Transcripts

Return to the list of transcripts

Transcript

Hearing: 24th March 2009, day 32

Click here to download the LiveNote version

- - - - - - - - - -

PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO THE DEATH OF

ROBERT HAMILL

- - - - - - - - - -

Held at:

Interpoint

20-24 York Street

Belfast

on Tuesday, 24 March 2009

commencing at 10.30 am

Day 32

1 Tuesday, 24 March 2009

2 (10.30 am)

3 (Proceedings delayed)

4 (2.00 pm)

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.

6 MR UNDERWOOD: Good afternoon. I call P89, please.

7 P89 (sworn)

8 Questions by MR UNDERWOOD

9 MR UNDERWOOD: Good afternoon. My name is Underwood and I'm

10 Counsel to the Inquiry. I ask questions in the first

11 place and there may be some supplemental questions from

12 other people. Can I ask you to look on the screen,

13 please, at [81698]. Are those your names at the top

14 there?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And I just want you to look, please, while we scroll

17 quickly through the 12 pages of this statement, is that

18 your witness statement?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Is it true?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Thank you. I just want to ask some questions to amplify

23 parts of it, if I may. Go back to [81698]. At

24 paragraph 3, you tell us that you were on duty to

25 supervise C Section, which was your section. Can you

1 recall who was in the C Section and how many people

2 there were?

3 A. Erm ...

4 Q. Firstly the numbers. If we come to names, we have

5 ciphers for them. But can you recall how many there

6 were?

7 A. There were five in the list.

8 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Does that include you?

10 A. It doesn't include me, no.

11 MR UNDERWOOD: And you tell us in that paragraph that it was

12 your responsibility to give the briefing to C Section

13 that night, which you did at 23.45.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Now, we know about public order duties in the centre of

16 Portadown, including looking out for fights and

17 suchlike, and that there was a known flashpoint at the

18 crossroads. Was there much content to a briefing for

19 public orders duties for a crew at that sort of time?

20 A. In relation to C Section?

21 Q. C Section.

22 A. Generally I would have brought the occurrence book

23 across and any other intelligence that may have been --

24 that may have come through during the evening --

25 THE CHAIRMAN: You would have brought what across?

1 A. The occurrence book for C6.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

3 A. But that would have been all the reports and concerns

4 for the previous seven or eight hours.

5 MR UNDERWOOD: Right. But in terms of public order duties

6 in Portadown on a Saturday night, would most of the

7 reserve constables have known what was required of them

8 without being told?

9 A. Yes, they would have.

10 Q. You go on in paragraph 4 to say that at 00.10 you also

11 briefed the mobile unit who had been retained from their

12 earlier shift to support the section of officers who

13 were on duty from 23.45, and you set out there when what

14 the mobile unit was. And I needn't use their names at

15 the moment, but there are four officers who went in the

16 Land Rover?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And we have been hearing that commonly you would have

19 five officers in a Land Rover. Would you accept that?

20 A. Not always.

21 Q. Tell us about that. Was there any rule or any

22 preference for four or five?

23 A. Just down to resource on the night, what manpower I had,

24 what I had left or, you know, basically down to the

25 manpower I had.

1 Q. Because you put three officers in one police car, we

2 know?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And, again, where you have got a mobile unit, was there

5 a preference for two or three people in the car?

6 A. No, normally I would have put -- in the Portadown area,

7 if I had the resources I would put three in the mobile.

8 Q. Thank you. You have told us about the occurrence book

9 and your usual course of being to brief about the

10 occurrences that were known for the seven or eight hours

11 before the duty session. Can you recall if there was

12 anything relevant in the occurrence book?

13 A. I have no recollection of anything in particular.

14 Q. Then if we go over the page to [81699], please, at

15 paragraph 6 you say you also briefed Reserve

16 Constable Murphy:

17 "... that night who was a member of my section. He

18 was detailed to be an extra observer in the district

19 mobile support unit."

20 You go on to say that that crew was to provide extra

21 support. Was that a roving brief outside the barriers,

22 or what?

23 A. What actually -- he would have just supported two of my

24 section in that particular vehicle. That would have

25 been -- there would have been two call signs that night.

1 There would have been the mobile patrol and what I would

2 have called the mobile support, and those two vehicles

3 would have been working in conjunction with each other

4 during the course of the night and he was just there to

5 support that patrol.

6 Q. So let's see if I can understand that right. The Land

7 Rover, was that intended to stay within the barriers or

8 was it just within the area generally?

9 A. The Land Rover you are referring to, I'm assuming, is

10 the Land Rover that was doing the public order?

11 Q. I am.

12 A. That's a different -- the constable was on patrol in

13 other vehicle that was supporting my mobile patrol.

14 Q. I see. So it wasn't supporting the Land Rover in town,

15 it was supporting another vehicle outside of town. Is

16 that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Thank you. How far would those two vehicles have been

19 expected to roam on the night?

20 A. Those two vehicles would have -- could have been

21 travelling anything up to seven or eight miles out of

22 Portadown.

23 Q. Okay, thank you. Then if we look down at paragraph 8 on

24 this page, broadly in this paragraph what you are doing

25 is telling us that you and an inspector left the station

1 on foot, walked up Edward Street and on the way you

2 encounter two constables, or a constable and a reserve

3 constable, who were in a police car. We see that in the

4 middle. And in the middle of the paragraph you say:

5 "They stopped and informed me that a serious public

6 disorder was occurring and they requested the issue of a

7 riot gun. They said that a number of civilians had been

8 attacked and assaulted by a large mob that had then

9 turned on the police."

10 And you go on to tell us that you issued a riot gun

11 and you took one yourself?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And when you got up to the centre of town, did what you

14 see fit with that description?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And if we go over the page then at [81700], looking at

17 your paragraph 9, you say:

18 "When I arrived at the junction, I found the

19 situation was very hostile. There was a crowd of

20 people, nearly 50 people, and it was very noisy with

21 a lot of shouting going on."

22 You go on to say how you inferred that they were

23 Protestant. Was there sectarian abuse and sectarian

24 shouting going on, can you recall?

25 A. I can't recall. I can't recall anything specific.

1 Q. Okay. And dealing with your time there at that scene

2 that night in general, did you recognise anybody that

3 you knew from policing duties?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Apart from police officers obviously?

6 A. No, I did not.

7 Q. Okay. And then if we go down to paragraph 11, you say:

8 "To the best of my recollection, there was one Land

9 Rover at the scene but I cannot recall where it was

10 parked."

11 And you go on to say that you assume it was in the

12 vicinity of Thomas and Woodhouse Streets. And you say:

13 "I think there was also a police car there with ..."

14 The two officers that you had already met --

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Timing is important for the understanding of the Panel

17 about the sequence of events here and we know that two

18 police back-up vehicles arrived as well as the Land

19 Rover. Can you recall whether there was another police

20 car there?

21 A. I can't -- I have no recollection, but there must have

22 been. There must have been.

23 Q. Right. Do you say there must have been because of the

24 number of police officers on the ground?

25 A. Yes, because of the individual policemen that were on

1 the ground at the same --

2 Q. On that point, the four that were in the Land Rover in

3 the centre of Portadown in the first place -- we can

4 look at their ciphers if you need to remember who they

5 are.

6 A. Yes, I know, yes.

7 Q. Did you see them out and about when you arrived?

8 A. I have no recollection of actually -- one in particular,

9 yes, was with me for a period of time.

10 Q. After you had arrived then obviously, but much time

11 after you had arrived?

12 A. Probably within a few minutes or even less, moments.

13 Q. Can you, with the aid of the cipher list, tell us which

14 one that was?

15 A. That's [Reserve Constable Atkinson].

16 Q. Thank you. And looking at your paragraph 12 here, you

17 say:

18 "At this stage I didn't see any casualties at the

19 scene. To the best of my recollection there was

20 an ambulance there that may have just taken casualties

21 on board and was about to move off."

22 You go on to say:

23 "I believe that it was stationary when I arrived and

24 there were officers and a crowd of people nearby."

25 You arrived from Edward Street which is a way down

1 the High Street from the junctions?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And you have described seeing about 50 people. There

4 was the noise, it fitted the description you had been

5 given by the officers in the car. What were they doing,

6 these people, when you arrived?

7 A. They were milling around and they were hostile, hostile

8 towards police, shouting, appeared to be -- quite a few

9 of them appeared to be drunk and just rowdy.

10 Q. And were the police gathered in a group or in a line or

11 scattered about?

12 A. Initially they were scattered about, but then they were

13 put into a line --

14 Q. This is your organisation, I think; you organised them

15 into a line?

16 A. Yes.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: When you say there was shouting, was that at

18 the police or others in the crowd, or both?

19 A. Both. I would say both.

20 MR UNDERWOOD: You have already written in the statement

21 that you wouldn't have expected a large crowd like this

22 to have been composed of Catholics because Catholics

23 didn't gather in such a large group.

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. But could you discern at all what sort of ratio there

1 was between Protestants and Catholics? Was it equal or

2 were the Catholics outnumbered?

3 A. Ten times at least.

4 Q. Were the Catholics giving anything back?

5 A. Not an awful lot. From the Woodhouse Street direction

6 there was a bit of verbal -- being shouted towards the

7 group, but there were only maybe four or five at that

8 particular time in Woodhouse Street, whenever I arrived.

9 Q. So would this be a fair snapshot of what happened when

10 you arrived: there was 40 or 50 Protestants being

11 hostile towards the police and a small group of

12 Catholics, and the Catholics were giving a bit of verbal

13 abuse back; is that fair?

14 A. That's fair, yes.

15 Q. And did this strike you as likely to get out of control?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. You didn't, I know, unstrap your riot gun. Is that

18 right? You kept it across your chest?

19 A. Yes, slung over my chest, yes.

20 Q. And if we go over to [81701], in paragraph 13 you say in

21 the second half of that that you knew from experience

22 that:

23 "... we would have great difficulty controlling the

24 situation, and it was important that we moved the crowd

25 away from the town centre as I could see more people

1 coming up Woodhouse Street and it was the time of night

2 when the pubs would be turning people out. If there

3 were more Nationalist people coming up towards the town

4 centre, it would have been a very dangerous situation."

5 Was it your experience that there was often a coming

6 together of Catholics and Protestants in the town centre

7 for a fight?

8 A. Yes, it had happened many times before, yes.

9 Q. One of the witnesses -- and to be fair, it is only one

10 of the witnesses -- has given evidence to say that he

11 was aware of regular fights between Protestants and

12 Catholics in the middle of town and that on more than

13 one occasion he saw fights going on while a Land Rover

14 with a crew in it sat and the crew watched the fighting

15 going on without getting out. Have you any experience

16 of that?

17 A. Absolutely none.

18 Q. We heard it from another witness, who was one of the

19 Catholics on the scene, that one of the men on the

20 ground was being kicked and officers and he pulled

21 people away from kicking him. Do I take it from your

22 evidence that if that occurred that must have been

23 before you arrived?

24 A. That's right, yes.

25 Q. Are you clear that if there had been kicking of somebody

1 on the ground, you would have seen it?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Again, the importance of this is for our timing and our

4 sequence, you understand?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And if we go over to page [81702], at paragraph 17 and

7 18, paragraph 17 is your account of seeing this

8 constable, [R/Con Atkinson], as we are now calling him, at the scene?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And you go on to talk about this one individual who was

11 very hostile towards you. This is the person we now

12 know to be Allister Hanvey?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. He tells us he wasn't there, wasn't doing this, was

15 watching from a safe distance. Are you clear that the

16 person you describe as doing what you describe there was

17 put to you as being somebody called Hanvey?

18 A. I believe that to be the case, yes.

19 Q. Have you any other recollection about this that you can

20 help us with? What he was wearing, for example?

21 A. I have none, other than the fact that R/Con Atkinson drew my

22 attention to him and advised that this particular

23 individual was trained in martial arts, an expert in

24 martial arts, and that he would be capable of putting me

25 down.

1 Q. Hm-mm. And you go on in paragraph 8 to say you recall:

2 "The man identified to me as being called Hanvey was

3 accompanied by a young woman who was also very

4 aggressive to me in particular, perhaps because I had

5 the baton gun."

6 And you go on to say that you assumed then that she

7 was perhaps a girlfriend of Hanvey?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And then at paragraph 19 you say:

10 "I think that Reserve Constable Atkinson talked to the

11 young woman about her behaviour, trying to quieten her down

12 as we were moving the crowd up the street."

13 Did you get any impression that

14 Reserve Constable Atkinson knew the woman?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Do you recall her being named by him or him using

17 a name?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Did you see him talking to Hanvey?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Again, did you see him try to calm him down?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Or get him to leave?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Did you have the impression that Hanvey was high on

1 drink or drugs?

2 A. I got the impression he was intoxicated.

3 Q. If we can go over the page to [81703], we don't need to

4 highlight it but you mention at paragraph 21 that you

5 have a vague recollection of the mobile support unit

6 arriving. I want to see if I can get a fair picture of

7 the overall events of the night: that you are told, when

8 you are on your way there, that this is a serious event

9 with assaults. You see an ambulance perhaps taking

10 people away. There were two riot guns, officers used

11 their batons. Is that right?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. The MSU arrives at some point and in your view this is

14 a serious disorder. Is that fair?

15 A. Absolutely, yes.

16 Q. Now, what we have been hearing from constables who were

17 on the scene and reserve constables on the scene is that

18 when they were involved in this and they were off duty

19 later on, they were asked to make statements, asked to

20 make notebook entries, but that nobody sat down with

21 them after that, at least as a matter of generality, and

22 asked them to tell everything they saw or to compile

23 lists of people they had seen from pooling their

24 recollections.

25 What I want to ask you about is whether it occurred

1 to you that it would be useful at the end of this to get

2 everybody together with a detective, or even on their

3 own, and sit down and work out who they had seen there

4 so that the detectives could identify who was there.

5 Did that occur to you?

6 A. It didn't occur to me at the time, probably because I

7 was fairly busy after the event. But I have a vague

8 recollection of some time later that morning that that

9 was the case, that actually was taking place, and

10 I believe that to be some time after 4.15, but I'm not

11 sure. It could have been any time between 4.15 and

12 maybe 6 am.

13 Q. You go on in your statement to describe how the rest of

14 your night panned out and you went off to attend an

15 incident. Then you went to hospital and you explain how

16 busy it was.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. But you didn't make a statement that day, did you? The

19 first statement we have got from you is, I think, 7 May?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. Did it not seem serious enough for you to need to make

22 a statement, or was there some other reason?

23 A. I just hadn't got round to making a statement about it.

24 Q. Did a detective ask you for one?

25 A. Not until probably the date that I made it.

1 Q. But if we look at that statement -- it is at

2 page [09213] -- I hope you will forgive me for

3 describing it as a model of understatement. If we take

4 the middle of the page, roughly the middle of that, four

5 lines down on the right you say:

6 "I observed 30 to 40 youths congregating in the town

7 centre area. These youths were being spoken to by

8 police officers. I further observed a group of three or

9 four youths in the vicinity of the

10 Woodhouse Street/Market Street junction. I assisted

11 police at the scene to move the larger group into

12 West Street."

13 Was it your habit to describe these riots, or near

14 riot situations, in such calm terms?

15 A. Obviously on that occasion it was the case.

16 Q. You didn't think it worth mentioning how serious it was

17 obviously, but can you tell us why?

18 A. Because I had seen it so many times before in the

19 situations, riotous situations, and I have been on an

20 awful lot worse riots.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: How will someone reading this get an

22 impression of whereabouts this comes in the scale of

23 seriousness? They wouldn't really, would they?

24 A. No, they wouldn't.

25 MR UNDERWOOD: You see, the problem is, isn't it, sergeant,

1 that this is exactly the day before Mr Hamill died from

2 this? Did you know how serious it was by then?

3 A. I didn't. Honestly, I didn't know. I didn't realise

4 how serious it was.

5 Q. Nobody brought to your attention the fact that you were

6 a witness to a murder, or at least a witness to the

7 aftermath of his murder, and that you might have seen

8 his murderers?

9 A. No.

10 Q. So nobody asked you to describe the clothing of

11 Mr Hanvey, who could well be one of his murderers; is

12 that right?

13 A. I can't recollect whether anyone did or not.

14 Q. Obviously you knew there had been an ambulance there and

15 you went to the hospital yourself; is that right?

16 A. That's correct, with another reserve constable.

17 Q. Yes. And we pick that up in paragraph 27 over at

18 page [81704].

19 At the moment, if we look at paragraph 7, in the

20 second line there you name a reserve constable. We are

21 presently calling him [R/Con Silcock]. Now, we have heard

22 from him and he said that he gave first aid to Robert Hamill

23 and that in the course of giving him first aid, he could

24 tell that he had breathing difficulties. So he thought

25 this was serious. And you go there with him and you say

1 in that paragraph in the third sentence:

2 "On our way there we discussed the incident."

3 You go on to say:

4 "I was feeling quite proud of the men for being able

5 to resolve the situation."

6 Did he not tell that you this was a serious injury?

7 A. No, I have no recollection of him telling me that.

8 Q. And although you went to the hospital to ascertain the

9 state of the injured, you came away without

10 ascertaining. Is that right?

11 A. That's correct, yes.

12 Q. Is that because of the hostility of the one person in

13 particular, a family member, or was there some other

14 reason?

15 A. No, it was down to whenever I made enquiries about him,

16 the nurse couldn't give me any information. That was

17 the main reason why I had no knowledge of the extent of

18 the injuries.

19 MR UNDERWOOD: Okay.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Did you ask if he had recovered

21 consciousness?

22 A. I just asked about how he was, what state he was in.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: But did you ask -- you would have realised --

24 A. I had no idea he was unconscious.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: You didn't know that?

1 A. I didn't, no.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Just so that there is no mistake, you didn't

3 know that he had been taken away from the scene

4 unconscious?

5 A. I did not.

6 MR UNDERWOOD: If we go to page [81707], can I ask you to

7 look at paragraph, please. It is a reference to entries

8 in your notebook. We needn't look at them. What I'm

9 interested in is a matter of practice here. You say in

10 the first sentence you note they are not in

11 chronological order:

12 "I think what happened was that I completed my

13 notebook the day after the incident. That is on

14 28 April. I started by putting in an entry in relation

15 to the road traffic matter and then the public order

16 incident."

17 Then you go on in the next paragraph to describe

18 usual practice about notebook entries. Was there any

19 sort of practice in 1997 for making notebook entries as

20 soon as it was practical to make them?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Was the aim to do it when things were fresh in your

23 mind?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. But we see obviously that didn't always happen with you,

1 and is that true of officers generally then, that it

2 wasn't always observed?

3 A. That would be right.

4 Q. And, again, this isn't a personal criticism, what I'm

5 asking for information about is general practice and how

6 it was worked.

7 In terms of debriefings, after you had had a group

8 of officers -- never mind this specific night and these

9 specific officers -- where you had an incident at which

10 there were perhaps eight or ten officers and there was

11 perhaps a crime and notebook entries had been made and

12 statements had been taken, was there a practice by which

13 either their sergeant or inspector or a detective

14 debriefed them to get more information out of them?

15 A. Not on every occasion, but on some occasions that may

16 well be the case, yes.

17 Q. To do with the seriousness perhaps, or just manpower?

18 A. Absolutely, to do with the seriousness of the offence.

19 Q. And your evidence is that certainly on the night you

20 didn't discern this was a serious matter because nothing

21 was drawn to your attention to the effect that Mr Hamill

22 had been taken away unconscious or that he remained

23 unconscious?

24 A. My understanding was that there was a debriefing, but I

25 wasn't present at that debriefing.

1 Q. Certainly.

2 A. My understanding is that there was a debriefing at some

3 time whilst I was dealing with the drunken drivers.

4 Q. Sure. That's because somebody has told you about that,

5 I take it?

6 A. Well, I have a vague recollection of arriving into the

7 communications room and there being a detective present,

8 and the inspector also, and the four individuals who

9 were in the Land Rover. I have a clear recollection of

10 that being in place and there was some sort of

11 debriefing taking place at that stage, but I came on it

12 rather than being involved in it.

13 Q. Okay, thank you. Never mind that particular debriefing

14 or that particular incident, would a debriefing involve

15 somebody of your rank, ie would you be debriefed or

16 would you be expected to, as it were, debrief yourself?

17 A. Could you repeat that, please?

18 Q. Of course. Where you have a debriefing like that and

19 you had been there as a sergeant at the incident --

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. -- would you be expected to be involved in the debrief?

22 Would you be debriefed yourself; in other words, or

23 would people only debrief constables?

24 A. Oh, no, whoever was actually doing the debrief would

25 probably have included me as well.

1 Q. Have you any idea why they didn't do that on this

2 occasion?

3 A. I honestly can't recollect what took place. I may well

4 have spoken to somebody on that particular night. There

5 were things I done on that particular night in relation

6 to the debrief, things that I had to -- complete forms,

7 for example, the baton report forms. So I was involved

8 to some extent in a debrief.

9 Q. Right. I have one final question I want to ask you,

10 which I ask everybody who was at the scene and it is

11 this: did you do or fail to do anything on the scene as

12 a result of any sectarian sympathies you may have had?

13 A. Absolutely not.

14 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much. As I say, other people

15 may have some questions for you.

16 Questions by SIR JOHN EVANS

17 SIR JOHN EVANS: Could I begin, please, Mr Underwood? Could

18 you tell us your normal practice when your section

19 retires from duty?

20 A. Normal practice?

21 SIR JOHN EVANS: Well, in those days, yes.

22 A. It is just a matter really of writing up any incidents

23 in the occurrence book.

24 SIR JOHN EVANS: Signing-off duty.

25 A. Signing off.

1 SIR JOHN EVANS: Retiring from duty.

2 A. Sorry?

3 SIR JOHN EVANS: When your section retires from duty at the

4 end of their tour, what is your practice?

5 A. It is to ensure that all the tours have been written

6 off.

7 SIR JOHN EVANS: Do you see them all normally?

8 A. No, not as a group.

9 SIR JOHN EVANS: You don't?

10 A. No.

11 SIR JOHN EVANS: You don't ask them individually whether

12 they have any outstanding issues to discuss with you?

13 A. If there are any outstanding issues, I would speak to

14 the individual concerned.

15 SIR JOHN EVANS: But you wouldn't know that necessarily?

16 A. I would know it from the occurrence book.

17 SIR JOHN EVANS: If an entry had been made.

18 A. If an entry had been made, that it had been dealt with

19 or investigated properly.

20 SIR JOHN EVANS: Was it your practice to inspect the

21 notebooks at the end of the tour of duty?

22 A. No.

23 SIR JOHN EVANS: Not to sign them?

24 A. Not after every duty, no.

25 SIR JOHN EVANS: Thank you.

1 Questions by THE CHAIRMAN

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Can I just see what the role is in relation

3 to a trouble spot. The police are there, obviously, in

4 case there is trouble?

5 A. Yes.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: And their hope is to nip anything in the bud,

7 I take it?

8 A. Yes.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Because once it gets going, the danger is it

10 escalates.

11 A. Correct.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Does that require constant vigilance on the

13 part of those officers at the scene to look who is

14 coming, from where and how things are developing?

15 A. Yes.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Because it is only in that way that you can

17 see there might be trouble brewing here; is that right?

18 A. That's correct, yes.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

20 MR FERGUSON: No, thank you.

21 Questions by MR McGRORY

22 MR McGRORY: Sergeant P89, I want to ask you some questions on behalf

23 of the Hamill family.

24 There is one thing I want to clear up first of all,

25 Sergeant P89, and that's your reference in paragraph 28 of your

1 statement -- which I think is on [80849] -- your version

2 of the conversation that was had with people whom you

3 perceived to be family members in the hospital --

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. -- when you visited with Reserve Constable Silcock. Now,

6 you mention in paragraph 28 -- sir, perhaps it could be

7 brought up; it would be easier -- that you were confronted

8 by people whom you describe as relatives, who you say were

9 verbally abusive:

10 "One of them kept saying, 'You let them beat my

11 brother' or brother-in-law. I think they were making

12 reference to what had gone on in the town centre."

13 Now, do you accept that there is no reference to

14 this altercation in your notebook? You don't

15 describe it?

16 A. No, I have no note of that in my notebook to the best of

17 my knowledge.

18 Q. And, indeed, in your statement of 7 May -- I don't think

19 we need call it up, but it is on page [09213] -- you

20 refer to going to the hospital but you do not describe

21 why you mightn't have got any information or that you

22 were met by people who you say were confrontational.

23 You don't describe that in your statement of 7 May, so

24 you don't?

25 A. I accept that.

1 Q. Indeed, in your statement of 15 May that you

2 subsequently made there, no mention of it there either.

3 You don't describe it. Will you take it from me that

4 there is not?

5 A. I take it -- I accept that, yes.

6 Q. Yes. When you are spoken to by -- I think it is

7 Officer P5, when the investigation is reinvigorated in

8 the year 2000, in that statement, which is at

9 page 01004, do you take it from me that you do not

10 describe the altercation in that statement either? This

11 is a statement you made in the year 2000.

12 A. I accept what you are saying.

13 Q. I don't think we need examine all that of right now, but

14 for submissions ... so. In this Inquiry interview that

15 you had -- of course, when there was another police

16 officer, a female police officer who conducted an

17 investigation, a complaints and discipline investigation

18 in 2001, do you remember being asked to go to that

19 interview?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And then you, for reasons which we will come to later,

22 declined to participate in that. So there is no

23 description of it there either, I would suggest to you,

24 in 2001?

25 A. I accept that, yes.

1 Q. So your first description of this is when you meet the

2 investigators for this Inquiry in 2006?

3 A. If that's the case, yes.

4 Q. Yes, that's what this paragraph 28 comes from, that

5 interview that you had in the context of this Inquiry?

6 A. Okay, yes.

7 Q. So could it be, Sergeant P89, that you are mistaken

8 about the reference to a brother-in-law, that it might be

9 someone whom you perceived to be some kind of relative?

10 A. That could be the case, yes.

11 Q. Yes. Because in fact -- this is the first time you have

12 mentioned it in 2006. So you are not relying on any

13 written record?

14 A. No, I'm not.

15 Q. No. Indeed, Reserve Constable Silcock, who was with you,

16 I'm suggesting to you, gives quite a different description

17 of this altercation and he describes it in page [81164].

18 Perhaps we can have that just for the sake of

19 completeness, paragraph 16 and 17.

20 He describes a man in a grey Umbro sweatshirt, who

21 he had noticed at the scene. I think he was identified

22 as Robert Hamill's cousin. Now, he only thinks that.

23 He says he was still very aggressive and verbally

24 abusive. He said he spoke:

25 "... to a woman who was with that man who I think

1 was another of Robert Hamill's cousins and she was not

2 aggressive and we had no difficulties with her."

3 Have you any reason to dispute his version of that

4 altercation?

5 A. Just allow me a moment.

6 Q. Yes, certainly, certainly. (Pause)

7 A. Yes, could you just repeat the question again, please?

8 Q. Yes, this is what Reserve Constable Silcock says about it.

9 It is a little bit different to what you had said to this

10 Inquiry. Would you accept his version?

11 A. I can only go on my own recollections of -- you know, it

12 could have been the case that someone was speaking to

13 him and someone was speaking to me at the same time. It

14 is possible.

15 Q. Yes, of course. In terms of your own recollection, you

16 have agreed in any event that it may not have been

17 a brother-in-law, it could have been a cousin?

18 A. Absolutely, yes.

19 Q. Absolutely. We will leave that matter, thank you very

20 much.

21 A. Okay.

22 Q. Just for the record, I have taken instructions on this

23 from the immediate family of Robert Hamill and

24 absolutely none of them would say that they had any

25 altercation with a policeman or had any cause to be

1 abusive to a policeman at the scene of the hospital. So

2 I'm suggesting to you that you are mistaken in that

3 regard?

4 A. No, I'm not mistaken in that regard, but it wasn't all

5 of those present at the hospital that were involved in

6 any abuse.

7 Q. No, of course.

8 A. I'm talking about one or two of them.

9 Q. I'm suggesting to you that you are mistaken in the

10 description of the person as a brother-in-law?

11 A. Yes, I agree with that.

12 Q. It could have been any of those people?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Thank you. Could I just move on to a different issue,

15 please, Sergeant P89? You travelled to the hospital

16 with Reserve Constable Silcock; isn't that correct?

17 A. That's correct, yes.

18 Q. But you had to have a reason for going to the hospital,

19 I'm suggesting to you. You had to be more concerned --

20 you had to have a belief that this was something more

21 serious than simply an ordinary, run-of-the-mill

22 Saturday night altercation that caused you to go to the

23 hospital. Do you agree with that?

24 A. I went to the hospital to establish the extent of the

25 injuries of those that had been assaulted.

1 Q. But would you do that in every situation of public

2 disorder? Would you always go to the hospital?

3 A. Whenever I can, yes, I certainly would.

4 Q. Even if there had been no indication to you, by what you

5 had observed or what you had been told, that this would

6 have been a serious situation, that someone had been

7 maybe seriously injured?

8 A. I can only assume that there was some suggestion at some

9 stage after the assault took place that it was a serious

10 assault or it could have been a serious assault, and

11 that's why I went to the hospital: to establish how bad

12 an assault it was.

13 Q. Yes, that was the purpose?

14 A. That was the purpose, to see if it was actual bodily

15 harm or grievous bodily harm, or even worse.

16 Q. And of course you travelled with Reserve Constable

17 Silcock and the journey took, what, five minutes?

18 A. Approximately five/six minutes, yes.

19 Q. Did Reserve Constable Silcock not indicate to you on

20 the way that, "Look, these chaps were actually unconscious"?

21 A. I have no recollection of that, absolutely no

22 recollection of that.

23 Q. Of course we have no record from your notebook of what Reserve

24 Constable Silcock did tell you precisely, sure we don't?

25 A. We haven't, no.

1 Q. And, you see, there was another police officer there as

2 well, Constable Cooke. Do you want to check your cipher

3 list, please?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Do you remember Constable Cooke?

6 A. Being at the hospital?

7 Q. No, do you remember him being at the scene when you

8 arrived with the inspector?

9 A. Vaguely.

10 Q. Vaguely?

11 A. Vaguely, yes.

12 Q. If we can perhaps have page [80200] on the screen,

13 please. Now, paragraph 23 and 24 -- 23 really -- he

14 describes you arriving with the inspector on foot from

15 the direction of Edward Street. Do you see that in

16 paragraph 23?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And he said that he spoke to you and briefed you and the

19 inspector on the basic facts from the point when

20 he arrived at the scene. Do you see that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Did he not tell you that this was a very serious

23 incident, that two people were badly injured?

24 A. I cannot recall him emphasising on any seriousness of

25 the incident.

1 Q. You see, his evidence on Friday of last week was that in

2 fact the two men, he thought, were still on the ground

3 when you arrived.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Do you remember that being the case?

6 A. I cannot -- I can vaguely remember arriving on the scene

7 and an ambulance parked up and vaguely recall the

8 ambulance driver or the paramedic assisting someone on

9 the ground. It is a very vague recollection, but that's

10 very vague.

11 Q. You see, we know from other evidence that at least one

12 of these men was stone cold unconscious at the time and

13 would have to have been lifted on a stretcher into the

14 ambulance. So what you are saying to us is that that

15 must have happened in your presence?

16 A. I didn't see that taking place. I have no recollection

17 of seeing Mr Hamill or the other individual being put

18 into the ambulance.

19 Q. Would you not have approached the ambulance people, the

20 paramedics to see what they thought of the condition of

21 the person? Would that not have been --

22 A. Well, I didn't do that on the night. My concern was

23 the -- getting the street clear. That was my concern.

24 The injured were being attended to by the ambulance

25 crew. My priority was to get that street cleared before

1 there was -- before it escalated.

2 Q. Is that not in fact why you went to the hospital with Reserve

3 Constable Silcock, because you hadn't made a full enquiry

4 as to how badly these people were injured at the time?

5 A. Yes, I would accept that, yes.

6 Q. So what I'm puzzled about, Sergeant P89, is how you

7 could conceivably have left the hospital without any

8 information as to the extent of the injuries sustained

9 by the two gentlemen?

10 A. Because I asked those questions but the medical staff

11 there weren't prepared to give me any information.

12 Q. You see, Reserve Constable Silcock would say that he had

13 no conversation with any nurses or, indeed, doctors.

14 Now, you have said you spoke to a nurse, you think?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Would it not be your experience that perhaps nurses

17 aren't the best people to speak to and you are better

18 speaking to a doctor?

19 A. I may well have asked about the condition and the doctor

20 was dealing with Mr Hamill at the time, I understand.

21 And I have a clear recollection of being told that there

22 was no information for me at that time, that Mr Hamill

23 was being attended to in casualty.

24 Q. Would you not have known at this stage that this was not

25 a case of a walking wounded, that this was more serious?

1 A. I wasn't sure, I honestly wasn't sure. I didn't know

2 how badly injured Mr Hamill was.

3 Q. What I'm suggesting is that since the purpose of your

4 visit to the hospital was to find out just exactly what

5 had happened, how badly they were injured --

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. -- that it is astonishing that you left without making

8 any serious effort to find out?

9 A. I did make a serious effort to find out, but

10 unfortunately the information wasn't available to me,

11 for whatever reason.

12 Q. Can I suggest to you that speaking to a nurse who was

13 unable to give you any information is insufficient?

14 That's not good enough, Sergeant P89?

15 A. It has happened on numerous occasions before, when

16 I went to enquire about individuals after an assault or

17 whatever, that there was no information available to me

18 at that time.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the family may not give the most

20 detached report, but did you think to ask them what they

21 could tell you about the state of the injured man?

22 A. Well, from my recollection, the family weren't prepared

23 to talk -- to discuss too much with me on that

24 particular occasion. The family, to the best of my

25 knowledge -- the family were unaware --

1 REVEREND BARONESS RICHARDSON: Was the department very busy?

2 A. It was very busy indeed.

3 MR McGRORY: Just I have to suggest to you, Sergeant P89,

4 that you remained at the hospital only a matter of minutes?

5 A. That's correct, yes.

6 Q. And that really you made no serious effort to find

7 somebody who could give you the information that you

8 really ought to have left with that night?

9 A. No, that is not the case. I made every effort to

10 establish -- every effort to establish the injuries to

11 Mr Hamill and the other person assaulted, but there was

12 no information available to me. The nurse wasn't

13 prepared, I believe, to disclose anything to me at that

14 particular time because she may well not have been aware

15 of the seriousness of the injuries herself.

16 Q. I'm suggesting to you you shouldn't have left the

17 hospital until you had spoken to a doctor and found out

18 precisely the situation. I mean, did you even ask where

19 he was being kept in the hospital?

20 A. I knew he was in casualty because that's where

21 I arrived, and I knew he wasn't far from where I was

22 standing being treated.

23 Q. He was in intensive care, Sergeant P89. Would that

24 not have suggested something to you?

25 THE CHAIRMAN: That's two questions in one. You haven't

1 established that he knew the patient was in intensive

2 care.

3 MR McGRORY: Did anyone inform you of that, that he was in

4 intensive care?

5 A. No, I assumed he was in casualty, that he was being

6 cared for in casualty, in the casualty department.

7 Q. You made that assumption?

8 A. Yes, I had no idea he was in intensive care, absolutely

9 no idea. That may have thrown a different light on the

10 whole thing. I had no idea he was in intensive care.

11 Q. Can you remember if you asked a nurse where he was? Was

12 he in casualty --

13 A. No, I assumed he was in casualty because that's where

14 I spoke to the nurse.

15 Q. Had you found out that he was seriously injured and was

16 in intensive care, would you have relayed that

17 information to a superior?

18 A. Absolutely, absolutely. Can I ask one question here?

19 The intensive care -- where is the intensive care ward

20 in relation to the casualty ward?

21 Q. I'm not in a position to answer questions, Sergeant P89.

22 A. I'm assuming that -- I assumed that he was in the

23 casualty department when I arrived at the hospital.

24 Q. We have your evidence of that assumption, so we will

25 move on. But in your experience as a sergeant at the

1 time, once you become aware in this situation that an

2 assault is a serious assault, with someone who is

3 seriously injured, which I accept you were not aware of

4 in your evidence at this time, can you tell us what sort

5 of things would have been put in motion had that

6 information been relayed to a superior? What would you

7 have expected to have happened back at the scene?

8 A. Back at the scene?

9 Q. Yes. For a start.

10 A. The scene cordoned.

11 Q. That would have been practice at the time?

12 A. If someone was in intensive care as a result of an

13 assault, yes, that probably would have been the case,

14 yes.

15 Q. In terms of identifying those who were involved in the

16 incident, can you help us with what steps you would have

17 expected to have been taken?

18 A. Well, I would have thought that a debrief towards the

19 end of the evening -- that the information would have

20 come to light.

21 Q. Would that debrief have included questions being asked

22 of those who were present amongst the police as to what

23 they had seen?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And perhaps whether or not they could have identified

1 anybody?

2 A. Absolutely, yes.

3 Q. And would you agree that the identification process

4 might have taken a number of forms, beginning first of

5 all with whether or not any of them recognised anybody?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And then secondly, whether or not any of them could give

8 detailed descriptions of those they had observed?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Including descriptions of their clothing?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And whose responsibility would it have been in the

13 circumstances of this incident to have commenced all of

14 those things? Would the inspector you were with at the

15 scene have been someone who would have done something

16 like that?

17 A. It would probably either have been him or the CID

18 detective investigating the matter.

19 Q. Yes. But, of course, CID don't get involved unless they

20 are notified; isn't that correct?

21 A. That's right.

22 Q. Do you agree that uniformed police of some rank, like

23 yourself or the inspector, would still have been

24 expected to have commenced those procedures?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Yes. Now, I would like to ask you, Sergeant P89,

2 about your notebook. The handwritten version is to be

3 found at page [11088].

4 Now, unfortunately, the typed version that we have

5 attached to your statement is, I'm going to suggest to

6 you, taken a little bit out of context. So I would like

7 to just take the time, if you don't mind, to go through

8 this handwritten version. There is an entry there,

9 27/04/97, at the top of the page and it says:

10 "Continued ..."

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. You say at approximately -- I think that's cut off.

13 That would be 02.00 hours; would that be right?

14 A. I'm assuming that correct.

15 Q. "... as a result of public disorder in the town centre,

16 I accompanied [the inspector]. Went to the town centre,

17 where we assisted other police."

18 Do you see that?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. "... dispersing a hostile crowd, approximately

21 50 [something] West Street, the crowd separated and the

22 town centre was relatively quiet."

23 A. Yes --

24 THE CHAIRMAN: By 3 am.

25 MR McGRORY: By 3 am. What's that, later something?

1 A. Mobile patrol supervision.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: That was another duty you were moving on to?

3 MR McGRORY: Then you mention Reserve Constable -- sorry.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Another duty you were moving on to?

5 A. Pardon, sir?

6 THE CHAIRMAN: That was another duty you were moving on to

7 when you say:

8 "Later mobile patrol supervision"?

9 A. That is correct, that's just general.

10 MR McGRORY: Somebody is saying I might have mentioned the

11 name of a policeman. If I did, I apologise.

12 Could I have the preceding page up, please, [11087]?

13 If I could have the two side by side, it would be very

14 helpful. That's very helpful. You see, I'm going to

15 suggest to you that this entry comes after another entry

16 in your notebook and that is in the preceding page,

17 [11087], 27/04/97:

18 "Commenced duty at 23.30, paraded and briefed

19 C Section for the night division."

20 Do you see that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And then you go on to describe in the bottom half of

23 that page another incident that you were called to,

24 which involved a drunk driving allegation?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Now, did that drunk driving incident happen before or

2 after the Hamill incident?

3 A. Afterwards.

4 Q. Afterwards?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Can you explain at all to us, Sergeant P89, why it comes

7 before your reference to the Hamill incident in your notebook?

8 A. Well, I'm assuming what happened there is that the

9 entry -- the second entry, if it has come up on the

10 screen, was the first entry that I put in my notebook,

11 and prior to actually putting that entry in there was no

12 entry for the 27th at all. And the reason -- the only

13 reason that I can think of that it went in that way is

14 that whenever I was dealing with the drunk driver, I put

15 the details of the drunk driver in at the same time or

16 shortly after the process with him. So in actual fact,

17 I had put in the details -- the evidence of the drunk

18 driving process first.

19 Q. Well, if I can put the whole of page [11088] up again,

20 please, on its own -- sorry, do you agree that you go on

21 almost as if it flows from one to another? When you

22 have finished talking about the Hamill incident you then

23 go on to say:

24 "At 0.31, I conveyed a Mr -- his name is here but I

25 don't want you to say it.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. So you go back then to referring to the drunk driving

3 incident?

4 A. Yes. My understanding of that is -- I will need to have

5 a hard look at it, but it would appear that I've two

6 entries relating to the drunk driving incident. Am

7 I right in thinking that?

8 Q. Yes, that section concerning the disorder incident seems

9 to be sandwiched between two entries concerning the

10 drunk driving incident. Isn't that correct?

11 A. That's correct.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Have you had an opportunity to read through

13 the two entries relating to the drunk driving incident?

14 A. I think what I have done there --

15 THE CHAIRMAN: No, no, have you read through them just now

16 because I think perhaps you should. That may help you

17 to explain.

18 A. Yes.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Just take your time.

20 MR McGRORY: Take your time.

21 A. I'm assuming my notebook is not here, that I could look

22 through the notebook.

23 MR UNDERWOOD: No, the Inquiry doesn't hold the original.

24 SIR JOHN EVANS: Do we have a hard copy of this notebook

25 entry that we might see?

1 MR UNDERWOOD: We do. We can certainly get a print of it.

2 MR McGRORY: Perhaps you want to rise for five minutes or so

3 to be fair to the witness, Mr Chairman, so that he has

4 a look at the incident?

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. We will make it 10 minutes so the

6 shorthand writer has her break.

7 (3.05 pm)

8 (Short break)

9 (3.21 pm)

10 MR UNDERWOOD: Copies have been supplied. Can we have the

11 witness back? I think he has one too.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McGrory, before you continue, just help

13 me, will you, about the state of the evidence. My

14 recollection is that the evidence was that Robert Hamill

15 was in the resuscitation unit at the Craigavon Hospital,

16 which is part of the casualty unit, and that he was

17 moved to the hospital here in Belfast because a piece of

18 equipment in the intensive care unit was not functioning

19 properly, and the intensive care unit he went into was

20 the one in Belfast?

21 MR UNDERWOOD: Actually, I can improve on that slightly. We

22 have just been tracking this through from

23 Maureen Hagan's evidence and what she said was that he

24 was in A and E and that the resuscitation room was part

25 of that. She was in charge of Mr Hamill for some hours

1 and she identifies signatures on records as being hers,

2 and the last signature on the record of hers is 4.30.

3 The next signature on the record is five o'clock, when

4 Mr Hamill was in intensive care, but intensive care in

5 the first hospital.

6 So he did go from resuscitation, but then to

7 intensive care in the Craigavon Hospital and was then

8 moved to the Royal Victoria Hospital intensive care

9 unit. As I understand it, although no doubt this will

10 come out in evidence, this witness went to the hospital

11 before 4 o'clock so that at that stage Mr Hamill would

12 have been in resuscitation room attached to the accident

13 and emergency unit.

14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

15 MR McGRORY: Thank you for that. I asked the question on

16 foot of a note that he was in intensive care, so that

17 will teach me to check my facts before I do that again.

18 Thank you.

19 I apologise to you, Sergeant P89.

20 Now, have you had a chance to have a look at this

21 notebook?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Have you any explanation as to how we have seven or

24 eight lines concerning this incident sandwiched between

25 what I'll suggest to you is a very detailed account of

1 the drunk in charge incident that you were called to?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. What is it?

4 A. My explanation for that is that I had no entries

5 whatsoever in relation to the morning in question in my

6 notebook up until I was processing the individual for

7 the drunk driving offence. And because I was filling in

8 forms with times relevant to that drunk driving

9 procedure, I had a habit of making sure that I had

10 a notebook entry to correspond with the times that the

11 forms were completed for the drunk driving process.

12 And I had finished the entry in relation to -- the

13 first entry in relation to the drunk driving process at

14 04.15 hours, according to the record in my notebook. I

15 did not make any other entry in my notebook until the

16 next day. And where it says "27th continued", that was

17 a continuation which would have been the following day,

18 still being the 27th, and I commenced that by making

19 reference then to the public order situation.

20 Q. So are you saying then --

21 A. And also --

22 Q. Sorry?

23 A. -- and also if one looks down in that entry, you will

24 see that I also mentioned the drunk drive procedure

25 again twice, so that would indicate to me that that is

1 the case: that the first entry was made at the time of

2 the drunk drive procedure and there was no other entries

3 made in my notebook until the next day.

4 Q. So are you suggesting then that you started to fill out

5 your notebook before you left duty in the morning of the

6 27th and made a note of the drunk driving, then did no

7 more and went home?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Then you came back on duty later on in the evening of

10 the 27th?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And then is that when you started to continue your

13 notebook?

14 A. That is correct, yes.

15 Q. And you continue with a passage then concerning the

16 Robert Hamill incident and then you attribute some seven

17 or eight lines to that, and then you go on to describe

18 the drunken charge?

19 A. That is correct. That was just basically making

20 a record which I obviously had forgot I had made the

21 previous -- earlier the previous morning.

22 Q. Yes, well, by the time you remember about the

23 Robert Hamill incident later on the 27th and start to

24 take a note of it, this is on the evening of the 27th

25 then when you have returned to duty?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. You must have known that this was a serious situation

3 then?

4 A. I didn't. I didn't, honestly. I did not realise how

5 serious it was. I did not.

6 Q. You made no enquiry as to what did happen to those two

7 guys, how serious they were?

8 A. I honestly can't remember, I can't remember.

9 Q. You see, what I have to suggest to you is astonishing,

10 Sergeant P89, is that we have perhaps the best

11 part of a page, a page and a half, of detail about a

12 road traffic incident --

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. -- and sandwiched in there are seven or eight lines

15 about this whole Hamill incident, where two men were

16 seriously enough beaten to be taken away in an ambulance

17 and then brought to hospital, and you have only the

18 sparest of detail about this?

19 A. That would indicate to me that I had no idea how serious

20 those individuals had been -- how serious the assault

21 was.

22 Q. Yes, but even --

23 A. -- whenever I made that entry on the notebook the

24 following day.

25 Q. But I have to suggest to you, Sergeant P89, even

1 taking that intoaccount, that you should at least have

2 had a record of what happened at the hospital.

3 Do you agree with me? Of your visit to the hospital?

4 A. Well, it is not there.

5 Q. Or indeed --

6 THE CHAIRMAN: How can he help since he drew a blank at the

7 hospital?

8 MR McGRORY: Indeed --

9 THE CHAIRMAN: I have asked you a question, Mr McGrory.

10 MR McGRORY: Sorry, sir.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: How would a note of going to the hospital

12 have helped since he drew a blank there, came back

13 without any information?

14 MR McGRORY: He also has given an explanation for drawing

15 a blank, that he was -- partly as his explanation that

16 he was confronted by an angry family of some

17 description. I have to suggest, sir, that, you know,

18 some detail would have at least helped those who were

19 investigating the incident at a later stage.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I hear you, yes.

21 MR McGRORY: In terms of -- this is also a situation, is it

22 not, Sergeant P89, where you arrived at the scene

23 of a virtual riot?

24 A. That's correct, yes.

25 Q. And you have given us no detail about that, about what

1 you observed, who you observed do what, sure you

2 haven't?

3 A. I haven't, no.

4 Q. In your notebook. And indeed, this situation was

5 sufficiently serious for you to authorise the issuing of

6 a riot gun; isn't that correct?

7 A. That's correct, yes.

8 Q. And we have no detail about that?

9 A. That's right.

10 Q. Would you not have regarded the issuing of a riot gun as

11 something which was noteworthy?

12 A. I obviously didn't at the time. It wasn't uncommon to

13 have issued a riot gun at that particular time.

14 Q. And, you see, you made a statement on 7 May 1997. You

15 have been shown that statement earlier and I think it

16 is -- do you remember the statement? The first

17 statement, page [09213]. This is 7 May you make this

18 statement. Would you have consulted your notebook when

19 you were making your statement?

20 A. I can't -- I don't know.

21 Q. Would that not be practice, to look at your notebook?

22 A. Maybe not on every occasion, but yes, on some occasions,

23 yes, it probably would be.

24 Q. Can you help us at all as to why you made a statement on

25 7 May? Why 7 May?

1 A. Because I obviously was asked by CID to make a statement

2 on 7 May.

3 Q. You certainly knew by then, did you not, that this was

4 a serious incident?

5 A. I may well have, I'm not sure. I'm assuming, yes,

6 I probably would have.

7 Q. Well, you are telling us that you returned to duty on

8 the evening of the 27th, you are not aware that it is

9 serious, but surely by then it was well-known in the

10 police station that Robert Hamill was very

11 seriously ill?

12 A. My recollection, going back to then, was that Robert was

13 recovering, that Robert was making progress.

14 Q. But that he was seriously ill in hospital still at this

15 point, regardless of the fact that he was making

16 progress. This is a serious assault?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. You have to have known that on 7 May?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And do you accept that this statement is bereft of

21 detail?

22 A. Yes, I do.

23 Q. And I have to suggest to you that that's neglectful of

24 your duty as a police sergeant, to make a statement of

25 this kind leaving out so much information?

1 A. I wouldn't agree with you.

2 Q. You made a statement seven days later on 15 May?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And that statement at least included some information

5 about the issuing of riot gun, did it not? Do you want

6 to have a look at it? It is page [09215] --

7 A. Yes, please.

8 Q. -- it commences. It goes on for two or three pages.

9 You describe meeting the other police officers in the

10 car on the way in. You say who they were and you

11 authorised the issuing of the gun. Do you see that on

12 the second page?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Well, did somebody come to you on 15 May and say to you,

15 "The statement of 7 May is a bit sparse"?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And then you started to recall more?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Of course, you knew by 15 May that a number of people

20 had been charged with the murder of Robert Hamill?

21 A. I'm not sure.

22 Q. Were you not aware, Sergeant P89, that on 15 May a

23 number of people were charged with the murder of Robert Hamill?

24 A. My recollection is vague. I may well have been aware of

25 it. I'm sure if I was on duty I would have been aware

1 of that, yes.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: What was the charging date?

3 MR McGRORY: 10 May. The first appearance in court was on

4 11 May.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Even at that time was the charge of murder

6 something which was fairly rare in Craigavon, or

7 Portadown rather?

8 A. I'm just thinking about something here. I don't even

9 know where I was on that particular day of those

10 charges. I don't know whether I was on duty, whether I

11 was sick or on leave. I have no idea. But I'm assuming

12 if I was in the police station on that date, I would

13 have been aware of charges.

14 MR McGRORY: Were you not aware, Sergeant P89, of

15 controversy about this incident?

16 A. Yes, I was, yes.

17 Q. Yes, that a Catholic had been subjected to a serious

18 beating resulting in his death?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. By a Protestant crowd?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And that there were police nearby and that this was

23 controversial? Do you understand that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So that I'm suggesting to you that there is hardly

1 anybody in Portadown who wasn't aware of the situation,

2 that the police were being accused in certain quarters

3 of doing nothing?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Because as a policeman you have to have been aware of

6 that?

7 A. Of course I was, yes.

8 Q. And as a policeman who had been called to the scene, you

9 would have been doubly aware of that?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So will you accept that when you made this statement on

12 15 May that you had to have been aware of the

13 seriousness of the matter?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And that people were charged with the murder of

16 Robert Hamill by then?

17 A. Yes, I would have to accept that if I made that

18 statement on that date and the charges had been

19 preferred against those individuals, yes.

20 Q. Would you not have made it your business to find out who

21 had been charged?

22 A. Well, I didn't, to the best of my recollection, I

23 didn't.

24 Q. And as a policeman, would you not have concerned

25 yourself with maybe you might have been able to make

1 some contribution to the murder enquiry?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And that you would have gone to somebody involved in it

4 and said, "Look, here is what I saw, here is what

5 I know"?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. But you didn't do that?

8 A. Because I didn't know anything.

9 Q. I thought you had just accepted that you, at least by

10 15 May, would have been aware that there were people

11 charged with murder?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. This is now a murder case.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Yet we have a situation where you have a statement on

16 7 May which I suggest tells us virtually nothing?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And on 15 May you are asked for a supplementary

19 statement?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And that by then you should at least have been telling

22 everything that you knew?

23 A. Well, I'm assuming that I did tell everything I knew.

24 Q. But the problem is you didn't because you made another

25 statement in the year 2000. Isn't that right?

1 A. That's correct, yes.

2 Q. On 28 December 2000. That's at [11084].

3 Now, this is the statement in which you recount to

4 P5 the incident with Reserve Constable Atkinson when he told

5 you about an individual in the crowd.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Do you remember that statement?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And you describe how he pointed somebody out to you and

10 named him as Hanvey. Do you remember putting that in

11 the statement, December 2000?

12 A. I can't remember putting that in the statement but

13 I obviously did.

14 Q. Well, you describe then how Reserve Constable Atkinson told

15 you to watch this guy, he was an expert in martial arts?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And he told you his name?

18 A. I can't recollect him telling me his name.

19 Q. But you had the name when had you made the statement in

20 2000. You mentioned the name?

21 A. Yes. But I can't recollect the -- I can't recollect Reserve

22 Constable Atkinson telling me his name. I can't recollect that.

23 Q. Well, you told P5 on 28 December 2000 about the whole

24 incident, did you not?

25 A. Yes, as much as I could remember of it.

1 Q. And that you mentioned the name then. In fact, you say

2 on page [11084], four lines from the bottom:

3 "He mentioned the fellow's name as Hanvey."

4 A. Yes, but --

5 Q. He mentioned the fellow's name as Hanvey.

6 A. Referring to Reserve Constable Atkinson mentioning that?

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. To me? I know it is on that statement, but I have no

9 recollection of him actually -- I don't know where that

10 came from. I can't explain that. But whenever it was

11 pointed out to me that this individual was a black belt

12 or was a martial arts expert, I cannot recollect him

13 saying that man's name is Hanvey. I cannot remember

14 that.

15 Q. Do you accept he must have done for you to tell P5 on

16 28 December that he did?

17 A. No, because I would have assumed -- I would have assumed

18 that this guy was a martial arts expert and I would have

19 assumed that that was the individual named Hanvey that

20 Reserve Constable Atkinson had identified to me.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm not -- forgive me -- following this. We

22 have got an enlarged section of your statement on the

23 screen, haven't we?

24 A. Yes.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: And you say:

1 "I can recall Reserve Constable ... say words to the

2 effect do you know who he is? Watch him, that fellow is

3 an expert ..." and so on, "He mentioned the fellow's

4 name as Hanvey but I certainly did not know him."

5 That seems to me quite clear that the reserve

6 constable had mentioned that his name was Hanvey?

7 A. He didn't. To the best of my recollection, he didn't.

8 That statement was recorded by a detective constable in

9 my home whilst I was on sick leave. I hadn't been

10 working for months prior to that statement being

11 recorded by that detective constable, and like -- where

12 he says there he mentioned the fellow's name there as

13 Hanvey, I honestly can't recollect Reserve Constable

14 Atkinson referring to him by name.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: I can follow you may not be able to remember

16 now, but when you made this statement, which was eight

17 years ago --

18 A. Yes.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: -- would you have said that if you couldn't

20 then remember it?

21 A. I couldn't remember saying it. I actually didn't -- the

22 statement was recorded by a detective constable and he

23 recorded the statement.

24 Now, it is something that I may have overlooked when

25 I read the statement over at the completion of the

1 statement, where he had inserted:

2 "He mentioned the fellow's name as Hanvey, but

3 I certainly did not know him."

4 I don't think -- I honestly -- I'm not sure whether

5 those are my words or not. It could have been where I

6 was being prompted to a certain degree by the

7 detective constable recording the statement.

8 MR McGRORY: Are you saying you signed a statement that

9 inaccurately recorded what you had told the police

10 constable?

11 A. No, not necessarily. I'm just saying that I cannot

12 recollect Reserve Constable Atkinson identifying the

13 person who I understood to be a martial arts expert by name.

14 He may well have done. I cannot recollect it. That is

15 being quite honest. I cannot recollect him saying that.

16 Q. Well, what does the name Hanvey mean to you now?

17 A. It means that the man Hanvey was suspect -- was the

18 suspect in the murder of Robert Hamill.

19 Q. You are aware now that he was arrested on 10 May,

20 charged on 11 May?

21 A. I accept that, what you are saying to me, yes.

22 Q. That a number of those who were charged along with him

23 were released, the charges of murder were dropped on

24 that occasion; do you remember that?

25 A. No, I don't think I was even in Portadown station at

1 that time. I think I was either on sick leave or

2 working somewhere else.

3 Q. You didn't follow this at all?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Utterly unaware of it?

6 A. Pardon?

7 Q. Utterly unaware of it?

8 A. I was unaware of it. I was ill, I was sick.

9 Q. I have to suggest to you, Sergeant P89, that there

10 were a number of occasions when you had the opportunity

11 to give this information to those involved in the murder

12 case and you failed to take those opportunities?

13 A. No, that's -- that is not the case.

14 Q. That this information came readily enough to your mind

15 in 2000 when you were asked about it?

16 A. Because I was obviously prompted. It was in

17 connection --

18 Q. Are you suggesting that D Con P5 gave you information

19 and asked you was it true about this incident?

20 A. I referred to the individual that was identified to me

21 by Reserve Constable Atkinson at the time, and it was obvious

22 -- it would be obvious to anyone that those two people were

23 the same person. But the issue of actually naming him --

24 Q. Let's leave aside the name for a moment. We are going

25 to get nowhere with that, but let's leave that aside for

1 the moment.

2 So throughout those years, between 1997 and 2000,

3 you had information about an individual who was

4 a martial arts expert about whom you were warned?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. I'm suggesting to you that you did know the name, but

7 even leaving that aside, would that not have been

8 information that would have been important to put first

9 of all in your notebook as information relevant to what

10 had happened?

11 A. You see, I didn't know -- I'm saying to you that I

12 didn't know that individual's name.

13 Q. Leave aside the name for a moment, Sergeant P89.

14 But you harboured at the very minimum information that

15 you had been warned by Reserve Constable Atkinson about

16 an individual who was a martial arts expert on the night?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Is that not information that would have been relevant to

19 put in your notebook?

20 A. No, not at the time, not during the course of a riot,

21 not during the course of hostilities.

22 Q. Do you not think it would have been of assistance to

23 those who were investigating the riot?

24 A. Not really because I didn't know he was a suspect.

25 Q. Well, if you were warned about him by Reserve Constable

1 Atkinson and he had to be pushed back up the road

2 -- isn't that correct, this individual?

3 A. This individual had to be forcibly pushed up the road,

4 yes, along with others, of course.

5 Q. Yes. But that was relevant. It was information that

6 might have helped those investigating the murder.

7 A. Well, at the time it was no more relevant than the other

8 40 or 50 people that was present during the course of

9 that disturbance, to me.

10 Q. Well, at least by 15 May, by which time a number of

11 people, including Mr Hanvey, had been charged with the

12 murder, it was relevant then, was it not?

13 A. I never thought of it -- I never thought of it.

14 THE CHAIRMAN: Did you know that one of those arrested was

15 something of an expert in martial arts?

16 A. I don't know when -- I don't know when I realised that.

17 Yes, I realise that now, but I don't know when I did

18 realise that, that I was able to connect the two people,

19 that the individual that I was confronted with was one

20 of the persons who had been arrested for the murder of

21 Robert Hamill. I don't know when I realised that.

22 I have no idea when I realised that. It could have been

23 months, it could have been years afterwards. I honestly

24 don't know. I can't remember.

25 MR McGRORY: Well, you weren't debriefed in respect of this

1 incident around the time, sure you were not?

2 A. I wasn't, no.

3 Q. First of all, tell us what would a debriefing involve,

4 had you been debriefed?

5 A. If I had been debriefed, it probably would have involved

6 the identification of those rioters, the identification

7 of anyone known to me at the scene or during the course

8 of the disturbance.

9 Q. And how would a debriefer have done that?

10 A. He would have called probably those that were on the

11 ground at the riot to -- he would have called everyone

12 together and asked could any -- can anyone identify

13 anyone involved.

14 Q. So has that happened to you previously?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. You have been debriefed?

17 A. Not in relation to this matter.

18 Q. No, no, no, in relation to any other incident?

19 A. Pardon?

20 Q. In relation to other incidents?

21 A. Of course, yes.

22 Q. Including incidents of public disorder?

23 A. Some serious public disorder, yes.

24 Q. In fact you briefed C Section on the way out that night;

25 isn't that right?

1 A. Before they commenced -- just at the commence of duty?

2 Yes.

3 Q. Would you not have felt some responsibility, as the

4 person who briefed them going out, to yourself

5 debriefing them on the way back in afterwards?

6 A. No. Normally I would not have a formal debrief of any

7 sort with the section, unless it was some specific --

8 something specific -- some specification operation or

9 something during the course of that duty.

10 Q. Yes, but sometimes when one goes out on duty, unexpected

11 things happen. Isn't that correct?

12 A. Yes, of course.

13 Q. So would there not be a need for a debriefing in the

14 event of an unexpected event, as to what happened?

15 A. Generally, no, not back in those days. Generally not,

16 no.

17 Q. Nobody asked you for a statement on 27 April?

18 A. I have no recollection of being asked for -- I mean to

19 say, I'm sitting here 12 years after the event and all I

20 can say is I have no recollection of anyone asking me

21 for a statement on that night. In fact, I will go

22 further to say if someone had have asked me for

23 a statement, I probably would have completed the

24 statement before going off duty.

25 Q. And if somebody had asked you for descriptions or

1 details of those involved in the public disorder, would

2 you have given it?

3 A. Yes, of course I would.

4 Q. Now, in 2001 there was a further investigation into this

5 incident and one part of it was a complaints and

6 discipline-type investigation. Do you remember that?

7 A. Yes, I do indeed.

8 Q. Indeed you were called to interview by a lady

9 superintendent?

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. Who we are calling [Karen Kennedy]?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. You know who I'm referring to?

14 A. I do.

15 Q. And you went to the interview, but she wasn't there;

16 isn't that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Yes. And then she was contacted and said, "Hold on, we

19 are on the way down"?

20 A. Absolutely, yes. I recall that, yes. I have a fairly

21 clear recollection of that.

22 Q. Yes. When you were going to that meeting, at this point

23 you were a former police officer; isn't that correct?

24 A. I was retired, yes.

25 Q. Just retired?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. What were you expecting it to be about?

3 A. I had no idea, absolutely no idea.

4 Q. Are you saying you had no idea it was about the

5 Robert Hamill incident?

6 A. That generally it was something to do with the

7 Robert Hamill incident, yes, but I didn't know what it

8 was about. I had absolutely no idea.

9 Q. But you knew it was in the context of a complaint?

10 A. I didn't, I did not.

11 Q. Well, why did you think you were being called to account

12 for the Robert Hamill incident in 2001?

13 A. I didn't know. I didn't know what it was about, to the

14 best of my recollection, I had no idea. I was asked to

15 go into the police station to help police with enquiries

16 in relation to it. I didn't know whether it was

17 a disciplinary thing, whether it was -- I had no idea.

18 Q. But you knew at least it was about the Robert Hamill

19 incident?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. So you were prepared to tell whoever it was what you

22 could remember at that time?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. But then, when the lady superintendent and another

25 investigator came about an hour later -- isn't that

1 correct?

2 A. That's correct, yes.

3 Q. Apart from a brief discussion with them, you declined to

4 be formally interviewed. Isn't that right? That was

5 your right, by the way, but you declined --

6 A. I would say that I spoke to both the superintendent and

7 the chief inspector for maybe 15/20 minutes,

8 understanding what the interview was about.

9 Q. So by that time you knew it was a complaint?

10 A. Yes, I did.

11 Q. Because they told you?

12 A. Yes. In fact earlier, I would suggest I made an

13 enquiry. They weren't arriving at the police station

14 for approximately an hour and I sought assistance in

15 relation to it and advice.

16 Q. Yes.

17 A. And as a result of the advice that I was given,

18 I declined to make statements or to answer questions in

19 relation to that matter simply because I was advised

20 that I wasn't obliged to.

21 Q. By now you are well aware in 2001 that Robert Hamill had

22 been murdered?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And that there was controversy about the police being

25 present and not doing anything about it?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And that the murder prosecution had failed?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Would it not have been within your duties as then

5 a former policeman to at least tell these people

6 everything that you knew?

7 A. In relation to what?

8 Q. Just to help them?

9 A. Yes, I did go into the police station to help -- to

10 assist them with their enquiries.

11 Q. But you have just told us that following advice that you

12 received, you decided not to be formally interviewed?

13 A. Yes, because I didn't want to be answering questions.

14 I wanted to be sure of my facts before I answered any

15 questions. Like, this was some time -- this was years

16 after Robert was murdered and I wanted to be sure that

17 my answers to the questions were accurate and truthful.

18 Q. Would it not have been better just to tell them as much as you

19 could and let someone else decide that, Sergeant P89?

20 A. Well, the questions I understood were more -- with

21 a view to discipline, disciplining a police officer.

22 Q. But of course you were a former police officer?

23 A. Yes. So, therefore, I was not obliged then to -- I

24 couldn't be disciplined for something that I no longer

25 belonged to.

1 Q. Precisely, Sergeant P89. And would it not have

2 been of assistance to the Hamill family and to those

3 investigating the murder to have told them everything

4 you knew?

5 A. Well, at the time I wasn't happy to be there on my own,

6 to be interviewed by a superintendent and a chief

7 inspector in relation to matters that I needed to be

8 sure and accurate when giving the answers to those

9 questions.

10 Q. I suggest to you, Sergeant P89, that you have been

11 as unhelpful as one could possibly have been throughout

12 the conduct of this murder enquiry?

13 A. Absolutely not, absolutely not. On the contrary.

14 Q. That your notebook is bereft of information, isn't it?

15 A. There is notebook entries there. There is things that I

16 haven't put in the notebook, of course.

17 Q. Indeed. But your statement of 7 May is bereft of

18 information, isn't it?

19 A. It is lacking information, yes.

20 Q. That your statement of 15 May leaves out the detail that

21 you later gave to P5 in 2000, doesn't it?

22 A. At what points?

23 Q. The bit about Mr Hanvey or the martial arts expert. It

24 is not in your statement of 15 May, is it?

25 A. It is not, no.

1 Q. And that when an investigation comes in 2001 and you

2 have the opportunity of helping those people who are

3 investigating this matter, you refuse to help them?

4 A. I did assist, I did cooperate with them.

5 Q. And in 2001, I have to suggest to you, Sergeant P89,

6 you had nothing to fear from complaints and discipline;

7 you were no longer in the police?

8 A. Yes, but the matters that I was to be interviewed --

9 were in relation to apparent disciplinary offences.

10 Q. What did it matter to you at the time? You were no

11 longer in the police?

12 A. It mattered a lot.

13 Q. Do you accept that it mattered a lot to those trying to

14 investigate the murder of Robert Hamill?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. To speak to someone like you who was on the scene and

17 had information?

18 A. But I had give as much information as I could in my

19 statement. I couldn't have give them any more

20 information.

21 Q. I'm suggesting to you that the information you did give

22 was drip fed --

23 THE CHAIRMAN: I think you have made this point.

24 MR McGRORY: I have no further questions.

25 Questions by MS DINSMORE

1 MS DINSMORE: Good afternoon. I appear on behalf of Reserve

2 Constable Atkinson and you know who Reserve Constable Atkinson is.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Now, just to pick up from my friend, just to clear up

5 one point, this was a busy accident and emergency that

6 night?

7 A. Absolutely, yes.

8 Q. And was there much in the way of doctors to be seen that

9 could have been approached?

10 A. No.

11 Q. From your experience as a police officer, when attending

12 accidents and emergency how have you found the ready

13 availability of doctors to talk to policemen?

14 A. Nearly impossible.

15 Q. And is the conduit the nurse?

16 A. Yes, absolutely.

17 Q. And that you as a police officer are dependent on the

18 nurse?

19 A. Absolutely.

20 Q. Thank you. Now, then if I move on in relation to your

21 statements -- and my friends -- and each of them have

22 explored them with you in some detail, but I want to

23 take to you the statement of 28 December of 2000.

24 I wonder, could we have [11084] on the screen, please?

25 Now, that is the statement that you made on

1 28 December; isn't that right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Now, I wonder, could you tell us, it came out there when

4 you were being cross-examined by my learned friend that

5 really this statement was made at home and you were sick

6 at the time?

7 A. I was, yes, indeed.

8 Q. Right. Can you give us a bit of background as to how

9 this statement came about?

10 A. A detective called at the house.

11 Q. Was that on the 28th or on an earlier date to arrange to

12 come on the 28th?

13 A. I think prior to making the statement there was a phone

14 call.

15 Q. And do you know who made that phone call?

16 A. I can't be sure at this time, but I'm assuming it was

17 the detective who took the statement.

18 Q. Okay. Did you then arrange a mutually convenient date?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Was it held in your house?

21 A. It was, yes.

22 Q. And at the instigation of this detective?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Thank you. And that was 28 December?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Not very long after Christmas. So do you have a clear

2 recollection of that day when you made that statement?

3 A. I have a recollection, but I wouldn't say it is a clear

4 recollection but it is not vague, but I have

5 a recollection.

6 Q. You have a recollection. You see, one of the points

7 that concerns me relates to the first line of that

8 statement:

9 "Further to my previous statement today,

10 28 December 2000 ..."

11 Now, did, in fact, P5 record the statement in his or

12 her handwriting -- in his handwriting?

13 A. Yes, he did.

14 Q. He did? So you didn't write this statement?

15 A. I did not.

16 Q. Right. So one thing that we know -- let's just clear it

17 up. How many statements did he record that day?

18 A. I don't know.

19 Q. Well, so this statement was presented to you to sign

20 after whatever the discourse between you and P5 was.

21 Isn't that right? Isn't that what happened?

22 A. Could you just explain that for me, please?

23 Q. Yes. P5 there, he is there to take a statement from

24 you?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. You are an experienced policeman, but he records what he

2 considers your statement to say and presents it to you

3 to sign?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. I mean, I'm making no criticism of you whatsoever,

6 I just am trying to understand what happens.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Now, the one thing you would remember was that you had

9 signed two documents?

10 A. On that particular day?

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And had you read this statement obviously before you

14 signed it?

15 A. I probably would.

16 Q. Yes. Now, what I'm really getting at is we can't

17 find -- we have not got -- and Mr Underwood assures me

18 that very, very extensive searches have been done on the

19 part of the Inquiry team in relation to finding

20 a statement of 28 December 2000 signed by you previous

21 to the statement that is presently on the screen. Can

22 you help us with this?

23 A. Could you just explain that to me again --

24 Q. Well, the bottom line is your statement says:

25 "The previous statement today ..."

1 THE CHAIRMAN: Forgive me, the language used isn't very

2 felicitous, but it is ambiguous. It can be read as:

3 "Further to my previous statement, today 28 December

4 I have been asked ..."

5 Or it could be read as reading:

6 "Further to my previous statement today,

7 28th December, I have been asked ..."

8 Do you see the ambiguity?

9 MS DINSMORE: Is that the answer? You can't assist us as to

10 which is the proper reading of this?

11 A. Are you suggesting that I made a statement on

12 28 September?

13 Q. No, December.

14 A. "Further to my previous statement", to me that should

15 have been a full stop probably, and then commencing the

16 sentence:

17 "Today, 28 December 2000, I have been asked by P5 if

18 I had any conversation with ..." and so on.

19 Q. Thank you, and I'm obliged to the Chair for expediously

20 getting us to that. So you have no recollection of any

21 previous statement?

22 A. I can't recollect any previous statement.

23 Q. Now, in relation to the making of this particular

24 statement, were a number of questions asked of you to

25 which you replied to in order to compile this statement?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And in that statement you have made it quite clear that

3 Reserve Constable Atkinson told you at the time two

4 things in relation to Mr Hanvey. One was that he was a

5 martial arts expert and you would need to look out for

6 him, and also that his name was Hanvey.

7 Now, are you saying today that really I don't

8 actually remember him saying "Hanvey"? Is that what you

9 are saying today?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Would you accept that he could well have said "Hanvey"

12 to you? He could well have said the name to you, but

13 you just can't recollect now though you did in December

14 of 2000?

15 A. I can't be sure -- I can't be 100 per cent sure.

16 Q. Perhaps I can assist you in your own words.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do you remember being interviewed by the Inquiry team?

19 Now, Mr Chair, the Inquiry interview notes are not

20 paginated in a manner that can be called up on the

21 screen -- oh, they can be. Well, according to my

22 pagination, if page 106 of that interview note can be

23 called up, please.

24 Now, if you could just look at the document that

25 there is now in front of you, I would just ask to you

1 read through the second paragraph of that document.

2 A. "Allister Hanvey -- I was aware that there was an

3 Allister Hanvey ..."

4 Q. I'm happy to read it to you while you follow it on the

5 screen.

6 A. Yes, of course.

7 Q. If you want to follow it on the screen:

8 "Allister Hanvey -- I was aware that there was an

9 Allister Hanvey but I personally -- I couldn't have

10 identified Allister Hanvey. I knew that Mr Hanvey was a

11 suspect, but it never dawned on me that it was the same

12 Hanvey that Mr [redacted] had advised me against at the

13 riot situation on 20 April.

14 "Question: Never?

15 "Answer: I had no reason to believe that it was the

16 same guy, you know, and he mentioned Hanvey to me.

17 Hanvey, it was just, 'Watch that guy, that fellow, that

18 guy Hanvey, he's a judo expert or martial arts expert.'

19 The name at that particular time didn't mean anything to

20 me. There was nothing relevant to it. He didn't advise

21 me that this guy Hanvey was involved in an assault and I

22 had no reason to suspect that Hanvey was involved in the

23 actual assault prior to that. So that's probably why."

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Now, does that help you in relation to matters which my

1 friend had explored with you?

2 A. Yes, that's what I was trying to explain.

3 Q. Well, now, if I just, therefore -- just for the sake of

4 clarity and in danger of a little repetition -- can

5 I say that that -- (a) paragraph clarifies it for you

6 and does it clarify for the record that quite clearly

7 Mr [redacted] pointed out two things to you. One was

8 the name of that individual, which is why you have the

9 phrase "that guy Hanvey". Isn't that right? And the

10 second thing was he's judo expert or a black martial

11 arts expert. So there is no --

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Black belt.

13 MS DINSMORE: I'm not going to contradict the Chair, but it

14 says "black martial arts expert" on my --

15 THE CHAIRMAN: I see, yes.

16 MS DINSMORE: But black belt is probably even better. But

17 in any event, isn't it correct to say that -- well, we

18 have got the point: you agree entirely now that when we

19 move away from the forensics and we look at what you

20 actually said, that now represents your evidence to this

21 Inquiry; isn't that right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. I'm much obliged to you, thank you.

24 Now then, in relation to speaking to a girl --

25 right? -- isn't it right to say that in your statement

1 of December 2000 you said -- actually before we move to

2 that, isn't it right that you have never made the case,

3 or you are not suggesting either in your interview to

4 the Inquiry or in your statement of 28 December, that

5 Mr [redacted] had any detailed conversation with any

6 individual on the evening in question?

7 A. No.

8 Q. And my understanding from reading your interview

9 notes -- and if I'm wrong, correct me -- was when -- and

10 you were -- Mr [redacted] was to your left. Sorry,

11 I apologies about the ciphers. I'm obliged to

12 Mr Mallon. Reserve Constable Atkinson was to your left?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And in fair close proximity to you?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Which meant that those words, for example, that you have

17 recorded were well within your earshot?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And he would have been in your view during the whole

20 dealings that you were present at regarding the moving

21 the crowd up the street?

22 A. Maybe not the whole -- obviously not for the whole hour

23 or --

24 Q. No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm just suggesting an

25 engaged enterprise moving up the street?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now, at that stage his conduct according to my reading

3 of your materials was he was trying to defuse

4 situations, saying, "Move on, move on, move on"?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And that was the nature of the approach that he made?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Now, there was a girl -- and you do not know the name of

9 this girl -- who was being particularly aggressive to

10 you?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Yes. And that Reserve Constable Atkinson had an discussion with

13 her, and your reading of it was to try and defuse the situation?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Isn't that right?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. And very much that was your -- you know, what you would

18 report about any conversation that you had with the

19 girl?

20 A. In relation to the conversation --

21 Q. And the one thing that is clear to you, although it was

22 never used you had a baton gun?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And wasn't it your perception that Mr Hanvey and other

25 persons in the crowd, and in particular a female or so,

1 would have taken exception to the presence of a baton

2 gun on your person?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And, therefore, if their behaviour was more aggressive

5 to you than to Reserve Constable Atkinson, who was

6 behaving in a -- trying to be defusing situations, that

7 would be an explanation for their conduct: the presence

8 of the baton gun? That was an aggravating factor in

9 relation to their motivation of how they behaved to you?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Now, isn't this correct to say: that in relation to the

12 girl that you spoke to, you don't know any

13 Tracey Clarke?

14 A. No.

15 Q. And you don't know the name of any girl that Reserve

16 Constable Atkinson spoke to?

17 A. That's correct, I had no idea of the name.

18 Q. And it could well have been a girl who was not

19 Tracey Clarke?

20 THE CHAIRMAN: He simply can't say, can he.

21 MS DINSMORE: He can't say, no. Do you know a

22 Victoria Clayton?

23 A. No.

24 Q. So you can't say whether R/Con Atkinson spoke to her or not?

25 A. No.

1 Q. Is it correct to say that a propos you trying to

2 identify the girl spoken to by Reserve Constable Atkinson,

3 you just have a vague recollection about it:

4 "I don't know who she was"?

5 And what you say is:

6 "There were females in this crowd."

7 And that would be the height of the help that you

8 can give us on that?

9 A. Yes, apart from the fact that she appeared to be with

10 this man Hanvey.

11 Q. Yes. She was in his company?

12 A. She was in his company.

13 Q. But this was a crowd?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And were people moving about in the crowd?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. They were? So someone could be beside someone and in

18 their company at one stage and not at another?

19 A. Yes.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: I think you said it was the way they were

21 talking to one another that made you think they might be

22 boy and girlfriend?

23 A. Yes, I assumed that they were on that night, yes.

24 MS DINSMORE: But that was an assumption on your part?

25 A. An assumption, yes.

1 Q. And really, as far as your evidence goes -- it is no

2 criticism -- you can't really put it any higher than an

3 assumption about a proximity, and you didn't hear

4 anything that was exchanged between them?

5 A. No, this was only for a few minutes, you know.

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. Prior to actually moving the crowd up the street. So

8 obviously they were out of my sight at some stage. They

9 weren't there in my face the whole way up the street.

10 Q. And likewise there is no question of you observing Reserve

11 Constable Atkinson having any conversation with the man whom you

12 now know to be Allister Hanvey, who was identified to you by Reserve

13 Constable Atkinson, of him having any deep conversation with him?

14 A. No.

15 Q. I think it is not in dispute at all that Reserve Constable

16 Atkinson came and made a very frank and proper disclosure

17 to you and report to you regarding his use of his baton?

18 A. That's correct, yes.

19 Q. And was there anything whatsoever in the policing activities

20 carried out by Reserve Constable Atkinson which you observed

21 that evening that was untoward?

22 A. Absolutely nothing.

23 Q. Did you consider his approach to be an effective

24 approach in relation to dealing with what you as

25 policemen were faced with?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And when you have used the term in your statement about

3 you were proud of them, that you certainly would have

4 included Reserve Constable Atkinson in that; am I right?

5 A. I will have, yes.

6 Q. And in relation to the allegations which have been made

7 about Reserve Constable Atkinson, that's certainly not

8 something that you were aware of in any circumstances other

9 than general tittle tattle months and months afterwards?

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. And can we just clarify: on the evening in question, did

12 Reserve Constable Atkinson approach you at all about the

13 incident over and above his baton report? Did Reserve Constable

14 Atkinson, between the incident on 27 April and the making of

15 your statement on 28 December 2000, discuss the night of 27

16 April or discuss Allister Hanvey with you?

17 A. No, he did not.

18 MS DINSMORE: Thank you very much.

19 Questions by MR O'CONNOR

20 MR O'CONNOR: I represent now, as of today, Inspector

21 McCrum, Mr Chairman. I should point out at this stage,

22 Mr Chairman, I haven't had an opportunity to consult

23 with Inspector McCrum, so I'm working from the

24 Inquiry statement and some papers that I do have. So it is

25 subject to that caveat that I have to consult with

1 Inspector McCrum, and the earliest opportunity is tomorrow

2 afternoon, that I want to ask some questions.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: You mean you are asking to be allowed to

4 postpone your questioning?

5 MR O'CONNOR: No, I'm happy enough to continue and I have

6 some knowledge --

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Let's see how we get on.

8 MR O'CONNOR: You know who Inspector McCrum is?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And he was the inspector on duty that night?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And you were the duty sergeant?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, first of all two constables came to the station

15 around the same time as you were leaving the station to

16 go down to Market Street. Isn't that correct?

17 A. That's correct.

18 Q. And they came really looking for a riot gun?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. That was R/Con Silcock and R/Con Warnock. Is that correct, R/Con Silcock and R/Con Warnock?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Now, you organised the riot gun. Is that correct?

23 A. Sorry, that was R/Con Warnock and Constable Adams.

24 Q. Subject to being corrected, I think it might be R/Con Silcock.

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. It was, yes, Reserve Constable Silcock. So when they arrived,

2 they gave you the impression they needed a riot gun and

3 Inspector McCrum was there with you, you were in the process of

4 heading down to Market Street, as you have said. Is that right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Within his knowledge and his acceptance, if you like,

7 but you went away to organise the riot gun; is that

8 right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And Inspector McCrum was well aware of what you were doing

11 at that stage?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And is it right that he was the senior officer at that

14 stage in the station?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And then if I can take to you a debriefing and some of

17 the questions that were asked him. You briefed the Land

18 Rover unit at ten minutes past 12?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Ten after midnight. And in that sense you were the

21 front line supervisor for the Land Rover crew. Is that

22 correct?

23 A. That's correct, yes.

24 Q. And then if I can bring up on screen page [80942],

25 please, paragraph 15, I will explain to you what that is.

1 This is a statement, an Inquiry statement, from Chief

2 Inspector McMullan. Would you look at your cipher again,

3 please, Sergeant P89? Do you know who that person is?

4 A. Chief Inspector McMullan?

5 Q. Yes.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And do you know who that person is?

8 A. I do, yes.

9 Q. And do you remember that he was the duty chief inspector

10 that evening for the area. Did you know that?

11 A. No.

12 Q. What time did you go off duty at?

13 A. 8 o'clock.

14 Q. About 8 o'clock?

15 A. I think it was 8 o'clock. 8.15 maybe.

16 Q. Inspector McCrum in due course will say that he was the -- I think

17 you will accept that he was a chief inspector at the

18 time?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And he received an early call, and I think the evidence

21 will be that he arrived at Portadown at about 8.30 am in

22 the morning. Do you see the highlighted part of that

23 statement?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. "I have been asked to explain how officers were

1 debriefed before they went off duty. Uniform officers

2 going off duty would have been debriefed by the sergeant

3 or inspector, or maybe both, depending on what took

4 place, how many incidents and how serious it was."

5 Can you see that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Do you agree with that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. "The debriefing could have been anything from the need

10 for written statements, filling in forms and it could

11 have been leaving information. It would have been

12 normal practice where batons were drawn to submit baton

13 reports before going off duty."

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Do you agree with all of that?

16 A. Absolutely, yes.

17 Q. In your case, you had been the briefing officer of the

18 Land Rover crew; isn't that right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And you left the scene before Inspector McCrum, some

21 time between 2.45 and 2.50?

22 A. That's correct.

23 Q. And would it have been fair for Inspector McCrum in the

24 circumstances to have expected you to debrief the Land Rover crew?

25 A. You see, I left the inspector -- I think it was -- as

1 you say, some time between 2.45 and 3 am. It was

2 probably -- yes, it was some time between 2.45 and 3 am

3 I left the inspector on the street.

4 Q. Yes.

5 A. And went off to the hospital --

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. -- to try and establish the nature of the injuries

8 sustained by Robert Hamill.

9 Q. Could I just clarify, it was Inspector McCrum that asked

10 you to do that or do you remember who asked you to do that?

11 A. No, when you say --

12 Q. -- have you a memory?

13 A. I believe it was done on my own initiative. I don't

14 think that the inspector suggested that I go. In fact,

15 I would probably have suggested to him that I'm off to

16 the hospital to see how this guy is.

17 Q. I beg your pardon, so you were heading that way in the

18 full knowledge of Inspector McCrum?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Yes.

21 A. Absolutely.

22 Q. And in terms of the baton report, why would you have

23 reported the drawing out of the batons rather than

24 Inspector McCrum if you weren't debriefing?

25 A. Well, the baton report is not the same as the

1 debriefing. It is not a debriefing.

2 Q. I understand that, but it is part of a debriefing

3 process?

4 A. It could be, but not necessarily.

5 Q. I thought you had agreed with the paragraph from Chief

6 Inspector McMullan in full. Do you see my point?

7 I'm suggesting that that paragraph that you agreed with

8 gives the impression that recording the use of batons

9 is part of the debriefing process?

10 A. It would be normal practice where batons were drawn to

11 submit baton reports giving -- baton reports before

12 going on off duty, but not necessarily at a debriefing,

13 absolutely not necessarily at a debriefing.

14 Q. Not necessarily, but very possibly?

15 A. It is possible, but it is not necessary.

16 Q. Now, you have given evidence that --

17 A. The debriefing should have consisted of everyone, but I

18 was only concerned at that particular time of those --

19 about those that had used their batons. The question

20 had been asked who used their batons and as a result of

21 what I was told, those two individuals' batons were

22 inspected.

23 Q. If I can move on, when you left the scene, you left Market

24 Street, Inspector McCrum was still there; isn't that right?

25 A. To the best of my knowledge. I left Market Street but

1 for how long I don't know. I don't know how long he was

2 there.

3 Q. Did you know that he was the duty inspector not only for

4 Portadown but also for Lurgan and Banbridge?

5 A. He probably was.

6 Q. Yes, that would have been the norm?

7 A. That's the way they normally would work the night duty,

8 yes.

9 Q. And at that stage -- you were at the hospital at about

10 3 o'clock; is that right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And I think the evidence will be that at or about four

13 o'clock he came back to the station to find that you

14 hadn't any information from the hospital; in other

15 words, you couldn't extract any information at the

16 hospital. Would that be fair?

17 A. No, I cannot recollect whether or not I made a radio

18 transmission from the hospital indicating that I had no

19 information to report or whether or not, when I arrived

20 back at the police station at approximately 3.05 or

21 3.10 am -- as to whether or not I communicated that

22 information to the controller. But I'm sure -- I'm sure

23 in my mind that I would have reported to someone that I

24 had no information to report because of what was

25 going on.

1 Q. At what time would that have been about?

2 A. That had to be somewhere between 3 and 3.05/3.06,

3 whenever the -- I brought the guy back to -- the drunk

4 driver back to the station for the process of -- the

5 procedure for drunk driving.

6 Q. I'm just trying to get the timeline --

7 A. I can't be sure, but certainly there would be an entry

8 in the occurrence book to indicate what time I actually

9 came back to the station at, whether I would have

10 entered the station at 3.05, 3.06, 3.07. That should

11 have been recorded in the occurrence book with the

12 suspect.

13 Q. If you were at the hospital in or around three -- is

14 that right?

15 A. I'm assuming it was in or around three, yes.

16 Q. It is only five minutes from --

17 A. It is about five or six, or maybe seven minutes from the

18 hospital.

19 Q. If you had nothing to report and at that stage I

20 understand your evidence to be it wasn't a particularly

21 serious occurrence in your mind -- at that stage?

22 A. I had no idea, absolutely no idea of the seriousness of

23 the injuries sustained by Robert.

24 Q. There would be no reason then for you to give that

25 information to Inspector McCrum until he got back from his

1 other duties in Lurgan and Banbridge; is that fair?

2 A. I can't -- I don't know. I'm assuming that you are

3 suggesting that --

4 Q. Don't worry. Just answer the question, please?

5 A. The inspector wasn't in the station when I got back at

6 five past three.

7 Q. Where was he?

8 A. I don't know.

9 Q. As I understand it, the evidence will be that he was on

10 other duties to do with Lurgan and Banbridge and arrived

11 back at four?

12 A. I don't know, I can't answer that.

13 Q. And at that stage you made it known to him that you

14 couldn't find any information out from the hospital in

15 Craigavon?

16 A. Well, I can't be precise of the time because I was

17 dealing with --

18 Q. Let me put it this way: you certainly would have told

19 him when you saw him -- as soon as you saw him?

20 A. Of course I would.

21 Q. Because the last conversation you had with him was that

22 you were going to the hospital to see about the injured

23 parties?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So when you do see him and if he is right that he

1 arrived back at 4 o'clock, did you know that CID were

2 then called?

3 A. I had no idea.

4 Q. When did you first become aware that CID were then

5 called?

6 A. It was certainly some time after 4.15 am.

7 Q. Now, between 4 and 4.15 am, you were aware that Inspector

8 McCrum contacted the hospital again, telephoned it?

9 A. No.

10 Q. At no stage, is that right?

11 A. No, not between 4 and 4.15 am because I was dealing

12 with -- in another part of the police station -- with

13 the drunk driver.

14 Q. I'll need to find out if you were there when he made the

15 call. You don't remember a call being made in your

16 presence?

17 A. Absolutely not.

18 Q. Because it was only at that stage, between four and the

19 CID being called in, that Inspector McCrum became aware

20 of the seriousness of the assault?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Are you not aware of that?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. You accept that?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Because you were there and you learned that relatively

2 quickly in that 15 minutes?

3 A. Just could you just repeat what you are saying there?

4 Q. Some time between 4 and 4.15, you learned that it became

5 known in the police station about the seriousness of the

6 assault?

7 A. No, I couldn't -- I was in another part of the police

8 station at that time and I wasn't anywhere near the

9 inspector or any other individual apart from the suspect

10 driver, between 4 and 4.15 I definitely would not have

11 been aware of that.

12 Q. You mentioned about 4.15 a gathering of people, and you

13 referred to that as potentially a debriefing. Is that

14 right?

15 A. I'm not sure whether it was at 4.15 or whether it could

16 have been --

17 Q. I think the time used in your evidence already is 4.15?

18 A. You see, the individual that had been processed for the

19 drink driving offence was released at 4.15. That does

20 not necessarily mean he left the station at 4.15. This

21 individual was from somewhere up the northwest and I had

22 to try and find him accommodation or try and organise

23 something for him so he could get home because he

24 couldn't drive his car, and I don't know what time he

25 actually left the station.

1 Q. Subject to correction, I think you made the point that

2 there was something -- a gathering in the communications

3 room about 4.15?

4 A. No, not specifically at that time. It was some time

5 after 4.15, it could have been some time between 4.15

6 and as late as 6 am.

7 Q. But you do remember a gathering of people in the

8 communications room?

9 A. Yes, I do indeed.

10 Q. Were you part of it?

11 A. But I can't remember the precise time.

12 Q. Were you part of it?

13 A. I wasn't part of it. I just walked in on it.

14 Q. I think you give the impression that it was a debriefing

15 of sorts?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. How many people were at that gathering, do you remember?

18 A. Well, Reserve Constable Atkinson was there.

19 Q. Yes.

20 A. And --

21 Q. I asked you about Constable Cooke.

22 A. I can't recall him being there, but it is possible he

23 was there.

24 Q. Can I ask you about Constable Orr?

25 A. I have no recollection of him being there. He quite

1 possibly was there because -- it is quite possible. But

2 I'm only able to recall for sure two individuals, that I

3 examined their batons, but they could well have been

4 there as well.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: You can't really say one way or the other?

6 A. I can definitely say the two individuals because I could

7 record it on the form.

8 MR O'CONNOR: What size was the communications room?

9 A. It is quite a long room. Probably 20 foot by maybe

10 10 feet, maybe larger.

11 Q. Then do you remember the order for the Land Rover crew

12 to be brought back in?

13 A. No.

14 Q. You don't remember that happening?

15 A. No, only by hearsay, only what I picked up on the

16 grapevine.

17 Q. Is that on the grapevine at the time?

18 A. No, afterwards.

19 Q. Do you remember then P39 coming into the station?

20 A. No, I have no recollection of her at all.

21 Q. Do you know who she is?

22 A. I know, her, yes.

23 Q. You are well aware of her?

24 A. Absolutely, yes.

25 Q. She was coming on duty that morning; is that right?

1 A. Yes, I know her. I have no recollection of actually

2 seeing her in the police station.

3 Q. Yes.

4 A. But that's not to say she wasn't there, just ...

5 Q. Do you know who requested the CID?

6 A. I'm assuming it was the inspector.

7 Q. Do you know who gathered the people in the

8 communications room?

9 A. No.

10 MR O'CONNOR: Do you know who organised for the Land Rover

11 crew to be brought back in?

12 A. No, I'm assuming it was either the inspector or the

13 detective constable.

14 Questions by MR ATCHISON

15 MR ATCHISON: Sir, may I ask first of all is your

16 recollection strong of that evening or are you reliant

17 on the statements?

18 A. I'm reliant on the statements in some parts, but I have

19 a recollection of some parts of it -- a very good

20 recollection of some parts and a very vague recollection

21 of other parts of it.

22 Q. Now, would I be right that whenever you attended, you

23 first walked towards the scene about 2 o'clock with the

24 inspector whose name has been ciphered?

25 A. That's correct.

1 Q. And as you made your way down, you then stayed for about

2 45 minutes; would that be correct?

3 A. Before the whole street was cleared?

4 Q. Yes.

5 A. Approximately 45 minutes, yes.

6 Q. So it is fair to say -- and I think you've made it clear

7 you've experience of about 50 or 60 riots in Portadown

8 over the time?

9 A. In Portadown alone, but in the Province, an awful lot

10 more.

11 Q. And, therefore, it would be fair to say that this one

12 dispersed fairly quickly?

13 A. Yes, it did. In fact, sooner than I would have

14 envisaged, yes.

15 Q. Could we infer that the crowd were not that resistant,

16 they were fairly compliant with the police officers?

17 A. Well, initially they were resistant and hostile, but

18 they did move back whenever they were forced back, yes.

19 Q. Particularly when we bear in mind that there were quite

20 a few officers on the ground. This wasn't a case where

21 the mobile support unit had arrived or the tactical

22 support unit as they are known?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Yes. Am I right as well that you said that you believed

25 there were 50 people on the ground?

1 A. Approximately. There could have been more, there could

2 have been 60.

3 Q. Very well.

4 A. There could have been 40.

5 Q. Could you refer you to page [09213]. This is the

6 original statement that you made on 7 May 1997. You see

7 about eight lines down it is recorded:

8 "I observed 30 to 40 youths congregating in the town

9 centre area."

10 And you go on to say:

11 "I assisted the police at the scene to move the

12 larger group."

13 So it would be fair to say there might only have

14 been 30 to 40 persons in the crowd?

15 A. No, there was a lot more. You see, there may have been

16 30 or 40 whenever I arrived, but there was a lot more

17 people became involved, a lot more people became

18 involved, you know. Certainly there was more than 30

19 or 40.

20 Q. Well in any event it is clear -- and I don't want to

21 repeat the evidence to date -- but you didn't have any

22 need to use the riot gun?

23 A. No.

24 Q. And you have already made it clear that you didn't have

25 to threaten to use the riot gun?

1 A. I did not have to threaten to use it, no, I didn't.

2 Q. And, therefore, in relation to Mr Hanvey, you can't say

3 that this was Allister Hanvey?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Do you have an explicit recollection of Reserve

6 Constable Atkinson informing you that this was Mr Hanvey?

7 A. No, that's what I have been saying for a considerable

8 time now. I can't be sure that he referred to this

9 individual as Mr Hanvey or Allister Hanvey or that guy

10 Hanvey. I can't be sure of that.

11 Q. Just to clarify in any event, whoever that individual

12 was, when you pushed them, they moved on?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. They didn't seek to assault you or attack you?

15 A. They did threaten it, but they didn't actually

16 physically assault me.

17 Q. I just wish to be clear about this, sergeant: you

18 perceived that that might happen, but there was no --

19 you haven't documented, I suggest to you, in any of your

20 statements that this individual moved to strike you?

21 A. No, he didn't.

22 Q. Yes. And it is clear that you made your initial

23 notebook entry, there was no reference to a Mr Hanvey or

24 to a female who you say was at the scene?

25 A. Yes, that's correct.

100

1 Q. You then made three statements. Isn't that right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. The notebook was 27 April, the first statement was

4 7 May, a further statement was 15 May and in neither of

5 those did you identify any reference to either Mr Hanvey

6 or to a female who you say --

7 THE CHAIRMAN: We have that point. That has been stressed

8 already by Mr McGrory.

9 MR ATCHISON: Suffice to say it wasn't until 2000 that we

10 see the name Hanvey, and it is clear that that is some

11 three and a half years later and you are referring to

12 a fleeting discussion with Reserve Constable Atkinson.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Yes. And you hadn't documented the name anywhere?

15 A. I hadn't, no.

16 Q. So would it be fair to say that on that occasion in 2000

17 when the name Hanvey was attributed to you, could that

18 name have been suggested to you that day?

19 A. Well, I knew that Mr Hanvey -- back to this martial arts

20 thing and this Tae Kwon Do expert. You know, I'm

21 assuming that if it is the same person.

22 Q. Don't worry about that. The question I'm asking -- sorry,

23 just to be clear -- is it was some three and a half

24 years later. It was a fleeting discussion with Reserve

25 Constable Atkinson that you had not documented previously?

101

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And I'm suggesting to you that you would have been doing

3 very well at that stage to have remembered the name?

4 A. Absolutely, yes, of course.

5 Q. And I'm suggesting to you is it possible or do you

6 assume or would you say, I should ask, that the name was

7 suggested to you on that occasion?

8 A. Possibly.

9 Q. And just to touch upon -- it wasn't -- I believe they

10 are on (inaudible) today, but it is in your signed

11 statement to the Inquiry -- first of all, you are clear

12 in your statement to the Inquiry that it was very noisy

13 on the day?

14 A. Yes, it was indeed.

15 Q. And there was questions put to you in interview that you

16 remark upon a girl who you say was with Mr Hanvey?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Now, again, I have to say to you, sergeant, that was not

19 documented in any of your notebooks or any of your

20 earlier statements?

21 A. That is correct.

22 Q. And, indeed, in the statement in 2000 you said that you

23 had a vague recollection; is that right?

24 A. Of?

25 Q. You said that you had a very vague recollection of the

102

1 incident in relation to a female on that night?

2 A. No, in relation to the girl that was with this person

3 identified to me as the martial arts man, I have a clear

4 recollection of the two of them, the girl and him.

5 Q. Very well. I wonder if we could have page [11084].

6 Now, at the bottom of the page, please, if we carry on

7 over to [11085], it is at the bottom that you say:

8 "There were females in this crowd. I have a vague

9 recollection of him speaking to one of them -- and I

10 should say by "him" you are referring to Reserve

11 Constable Atkinson; isn't that right?

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Forgive me, Mr Atchison. Your question about

13 a girl was in the first place about a girl apparently

14 with the martial arts man.

15 MR ATCHISON: Yes.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Now you seem to have moved.

17 MR ATCHISON: No, sorry, sir, I propose to set the context

18 for that by taking the witness back.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Does the statement show that there are two

20 different girls, this statement?

21 MR ATCHISON: What I propose to put to this witness is that

22 there is no reference in this statement in 2000, which

23 is the first occasion when Mr Hanvey is discussed, there

24 is no reference to the girl being with Mr Hanvey and

25 there is one reference to a girl. And I propose to

103

1 probe that with the witness.

2 If I take you to that, sergeant, you say:

3 "I have a vague recollection of him speaking to one

4 of them who was quite aggressive towards me. All I can

5 say is she was a young woman in her late teens or

6 early 20s."

7 And you are unable to describe her. Certainly in

8 that statement you do not make any suggestion that the

9 female is with Mr Hanvey. Isn't that right?

10 A. I'm just reading the statement, if you will bear with me

11 for a moment. (Pause)

12 Yes, could you put the question to me again?

13 Q. Certainly. At that time you hadn't made any suggestion

14 that the female was with Mr Hanvey?

15 A. No.

16 Q. And in fact, it is only when you came to give your

17 interview to the Inquiry in February 2006 that for the

18 first occasion you suggested that the female was with

19 Mr Hanvey?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Isn't that right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Now, would it be fair to say that your memory didn't

24 improve with time?

25 A. Yes, it would be fair to say that, of course.

104

1 Q. So would it be possible that you have been discussing

2 this case with other persons?

3 A. No, I have a clear recollection of that night --

4 Q. I respectfully say to you --

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Let him finish his answer.

6 MR ATCHISON: Sorry, sir.

7 A. My recollection is that going back -- all I can refer to

8 is the guy, the martial arts guy, who I understand now,

9 today, was Allister Hanvey and he was in the company of

10 a girl that night who I assumed was a girlfriend.

11 Q. But you appreciate, sergeant, that was never recorded in

12 any of your previous statements; it wasn't in your

13 notebook?

14 A. But I'm telling you now that is the case, that is the

15 fact.

16 Q. You didn't volunteer that until some nine years later?

17 A. That's the case, I accept that.

18 Q. May I respectfully say to you nine years -- as today,

19 12 years -- I'm sure that your memory would be largely

20 reliant on your statements, would it not?

21 A. It would be, but that particular incident I have a clear

22 recollection of the girl and Mr Hanvey together.

23 Q. Yet you say --

24 A. Or this martial arts man, if it wasn't Mr Hanvey.

25 Q. You see, in your statement you say:

105

1 "I have a vague recollection of him speaking to one

2 of them."

3 Did you not think if this was the case that it would

4 have been important to record that in that statement at

5 the time?

6 A. It is not in the statement. I can't answer that.

7 Q. After the incident in the town, when you moved, you say,

8 the crowd back with Reserve Constable Atkinson, did you

9 ever discuss the matter with him again after that occasion?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Did you have occasion later on that evening to complete

12 a baton report form with him?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, Mr Underwood I have asked: there is no baton

15 report, to be fair, in the papers before the Inquiry.

16 How do you normally complete a baton report?

17 A. It is a pro forma form.

18 Q. Do you know what happened to the form?

19 A. No. The forms were submitted accordingly to whoever

20 they had to be submitted to.

21 Q. I understand that that report relates to

22 a Rory Robinson?

23 A. Absolutely. I have a clear recollection of completing

24 those baton reports.

25 Q. Whilst clearly I'll have questions for Reserve Constable

106

1 Atkinson, let me be clear that you did not observe any

2 strike on Mr Robinson at any time?

3 A. Absolutely not.

4 MR ATCHISON: Thank you.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Adair?

6 Questions by MR ADAIR.

7 MR ADAIR: May I ask just a few matters, sir? I hope not to

8 be too long.

9 In relation to this man Hanvey, whether or not it is

10 Hanvey that you are talking about, do you know

11 Allister Hanvey?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Can you tell us whether or not you have any reason to in

14 any way protect a person called Allister Hanvey?

15 A. Absolutely not.

16 Q. Can you tell us whether or not the fact that there was

17 a girl with the person we are assuming is

18 Allister Hanvey -- did you regard that as relevant at

19 the time you made your statements in May of 1997?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Are you trying to protect some girl in some way by not

22 mentioning the fact that she was --

23 A. Absolutely not.

24 Q. Do you know Tracey Clarke?

25 A. No.

107

1 Q. Now, you told us that you have been involved in, I

2 think -- correct me if I am wrong -- 50 or 60 riots in

3 the Portadown area. Is that right?

4 A. Yes, over a period of years.

5 Q. How many riot situations have you been in in your police

6 career approximately? I know you will not be able to

7 give us an exact number.

8 A. It could have been anything up to 100. That's

9 throughout the Province.

10 Q. I understand. And during the course of those riots

11 I presume -- or can we take it -- that sometimes people

12 are injured and sometimes people are injured

13 significantly?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Dealing with the first scenario, a riot where someone

16 has been injured, in your experience of those

17 100 riots -- first of all, during the course of those

18 riots are some of them situations where people have been

19 injured?

20 A. Yes, indeed.

21 Q. Can you help us. In those situations where people have

22 been injured but not known to be injured significantly,

23 is there first of all a debriefing?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Has the scene been taped off?

108

1 A. No.

2 Q. And when you say over the Province, have you been

3 involved in riots really Province-wide?

4 A. Absolutely.

5 Q. Can you help us, does that same custom, where there

6 isn't debriefing or a taping off of the scene, is that

7 Province-wide or restricted to certain parts of the

8 Province, or is that everywhere where you have been

9 involved in riots?

10 A. I would say that's everywhere. The only recollection

11 that I ever have of anyone being involved in

12 a debriefing was in Derry City and that's some time ago,

13 where an individual had been shot with a riot -- a baton

14 round and had been seriously injured, critically injured

15 in fact. And I can recall once in my career, in

16 particular when I was attached to an MSU, of ever being

17 debriefed in relation to a riotous situation. And on

18 that particular situation, I have no recollection -- in

19 fact, I would go so far as to say that the area where

20 the individual was struck by the baton round was -- I

21 don't believe it was ever -- the scene was preserved.

22 Q. But there was a debriefing?

23 A. There was a debriefing and it was a big debriefing.

24 There was a large number of individuals, of policemen.

25 It was to ascertain who fired the baton round that

109

1 struck this particular individual, and that was the only

2 occasion that I can bring to recollection over my

3 27 years' service in the police.

4 Q. So apart from trying to find out who had fired the baton

5 round, was there anything else in that debriefing?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Well, if we turn then to a situation really, I suppose,

8 a bit like the one you have described, where it becomes

9 known or it is apparent that there has been

10 a significant injury during the course of a public order

11 or riot situation, have you been at those events over

12 your 27 years of rioting in this Province?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Has there been debriefing in those situations?

15 A. I can't remember any.

16 Sorry for interrupting, there were occasions later

17 on -- probably in the late 80s/early 90s, where the

18 vehicles were fitted with cameras, video, and the units

19 of the policemen were brought in, maybe not on that

20 particular evening, but at some time over the course of

21 a couple of weeks where we would have been shown videos

22 to try and identify some of those rioters that were

23 involved in the riots and the destruction of the

24 property, et cetera.

25 Q. Apart from that scenario, where it seems pretty obvious

110

1 you would want to get identification from the video, in

2 those riot situations where there had been significant

3 injuries, apart from that scenario, have there been

4 debriefings over your 27 years of riots?

5 A. None that I can recollect apart from the one that

6 I mentioned.

7 Q. What about taping off the scene?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Well, if somebody is seriously injured, is the scene

10 not -- I'm asking you, is it the situation that the

11 scene is not taped off if it becomes known that there

12 has been a serious injury?

13 A. If it becomes known that there is a serious injury, yes,

14 the scene will be preserved and should be taped off.

15 Q. I just want to ask you this question: we know -- and I

16 can't remember the exact word you used -- that your

17 statement of 7 May leaves a lot to be desired in terms

18 of what was in it?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And I think you have accepted that in terms. Is that

21 right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Can you help: do you think a debriefing in the sense of

24 sitting down with somebody after this incident, say five

25 o'clock that morning -- would that have helped get

111

1 information out from you, do you think?

2 A. From me personally?

3 Q. Looking back at it now?

4 A. From me personally?

5 Q. Yes.

6 A. All I could have said on the night in question was that

7 in relation to the identification of any individuals at

8 the scene, I couldn't identify anyone at the scene --

9 apart from obviously the police officers -- but the

10 martial arts guy and -- I certainly could have probably

11 said, well, "There was a guy who apparently Reserve

12 Constable Atkinson knows is a martial arts guy. He was at

13 the scene." And that's basically all I could have offered.

14 Q. So from what you are saying then, that potentially would

15 have come out if you had been debriefed, somebody had

16 sat down and gone through the whole incident in some

17 detail with you?

18 A. You know, if I had been asked the specific question, I

19 would have give that answer, but if no one asked me,

20 I honestly don't know whether I would have mentioned it.

21 But having said that, Reserve Constable Atkinson, I

22 understand, was debriefed and Reserve Constable Atkinson was

23 in the position to say to whoever was debriefing him he

24 could have mentioned that when asked -- I wasn't asked at a

25 debriefing, but I can only assume that if I was asked about

112

1 any specific individual, to identify any specific individuals,

2 that the only thing I could have said was that Reserve

3 Constable Atkinson can identify an individual at the scene.

4 Q. Now, the final thing I want to ask you about: you told

5 us about, when you were being asked about your knowledge

6 of people who were being charged and released and so on,

7 that you went off ill some time after April 1997. Was

8 it in 1997 you went off ill?

9 A. I'm not sure, honestly. I'm not sure.

10 Q. How long were you off for approximately?

11 A. Approximately a year.

12 Q. And on your return, did you return to Portadown or did

13 you go to some other police station?

14 A. I went -- I didn't return to Portadown from the -- being

15 on sick. I don't think I did. I'm not 100 per cent

16 sure, but if I did return to Portadown, it was only

17 a matter of days or so.

18 Q. And then where did you go to?

19 A. Newcastle.

20 MR ADAIR: I'm sure the Panel know where Newcastle is.

21 MR UNDERWOOD: Only one Newcastle, not this one.

22 MR ADAIR: How far away is Newcastle from Portadown

23 approximately?

24 A. 40 miles.

25 MR ADAIR: Yes, thanks very much.

113

1 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Underwood?

2 MR UNDERWOOD: I have no questions arising from that, thank

3 you.

4 Further questions by THE CHAIRMAN

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Just a couple of matters. Let's forget about

6 the name of the man with the martial arts ability, how

7 was he behaving?

8 A. Towards me or towards --

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Generally.

10 A. Generally? Hostile.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Hostile?

12 A. Yes.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, did you ever think, "Well, there is

14 a martial arts fellow who was hostile, I wonder if he

15 might be a suspect."

16 A. Never.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: That didn't occur to you?

18 A. No.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: And I see at paragraph 25 of your statement

20 to the Inquiry and a number of your answers to Mr Adair,

21 I think, have been based on that, you say there:

22 "In my experience, scene preservation usually only

23 takes place in circumstances involving a serious

24 assault, murder or attempted murder, and once there is

25 knowledge of the individuals' injuries."

114

1 What happens if a person is in fact seriously

2 injured though it is not known at the time? No

3 debriefing?

4 A. No.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: How does that strike you?

6 A. Unfortunately that's the way things were done generally

7 at the time.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: How does it strike you as a way of doing

9 things?

10 A. In what respect, sir?

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, it seems to let some cases slip through

12 the net, doesn't it? Because by the time you know you

13 have a serious injury, part of the scent may have gone

14 cold?

15 A. Yes, absolutely. I agree with that, yes.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well, thank you.

17 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much. That concludes your

18 evidence.

19 Sir, that concludes the evidence for today. There

20 are two matters. Can I just set out our stall on this?

21 Firstly, there is a matter which you know about, which

22 is that I'm going to ask you whether you now want to

23 deal with the application on behalf of Tracey Clarke to

24 revoke or vary a notice requiring her to give evidence,

25 which notice in fact took effect in January though she

115

1 failed to comply with it. That's a matter I apprehend

2 Mr McComb will ask to be dealt with in chambers.

3 There is another matter, which is that the witness

4 due to be called tomorrow, Reserve Constable Cornett,

5 has an application which, again, needs to be dealt with

6 in chambers. I would apprehend that's somewhat more

7 urgent. There is this complication: that Mr McComb is

8 in some difficulties as of about two minutes ago in any

9 event. And I wonder in those circumstances whether it

10 might be more prudent to put the Tracey Clarke question

11 over to tomorrow morning.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: I think so, yes. I think we will deal with

13 that at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, then.

14 MR UNDERWOOD: That's kind. I, of course, am in my friend's

15 hands -- Mr Adair's hands, that is -- about his

16 application, whether he wants that to be dealt with in

17 the form of chambers hearing that we have got or a more

18 discreet form.

19 MR ADAIR: I would prefer a more discreet chambers, but I

20 don't think it can be finished today because I think in

21 order to complete it, you are probably going to have to

22 hear from the witness, who will not be here until the

23 morning obviously because it is based very much on what

24 she has said, her instructions to me.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: I wonder if a short hearing today may do

116

1 anything to clarify the issue?

2 MR ADAIR: It will crystallise the issue, that's for sure.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Then, we will have a 15-minute break so that

4 the information technology can be reorganised.

5 MR ADAIR: Very well, sir.

6 (5.04 pm)

7 (Short break)

8 (5.20 pm)

9 (In camera)

10 (5.47 pm)

11 (The Inquiry adjourned until 10.00 am the following day)

117

1 I N D E X

2
P89 (sworn) ...................................... 1
3
Questions by MR UNDERWOOD .................... 1
4
Questions by SIR JOHN EVANS .................. 22
5
Questions by THE CHAIRMAN .................... 24
6
Questions by MR McGRORY ...................... 24
7
Questions by MS DINSMORE ..................... 69
8
Questions by MR O'CONNOR ..................... 83
9
Questions by MR ATCHISON ..................... 97
10
Questions by MR ADAIR. ....................... 107
11
Further questions by THE CHAIRMAN ............ 114
12

118

Robert Hamill Inquiry

Witness Timetable

Transcripts

Transcript

Hearing: 24th March 2009, day 32