associated with 8 the Tae Kwon Do club? 9 A. Yes, I did, yes. 10 Q. In that regard, did it surprise you that Mrs McKee did 11 not show some emotion or some reluctance to co-operate 12 with you? 13 A. No, it did not, no. 14 Q. Now, you said in your statement at paragraph 31 that we 15 had -- you had to drag the information out of Clarke in 16 bits and pieces, that the words did not flow. So it's 17 fair to say that she was not exactly volunteering the 18 information? 19 A. No, I didn't agree with the interpretation of that. 20 What I mean by "dragging it out" is that it was not 21 a free-flowing conversation. She just did not sit down 22 and tell me the story as I recorded it in the statement. 23 It would have been given in bits and pieces. You had to 24 say to her, "What happened then? How did that happen? 25 What did you see there?" 170 1 That's my interpretation of saying what I "dragged" 2 out of her. 3 Q. You told us that Clarke appeared quite upset. 4 A. She probably was upset. I don't know. She didn't 5 appear that upset that she wasn't capable of explaining 6 to us what had occurred that night, and was quite happy 7 to make a written statement regarding the facts that she 8 saw. 9 Q. In fact, she told you, simply a matter of days before, 10 that she had told Hanvey that she had already told the 11 police what had happened. Isn't that right? 12 A. Yes, that's right. 13 Q. Did that not concern you, that she had conceded to you 14 that she had been lying to him? 15 A. No, it didn't concern me, no. 16 Q. You didn't consider that this was a young, immature lady 17 who, by her own admission, was inclined to lie? 18 A. She did not give me that impression. 19 Q. There is an issue clearly about the clothing that 20 Allister Hanvey was wearing that night. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Now, you have told us in your statement at paragraph 32 23 that you recall Clarke gave you a description of what 24 Hanvey had been wearing. 25 A. Yes, that's correct. 171 1 Q. You can see that that's not documented. 2 A. That's correct, yes. 3 Q. Do you know that it's been alleged that Ms Clarke was 4 quite concerned or upset at the fact that the clothing 5 in question had been purchased by her? 6 A. No, I do not. 7 Q. And, of course, the statement that you recorded infers 8 that Ms Clarke was present at the time when the assault 9 occurred. Isn't that right? 10 A. Can you repeat that question, please? 11 Q. The statement that you have recorded infers that 12 Ms Clarke was present when the assault occurred? 13 A. Her statement? 14 Q. Yes. 15 A. Yes. If she says that she was present, yes. 16 Q. That suggests one of two things. That she should have 17 been able to see what clothing Mr Hanvey was wearing. 18 Isn't that right? 19 A. Probably. I can't answer for Tracey Clarke. 20 Q. In particular, if she had purchased the clothing, one 21 would have thought she would have been able to recognise 22 it. 23 A. The only thing I can say is that if Tracey Clarke had 24 mentioned that night during the taking of the statement 25 that Allister Hanvey was wearing something that was 172 1 significant, irrespective of what it was, an article of 2 clothing or whatever, I would have recorded that in the 3 statement, because that would have been evidence to 4 identify him at the scene. 5 Also, I would have informed then the people who were 6 briefing the search team the following morning. 7 Q. I suggest to you, Mr McAteer, no matter how vague, as an 8 experienced investigator, you would have known that any 9 description is helpful to have on record. 10 A. Any description, that's correct. 11 Q. Yes. Therefore, the fact that Ms Clarke didn't give you 12 any description, or at least it's not documented, 13 I suggest to you shows she didn't know what clothing 14 Mr Hanvey was wearing that night? 15 A. That could be taken from that all right, yes. 16 Q. Indeed, the statement that you recorded recounts that 17 Ms Clarke then had a conversation with Mr Hanvey. Isn't 18 that right? 19 A. I'm not too sure what -- 20 Q. Perhaps if I were to refer you to the statement, in 21 fairness. I believe it's page [00262] it commences. 22 If we go to the next page, please [00263]. Sorry, 23 the next page, [00264], at the very bottom half of the 24 page. 25 You will see that it's recorded that Robbie Atkinson 173 1 had been very good to him because, on the Sunday 2 morning, he had rung him and told him to get rid of the 3 clothes he was wearing the previous night. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Now, again, would that not suggest that certainly, at 6 that stage, would you not have asked of Ms Clarke, "Do 7 you know what clothing this Mr Hanvey was wearing?" 8 A. If she had related anything regarding the identification 9 of clothing that he was wearing, I would have recorded 10 it in the statement. 11 Q. More to the point, if she had recognised the clothing as 12 a jacket she had purchased for Mr Hanvey, no doubt she 13 would have brought that to your attention? 14 A. I'm sure she would, yes. 15 Q. At paragraph 35 of your statement, Mr McAteer, you said 16 that you were not concerned as regards Clarke's 17 motivation. 18 Did it not occur to you that this young lady was 19 telling tales essentially on her ex-boyfriend, a very 20 recent ex-boyfriend? Did that concern you at all? 21 A. No, it did not concern me. 22 Q. Even though this was a serious allegation? 23 A. As I put there, what she was saying to us seemed very 24 genuine. I did not think that she could have made this 25 situation up. 174 1 Q. And yet you had recorded a questionnaire from this lady 2 essentially one day before. Isn't that right? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. And on that occasion, she hadn't told you about any of 5 this. Did she give you an explanation as to why she had 6 changed her account? 7 A. I don't remember that. 8 Q. At paragraph 37 of your statement -- I regret, sir, 9 I don't have the page number -- thank you very much. 10 You volunteer that she said she was aware that she had 11 not been telling the truth, but that at that time she 12 did not want to get involved? 13 A. Yes, that sounds right. 14 Q. We were simply talking about one day earlier? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. Again, did that not cause you concern as to why -- 17 A. No, it did not. 18 Q. To either question her motivation or the veracity of 19 what she was telling you? 20 A. No, it did not. 21 Q. Just briefly to touch on a point that Ms Clarke was 22 present in the police station for quite some time -- 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. -- perhaps three and a half to four hours. 25 A. I'm not sure of the exact time. 175 1 Q. Yes. It's been suggested earlier in this Inquiry that 2 Mr Jameson, Timothy Jameson, was in the police station 3 on the same evening. Are you aware of that? 4 A. Unless it was earlier that evening, I certainly don't 5 think it was around the time I was there. I have no 6 idea. The only way is for somebody to check that, when 7 he was in. I don't know when he was in. 8 Q. Would it be fair to say that Portadown Police Station is 9 quite a confined police station, certainly as regards 10 the fact that there were only two interview suites? 11 A. There are two interview rooms, that's correct. 12 Q. And they were immediately beside each other at that 13 time. Is that correct? 14 A. No, no, that is not correct. 15 Q. You disagree with that. I believe -- I don't have it to 16 hand, sir. Detective Constable Honeyford, I believe, 17 accepted in evidence that the rooms were immediately 18 adjacent to one another. 19 SIR JOHN EVANS: Forgive me, but didn't Honeyford say that 20 one of the interviews was actually taking place 21 upstairs? One was down in the interview room and one 22 was upstairs. 23 MR ATCHISON: I see Mr Underwood nodding his head. Sir, 24 I believe that may be right. 25 In any event, at that time, this was, of course, the 176 1 statement that you had recorded. You were aware that 2 this was of immense significance as regards what had 3 become, that very preceding day, a murder investigation? 4 A. That's correct, yes. 5 Q. And, of course, if Detective Constable Honeyford was in 6 the police station at the same time, or in or around the 7 same time, recording a statement from Timothy Jameson -- 8 do you recall, did you speak with him at all? 9 A. No, I did not. 10 Q. You did not compare the respective statements that you 11 had recorded? 12 A. I have absolutely no idea of what Jameson said in his 13 statement whatsoever. 14 Q. Your superiors, no doubt you were reporting to them 15 throughout the three or four hours that you were working 16 with Ms Clarke? 17 A. Detective Chief Inspector P39 was with me. 18 Q. But I believe there were others upstairs. Did you go up 19 to speak to your superiors upstairs at all? 20 A. I was upstairs. 21 Q. Sorry. Did you speak to the superiors beyond P39? 22 A. No, I did not. 23 Q. You have told us that you have no entry in your notebook 24 in relation to your meeting with Ms McKee? 25 A. That's correct, yes. 177 1 Q. I suggest to you there is no reference in your notebook 2 to your initial attendance and taking of the 3 questionnaire with Ms Clarke. Would you accept that? 4 A. I wouldn't know without checking my notebook. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: If there is a reason why it wasn't there, no 6 doubt you will put it to him. 7 MR ATCHISON: I'm coming to that, sir. 8 I would also suggest to you that there was no 9 reference in relation to Reserve Constable McCaw relaying these allegations 10 to you. So would you accept that you are essentially 11 reliant on your own recollection for these matters? 12 A. What particular matters are you referring to? Which 13 part of it? 14 Q. If I could refer you to the document at page [22660]. 15 This is the original handwritten QPF document. Do you 16 recognise that document? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. If you would like to flick through to the second page, 19 please. Do you recall taking that? 20 A. Yes, I do. 21 Q. If I can ask you to pause on that page, you will see 22 that the last question is "Person's visible 23 description", and there are no other endorsements on 24 that document. Do you agree? 25 A. I do. 178 1 Q. And if I might refer you to page [17649], this is a word 2 processed version. You will note a date at the top, 3 16 May 1997, has been applied. Do you see that in the 4 very top line? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. That would suggest that this word processed version was 7 prepared some eight days after the handwritten version? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. If we could scroll through the following pages, please. 10 Next page, please. Back one, please. If we stop there, 11 you will see that after question 9, "Person's visible 12 description", a question 10 has been applied which was 13 not in the original handwritten form. 14 In answer to that, it says "Party at house", and 15 seven names have been applied. Can you explain why that 16 occurred? 17 A. That's obviously a HOLMES document. That wouldn't have 18 been recorded by me. The only document I put in was the 19 questionnaires. That's recorded by somebody else and 20 put onto -- at somebody's direction onto the 21 computerised version in the HOLMES investigation 22 document. 23 Q. Is that document, Mr McAteer, not meant to be 24 a reflection? 25 A. No, it is not. 179 1 Q. Bear with me, please, until I finish the question. Is 2 that not meant to be a reflection of the question and 3 answer QPF that you conducted with Ms Clarke? 4 A. It probably has some bearing on it. If Tracey Clarke 5 had told me, when I completed that document, about the 6 house party, the number of persons at the party, I would 7 have recorded it on the document in handwriting. 8 Q. But it is not on that document, nor is there any 9 notebook entry. So can you account as to how the seven 10 names were subsequently applied? 11 A. No. That document has nothing to do with me. It's not 12 my document, that. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: If you read the document, question 10, the 14 question is: 15 "Completing officer's details." 16 The name again is given, and then the next question 17 is: 18 "Statement recorded." 19 Answer: "No". 20 But the rest, you see, is a reference to a party at 21 the house, and who was attending it, but it doesn't 22 suggest it's an answer to a question. 23 The witness says: this is a HOLMES document, and it 24 doesn't set out to record solely the questionnaire. 25 MR ATCHISON: Sir, I would respectfully suggest at best the 180 1 document is ambiguous in that question 10 or Q10 has 2 been applied and then it says, "Party at house". 3 Certainly it would give the inference to a reader 4 that this was an answer furnished by -- 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, it doesn't to me. 6 MR ATCHISON: Very well. No further questions. Thank you. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr O'Connor? 8 Examination by MR O'CONNOR 9 MR O'CONNOR: I have just two matters. They have both been 10 touched on already, so I will be brief. 11 Mr McAteer, I represent Michael Irwin. In relation 12 to the pro forma documents we have just heard about, you 13 mentioned dozens and dozens of pro forma documents? 14 A. Yes, that is the questionnaire documents. 15 Q. They have been referred to as pro forma, but do you know 16 who drew up the documents? 17 A. I have no doubt -- it was possibly done -- that is 18 a standard thing in a murder investigation. Somebody 19 sits down. It could have been DI Irwin has done that. 20 I am not sure. It could have been one of the sergeants 21 that done it, but that was drawn up by somebody and 22 obviously typed out and printed out and handed out for 23 completion by the investigating team. 24 Q. Did you find that pro forma document useful? 25 A. Yes, it was useful because it saves your writing hand, 181 1 and everybody with different questions -- everybody has 2 been asked the same questions about the same incident, 3 what did they see, et cetera. 4 Q. From your experience, would you call that good 5 investigative work? 6 A. Yes, that would be good investigative work. 7 Q. Just in relation to the getting rid of clothes or the 8 burning of clothes, do you remember what Andrea McKee 9 said in the car in relation to that? 10 A. No, I can't remember offhand what exactly she said in 11 the car. 12 Q. I will give the Inquiry the references very briefly for 13 future reference. I don't want them opened now, but 14 Andrea McKee's reference is 19981, and Tracey Clarke's 15 is 31618. 16 I'm suggesting to you that at no stage did 17 Andrea McKee or Tracey Clarke ever suggest that Hanvey 18 was told by Reserve Constable Atkinson to burn clothes. 19 A. Yes, I don't think -- that was not the word, but I can't 20 remember. 21 Q. I suggest to you that the word throughout the 22 investigation and from the witnesses was that Hanvey was 23 told to get rid of clothes. 24 A. I think that's possibly right, yes. 25 MR O'CONNOR: Thank you. 182 1 Examination by MR BERRY 2 MR BERRY: Mr McAteer, hello. I'm Greg Berry, I represent 3 Andrea McKee, and I want to ask you some matters. 4 Can I, first of all, ask you about the relationship 5 which has been described as a friendship between Reserve Constable 6 McCaw and Andrea McKee, and could we have document [04369] up, 7 please? Could I have the paragraph towards the bottom, 8 which is numbered 1, highlighted, please? 9 Could you just have a look at that paragraph? There 10 is an individual identified there who is Reserve Constable McCaw. 11 Does that, when you have considered that, accord with your 12 understanding of how Reserve Constable McCaw knew Andrea McKee? 13 I don't propose to read it out, but if that chimes with your 14 recollection? 15 A. That sounds reasonable. 16 Q. Yes. If I may deal with the second point, which is the 17 conversation you had in the car with Andrea McKee, Reserve Constable 18 McCaw and Mr Irwin, would you accept that your recollection 19 isn't precise about what went on? 20 A. That is correct, yes. 21 Q. Can I suggest one scenario to you, and ask for your 22 comment? Was there anything indicated to you by 23 Andrea McKee, along the lines of, "I have this great 24 plan to get a number of people in trouble" -- 25 A. No. 183 1 Q. -- "and what we will do is this: I'll bring my husband's 2 niece in, I'll coerce her into giving a story to police, 3 and it will all end pretty well for me because I will 4 get a suspended jail sentence and my husband will go to 5 jail"? Was there anything along those lines? 6 A. Nothing like that was ever discussed. 7 Q. Tracey Clarke provided a statement which you recorded as 8 you have indicated, and that was during the process of 9 an interview with her as a witness -- 10 A. That is correct. 11 Q. -- on 9 and 10 May 1997. I think we have established 12 that she was present, you were present, Andrea McKee was 13 present, and P39 was present. 14 A. That's correct, yes. 15 Q. In terms of Tracey Clarke's age at that time, I think 16 she was 17. Isn't that right? 17 A. I'm not exactly sure. 18 Q. I think her date of birth was xxxxxxxxxx. I will be 19 corrected on that if I get that wrong, but I think she 20 was 17 at the time. 21 A. I accept that. 22 Q. Now, in terms of Andrea McKee's presence, would it be 23 fair to say that her role there, from the best of your 24 recollection, was to reassure Tracey Clarke and, in 25 a way, to comfort her? 184 1 A. I wouldn't just use that terminology. I would say 2 probably to put her more at ease with sitting in 3 a police station. 4 Q. It's probably any imprecision in terms of the use of 5 language, but I understand what you are saying. 6 Given her age, it's almost akin to the role of an 7 appropriate adult. Not that she was being cautioned or 8 anything of that nature, but somebody there who was 9 a wee bit older, whom she knew. Would that be fair? 10 A. It would be fair enough that, yes. 11 Q. I'm not suggesting she was there to keep her right 12 because she was being interviewed as a suspect or 13 anything of that nature, but to put her at her ease, as 14 I think you have described it, may be a good way of 15 putting it? 16 A. Another way to think is: she brought her to the police 17 station, so it was only correct that we would let her 18 stay with her while she was there. 19 Q. Yes. The whole point of you speaking to Tracey Clarke 20 was presumably you wanted to get the truth from her? 21 A. We wanted to obtain any information that she was in 22 possession of that would progress the murder 23 investigation -- 24 Q. Yes. 25 A. -- and make the persons responsible amenable. 185 1 Q. But obviously you wanted truthful information; you 2 didn't want a cock and bull story or anything of that 3 nature from her? 4 A. No, I agree with you. 5 Q. That is one of the points of getting her in, if not the 6 primary point: that she would give you relevant and 7 truthful information to further your enquiries. 8 A. Yes, we hoped for that. 9 Q. In fact, at the end of taking that statement, I think 10 you have already indicated that you viewed the account 11 that she gave as truthful. 12 A. Yes, I did, yes. 13 Q. Can I ask you, just in respect of Andrea McKee's role, 14 was there any undue influence or pressure exerted upon 15 Tracey Clarke by Andrea McKee that you observed? 16 A. No, there was not. 17 Q. If you had observed such behaviour or pressure, or 18 anything of that nature, presumably you, as a police 19 officer, would have intervened to stop that? 20 A. Yes, I would. I would have asked her to leave the 21 interview. 22 Q. Yes, and the reason you would have done that is because 23 it might in some way have inhibited your search for 24 reliable and truthful information? 25 A. That is correct, yes. 186 1 Q. Now, Tracey Clarke hasn't given evidence so far, but she 2 has provided an account to the Inquiry. One of the 3 allegations made against police, which would be you and 4 P39, is that police shouted at her and banged the table, 5 presumably the interview table. 6 What do you have to say about that? 7 A. It is a lot of nonsense. 8 Q. When did you first hear of that allegation? 9 A. I don't know, and I don't know where I heard it from, 10 but today is the first time it's been elaborated on. 11 Q. Secondly, that she also alleged that police wouldn't let 12 her out of the station unless she said the things that 13 she'd stated in her police statement of 10 May 1997. 14 A. That is not correct. 15 Q. Then the other aspect is she says that both police and 16 Andrea McKee in essence put words into her mouth. 17 Now, she says that, and her husband, 18 Allister Hanvey, also alleges that, despite the fact 19 that they apparently didn't discuss this. But in any 20 event, in terms of that allegation by Tracey Clarke, can 21 you assist us with your view on that? 22 A. It's incorrect. It's not correct. Nothing like that 23 happened whatsoever. 24 Q. Can I ask you, insofar as Andrea McKee is concerned, was 25 there any offer, any inducement or any reward made to 187 1 her for bringing Tracey Clarke in, if I can put it so 2 crudely? 3 A. No, there was not. 4 Q. Was there anything in it -- if you understand what 5 I mean by that -- for Andrea McKee that you are aware 6 of? 7 A. Nothing that I'm aware of, no. 8 MR BERRY: Thank you, Mr McAteer. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Adair? 10 Examination by MR ADAIR 11 MR ADAIR: I will be very brief, sir, so perhaps we finish 12 today. 13 Mr McAteer, I think a number of suggestions were 14 being put to you about what Andrea McKee has alleged 15 against you. Have you heard those before? 16 A. I have heard nothing about -- 17 Q. About what Tracey Clarke is alleged to have said? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Have you ever heard those before? 20 A. No, I haven't heard the allegations before this 21 regarding the taking of the statement. 22 Q. Had I mentioned them to you? 23 A. No. 24 Q. I only want to ask you really very briefly about 25 a couple of very minor matters. You were asked, you 188 1 will remember, about this word, whether the words used 2 were "get rid of clothing" or "burn the clothing". 3 We know that in paragraph 19 of your Inquiry 4 statement, if we can have that up, at page [80780], and 5 if you would highlight paragraph 19, you will see about 6 five lines down, that what appears in your Inquiry 7 statement relating to this discussion with Andrea McKee 8 is: 9 "... the morning after the incident, and told him to 10 burn his clothes." 11 Do you see that? 12 A. Yes, I do. 13 Q. If we could have page 51 of the interview with the 14 Inquiry team, please, put up, if that's possible. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: This is a transcript of the interview, is it? 16 MR ADAIR: It is a transcript of the interviews on which the 17 Inquiry statement is made, sir. 18 If you would highlight the top paragraph, please. 19 This, Mr McAteer, is a transcript of what you told 20 the interviewers for this Inquiry. You will see that 21 you said: 22 "Atkinson had contacted Hanvey on the morning of the 23 incident and told him to get rid of his clothes, to burn 24 his clothes or whatever." 25 A. Yes, I see that. 189 1 Q. So it would appear, and I don't think there's any 2 dispute about this, that the wording in your Inquiry 3 statement is based on that account given during the 4 course of your interview with the Inquiry team? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. Is that right? 7 A. That's correct, yes. 8 Q. So can you help us at all as to your recollection as to 9 whether it was "get rid of" or "burn", or do you 10 remember the precise words? 11 A. I don't remember the precise words, no. 12 Q. Okay. Now, I want to ask you this, before we go any 13 further about this. You became aware of the allegation 14 against Atkinson? 15 A. Yes, I did. 16 Q. You became aware from the contents of the statement of 17 Tracey Clarke that she was giving information concerning 18 Hanvey? 19 A. That's correct, yes. 20 Q. You also were aware that she had given you some vague 21 description of the clothing, appears to be? 22 A. Appears to be, but nothing significant. 23 Q. But nothing significant. Now, you have answered this 24 question possibly, in a way, but I want you to think 25 about this. Have you been a briefing officer directing 190 1 uniformed personnel to carry out searches in cases over 2 the years? 3 A. Yes, I have. 4 Q. Now, think about this. If you had information that 5 a suspect had been told to destroy his clothes; right, 6 that's the first thing. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. If you had some kind of information -- not from you, but 9 from statements of officers -- giving some kind of 10 description of the clothing that he was wearing, whether 11 it was detailed or otherwise; okay? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Can you tell us, if you were the briefing officer, what 14 detail would you have told the uniformed personnel to go 15 into in relation to the search? 16 A. Can you maybe just explain that again? 17 Q. Well, we know there is an allegation that clothing had 18 been destroyed, got rid of; right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Potentially there might be blood on it? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay? If you were briefing the uniformed officers, 23 would you not brief them to conduct a thorough search of 24 all the place, or would you just brief them to conduct 25 a search of one bedroom? Just tell us. 191 1 A. If it had have been down to me, and I had any specific 2 item of clothing that we were looking for, I would have 3 got them to search the whole premises. If somebody had 4 been alleged to have got rid of stuff, I would have had 5 them search for some signs of disposal of it. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: I suppose if someone is getting rid of 7 clothing, you have to ask yourself: how would they do 8 it? Burning is one fairly obvious way of doing it; not 9 necessarily the only way. 10 A. No, not the only way, but that would have been one way, 11 certainly, yes. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you -- 13 A. I would have briefed the search team then to search the 14 area for any signs of anything having been burned. 15 MR ADAIR: It is a pretty obvious thing. 16 A. That's correct, yes. 17 Q. As well as any other means of getting rid of, looking in 18 bins and that sort of thing? 19 A. That is correct, yes. 20 Q. Now, the final thing I want to ask you about -- well, 21 you should never say that. The penultimate thing I want 22 to ask you about is in relation to the handwritten 23 request that you made for telephone billing on the 24 morning of 9 May? 25 A. Yes. 192 1 Q. Why was it handwritten? 2 A. It was handwritten for the simple reason to speed up the 3 operation because I wrote it up by hand, got it 4 authorised by senior officers and faxed it to the BT 5 liaison unit at police headquarters. 6 Q. Can you say whether the sensitivity of the information 7 that you were requesting came into it at all? 8 A. Well, the sensitivity would have come into it, but it 9 certainly had to be done reasonably discreetly because 10 at that stage we weren't aware if there was any 11 involvement by Robert Atkinson or not. 12 Q. If the document is typed up, does that go through 13 a typing pool in Portadown Police Station? 14 A. That would have to go through a typing pool and be typed 15 up and then signed. 16 Q. So whose decision was it to handwrite the request as 17 opposed to get it typed up in the typing pool? 18 A. I don't remember at the time. I take it, because it's 19 in my handwriting, I had something to do with it, 20 obviously. 21 Q. In relation to the response you got, maybe paragraph 40 22 of your statement will refresh your memory as to how you 23 dealt with the response. It's at page [80785]. You see 24 the third line down -- 25 A. Yes, that's correct. Yes. 193 1 Q. "Because of the delicate situation I had to stand by the 2 fax machine to receive it." 3 A. Yes, that's correct. 4 Q. Basically -- correct me if I am wrong -- you didn't want 5 anybody else in the station, apart from those who need 6 to know, to see it? 7 A. That is correct, yes. 8 Q. The final thing I want to ask you about is this. It has 9 been touched upon, but sir, can I say this? 10 As you know, we have all been told that the Inquiry 11 statements, you can take all of the statements into 12 account in considering the evidence. 13 Now, there is a part of the statement that the 14 officer was concerned and upset about, but I'm not going 15 to read it out. It's at paragraph 13, if you could call 16 up 80779. If you look at paragraph 13 -- 17 A. Yes, that's -- 18 Q. I'm not going to read it out, because it is not 19 necessary that it goes on to any transcript. But you 20 will see there that there are references made in 21 particular on the fourth line down, fifth line down, 22 describing certain people in a certain way. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Was that ever your -- 25 A. That was never my description of that. In fact, that 194 1 only was mentioned in relation to -- when the -- if you 2 look to the transcript, it was in relation to the -- why 3 we required uniformed personnel to provide cover to the 4 investigation team in certain areas in Portadown. 5 Q. Yes. And I think the answer, for your own benefit -- 6 I don't think it's necessary to go through this -- at 7 pages 21 and 22 of the transcript, you will see again 8 that there's possibly a misinterpretation of what was 9 being said by the witness, but it's never part of your 10 thought process as to what is set out in that paragraph? 11 A. Definitely not. 12 Q. (Pause). I think I gave you the transcript number. The 13 page is 21 and 22 of the Inquiry transcript. I will 14 make that clear. I'm not going to take up your time 15 going through it at this stage. I don't think there's 16 any issue taken about this with anybody. 17 Thank you very much. 18 The final thing I want to ask you about is this, 19 just in relation to your contact with the Hamills: can 20 you remember approximately how many times you visited 21 the house after -- during the course of your involvement 22 with them? 23 A. I can't remember just offhand. It was probably four or 24 five times, accompanied by witness P39. 25 Q. The context of -- and, unfortunately, it is ancillary to 195 1 the previous point, to do that -- nothing to do with the 2 Hamill family, but because of the situation in 3 Portadown -- detectives going to a house in that area, 4 have to have uniformed cover -- 5 A. That's correct, yes. 6 Q. -- in the form of people standing about, guarding them 7 with guns? 8 A. That's correct, yes. 9 Q. How did you get on yourself with the Hamill family? 10 A. I thought we got on all right. We updated them as the 11 investigation went along, and that was the reason for 12 the visits and the number of occasions. 13 MR ADAIR: Thank you. 14 Further examination by MR McGRORY 15 MR McGRORY: Sir, I know I have been on my feet already, but 16 this is a piece of information that needs to be dealt 17 with in respect of this witness. If we could have page 18 [22661] back up on the screen, please, this is the last 19 page of the handwritten questionnaire, Mr McAteer -- 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. -- on which there is no reference to the list of people 22 at the party. 23 A. That's correct, yes. 24 Q. If I could have page [22662] on the screen, please. 25 Now, that is the next page in the bundle. Is that also 196 1 your handwriting? 2 A. That is my handwriting, yes. 3 Q. I think this has been overlooked. That would suggest to 4 me, Mr McAteer, that, in fact, you did ask Tracey Clarke 5 about the party. 6 A. That is a possibility, but as I said, I have no 7 recollection of it whatsoever. 8 Q. Yes. But would you accept that that is the next page 9 following on from the remainder of the account of the 10 questionnaire? 11 A. I don't know whether it is or not, because there's 12 just -- it's a copy of a statement page. 13 Q. Yes. 14 A. It's not part of the questionnaire. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: It does not originate as part of 16 a questionnaire? 17 A. No, it does not. 18 MR McGRORY: But it is your handwriting? 19 A. It is my handwriting, but there's nothing on it to say 20 exactly where it's recorded. 21 Q. You have no recollection anyway? 22 A. I have no recollection whatsoever. 23 MR McGRORY: No. I think that's it, sir. I'm grateful to 24 Mrs Sherlock, who is not only industrious, but also 25 a whiz with the computer, for unearthing that. Thank 197 1 you. 2 Further examination by MR UNDERWOOD 3 MR UNDERWOOD: Just one matter briefly, if I may detain you 4 shortly. 5 Can we have a look at page [00918] please? This is 6 the policy file. I'm not suggesting you have seen this. 7 This is policy number 5. The date is 9 May 1997 and the 8 time of decision is 11.50 pm. So this is some time into 9 the point in which -- or the period during which 10 Tracey Clarke is in being interviewed by you. 11 You will see there is an officer making the 12 decision -- it is DCS McBurney -- and the decision is to 13 obtain records of incoming and outgoing telephone calls 14 in respect of E Hanvey and R Atkinson. The reason to 15 establish the authenticity of intelligence. 16 You have accepted, if I may say so, quite 17 unwittingly, a couple of suggestions to the effect that 18 when you made your manuscript request for the telephone 19 information, you did it early in the morning of 9 May. 20 Can you help us about whether you did it in the 21 morning of 9 May or you did it in response to this, at 22 the very end of 9 May? 23 A. No, I did -- the time would be on it. I would have 24 recorded that in the morning. 25 Q. It's page [24696], your document. Is there a time on 198 1 there? 2 A. No, there's no time on it. But the point was that I can 3 tell from that other -- if that other thing was made at 4 11.50 pm, I certainly would have made it the BT Liaison 5 Unit based at RUC Headquarters then would have been 6 a 9 to 5 or 8 to 4 operation. So I would have done it 7 during those hours. So I certainly wouldn't have done 8 it after -- so it had to be in the morning. 9 Q. Let me put this possibility to you, and see what you say 10 about it. 11 In the course of the interview, either you or 12 Detective Inspector P39 reported back to Mr McBurney 13 that, yes, Tracey Clarke has now confirmed what 14 Andrea McKee said about the telephone call, and the 15 decision is then made by Mr McBurney to get the 16 confirmation of that from BT. You are told to do it. 17 You sign off at some point in that process, giving the 18 date of 9 May, in consequence of the decision made by 19 Mr McBurney. 20 Is that likely, or is it likely that you did it 21 before the decision is made? 22 A. No, that policy decision was probably taken -- again, 23 I can't -- not knowing what the policy procedure was 24 there, that could have probably have been written up 25 shortly after, knowing that that was the documentation 199 1 was already in place. 2 Q. The reason I ask is that we have the sequence of this, 3 and the officer making the entry is P39? We see at the 4 bottom she dates it 9 May. 5 The next entry is 9.00 am on the next day. We see 6 that on page [00919]. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. We don't know. We will ask them if they made these 9 decisions after you had actually done the work. You 10 can't help us. Is that fair? 11 A. The only thing I can suggest is that if the faxed copy 12 of the documentation is available, the time will be on 13 the faxed copy. 14 Q. It isn't. And that's the next question I wanted to ask 15 you. 16 Can we have a look at page [44931]? This is the 17 only record we can find of the result of that search, 18 and we see that it's a -- from the top line is start 19 date, "10.8.83", end date blank, then there's "NI", then 20 there's "DIX summary page, 16.05.97 at 09:29", and then 21 next is account number, telephone number, and then: 22 "Name: Mr R Atkinson. Invoice ID", it gives an ID 23 then it gives a date, 15 April 1997. 24 The only date we have within able to get from this, 25 which may show when this material came in or was printed 200 1 was 16 May 1997. Your evidence is that the material 2 came in by fax to you within about a week of you asking 3 for it? 4 A. Yes, it was probably around that time, the 16th. 5 Q. What would have happened to it? Would it have been 6 typed up into something like this? 7 A. Well, I would have got that back from them, from the 8 BT Liaison Unit. Somebody there would have -- they 9 would have been briefed that there was a delicate 10 matter. They would have rang me or they would have got 11 somebody and they would have said, "We're sending that 12 fax to you now", and I would have went and stood by the 13 fax machine and waited on it coming through. 14 Q. Can you recall if this is the sort of document that 15 would have emerged or whether this was something that 16 would have been typed up for HOLMES as a result? 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Does the start date help at all? 18 A. That doesn't -- that doesn't really give -- the copy of 19 the document that I saw that had the thing, gave the 20 connection between the phone call from Atkinson's home 21 to Hanvey. 22 MR UNDERWOOD: I think this goes on to do that. So is this 23 more information then? 24 A. Okay. That might be more information really. What 25 I would have got would have been the basic details of 201 1 the phone calls on the date that I had asked for. 2 MR UNDERWOOD: Very well. I won't take that further. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: As I understand you, you think that the 4 policy record may simply have been writing up as 5 a policy decision something that had already been done 6 so as to have a record of it in the policy book. 7 A. Not that it would have been done. It was in the process 8 of having been done, because we wouldn't have received 9 that back, obviously, until about the 16th. 10 So it was something that was in hand, that it was -- 11 quite a lot of these things had been written up and 12 would have all been documented there and then written up 13 all along. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: You have told us what was your assessment of 15 Tracey Clarke's evidence. Was that based solely upon 16 what she had said, or did you take into account the sort 17 of person, the sort of impression she made? 18 A. I took into account that -- when I spoke to her parents, 19 the type of person she was, the way she came across to 20 us. It wasn't only my opinion there of that. Also, 21 I was accompanied by witness P39, who also was quite 22 happy with the information that she was giving, and she 23 believed it to be correct as well, and she was present 24 during the taking of that statement. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 202 1 MR UNDERWOOD: I just want to finish, if I may, on what 2 happened to the telephone billing. 3 You stood by the fax. You received a fax with the 4 information on it. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Would you have handed it then to an inspector? 7 A. I would have then given that to either DI Irwin or 8 witness P39. 9 Q. Very well. 10 A. The fax machine actually is -- was at that stage based 11 in the communications room in Portadown Police Station, 12 which everybody sort of had access to. So it was 13 difficult -- that is why I had to stand by it. 14 MR UNDERWOOD: Very well. Thank you very much, unless 15 there's anything arising? 16 THE CHAIRMAN: No, thank you. 17 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you. I am sorry we have kept you so 18 long. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: 10.30 then tomorrow morning. 20 (5.33 pm) 21 (The hearing adjourned until 10.30 am on Thursday, 22 30 April 2009) 23 24 25 203 1 INDEX 2 PAGE 3 4 MR ANDREW IVAN HILL (sworn) ...................... 1 5 6 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD ............... 1 7 8 Examination by MR ADAIR .................. 12 9 10 Examination by MR McGRORY ................. 18 11 12 Submissions by MR UNDERWOOD ...................... 27 13 (continued) 14 15 MR HENRY GABRIEL McMULLEN (sworn) ................ 39 16 17 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD ............... 39 18 19 Examination by MR WOLFE ................... 56 20 21 Examination by MR McGRORY ................. 58 22 23 Examination by MR O'CONNOR ................ 76 24 25 Examination by MR ADAIR ................... 81 204 1 2 Further examination by MR UNDERWOOD ....... 90 3 4 MR JOHN MCATEER (sworn) .......................... 94 5 6 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD ............... 94 7 8 Examination by MR McGRORY ................. 109 9 10 Examination by MS DINSMORE ................ 124 11 12 Examination by MR GREEN ................... 154 13 14 Examination by MR ATCHISON ................ 168 15 16 Examination by MR O'CONNOR ................ 181 17 18 Examination by MR BERRY ................... 183 19 20 Examination by MR ADAIR ................... 188 21 22 Further examination by MR McGRORY ......... 196 23 24 Further examination by MR UNDERWOOD ....... 198 25 205