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