Transcripts

Return to the list of transcripts

Transcript

Hearing: 30th April 2009, day 42

Click here to download the LiveNote version

- - - - - - - - - -

PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO THE DEATH OF

ROBERT HAMILL

- - - - - - - - - -

Held at:

Interpoint

20-24 York Street

Belfast

on Thursday, 30th April 2009

commencing at 10.30 am

Day 42

1 Thursday, 30 April 2009

2 (10.30 am)

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Underwood?

4 MR UNDERWOOD: The first witness today is Ian Ritchie.

5 MR IAN ALEXANDER RITCHIE (sworn)

6 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD

7 MR UNDERWOOD: Morning, Mr Ritchie.

8 A. Morning.

9 Q. My name is Underwood and I am Counsel to the Inquiry.

10 I have some questions for you. At the end of that,

11 there may be some supplemental questions from others.

12 Can I ask you your full names, please?

13 A. Ian Alexander Ritchie.

14 Q. Could you look at the screen, please, and we will have

15 page [81115] up. This is a document that runs to five

16 pages. I wonder if you would look at it for me briefly

17 as we scroll through the five pages?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Is that your witness statement?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Signed on 7 May 2008?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Are the contents of it true?

24 A. Yes, to my knowledge.

25 Q. I want to ask you a few questions arising out of it.

1 All that I'm interested in, for the sake of the Panel,

2 is a search that you took part in of Elizabeth and

3 Kenneth Hanvey's home on 13 May 1997.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. You deal in the witness statement with how that search

6 was conducted and your role in it.

7 The first question I want to ask is whether you did

8 anything unusual in that search or were aware of anybody

9 else doing anything unusual in that search?

10 A. No, I didn't do anything unusual and wasn't aware of

11 anybody doing anything unusual.

12 Q. We knew that there had been a search on 10 May that

13 apparently was restricted only to one room. Can you

14 recall now whether you knew about that earlier search?

15 A. No, I didn't know about that other search.

16 Q. So for the avoidance of any doubt, you didn't --

17 A. Not to my knowledge of the previous search.

18 Q. Okay. To make it abundantly clear then, it's your

19 evidence, is it, that the search on 13 May wasn't

20 conducted particularly to a high standard (sic) because

21 there had been an abortive earlier search?

22 A. There possibly could have been, but as I say ...

23 Q. Not to your knowledge?

24 A. No.

25 Q. The next thing I want to ask you about is the search

1 packs. Your statement tells us that what you got in

2 a search pack would be the Form 29?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And also a written list of things to search for?

5 A. Possibly, yes. There would be a list and the warrants

6 as well.

7 Q. What I'm interested in at the moment is the lists of

8 things to search for. Casting back to 1997, can you

9 help us with whether it was always the case that a

10 search pack would include a list like that?

11 A. Depending on the search, mostly, yes, there is a list of

12 what you are searching for.

13 Q. Can you give us some idea how many searches you had

14 conducted by May 1997?

15 A. Myself personally?

16 Q. Yes.

17 A. In relation to this or other?

18 Q. Generally.

19 A. Quite a few. I was in the TSG for two years prior to

20 that. So ...

21 Q. Tens or hundreds or what?

22 A. Maybe 15, 20 searches.

23 Q. Okay. Can you help us with this? We know that on

24 another search, not this search --

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. -- there appears to have been no particular idea what

2 clothing might have been relevant to be searched for and

3 grasped, as it were, secured.

4 A. Mm-hm.

5 Q. In those circumstances, what would you expect the search

6 pack to contain, and the briefing to contain, about what

7 to search for?

8 A. You are briefed what you are searching for. You are not

9 going in blindly.

10 Q. Let me be more specific then. We know -- and I say, it

11 is not a search that I'm asking -- sorry, it is not

12 a search that you were concerned with, but we know there

13 was a search where the object was to obtain clothing

14 that might have been worn by a suspect on the night and

15 might have had some DNA of the victim on it.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. In those circumstances, would you expect the search pack

18 to say, "Look for all clothing that might fit"?

19 A. "All male clothing", possibly, "all dark male clothing",

20 or something along those lines.

21 Q. Again, to take that case, where you are looking for

22 clothing that might have some DNA on it, would the

23 searchers themselves look for the DNA? I don't mean the

24 DNA microscopically, I mean look for blood or look for

25 something that might be useful.

1 A. If that was in the brief for the search, that you are

2 looking for bloodstained clothing.

3 Q. Would searchers have been aware that blood stains might

4 not show up visibly to the eye but might show up

5 microscopically?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Let me get this clear then --

8 A. That would be the scientific end of it.

9 Q. Yes. Quite. All I am asking is this: if the searchers

10 knew they were looking for clothing which might have DNA

11 on it, would they have just grabbed anything they could

12 find that might have DNA on it?

13 A. If you are detailed a search for dark male clothing,

14 yes, you would take all dark male clothing.

15 Q. Can you help us with this? We know of course, because

16 we have seen them, that once a search has been

17 completed, the Form 29 version of -- as completed after

18 the search, gets filed somewhere and is kept for records

19 purposes.

20 Do you know what happens, or what did happen in

21 1997, to any lists of things to look for that were

22 included in search packs after the search was concluded?

23 A. No, I'm not aware.

24 Q. Whose responsibility was it to deal with it? The log

25 keeper?

1 A. I am sure it was maybe handed back to CID or the Form 29

2 or whatever.

3 Q. So what physically happened? Was is the log keeper who

4 was responsible for looking after all the paperwork?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Then if we look at paragraph 7 of your witness

7 statement, page [81116], you tell us there:

8 "I recall that we were briefed to search for items

9 of clothing in connection with the murder of

10 Robert Hamill, specifically a silver or grey jacket. We

11 were also instructed to search for signs of burnt

12 clothing. I should have taken a note of these

13 instructions in my notebook, but I just took a mental

14 note of them. Sometimes I do not put these details down

15 in my notebook, but I am definitely sure that I was told

16 this. The period of time between being briefed and

17 going out on the search was not very long, so I can be

18 sure that these were the instructions."

19 I'm not criticising you for not writing it down in

20 your notebook. I'm interested in that last sentence.

21 You can recall being told to look for a silver or

22 grey jacket, you say, because the period of time between

23 being briefed and doing the search wasn't very long.

24 Is that because you, in fact, searched for a silver

25 or grey jacket, or how else does that sentence work?

1 A. From I was briefed until I went out to do the search was

2 a very short period of time.

3 Q. My difficulty is this: you tell us you remember the

4 brief for a silver or grey jacket and you tell us you

5 didn't make a note of it.

6 How is it that your memory is helped by the fact

7 that it was only a short time between being briefed and

8 going on the search?

9 A. It's just that it was a short period of time. You are

10 briefed, you are looking for a silver jacket. You go

11 out, 10, 15 minutes, it is still in your head.

12 Q. So you actually did look for a silver or grey jacket?

13 A. Yes.

14 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much, Mr Ritchie. Those are

15 the questions I have. As I said, other people may have

16 some supplementals.

17 Examination by MR ADAIR

18 MR ADAIR: There are just a couple of things I want to ask

19 you. You are still Constable Ritchie, are you.

20 A. Reserve Constable Ritchie.

21 Q. You carried out two searches that day?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Now, I may have picked this up wrongly, but there was

24 a question put to you, or a suggestion put to you that

25 it was your evidence that the search on 13 May wasn't

1 conducted particularly to a high standard.

2 Now, was the search carried out to a high standard?

3 THE CHAIRMAN: That is not quite accurate. It was not

4 conducted to a higher standard than usual.

5 MR ADAIR: To a high standard. The note I have, sir, if you

6 look at lines 19, 20, 21 and 22 --

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Just a minute.

8 MR ADAIR: Page 2. I have simply quoted from what I am

9 reading.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry if I'm wrong. What page?

11 MR ADAIR: Page 2. Starting at page 1 is probably the best

12 to start at. So you will see I'm simply quoting what

13 the transcript says.

14 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. Just give me the reference again,

15 please?

16 MR ADAIR: It's lines 20, 21 and 22.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Of page?

18 MR ADAIR: Page 2.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes:

20 "... wasn't conducted particularly to a high

21 standard ..."

22 MR ADAIR: All I was doing was quoting the transcript.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Query -- because the transcript hasn't

24 been revised yet, but "particularly to a high standard"

25 suggests whether there was some extra requirement on

1 this day, doesn't it?

2 MR ADAIR: Yes, sir.

3 SIR JOHN EVANS: Is it permissible to ask Mr Underwood what

4 he said?

5 MR UNDERWOOD: I meant to ask whether it was a particularly

6 high standard.

7 MR ADAIR: It does say "particularly". For the moment, I'm

8 dealing just with the transcript. I may deal with what

9 I understand was asked, and it's my recollection as

10 well.

11 What was said to you was:

12 "Question: To make it abundantly clear", this is

13 Mr Underwood speaking to you, "it's your evidence, is

14 it, that the search on 13 May wasn't conducted

15 particularly to a high standard because there had been

16 an abortive earlier search?"

17 Do you remember that being said to you?

18 A. And I said I wasn't sure about that there, about the

19 previous search.

20 Q. What you said was, according to this:

21 "Answer: There possibly could have been, but as

22 I say ..."

23 And then it goes off.

24 All I want to ask you is this: was the search -- and

25 we are dealing at this stage with the first search --

1 carried out to a high standard or not?

2 A. It was -- I always searched to a high standard.

3 Q. Was there --

4 THE CHAIRMAN: The first search?

5 MR ADAIR: The first search, which is the one I understand

6 he is talking about.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: No, he is talking about the second search.

8 MR ADAIR: You are talking about the second search?

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.

10 MR ADAIR: As I said, was the second search carried out to

11 a high standard.

12 A. As I say, I always carry out my searching to a high

13 standard.

14 Q. I may have missed something. Was there anything said to

15 you by anybody prior to carrying out either of these

16 searches, to suggest that they shouldn't be carried out

17 to a high standard?

18 A. Not of my knowledge, no.

19 SIR JOHN EVANS: Do we need to make it clear that he carried

20 out the first search?

21 MR ADAIR: How many searches did you carry out that day?

22 A. Two searches.

23 MR ADAIR: Two. That day?

24 THE CHAIRMAN: That day?

25 A. Yes.

1 THE CHAIRMAN: But you hadn't been involved in the search on

2 the 10th?

3 A. No.

4 MR ADAIR: No. He is not involved at all in the 10th and

5 knows nothing about the 10th.

6 A. No.

7 Q. But you carried out two searches on the 13th?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Had anything been suggested to you by anybody in the

10 briefing prior to either of those searches to suggest

11 that they shouldn't be carried out to a high standard?

12 A. Not that I recall, no.

13 Q. Were they both carried out to a high standard?

14 A. They were both carried out to a high standard.

15 Q. In accordance with your instructions?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Was there anything unusual about --

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Forgive me, when you say "both", which do you

19 mean?

20 MR ADAIR: Both searches.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you mean the 10th or the two searches on

22 the --

23 MR ADAIR: No, the 13th.

24 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Thank you.

25 MR ADAIR: There are two searches carried out on the 13th.

1 The first one is of Kenneth and Elizabeth Hanvey, and

2 the second is of Thomas Hanvey. Isn't that right?

3 A. Yes.

4 SIR JOHN EVANS: I'm still confused, Mr Adair. Forgive me

5 for not grasping it, but I understood the issue here

6 that Mr Underwood was raising was this second search as

7 a result of the first search at the same premises.

8 That's the issue. Not the two searches on the one day.

9 It doesn't say it in the transcript, but my

10 understanding was this was a second search --

11 MR ADAIR: That's right.

12 SIR JOHN EVANS: -- and the issue was whether or not he

13 conducted a very good search as a result of a poor one

14 the first time at that same premises three days earlier.

15 We are confused. Let's --

16 MR ADAIR: I am a bit confused too, because the way it was

17 suggested through me, and -- so we are all ad idem as to

18 the searches, my understanding is that on 10 May there

19 was a search of Elizabeth and Kenneth Hanvey's.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Bedroom?

21 MR ADAIR: The one bedroom, on 10 May, the one we discussed

22 yesterday.

23 Then I think there was another search on 11 May of

24 Thomas Hanvey's. Then there are two further searches on

25 13 May of both Elizabeth and Kenneth Hanvey's and

1 Thomas Hanvey's and those are the searches this officer

2 was dealing with.

3 The impression I got from Mr Underwood's suggestion

4 was -- and maybe I picked this up incorrectly -- the

5 suggestion seems to be this search this man was involved

6 in on the 13th wasn't conducted particularly to a high

7 standard because there had been an abortive earlier

8 search.

9 MR UNDERWOOD: That is entirely my fault, I am sure. What

10 I meant to ask was whether particular care was taken on

11 the search of Kenneth and Elizabeth Hanvey's home on

12 13 May and the reason for the particular care was that

13 the police knew that they had made a bad job of the

14 search on the 10th.

15 MR ADAIR: That makes sense. So for "wasn't", one should

16 read "was"?

17 THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, no one said, "Now, chaps, you

18 have got to make a good job of this one."

19 MR ADAIR: No. It is just the word "wasn't" probably should

20 read "was" for the record, sir. That would -- so if one

21 reads --

22 THE CHAIRMAN: According to this witness's usual high

23 standard.

24 MR ADAIR: To this witness's usual high standard.

25 So the suggestion then is that the search on 13 May

1 was conducted particularly to a high standard because

2 there had been an abortive search earlier and that would

3 make sense.

4 Are we agreed on that? Yes.

5 SIR JOHN EVANS: I don't think it does. I don't think

6 that's still the issue. Is it?

7 Forgive me, Mr Underwood, were you not asking

8 whether or not this second search at Hanvey's parents

9 was conducted at a particularly high standard, simply

10 because of something that had been said to this witness

11 as a result of a supposedly poor search on the 10th?

12 MR UNDERWOOD: That's precisely what I was putting.

13 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: What does seem to be the

14 difference though, is that on this time they were asked

15 to look specifically for burnt clothing or signs of

16 burnt clothing, which hadn't been there in the first

17 search according to our ...

18 MR UNDERWOOD: It looks that way, my Lady, although, of

19 course, the question of what briefing there was for the

20 search on the 10th and exactly what was said remains to

21 be clarified.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you clear now, Mr Adair?

23 MR ADAIR: Were you aware of the search on the 10th?

24 A. I just can't recall at the moment whether I was or not.

25 I may have been, but I can't recall.

1 Q. Was anything said to you, to your recollection, about

2 any earlier abortive search at either of the two houses?

3 A. I can't recall.

4 MR ADAIR: Thank you.

5 Examination by MR McGRORY

6 MR McGRORY: Sir, I have a few more questions about the

7 search on the 13th, if you don't mind.

8 Am I correct in saying that the authority under

9 which this search was permitted was Article 10 of PACE?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. That was your recollection.

12 Indeed, all searches except those under the

13 Emergency Provisions Act would have been conducted

14 under --

15 A. Mostly under PACE, yes.

16 Q. The authority is Article 10, but then under Article 10

17 a warrant is applied for.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. On the warrant normally there is some degree of detail

20 as to what it is that's being sought?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. The searcher would be -- within the pack -- the searcher

23 would be given a copy of the warrant?

24 A. The log keeper usually keeps that. You can access it at

25 any time during the search.

1 Q. Our difficulty is that we -- this point only arose

2 yesterday evening -- we can't find the warrant for

3 13 May. Has anyone shown you the warrant --

4 A. No.

5 Q. -- for 13 May?

6 A. I'm not aware of it.

7 Q. You didn't take a note in your notebook of being

8 specifically asked to look for an item of clothing, ie

9 the silver jacket?

10 A. No.

11 Q. It is just a memory?

12 A. It is a memory, yes.

13 Q. It's not refreshed by looking at any document on which

14 that item of clothing is mentioned?

15 A. Other than the warrant, the document.

16 Q. Yes, but we don't have the warrant.

17 A. No.

18 Q. So your memory has not been refreshed by a document on

19 which the item of clothing is specified?

20 A. Well, presumably there was a warrant at the search.

21 Q. Yes, but that's not the question, sorry. The question

22 is that you are working purely from memory rather

23 than --

24 A. There was a specific item of clothing.

25 Q. Yes, but -- I will ask the question again.

1 Is it the case that you are working purely from

2 memory of what you were told to look for?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Yes. Thank you. You see, you are first asked about

5 this, it would appear, in 2001. I don't think I need to

6 go to the document. Do you remember being asked about

7 this in 2001?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Yes, I think it's -- the name of the officer is in my

10 head, but I can't remember his cipher. It's Officer K.

11 He was a senior officer who was reviewing this case in

12 2001. Do you remember that interview?

13 A. That was the first statement that I made.

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. For the sake of clarity, it's at page [17538]. It's

17 actually Officer J on this one, but I think it's the

18 same investigation. Officer J was maybe working to

19 Officer K.

20 About eight or nine lines down there, you talk about

21 the briefing, the briefing in relation to the clothing:

22 "... specifically mentioned that we were to look for

23 a silver or grey jacket."

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Now, at that time in 2001, were you working from memory,

1 or were you shown any document?

2 A. I honestly can't recall.

3 Q. You just can't recall?

4 A. Well, whether it was from the -- from memory of it.

5 Q. Yes. You see, I'm going to suggest to you I find it odd

6 that you're able to remember now, 12 years later, that you

7 were sent out to look for a silver or grey jacket

8 amongst all of the searches that you have been asked to

9 carry out over the years, that this sticks in your mind.

10 A. That's because I have seen the statements and whatever

11 I have seen in relation to this Inquiry.

12 Q. So when you say today that you were asked to look for

13 a silver or grey jacket, your memory has been refreshed,

14 at least from your 2001 statement?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. In 2001, do you think you were working from a document

17 that was refreshing your memory, or that was pure

18 memory?

19 A. I'm honestly not sure.

20 Q. You are not sure. But in any event, in 2001 at least,

21 that was your memory of what you were asked to do four

22 years earlier?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. In terms of the actual search, you went out to the

25 house. Was there a yard?

1 A. It is a long time ago. There was a bungalow, and I'm

2 not sure whether there was a yard or whether there was

3 just gardens.

4 Q. Were there outhouses?

5 A. Again, I'm not sure on that.

6 Q. You don't remember any of that? You remember being

7 asked for a grey jacket, but you don't remember whether

8 there were outhouses or a yard?

9 A. No, I can't recall.

10 Q. I'm just wondering whether or not you were asked to look

11 for a silver or grey jacket. We have only your memory

12 to go by, haven't we?

13 A. As far as I am aware, that is what I was looking for.

14 Q. In terms of any signs of destroyed clothing --

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. -- have you a memory of being asked to look for any

17 evidence of clothing having been destroyed?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Were you given any information as to how they might have

20 been destroyed?

21 A. I think it was burnt clothing.

22 Q. Do you have a memory of the word "burnt" being

23 mentioned?

24 A. I think so, yes.

25 Q. How would you have looked for signs of burnt clothing?

1 A. Well, obviously you are searching the grounds or you

2 would be looking for remains of charred clothing or

3 whatever --

4 Q. Yes. And --

5 A. -- or in a bin or whatever.

6 Q. And, of course, clothing could have been hidden. Isn't

7 that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. So in order to look for hidden clothing, you would have

10 had to have conducted a fairly thorough search of the

11 whole premises?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. If there were outhouses, would you have looked in them?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And if you had looked in outhouses, would you have taken

16 a record of that?

17 A. I presume so, yes. The log keeper -- it would all be in

18 the Form 29.

19 MR McGRORY: Yes. Thank you very much.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: I wonder whether some of these matters should

21 have been raised with Constable Murphy, because she was

22 in charge or was the log officer.

23 MR UNDERWOOD: She was the log keeper, certainly.

24 THE CHAIRMAN: And would have the warrant.

25 MR UNDERWOOD: We will have Mr McCrumlish, who was the

1 detective constable involved, and who certainly appears

2 to have a degree of recollection of briefing and so on.

3 It may well be, of course, necessary at the end of

4 it to recall Detective Constable Murphy if we don't

5 cover all the bases.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Thank you.

7 Yes, Mr McComb?

8 Examination by MR McCOMB

9 MR McCOMB: I don't know if we can push things a little bit

10 further in terms of your memory. The investigation

11 carried out by K, do you remember the context in which

12 that was taking place?

13 A. Sorry, who is ...

14 Q. You remember in 2001, March 2001 --

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. -- you were being asked about your recollection of the

17 search on the 13th or two searches -- but we are

18 specifically dealing with Kenneth and

19 Elizabeth Hanvey's -- were you aware that the questions

20 that you were being asked formed part of a wider

21 investigation into the --

22 A. I honestly --

23 Q. -- conduct of the police.

24 A. -- wasn't sure why I was being asked to make this

25 further statement.

1 Q. It may or may not help to jog your recall. You don't

2 remember who asked you or being told why you were being

3 asked?

4 A. I just remember being asked to make a further statement

5 in relation to the searches I carried out.

6 Q. A further statement in addition to your original

7 statement?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. In this statement of March 2001, you refer to the

10 duration of the search.

11 A. Mm-hm.

12 Q. It started at -- it lasted for 28 minutes. You have

13 a start time and a finishing time, 11.07 to 11.35.

14 How did you know that? You couldn't have remembered

15 that from memory. You must have been shown some

16 document.

17 A. Remember what, sorry?

18 Q. The beginning and ending --

19 A. The time?

20 Q. Yes.

21 A. I wrote it in my notebook.

22 Q. That was in your notebook?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. There was no other document you referred to --

25 A. No.

1 Q. -- or were referred to by K or anybody else

2 investigating it?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Really, is it -- so far as you can assist at the moment,

5 your memory is really just refreshed from having looked

6 at your statement of March?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. But you don't have really much memory of anything else

9 beyond what was contained in that statement?

10 A. No.

11 MR McCOMB: Thank you very much.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Mallon?

13 Examination by MR MALLON

14 MR MALLON: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

15 In relation to the search pack that you received or

16 you saw, did you ever get a chance to examine any of the

17 documents in it?

18 A. It wouldn't be my place to examine the documents. It

19 was held by the log keeper and you are briefed and you

20 go and you do the search.

21 Q. Can you tell me by whom you were briefed?

22 A. In relation to the search?

23 Q. Yes.

24 A. It was a detective constable.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you mean the log keeper?

1 A. No, no.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Another detective?

3 A. The detective briefed -- initial brief.

4 MR MALLON: Where did that happen?

5 A. At Mahon Road.

6 Q. At Mahon Road.

7 Was the log keeper briefed at the same time it?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And the log keeper --

10 A. Would this be in relation to the first search or the --

11 Q. The search on the 13th. That is probably what you would

12 call the first search?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. The search on the 13th, you were called in, you were

15 briefed and you were given both a verbal briefing and

16 a briefing pack containing --

17 A. Form 29 and whatever, yes.

18 Q. Yes. What you were looking for.

19 Did anybody ever see or hand out to you, "Look, this

20 is what you have got to look for", or was it the verbal

21 briefing you remember?

22 A. As far as I can remember, it was verbal.

23 Q. So it was a verbal briefing and you may not even have

24 seen the documentation?

25 A. Possibly not.

1 Q. So a detective told you to look for a silver jacket?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Specifically, and nothing else?

4 A. I think that was the brief.

5 Q. You weren't, for instance, asked to look for a long,

6 blue Daniel Poole jacket?

7 A. Not that I can recall.

8 Q. It was only the one jacket, a silver jacket?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Were you told why you were to look for it?

11 A. In relation to the murder.

12 Q. Yes, but in relation to -- what was the relationship of

13 this murder --

14 A. I honestly don't think I was briefed on that.

15 Q. You weren't? So all you were told was, "Look, there is

16 an important jacket out there somewhere. Go and look

17 for it. We think it might be in such and such a place"?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. When you were looking for the jacket, you would have

20 gone through then Mr Hanvey's clothing?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Do you remember seeing a blue, long jacket,

23 a Daniel Poole, blue, long jacket?

24 A. It is a long time ago. There are lots of jackets.

25 I can't remember that one in particular. No, I can't,

1 no.

2 Q. You can't?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Were you asked, for instance, to look in any other

5 locations in the house, rather than in his room?

6 A. The whole house was searched.

7 Q. Did Mr Hanvey have brothers?

8 A. I can't recall.

9 Q. Do you know whether you were looking in their clothing

10 as well, if he had brothers?

11 A. I can't recall. Just the house was searched and

12 whatever clothing was in the house, I searched, yes.

13 Q. The whole house, and nothing was found at all?

14 A. No.

15 MR MALLON: Thank you.

16 Examination by MR O'CONNOR

17 MR O'CONNOR: Reserve Constable Ritchie, in relation to the

18 search pack we have been referring to, there's no box or

19 packet with "search pack" written on it?

20 A. No, it would maybe be in a Manila envelope or something

21 like that.

22 Q. Or a plastic bag --

23 A. It could be, or whatever.

24 Q. And the term, sir, have you heard the term "search pack"

25 before?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. You have some experience in searching houses. Isn't

3 that right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. When the briefing that's being referred to, your

6 briefing on 13 May in relation to the Hanvey house

7 search, that briefing was from DC McCrumlish. Is that

8 right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. He was a CID man?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. The searches that you have been on in this type of

13 investigation, is there always a CID man there?

14 A. More or less, yes. Whoever is in the investigation sort

15 of taking --

16 Q. There is a detective usually brought along to the search

17 to supervise the search. Does he supervise the search?

18 A. Not supervise the searchers as such, but just to be on

19 hand if you find anything or whatever.

20 Q. There was mention that he briefed you. Where did he

21 brief you? Do you remember where he briefed you?

22 A. I think it was Mahon Road.

23 Q. Was that before -- that was a police station. Isn't

24 that right?

25 A. Uh-huh.

1 Q. Before you went on the search. Isn't that right?

2 A. Uh-huh.

3 Q. So he would have got his instructions from somewhere?

4 A. Whoever, yes.

5 Q. And just -- I want to bring it back down to the search

6 pack. Did you physically see the search pack on this

7 occasion? Do you remember?

8 A. I don't honestly remember. Form 29, which the log

9 officer had, but --

10 Q. Finally, when you were asked about a list of items, if

11 there was a list -- there wasn't always a list. Is that

12 right? You can be verbally --

13 A. Verbally, or there could have been a list.

14 Q. Even if there was a list, you may not have seen the

15 list?

16 A. It's there at hand if you want to see it.

17 Q. Or you might say to the CID man, "What are we looking

18 for here?"

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. It is as simple as that, and searches come in all shapes

21 and sizes then. It may be that sometimes you would see

22 the list, or you may say to the CID man, "What are we

23 looking for here?" and he'd tell you the --

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. On this occasion, you don't remember if you saw the

1 list?

2 A. I just can't recall.

3 MR O'CONNOR: Thank you.

4 Further examination by MR UNDERWOOD

5 MR UNDERWOOD: We have, in fact, got the search warrant.

6 Now, whether it's on the system that is available to us

7 at the moment or whether it has to be put on, I'm about

8 to find out.

9 Let's see if we can call up [50021]. No. It simply

10 hasn't been put on the system yet. Let me deal with it

11 this way, Officer, because it's not going to be put on

12 the system, I think, while you are here.

13 Both the application for the search warrant and the

14 warrant itself don't mention a silver jacket. They just

15 refer to "clothing".

16 A. Right.

17 Q. Now, does that change your view and your recollection

18 about whether you were in fact looking for a silver or

19 grey jacket?

20 A. That was my knowledge at the time.

21 Q. Again, it was DC McCrumlish who swore out the

22 application for the warrant, and we can ask him about

23 that. But I don't think I can take it any further with

24 Mr Ritchie, unless anyone else thinks ...

25 THE CHAIRMAN: For the purpose of my own note, can I make

1 sure I understand? As far as you were concerned, this

2 was a normal search?

3 A. Yes.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: It was made to a thorough standard because

5 that's the way you conduct a search?

6 A. Yes.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: But you were not told, "You have got to make

8 this one a good search", or something like that?

9 A. Not that I can recollect, no.

10 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much, Mr Ritchie. Thank you

11 for coming.

12 (The witness withdrew)

13 MR UNDERWOOD: Geoffrey Ward, please.

14 MR GEOFFREY WARD (sworn)

15 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD

16 MR UNDERWOOD: Morning, Mr Ward.

17 A. Hello.

18 Q. My name is Underwood and I am Counsel to the Inquiry.

19 I will ask some questions and at the end of that it is

20 possible that others may ask some supplementals. Your

21 full name, please?

22 A. Geoffrey Ward.

23 Q. If you would look at the screen, we will call up page

24 [81235]. This is a three-page document. Would you mind

25 looking at it while I scroll through it quickly?

1 Is that your witness statement?

2 A. Yes, that's correct.

3 Q. Are the contents true?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Thank you. The form of the statement here is that you

6 have produced some exhibits or referred to some exhibits

7 without page numbers. It's not your fault. I just want

8 to identify documents for you to make sure they are the

9 documents you refer to there.

10 Your paragraph 2 on page [81235] refers to

11 statements of 10 May 1997, 13 May 1997, and 7 February 2001.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. I just want to take you to some documents to see whether

14 those are the statements you refer to there.

15 Firstly, can we look at page [09747]? Is that your

16 statement of 10 May?

17 A. That's correct.

18 Q. That's dealing with a search of Mr Hobson's house,

19 I think.

20 A. Yes, that's correct.

21 Q. Then, if we go to [09745], is that another statement of

22 yours, this time of 13 May, dealing with a further

23 search with Reserve Constable Ritchie?

24 A. That's right.

25 Q. And at page [09746], is that your further statement of

1 13 May 1997, to do with a further search?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. Then you refer also to a statement of 7 February 2001.

4 If you could look at page [17540], please. Is that the

5 statement you are referring to?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. Then at paragraph 6 of your statement you refer to -- we

8 don't need to look at it, but you refer to a statement

9 of Mr Ritchie's, which you call GW2. Can I ask you to

10 look at page [17538] please? It is a statement of

11 Mr Ritchie of 30 January 2001.

12 A. Yes, that's correct.

13 Q. Finally on this, you refer in paragraph 8 to a Form 29

14 for the search of Kenneth and Elizabeth Hanvey's house

15 of 13 May. Can I take you to page [50023]?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Thank you very much.

18 Now, we know that there was a search conducted of

19 Kenneth and Elizabeth Hanvey's house, or part of it, on

20 10 May 1997 and that there was a further search of

21 13 May. You weren't concerned with the first search,

22 I don't think. Is that right?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Can you help us about whether you were told, when you

25 were briefed for the 13 May search, that there had been

1 an earlier search?

2 A. I don't believe so, no.

3 Q. Can you tell us whether there was anything particular

4 about the 13 May search: namely, was it conducted to

5 a different standard to the normal standard of

6 searching?

7 A. A search team normally consists of six people. That is

8 a police set standard, basically, a normal size house.

9 On this occasion there was only three members. It

10 was one car crew. Our car crew was sent across to

11 Portadown to liaise with CID and it was just that team

12 that was involved with that search.

13 Q. Did the search suffer as a result of there being fewer

14 people?

15 A. No, there was still a log kept, it was just there was

16 one less search team.

17 Q. So it would just have taken longer, would it?

18 A. Yes. It means you have more rooms to search, whereas

19 two teams obviously can get a house searched quicker.

20 Q. We are particularly interested in whether the object of

21 the search of 13 May was to find a silver or grey

22 jacket, and you deal with this in paragraph 6 of your

23 statement. Can we just have a look at that? It's at

24 page [81236]. If we could highlight paragraph 6:

25 "We were also briefed on 13 May 1997 to search

1 Allister Hanvey's premises. This briefing was by

2 DC Paul McCrumlish and I performed the same role as in

3 the previous search. The other members of the search

4 team were Constables Murphy and Ward,

5 Reserve Constable Ritchie, [another] DC and DC McCrumlish.

6 I do not recall the details of the briefing for that

7 search, but I believe, having read Constable Ritchie's

8 statement, that we were asked to look for a grey or

9 silver jacket but I don't believe we were asked to look

10 for burnt clothing."

11 What's your recollection now of what you were to

12 look for?

13 A. Obviously the -- there was an Article 10 warrant. So

14 what's listed in the warrant was what we were searching

15 for. Obviously I haven't seen the warrant since, but

16 I guess it would be listed on the warrant what it was we

17 were particularly looking for.

18 Q. I can help you there. It just says "clothing"?

19 A. Okay.

20 Q. Does that assist your memory at all?

21 A. Yes, well, once I seen Reserve Constable Ritchie's

22 statement, it became clear that's what we were looking

23 for. Obviously it is a long time ago.

24 On the day, I made a statement. It was a negative

25 statement, a short statement to say we didn't find what

1 they were particularly looking for.

2 Q. But apart from what you take to be correct in

3 Mr Ritchie's statement, you have no recollection

4 yourself about what you were looking for. Is that fair?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Can you help us about the extent of the search? Did it

7 cover the exterior?

8 A. Normally, it's procedure to search a garden. I believe

9 it isn't mentioned on the search log. That might be an

10 oversight. It may be that it wasn't put on. But it's

11 normal to have a look round the outside of the premises,

12 to see there is a shed or a bin, for instance. It's

13 normal practice to do that.

14 It doesn't mention it on the log, as I am sure you

15 are aware, but it is normal practice for the outside to

16 be done at the very end.

17 Q. To be fair to DC Murphy, the log keeper, is the purpose

18 of the log to be clear -- to record, that is -- which

19 officers went in which rooms for the purposes of any

20 complaint that might come up afterwards? Or is --

21 A. Yes, that's the main reason. If money goes missing or

22 someone says you damaged something, it is a damage

23 check, to cover basically who was in the premises and

24 for what reason.

25 Q. So would one necessarily expect a record in the log of

1 searching the outside?

2 A. It really can depend on the log keeper. Some go to more

3 details than others. It is normal practice. As I say,

4 I have done hundreds of searches before and since, and

5 it's quite normal to have a look round the outside, even

6 if it's just a cursory one walk round.

7 Q. Presumably, if you had been asked to look for burnt

8 clothing or clothing that might have been hidden or the

9 subject of some attempted destruction, you would have

10 had a pretty thorough search of the outside, would you?

11 A. Yes. It would be quite significant to find such items.

12 Q. Can you recall the layout of the property? We know that

13 the house was a bungalow, but can you recall whether

14 there were outbuildings?

15 A. I honestly can't at this stage.

16 Q. Again, I wonder if you can help us on a more general

17 question, since you have done hundreds of searches.

18 If you are looking for something as general as

19 clothing -- for example, clothing that may have some DNA

20 evidence on it -- what would you say to the proposition

21 that you would only search one room of a house?

22 A. Well, with clothing, it could be left in a living room

23 or kitchen. It could be hung over a chair. So it may

24 be specifically looking in someone's room, for instance.

25 But obviously, with clothes, it could be in the washing

1 machine, it could be in a dirty linen basket. So you

2 still have to have a look at other rooms.

3 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much. As I said, other people

4 may have some more questions.

5 Examination by MR ADAIR

6 MR ADAIR: Constable Ward, you carried out two searches that

7 day, on 13 May?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. I'm dealing with the first search, so that we are clear.

10 We know that apparently the warrant just says that

11 the search was to be for clothing.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Now, nothing was actually taken from the house?

14 A. No.

15 Q. And obviously there was clothing in the house?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. So does it appear likely that there had been a briefing

18 which had indicated what specific clothing was to be

19 looked for, whereas the warrant simply states clothing?

20 A. Yes. Well, Reserve Constable Ritchie mentions a silver

21 or grey jacket. I have no reason to refute that. That

22 may be what the search was for. I did not personally

23 take a note of what particular clothing they were after,

24 but that would have been the extent of the search for

25 one particular jacket.

1 Q. Yes. I understand that. I think you are basing that

2 really on the fact that Constable Ritchie remembers

3 that. Therefore, it's probably right.

4 But just dealing with your own experience of going

5 out to searches, is it a reasonable scenario that the

6 warrant might say the search is for clothing, but the

7 detective will brief you what specific clothing you are

8 looking for?

9 A. Yes. I have done previous searches where a number of

10 items, 20, 30, 40 items of clothing have been seized

11 where they are not specific.

12 Q. Now, in relation again to the first search, if we look

13 at -- if you could call up page [17540], this is your

14 statement that you made in February 2001.

15 Do you remember -- I'm sure you remember vaguely

16 making it in any event.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Now, if you would highlight the bottom four or five

19 lines, please, do you see about three lines down in that

20 highlighted part you say:

21 "I remember that the area round the house was

22 searched."

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Does that help refresh your memory in relation to what

25 exactly was searched? It looks like in 2001 you did

1 recall that outside the house was searched.

2 A. Yes. As I say, it's normal practice. As I say, it's --

3 our training is inside of the house and then the outside

4 is checked, because normally there's a garden shed or

5 a bin, which is quite important at times.

6 Q. Was there anything unusual about this search which would

7 take it out of the ordinary course of events?

8 A. No. There would be nothing controversial.

9 Q. Now, the only other thing I want to ask you about, the

10 second search that you conducted --

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. -- which was just later on that morning. Again, on the

13 second page of your statement, [17541], you see in the

14 top part that you say:

15 "As before, we conducted a thorough search of the

16 house. I remember that this house was quite small."

17 Do you now actually remember that house?

18 A. Well, I did see the search log, I believe, and there was

19 only two or three rooms, as far as I remember.

20 Q. For the whole house?

21 A. Yes. It wasn't a large premises.

22 Q. At the bottom of that, you say:

23 "I remember that the yard of this house was also

24 searched."

25 Again, is that just in accordance with normal

1 practice?

2 A. Yes.

3 MR ADAIR: Thank you.

4 Examination by MR McGRORY

5 MR McGRORY: Mr Ward, I represent the Hamill family, by the

6 way. I forgot to say that to the last witness.

7 Everything I want to ask has been covered, except

8 one issue. That statement you made on

9 7 February 2001 -- maybe we could have it back up,

10 [17540].

11 We have already heard that within that statement you

12 say you had no recollection of being asked to look for

13 a grey jacket or whatever.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. You are now relying on Constable Ritchie's memory, but

16 can I just ask you about the circumstances in which this

17 statement was made? This is February 2001. Do you

18 remember why you were being spoken to?

19 A. Actually, in February 2001 I was serving overseas with

20 the UN, and I was -- I got a phone call to say, "When

21 you are back in Northern Ireland, could you contact the

22 detectives? They want to come out and record another

23 statement."

24 I had been out of the country since November 1999,

25 so quite a while, so I wasn't aware of what was going on

1 with any investigation.

2 Q. No.

3 A. So they actually came to my house. I was only home for

4 four or five days, and recorded a statement.

5 Q. Did they tell you the purpose for taking the statement?

6 A. It was just to -- again, they brought my previous

7 statements, and the search log, and just to go over --

8 to fill out the statement from what had previous -- it

9 was a negative statement I gave back in -- on the day.

10 So it was just to give more detail to it, as far as

11 I was aware.

12 Q. But did they tell you why they wanted more detail?

13 A. No, they just asked -- they needed to do a further

14 statement.

15 Q. Nobody said to you, "Look, there is an issue here about

16 whether or not this search was properly conducted"?

17 A. No, at that stage it was, "We need a further statement

18 from you".

19 MR McGRORY: Thanks very much.

20 Examination by MR MALLON

21 MR MALLON: Could I ask for page [17541] to be brought up,

22 please? It's the second page of your statement, made in

23 2001. I appear for Robert Atkinson.

24 If I can ask you to look at the third line that has

25 been highlighted there:

1 "Again, no items of clothing were seized as nothing

2 matching the description of the clothing we had been

3 briefed about was found."

4 It seems to indicate that you were briefed about

5 specific clothing. Does that help your memory?

6 A. Not really. Again, we were briefed -- we were searching

7 for outer clothing, as the warrant says. As my search

8 partner, Ian Ritchie, states, it was for a particular

9 jacket. So I have no reason to refute that.

10 So it was a negative statement. We didn't find

11 anything. So we didn't find what we were looking for.

12 Q. Yes, and you can't remember at this time whether it was

13 a silver jacket, you only remember what Mr Ritchie's

14 statement said, and that is the basis upon which you

15 have a memory of the incident?

16 Were you ever asked about a blue Daniel Poole

17 jacket? Can you remember anything being mentioned about

18 a blue jacket?

19 A. No. Well, I can't recall.

20 Q. No. Nothing at all?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Do you have any memory of the search at all? At all?

23 A. Very, very vague. As I say, I have done quite a few

24 since.

25 Q. I know, and it must be confusing as they all run into

1 each other.

2 If you have no specific memory, please indicate

3 this, but, when you went through the house to do the

4 search as part of Team A, did you notice clothing spread

5 about the house or did you go to one specific area?

6 A. I can't recall. As I say, we go to a specific room and

7 then search what's in that room and then move on to

8 whatever allocated room is next.

9 Q. So you would have searched all the bedrooms of the

10 house --

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. -- and right throughout the house?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Including bedrooms that weren't, say -- well, weren't

15 occupied by Allister Hanvey?

16 A. Yes. Exactly --

17 Q. And all the clothing including the clothing of his

18 brothers?

19 A. Yes, every room should be looked at.

20 MR MALLON: Thank you.

21 MR UNDERWOOD: There's nothing arising. Thank you very

22 much.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

24 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much, Mr Ward.

25 (The witness withdrew)

1 MR UNDERWOOD: I'm afraid in the nature of the first few

2 days following the anonymity ruling, we are going to

3 have some gaps between witnesses. We have two other

4 witnesses today, Mr Williamson and Mr McDowell, but,

5 regrettably, they are not due until 1.30 pm and I doubt

6 whether we could reliably say that they could be called

7 before 1.45 pm, to be candid.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: We will adjourn until 1.45 pm.

9 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much.

10 (11.28 am)

11 (The short adjournment)

12 (1.45 pm)

13 MR UNDERWOOD: Before I call the next two witnesses, it

14 might be helpful to deal with the question of warrants.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, please.

16 MR UNDERWOOD: We have now put on our system, I hope, the

17 applications for, and the warrants in respect of, three

18 searches.

19 The first is the search of Mr Hobson's home on

20 10 May 1997; the second is the application for the

21 search of the Allister Hanvey home on the 10th; and the

22 third is the 13 May search at the Hanvey home.

23 In relation to each of those searches, we have the

24 application and the warrant itself.

25 Can I take you first of all to the Hobson one? It's

1 at page [49871]. That is the application.

2 We see that it's an application -- this is the

3 affirmation. It's an application of -- we have got hard

4 copies as well, and the reason we are giving hard copies

5 out is that those lawyers who have been preparing this

6 on machine will not have this on their machines. It's

7 only available to us.

8 It's an application of Dereck Bradley, and he says

9 that he has reasonable grounds to believe:

10 "(a) that a serious arrestable offence has been

11 committed, namely, murder; (b) that there is material which

12 is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself

13 or together with other material) to the investigation of

14 the offence and; (c) the material specified is on premises

15 of Paul Marc Hobson situated at", and it gives his

16 address, and "(d), the material is likely to be relevant

17 evidence ..."

18 There are then some further immaterial matters.

19 This is the same form as is used in all three

20 applications and there is no further specificity in this

21 application in any case than that it is material which

22 is sought.

23 You see if we go over the page to [49872] at (g),

24 towards the top:

25 "I pray a warrant to enable me and my assistants to

1 enter the said premises and search for such material."

2 It's then signed off, as complainant, and then

3 there's this script:

4 "Taken before me on 10th day of May 1997 at

5 Portadown", and it is signed by a JP.

6 Below that there is an authorisation, in this case

7 given by Mr McCrum.

8 Interestingly though -- and this is the case with

9 all of them -- if we go now to page [51322], we see the

10 warrant in relation to this. In the text of it:

11 "Whereas it appears from the application on Oath of

12 Dereck Bradley, a Constable of the RUC of Portadown,

13 that there is reasonable cause to believe that certain

14 articles, namely, trainers and clothing, sought in

15 connection with the offence of murder are on the

16 premises of Paul Marc Hobson, situated at [the address]"

17 then "you and your assistants are, by virtue of

18 Article 10 PACE (NI) 1989, authorised and required to enter and

19 search the said premises for such articles as

20 aforesaid."

21 So somewhere between the application, which itself

22 appears to have been on oath and certified by the

23 Justice as being the entirety of the application, and

24 this warrant, some information must have been given to

25 the Justice to enable him to sign off in particular

1 trainers and clothing.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: My impression from the application, simply

3 from its general format, is that it is probably taken

4 entirely from the Article.

5 MR UNDERWOOD: That may well be right.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: That's why there's no specificity about it.

7 And, for instance, if you look at (f)(i) and (ii), (i)

8 is intended, I think, to deal with a different set of

9 circumstances from (ii), but both are included, which

10 leads me to think that this is simply a quotation direct

11 from the Article.

12 MR UNDERWOOD: Yes. In fact, over the page there is a note

13 "delete inapplicable alternative", but nobody did.

14 THE CHAIRMAN: The magistrate would want some evidence,

15 probably, especially if it was as imprecise as the

16 application that would be, I suspect, the stage at which

17 a reference to the Articles would appear.

18 MR UNDERWOOD: Certainly, if it is of any assistance, in

19 England, at this time, a constable would have turned up

20 in front of a JP and given evidence on oath, but that

21 doesn't appear on the script of it -- this -- as I say,

22 if one goes to the top of the front page, this purports

23 to be the application of Dereck Bradley, who states on

24 oath as follows, and the Justice certifies that that's

25 the evidence he has heard, but he has obviously heard

1 something else.

2 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: What's the significance

3 of the date? Because the second one is dated before the

4 first one. The second is 9 May. The first is 10 May.

5 MR UNDERWOOD: I can't explain that. I hope we don't have

6 to call the Justice to explain why his warrant predated

7 the evidence. Of course, these have been typed up and

8 put on HOLMES. It may just be a simple transcription

9 error. One hopes it is.

10 Then if we look at page [49869], we see the first

11 application for a warrant for the Allister Hanvey

12 premises. That is for the search that took place on

13 10 May.

14 Again, it's Dereck Bradley. Again, it's in exactly

15 the same form. The only difference is that at (c) on

16 page [49869] the name Allister Hanvey and the address

17 are different to what we have just seen.

18 Again, the two contradictory conditions in (f) are

19 retained. Again, it is possible, of course, that is

20 a transcription error onto HOLMES.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Taking these applications on the face of it,

22 it demonstrates, I think, a rather slipshod approach by

23 the police in the way they make these applications.

24 That doesn't mean to say that the grounding of them

25 it slipshod, and obviously, even though an application

1 is made, a magistrate is entitled to ask questions and

2 to hear evidence.

3 MR UNDERWOOD: He is. You might expect that this purporting

4 to be a record of the evidence given in support of

5 a warrant might actually do just that, but it appears

6 not to.

7 Again, one sees at [51350] the warrant itself:

8 "Whereas it appears from the application on

9 affirmation [this time] of Dereck Bradley, a Constable

10 of the RUC of Portadown, that there is reasonable cause

11 to believe that certain articles, namely, trainers and

12 clothing, sought in connection with the offence of

13 murder are on the premises of Allister Hanvey, situated

14 at", giving the address, it there gives the authority

15 under Article 10 of PACE.

16 That one is dated 10 May.

17 Then finally, the 13 May application, or rather the

18 application in relation to the 13 May search for

19 Allister Hanvey is at [50019]. Again, same form. This

20 time it's by Mr McCrumlish, as we know. Again, there is

21 a failure to delete the inapplicable, this time on the

22 second line of the text:

23 "... being a Constable of the RUC of Armagh, who

24 states on Oath/Affirmation ..."

25 Presumably, "oath" is supposed to be oral evidence,

1 "affirmation" is supposed to be in writing.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: No, simply someone affirming as opposed to

3 taking an oath.

4 MR UNDERWOOD: Of course.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: It may be that Mr Wolfe will think it right

6 to give some advice to the police. It may be that this

7 poor practice is no longer followed, but the correct

8 approach.

9 MR WOLFE: I will certainly check that.

10 MR UNDERWOOD: Again, there is no more specificity than at

11 (b) "That there is material."

12 This time, if one looks at [50021], the warrant

13 says:

14 "Whereas it appears from the application on

15 Oath/Affirmation of Paul McCrumlish, a Constable of the

16 RUC ... that there is reasonable cause to believe that

17 certain articles, namely, clothing sought in connection

18 with the offence of murder, are on the premises of

19 Allister Hanvey [blah, blah, blah], you and your

20 assistants are authorised ..."

21 So again, it's obvious in all three of these cases

22 that something else must have been said to the Justice.

23 SIR JOHN EVANS: Could it not be that -- you have already

24 covered the point -- the application is a pre-prepared,

25 genetic -- pro forma application. The material is used.

1 MR UNDERWOOD: Generic, even.

2 SIR JOHN EVANS: That is the word I was looking for. Then,

3 when the warrant is actually completed, that's based

4 upon what has been said by the officer swearing or

5 affirming it to the justice.

6 MR UNDERWOOD: That seems highly likely, sir.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: I suspect the magistrate says what's all this

8 about.

9 MR UNDERWOOD: Yes. Of course, we are going to have

10 Mr Bradley and Mr McCrumlish, so they can tell us, in

11 fact, how it worked, and how, in fact, even the rather

12 vague level of specificity of clothing and trainers got

13 narrowed down in the briefing.

14 On that, it's certainly our understanding that PACE

15 would authorise a constable, in essence, to seize what

16 is specified in the warrant, or, rather, at least seize

17 what he reasonably believes is what's specified in the

18 warrant, and nothing else.

19 So if the warrant is unduly restrictive, such as

20 a black jacket, and they find a silver jacket with blood

21 all over it, they can't seize it lawfully under the

22 warrant. So one would entirely understand how it would

23 be that warrants would be sought and obtained in the

24 vaguest possible terms.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.

1 MR UNDERWOOD: I hope that clears up where we left it this

2 morning.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

4 MR UNDERWOOD: I call Mr Williamson, please.

5 MR ERIC JOHN WILLIAMSON (sworn)

6 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD

7 MR UNDERWOOD: Good afternoon, Mr Williamson.

8 A. Good afternoon.

9 Q. Sorry to have kept you waiting. My name is Underwood

10 and I am Counsel to the Inquiry. I have some questions

11 for you and it may well be that others have some

12 supplemental questions.

13 May I ask your full names, please?

14 A. Eric John Williamson.

15 Q. Thank you. If we have a look at page [81262] there is

16 a document that is a draft version of a statement.

17 Can I just get you to keep your eyes on the screen

18 while we scroll through the seven pages of this?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Is that a statement you have in fact signed now?

21 A. I would have to look at the first page of that draft

22 again, please.

23 Q. Of course.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Thank you. Are the contents true?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Only a few questions for you. What we are interested in

3 is the way in which the early stages of the

4 investigation, which was a GBH investigation, initially

5 were conducted.

6 Can you help us with whether you were made aware of

7 an overall interview strategy?

8 A. No, I don't believe I was. I can't recall at this point

9 in time.

10 Q. Can you help us about whether you were let into --

11 whether there was an arrest strategy?

12 A. Again, I don't believe it was something that I would

13 have been consulted on.

14 Q. We know that the SIO of the murder eventually was

15 Detective Chief Superintendent McBurney. There was

16 a detective chief inspector, a lady we are calling P39,

17 and there was Detective Inspector Irwin.

18 Were they, as it were, keeping themselves to

19 themselves on the overall strategy and just asking

20 detectives, such as you, to go and do specific tasks or

21 what?

22 A. Yes, I believe so. There would have been conferences.

23 They would have asked or detailed what we were expected

24 to do during the course of the day. At the end of the

25 day, what tasks we had achieved, what actions we had

1 been able to complete --

2 Q. Mm-hm.

3 A. -- but, ultimately, their decisions on strategy would

4 have been theirs.

5 Q. Right. You interviewed a number of people -- let me

6 just give you names for the moment. We can look at

7 documents if necessary. Kelly Lavery, Tracy McAlpine,

8 Iain Carville, Stephen Bloomer, Andrew Osborne,

9 Pauline Newell and Christine Henderson. All in relation

10 to attendance at an event at Tracy McAlpine's house.

11 I don't know whether you recall that.

12 A. I do, yes. It was Christopher Henderson, I think, not

13 Christine.

14 Q. My fault. Were you specifically told off to deal with

15 the events of the party?

16 A. My recollection, again at this point in time, is that we

17 were aware that there had been a party, and it was to

18 try and establish where that party was, and who all had,

19 in effect, attended it.

20 I believe we might have had some names, but I think

21 it was up to us to go out and to find out exactly who

22 all attended that party.

23 Q. We have now learned a fair amount about who was there,

24 and the Panel will form its own view about what was

25 discussed there and so on.

1 Can you help us with what your interest in that

2 party and who attended it was?

3 A. We believed that some of the witnesses to the assault,

4 or to the incident earlier on in the town, had attended

5 that party after the event, and it was to try and

6 establish if there was any discussion at that party in

7 respect of the events earlier in the evening.

8 Because, I believe, of the amount of alcohol taken,

9 those events were recalled somewhat hazily by those in

10 attendance.

11 Q. So would this be fair: you thought it might be a useful

12 lead so that one of the attendees at the party might

13 have been able to say, "Oh, Allister Hanvey was there.

14 He was bragging about kicking a Catholic"?

15 A. Exactly, yes.

16 Q. The other matter I want to ask you about is an interview

17 you had with a Mr Johnston. We pick him up from

18 paragraph 10 of your witness statement, page [81263].

19 You say with DC Dickson you saw -- we called

20 John Johnston P45 in this. You say you obtained

21 a statement from him. If you want to look at the

22 statement, we can do.

23 The point about him was his flat was above

24 Jameson's, and he told you what he saw or what he said

25 he saw on the night.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. In fact, can we have a look at it, page [09123]?

3 In the part above the black, he is telling us where

4 he lives and what happened at 1.45. Below the black

5 line, he says:

6 "I thought it to be a disturbance at the pub below

7 me. I got out of bed and went and looked out of the

8 living room window which afforded a view out into

9 Thomas Street and its junction with Market Street. On

10 looking out, initially I saw a number of people (4 or 5)

11 around one person who was lying on the ground. These

12 people appeared to be kicking at the person on the

13 ground. He seemed to be unconscious and lying on his

14 back. He was making no effort to defend or protect

15 himself. There was a racket in the street. It was

16 shouting and screaming, but I couldn't make out what was

17 being said because of the general din. There

18 appeared to be other skirmishes going on as

19 well as this particular incident. There was running

20 about and jostling by quite a few people. I could see

21 a police Land Rover parked over on the other side of

22 Market Street, near the Alliance & Leicester. There

23 were people near it. As the police went towards them,

24 they backed off. There was a general running about and

25 more going on in the direction of St Mark's Church which

1 I couldn't see. A second police vehicle arrived.

2 I think it came with its siren on."

3 He then goes on to talk about a man being taken away

4 by ambulance, and, at the bottom, the final three lines

5 on page [09124]:

6 "The entire incident lasted about half an hour.

7 I do recall something like, when the police were trying

8 to help the man on the ground, some of those around were

9 still trying to kick at him but were pushed away."

10 Now, you tell us in your statement that those final

11 few lines weren't, as it were, put in in a chronological

12 order, it was an afterthought relating to an earlier

13 part of the incident.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Help us, would you, with what you did here? Did you

16 look out of the windows yourself of the flat?

17 A. My recollection is that I did look out of the windows,

18 to see if Mr Johnston could see what he said he would

19 see -- he had seen, sorry.

20 Q. Did you get a reasonable view of the junction from his

21 flat or not?

22 A. My recollection is I believe I did. I believe that

23 certainly I could see, from his flat, down to the

24 junction, and across to the Alliance & Leicester.

25 Q. Now, sadly, we can't get Mr Johnston as a witness. So

1 the Panel is going to have to take the best view it can

2 about what he saw from what you made of this man.

3 Can you help us about him? What sort of a person

4 did he strike you as?

5 A. He was a very reasonable gentleman. He was

6 a businessman in the town. He -- he was somewhat

7 reticent about becoming involved in the investigation

8 because he didn't want to be seen to be taking one side

9 of the community's side against the other.

10 Q. Was that your understanding of it or is that just what

11 he said?

12 A. My recollection is -- it's there, but I honestly believe

13 that he said that. I think it took a little coaxing for

14 him to make a statement.

15 Q. Obviously there is a possibility in anybody giving

16 a statement under circumstances like this that they are

17 in fact trying to assist one side or the other.

18 Did you get the impression, whatever he said about

19 not wanting to assist one side against the other, that

20 he was being straightforward?

21 A. Yes, I did. Yes.

22 Q. Did you press him on identifications?

23 A. I remember a discussion about identification. But

24 because of the time at night and the distances involved,

25 he couldn't help with even what people were wearing.

1 I do not believe I recorded that in his statement,

2 but just that there was a general melee in the street,

3 and he couldn't identify any particular individuals.

4 Q. Was he the first eye-witness you came upon, if you can

5 recall?

6 A. I read my statement briefly before I came here today,

7 and I believe I started -- I only started the

8 investigation that day, and was given a couple of

9 actions to carry out, one of which was to try to see him

10 and another potential witness. I remember calling at

11 his business. It was inappropriate to try and hold him

12 up or take time out then. We arranged to see him later.

13 Whether we spoke to other people in the intervening

14 time, I can't remember, but he was one of the very

15 first, yes.

16 Q. I see. Did you get the impression there would have been

17 any value in trying to get him to look at mug shots or

18 go to an identification parade or anything of that

19 nature?

20 A. From what I can recollect, he didn't have any

21 identification -- anything that he could do to identify

22 people. Then there would have always been the question

23 of identification or recognition, or something.

24 Q. Were you conscious that there had been a complaint

25 against the four in the Land Rover of neglect for not

1 getting out to assist?

2 A. I don't believe I was aware at the beginning of the

3 investigation. I believe I subsequently became aware of

4 it, but I don't believe I was aware at that point in

5 time.

6 Q. So your interview, and the statement-taking of

7 Mr Johnston was completely unaffected by any question

8 about whether he could help on either side of that. Is

9 that fair?

10 A. That's fair, yes.

11 Q. If you could possibly help us with this, please do.

12 Have you any idea whether Mr Johnston knew there had

13 been a complaint against the police in the Land Rover?

14 A. I don't know at all. If I didn't know, I don't believe

15 he would have known.

16 MR UNDERWOOD: No. That's very helpful. Thank you very

17 much. As I suggested, other people may have some more

18 questions for.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you give me the date of the statement?

20 The screen changed before I was able to note it.

21 MR UNDERWOOD: That was at 9 May 1997, sir.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

23 Examination by MR ADAIR

24 MR ADAIR: Now, Mr Williamson, you, at that time, were actually

25 based in Armagh?

1 A. That's correct, sir.

2 Q. Can we take it then that you are drafted in to assist in

3 the investigation in Portadown?

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. As far as we can see from your statement, your first

6 involvement is on 9 May, when you take the statement

7 from Mr Johnston?

8 A. I believe so, yes.

9 Q. So up to that point, you had no involvement, as far as

10 you recollect, in the investigation, either of the

11 grievous bodily harm or the murder?

12 A. I had no involvement prior to that.

13 Q. We know that on the 9th you interviewed, amongst others,

14 Mr Johnston and I think some others as well, as potential

15 witnesses. And then your next involvement is on 10 May,

16 as we can see in paragraph 16, at page number --

17 I unfortunately don't have it. It's paragraph 16 of his

18 Inquiry statement. [81766]. If you could just

19 highlight paragraph 16, please.

20 So we see that on 10 May -- this was the second day

21 of your involvement -- you commenced at Portadown,

22 attended a conference with McBurney, P39 and Irwin, and

23 were detailed to interview Bridgett. Is that right?

24 A. That's correct, yes.

25 Q. You can't recall if arrests were discussed at the

1 evening conference on the previous day, but you had no

2 part in the arrests made on 10 May.

3 After the conference, you were briefed by Irwin

4 regarding interviewing Bridgett and you were given

5 a briefing pack in preparation for the interview?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. So would I be right in saying that you were given

8 everything that you would have expected to get in

9 relation to the interview that you were directed to

10 carry out with Bridgett?

11 A. I believe so, yes. Yes.

12 Q. When you were asked the question, "Were you aware of the

13 overall interview strategy?", would you, as a detective

14 brought in to interview Bridgett, have expected to know

15 of the overall interview strategy that had been decided

16 upon?

17 A. No.

18 Q. In any of the investigations that were carried on at

19 that time?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Again, in the -- having regard to the involvement you

22 had with this investigation, would you have expected to

23 be aware of the overall arrest strategy?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Is that anything to do with you?

1 A. No.

2 Q. Am I right in saying that your involvement thereafter

3 was on the 12th, 20th, and 21st May, if your statement

4 is right?

5 A. I would have to turn to my notebook for the duties, but

6 if you say so.

7 Q. I'm just -- it may be your notebook says more. I'm just

8 going from your Inquiry statement, so don't take it from

9 me.

10 A. I certainly was involved in the investigation. On those

11 dates. Probably in intervening dates as well.

12 Q. Let me ask you this. Were you involved in interviewing

13 any other suspect apart from Bridgett?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Were you then taken off the Inquiry in June to assist in

16 the investigation of a double murder?

17 A. I certainly was involved in an investigation of the

18 double murder in June. I believe I may have been off

19 the inquiry prior to that. Again, I would have to go

20 back to my notebooks of the time.

21 Q. What was the double murder?

22 A. It was the murder of two police officers in Lurgan.

23 MR ADAIR: Yes, thank you.

24 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you help us with your impression? You

25 have been asked about whether or not you expected to be

1 told of the overall investigation strategy or the arrest

2 strategy.

3 Is information of that kind information which is

4 given only on a need-to-know basis?

5 A. Yes, sir. Yes.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: That's in case anyone foolishly says

7 something out of turn and word gets out?

8 A. That's very true, sir.

9 Examination by MR McGRORY

10 MR McGRORY: My name is McGrory, and I represent the family

11 of Robert Hamill, Mr Williamson.

12 Can you look at a photograph of the front of this

13 building. It's [01048]. Do you recognise the building?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. This is the building in which Mr Johnston's flat was

16 located?

17 A. Yes, that's correct.

18 Q. Can you help us as to which one of these flats might

19 have been his?

20 A. I'm sorry, I can't. I was asked by the statement-taker

21 at the time, and I can't. I'm sorry.

22 Q. You can't at all. You see, we have evidence from the

23 occupants of a flat in the middle floor, where you have

24 these windows, the windows between the Jameson sign and

25 the Harp sign on the middle floor.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. So we know it wasn't that flat.

3 A. Okay.

4 Q. But can you help us if it was the higher up one?

5 A. My recollection, now that you have said that it wasn't

6 the middle floor --

7 Q. We know it wasn't the flat that had the windows between

8 the Jameson sign and the Harp sign because they have

9 been previously identified. Now, there could have been

10 another flat on that floor.

11 A. My recollection is that Mr Johnston and another witness

12 that we looked at, or we spoke to, were on the one

13 level. But I have -- that's just an impression that

14 I have.

15 Q. Yes. Okay. Just one other matter, Mr Williamson.

16 You clearly did ask this witness, Mr Johnston, if he

17 could describe people or describe clothing, because you

18 put -- unlike some cases in this case, you put

19 a negative answer down in the statement. So that's

20 helpful. But can you tell us what was your impression

21 of that answer? Did you believe him?

22 A. I did, yes. At this point in time, yes, certainly.

23 I don't think that I had any cause, even then, not to

24 believe him -- to believe him, rather.

25 Q. He was trying to help you?

1 A. Yes. He was somewhat reticent, but I think he genuinely

2 did want to do his duty as a good citizen and help.

3 Q. Of course, he said he had watched it for about half

4 an hour.

5 A. Well, again, my recollection, said that it happened over

6 a period of half an hour, not that he stood watching it

7 for that length of time.

8 Q. But certainly your impression was that this wasn't

9 a fleeting glimpse he had. He had a good look at what

10 was going on?

11 A. I think again -- and it is some 12 years later, but it's

12 only a vague recollection -- that he got up, looked,

13 went back, lay down, but the noise was still going on,

14 got back up and looked again to see that the events were

15 still unfolding.

16 MR McGRORY: Thanks very much.

17 Examination by MR MALLON

18 MR MALLON: I appear for Robert Atkinson with my learned

19 friend.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you approach the microphone a bit?

21 MR MALLON: In relation to the briefing pack that you

22 received, can you remember what it contained?

23 A. Certainly at the time of my interview by the Inquiry

24 statement-taker, I had a chance to look back through the

25 transcript of the interview with Bridgett, and in it

1 I referred to the statements of the police officers and,

2 I believe, partial statements from a civilian witness.

3 So there had to be those --

4 Q. A number of statements?

5 A. I believe so, yes. Three, four statements. I can't

6 honestly recall.

7 Q. So you would have had those statements, but they

8 wouldn't have meant anything to you, unless you could

9 put them into an overall context. Is that right?

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. That overall context was set forward to you by DI Irwin?

12 A. Yes, it was briefed by DI Irwin.

13 Q. On his own or with others?

14 A. I noted in my statement that it was DI Irwin. I can't

15 honestly say. I don't honestly recall.

16 Q. Now, can you remember if he briefed you in fairly

17 general terms or was he specifically looking for any

18 particular information?

19 A. Again, with the lapse of time, I can't recall.

20 Q. Do you know who supplied the name of Mr Johnston, or was

21 he just turned up?

22 A. I believe that there had been house-to-house enquiries

23 conducted in the area some time previously, and that the

24 names of individuals who might have been potential

25 witnesses were identified from those house-to-house

1 enquiry forms or questionnaire forms, and I was given an

2 action to go and see this potential witness.

3 Q. And that was a direction -- was that a HOLMES direction

4 or just a direction from a senior officer?

5 A. No, I would almost certainly say it would have been

6 a HOLMES action, which I would have --

7 Q. Followed?

8 A. -- written up.

9 Q. You went up, not only to take the statement, but you

10 went one step further. You verified that the man could

11 see what he said he saw?

12 A. Yes. Yes.

13 Q. So not only did you take the statement, but you tested

14 it, insofar as you could at that time?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. You were satisfied that what he said he saw, he could

17 have seen?

18 A. Indeed, yes.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: He has told us that.

20 MR MALLON: Yes. And in satisfying yourself of that, did

21 that reflect on your view of the evidence that you had

22 been given, that it actually confirmed it --

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. -- by way of a form of corroboration?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. That, therefore, gave it greater weight?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Now, this gentleman was looking at this on at least one

4 occasion for some time or may have gone back a number of

5 times to look at it.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Was he able to give you any more detail than that which

8 you have recorded in your statement? For instance, the

9 noise?

10 A. Again, with the lapse of time, I can't honestly

11 remember. If he had given me more detail, it probably

12 would have been recorded in the statement. I say

13 probably, but it was his statement.

14 Q. Now, he seems to have put a number of incidents very

15 close in time together. The attack on the prone body

16 and the police intervening seem to have appeared almost

17 simultaneously in his statement?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. When you asked him about that, as I am sure you did, it

20 would appear that those incidents ran very closely

21 together?

22 A. Yes, I believe so.

23 Q. Yes. The evidence he gave was of the police moving from

24 the Land Rover into the crowd and the crowd recoiling

25 from the police?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Did you ask him how many police that he could see?

3 A. No.

4 Q. But there was no other vehicle other than the Land Rover

5 there?

6 A. There was no other vehicle that he saw.

7 Q. Yes. And that those police --

8 A. Sorry, that doesn't mean to say that from his line of

9 view that there could have been other vehicles further

10 up Market Street --

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. -- or down High Street.

13 Q. But there's nothing to say that there were, in fact, any

14 other vehicles by the same token, the absence of any

15 remark is a two-edged sword. It may, in fact, indicate

16 that there was only one vehicle there?

17 A. That's correct.

18 Q. And that may have been the vehicle from which my

19 client --

20 THE CHAIRMAN: This is simply speculative, and you will be

21 able to address, or Ms Dinsmore will be able to address,

22 a submission about that. Not for the witness.

23 MR MALLON: The point that I'm making is that, at that time,

24 the police and the kicking of Mr Hamill appear to be

25 almost simultaneous.

1 A. That's correct. But again, that's the way that they

2 were recorded in the statement.

3 Q. And that's the way that he saw it when he told you?

4 A. That's the way I have recorded the statement.

5 Q. And that's the way that he recorded it to you?

6 A. That's the way he dictated it to me.

7 MR MALLON: Yes. Thank you.

8 Examination by MR O'CONNOR

9 MR O'CONNOR: It was put to you that DI Irwin gave you

10 a briefing pack.

11 A. That's correct, yes.

12 Q. Is there such a thing as a briefing pack?

13 A. I think it consisted of a Manila folder with a number of

14 statements inside it, just purely and simply to be

15 expedient, in that we waited to a point in the interview

16 before we withdrew those statements and put them to the

17 suspect.

18 Also, by the fact that there was again something

19 that he probably had put together, or others had put

20 together on his behalf overnight. Certainly we arrived

21 at 9 o'clock in the morning to Portadown. And there was

22 a briefing then, and it was post that briefing that

23 I was then subsequently briefed about the arrest that

24 had taken place.

25 Q. So you got a bundle of documents?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And you were briefed by DI Irwin and you were given

3 documents during that briefing?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. You are referring to those as a "briefing pack"?

6 A. A "briefing pack" -- sorry, it is my terminology.

7 Q. It's my learned friend's terminology, but you agreed

8 with it. That's my point.

9 A. I think it was maybe words that were in my statement.

10 Q. Your statement says:

11 "I was briefed by DI Irwin and DS Bradley, and we

12 were given actions to work on."

13 A. I am thinking about the interviews.

14 Q. Sorry, you are saying it is in your Hamill statement?

15 A. I believe so.

16 Q. Yes. That is a normal thing then, a "briefing pack" is

17 a normal use of words? Is that your words or words used

18 in investigations generally?

19 A. It would have been the normal terminology at that point

20 in time, I believe. We would have been given statements

21 to -- for us to brief ourselves on prior to going into

22 the interview, so we weren't going in ignorant.

23 Q. I stand corrected in relation to that terminology.

24 My point is, in relation to action sheets and

25 actions, this wasn't furtherance of an action in the

1 HOLMES system. Isn't that right? You were given an

2 action to do and then you were given documents, and --

3 THE CHAIRMAN: You said that. Does anything turn on what

4 you call it, whether you call it a "briefing pack" or

5 what?

6 MR O'CONNOR: No, the point -- I am coming to action sheets,

7 sir. My point was about action sheets. Really, what a

8 "briefing pack", to use this man's terminology --

9 THE CHAIRMAN: The witness has already said, hasn't he, that

10 he had an action sheet?

11 SIR JOHN EVANS: At paragraph 16, he says that he was given

12 a briefing pack by Irwin.

13 MR O'CONNOR: I am asking whether that's his terminology,

14 and he says it's a general terminology, and now I'm

15 asking him what it contains, if it's a standard thing,

16 or if it could be anything.

17 The reason I'm asking the question is because, in

18 relation to actions, various documents and various

19 different briefings are given in relation to different

20 actions, and I represent Michael Irwin.

21 I should make it clear that I represent

22 Michael Irwin, and I am trying to get to -- when you are

23 handed documents in furtherance of an action, that can

24 be any amount of documents. That's up to that

25 inspector --

1 A. That's right.

2 Q. -- or the person in charge of the investigation.

3 A. That's correct, yes.

4 Q. You do that, and you are a detective and you look after

5 that. Is that right?

6 A. That's right. The briefing pack was in relation to --

7 specifically in relation to the interview of the

8 suspect --

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. -- that we were there. It was distinct as opposed to

11 documentation that would accompany an action.

12 Q. It's not -- for number 1, 2 and 3, there aren't things

13 outside of envelopes. It could be anything. It's to

14 help the action, further the action?

15 A. That's correct.

16 Q. Would that be a normal thing to do?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. For DI Irwin to do that, would that be a normal thing to

19 do, in your experience of investigations?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. In this case, for example, there were, as I understand

22 it, 1,400 actions or thereabouts. Would that be a big

23 case or a small case or something in between?

24 A. For an investigation at that time, it probably would

25 have been a large investigation.

1 MR O'CONNOR: Thank you.

2 MR UNDERWOOD: I have no questions arising out of that,

3 thank you very much.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

5 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much indeed.

6 (The witness withdrew)

7 MR UNDERWOOD: Before I call Mr McDowell, I'm asked that

8 there be a break.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Quarter of an hour.

10 (2.33 pm)

11 (A short break)

12 (2.52 pm)

13 MR UNDERWOOD: John McDowell, please.

14 MR JOHN MCDOWELL (sworn)

15 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD

16 MR UNDERWOOD: Good afternoon, Mr McDowell. Could you give

17 us your full names, please?

18 A. John McDowell.

19 Q. If we look at page [80895] on the screen, there is

20 a document that runs to eight pages. If you wouldn't

21 mind looking at it while we go through the screen,

22 I will ask you if it's your statement.

23 Is that your statement?

24 A. It is, yes.

25 Q. Are the contents true?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Thank you. I've got some questions about some of the

3 paragraphs to see whether you could amplify them for me,

4 please. Could you look, first of all, at paragraph 10?

5 It's page [80897]. You say there:

6 "I cannot remember exactly what happened in the

7 early stages of the GBH investigation, but the next

8 logical step would have been to find out who was present

9 at the time of the assault, what they saw, and to try to

10 commit them to a statement of evidence. As a CID

11 inquiry we would have said, 'We need statements from the

12 people who were involved'. However, I was not the one

13 who made the requests for these statements. In fact,

14 later on that day, I recall statements from the

15 uniformed police officers who had been at the incident

16 started to come in. I do not recall the names of any

17 of them. I read them to get a picture of events and for

18 evidential purposes, e.g. to identify people at the scene.

19 I would assume that DCI P39 would also have read these

20 statements."

21 Now, I want to ask you a couple of things about

22 this. First of all, as a detective dealing with

23 a fairly serious crime, as this was at this stage, would

24 you have expected officers at the scene, who may have

25 had important evidence to give, to have drafted their

1 own statements or would they have given statements to

2 detectives?

3 A. Normally to have drafted their own statements.

4 Q. We heard evidence yesterday to the effect that, where

5 that happened, you would then expect, in 1997, an

6 experienced detective to go through those statements

7 with the maker of the statements -- makers of the

8 statements, rather, with a fine-toothed comb to get out

9 of the uniformed officers everything that they knew.

10 What would you say about that proposition?

11 A. If that was practical, yes, but at that time it wasn't

12 practical to do so.

13 Q. Do you mean in 1997 generally, or in respect of this

14 case?

15 A. Well, in respect of this particular case.

16 Q. Why is that?

17 A. Well, the officers weren't available.

18 Q. Let me try to get this clear. There were four officers

19 in the Land Rover and there were some back-up officers.

20 Of those, some were reservists, some were full-time

21 constables. They all gave statements, more or less on

22 the day.

23 Are you saying that none of them was available to be

24 interviewed in relation to it?

25 A. I can't answer that question.

1 Q. So why did you volunteer the information a moment ago

2 then that witnesses weren't available and that's why it

3 wasn't practical to go through them?

4 A. I am assuming they weren't available.

5 Q. Why are you assuming that?

6 A. It's 12 years ago almost to the day. I have no strong

7 recollection of which uniformed officers were on duty at

8 the time I was on duty, and which weren't.

9 Q. Are you worried that I'm going to attack these uniformed

10 officers or somebody else because this wasn't done?

11 A. No.

12 Q. I'm wondering why you are volunteering then the

13 information about something I'm not asking you.

14 Can you help us on this: would you have expected, in

15 a GBH of this sort, reserve constables, who had given

16 statements voluntarily of their own, to have been the

17 subject then of an interview with detectives?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Why not?

20 A. It wasn't normal practice.

21 Q. You have just told us: if it was practical, it would

22 have been done. Which is it?

23 A. Normally police officers would have made their own

24 statements, without any assistance from, say,

25 a detective.

1 THE CHAIRMAN: That's not quite, though, what Mr Underwood

2 has asked you, nor what you answered about.

3 He asked you if you would expect a detective officer

4 then to go through their statements with them, and you

5 said, if it was practical, yes, he would.

6 A. Yes, but usually we would have read the statements and,

7 if we thought there was a good reason to speak to the

8 officer who had made the statement, all steps would have

9 been taken to do that.

10 MR UNDERWOOD: The difficulty with that is if an officer has

11 left something important out of a statement, it's not

12 going to be obvious that he has left it out, is it?

13 A. Maybe, maybe not. Again, are you referring to

14 a particular statement, for example? Like, obviously

15 I have no knowledge of each and every word of any

16 particular statement.

17 Q. At the moment, what I'm trying to do is get a practice.

18 What I was putting to you was a proposition of

19 a witness whom we had yesterday who said that, at least

20 in the case of reservists, either an experienced

21 detective would take the statement from them, if they

22 had anything potentially to give as evidence or as

23 information, or, if the reservists made statements of

24 their own, an experienced detective would then go

25 through with a fine-toothed comb with the reservist, to

1 get out any information he had.

2 What I was asking you about was whether you accepted

3 that.

4 A. Well, I can only answer for myself. Normally,

5 I wouldn't have taken a statement from a fellow police

6 officer. It would have been down to him to make his own

7 statement, unless there was some particular reason for

8 doing so, or I had been directed to do so. But at the

9 time, I wasn't, and, at the time, I had no contact with

10 those particular officers.

11 Q. I'm not criticising you. I'm just trying to get

12 a picture of what's going on.

13 If we look at the final three lines of that

14 paragraph on the screen, you talk about the statements

15 and you say:

16 "I read them to get a picture of events and for

17 evidential purposes, e.g. to identify people at the

18 scene."

19 Now, were you confident that where officers gave

20 statements, they put in these statements every piece of

21 identification evidence they had?

22 A. I would have assumed that that was the case.

23 Q. Did you carry on assuming this after this became

24 a murder?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. In the first part of this paragraph, you say:

2 "I cannot remember exactly what happened in the

3 early stages of the GBH investigation but the next

4 logical step would have been to find out who was present

5 at the time of the assault, what they saw and to try to

6 commit them to a statement of evidence."

7 So in respect of individual witnesses then who were

8 not policemen, you would have gone out and got

9 statements. Is that right?

10 A. Yes, if the identity of witnesses had been made known to

11 us at the time, yes --

12 Q. We know that questionnaires were --

13 A. -- or taken steps to arrange that that be done.

14 Q. Sorry, I didn't mean to speak over you. We know that

15 questionnaires were administered to a number of people.

16 They are called QPFs. Do you recall those?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Can I move on to paragraph 11 of your statement? You

19 are talking here, I think, still in relation to the GBH

20 investigation. You say:

21 "The investigation team considered whether it was

22 appropriate to arrest straight away, but felt it was too

23 early."

24 We know that three people -- that's xxxxxxxxxx,

25 Mr Forbes, and Mr Bridgett -- were arrested on 6 May.

1 Can you help us with why they were arrested then? Why

2 nobody else was arrested at that stage?

3 A. I can only assume that they were arrested because there

4 was evidence or information that connected them to the

5 crime.

6 Q. To tease out this statement of yours:

7 "The investigation team considered whether it was

8 appropriate to arrest straight away but felt it was too

9 early."

10 Do you know why the team felt it was too early,

11 before 6 May, to arrest anybody?

12 A. Again, I can only assume that at that stage we didn't

13 feel that we had the information or evidence necessary

14 to proceed.

15 Q. Do you -- sorry, I just want to try to work out what you

16 remember and what it is you simply were not party to at

17 the time.

18 Were you part of the investigation team that felt it

19 was too early to arrest people, or are you talking there

20 about detective chief inspectors, et cetera?

21 A. Well, I was one of the detectives on duty that day, and

22 there must have been conversation between us about, you

23 know, evidence, information, what the next step was, but

24 obviously I don't remember any of those details, if

25 indeed they exist.

1 Q. Thank you. Then at paragraph 15, if we go over to page

2 [80898], you -- if we could highlight that, you say:

3 "I have been asked whether there was any record kept

4 of the GBH investigation as it went along. I cannot

5 remember precisely but there would usually have been two

6 occurrence books kept. One would have been filled in by

7 the Station Duty Officer and once CID was notified we

8 would have kept our own book. If a reported crime took

9 place there would also be a crime form completed. If it

10 is a serious assault where it is decided that CID should

11 get involved, quite often we would complete the initial

12 crime form, which would have been a 'Form 38'."

13 I just want to try to get a picture of what

14 documentation there would have been. There was a policy

15 book in due course that was opened for the murder. Were

16 you aware of that?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Presumably you would be -- you have dealt with policy

19 books at some stage, I take it. I don't mean in

20 relation to this crime.

21 A. No.

22 Q. Right. Just help us, if you would, with the occurrence

23 books. Would the occurrence books have recorded things

24 like strategy decisions?

25 A. I would say generally no.

1 Q. Were you conscious that officers of the rank of

2 inspector and above kept journals?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Presumably you weren't kept in touch with what was put

5 in journals by the officers who were running this?

6 A. No.

7 Q. If we next look at paragraph 24, that's at page [80900].

8 You say there:

9 "On 10 May 1997, I also appear to have attended two

10 interviews. The first was an interview of Marc Hobson

11 conducted by Detective Constables Honeyford and

12 [another]."

13 You talk there about which page number your

14 statement is at.

15 Then:

16 "The second was the interview of Allister Hanvey

17 conducted by Detective Constable Paul McCrumlish."

18 Again, you give a reference. You go on in the final

19 sentence:

20 "I did not recall those interviews when asked about

21 my involvement in the investigation. However, I accept

22 that I did attend them."

23 Do I take it that you still don't recall those?

24 A. If you are talking about details of what was discussed

25 in the interview, no, I don't.

1 Q. Or how you were briefed for them?

2 A. I don't recall being briefed for them either.

3 Q. Can you help us whether you -- you put it here by

4 saying -- sorry, in this way, that you attended two

5 interviews.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. The first is an interview of Marc Hobson conducted by

8 other constables, and then you go on to say the

9 interview of Allister Hanvey conducted by Detective

10 Constable McCrumlish.

11 So was your role as a notetaker or just

12 an additional officer to safeguard the process?

13 A. I did not take any notes at either or any of those

14 interviews. I was simply present.

15 Q. Right. If we look at page -- before we do, if I take

16 you to a paragraph in your statement, paragraph 16.

17 It's at page [80898]. You say:

18 "When Mr Hamill died and the investigation changed

19 from GBH to murder, the investigation was moved up

20 a gear and the officers in charge decided that they

21 would have to carry out searches and arrests. When it

22 became a murder investigation, Detective Chief

23 Superintendent McBurney, who was the head of CID for the

24 region, took a major interest in the case and started

25 making the decisions. At the same time, an incident

1 room was set up and I became the Exhibits Officer.

2 Thereafter, save for one search and arrest operation, my

3 time was taken up as Exhibits Officer, which included

4 liaising with FSANI."

5 That is the forensic service.

6 If we can now look at page [03743], it's an action

7 record print. If we just take the bottom part of the

8 text, under the date 9 June 1997, you say there:

9 "I liaised with Lawrence Marshall FSANI re

10 examination of clothing and footwear (which includes the

11 above mentioned items). He told me that blood stains

12 had been discovered on a number of clothing items, the

13 most significant being blood of Stacey Bridgett jeans

14 belonging to the deceased."

15 That should be "on ... jeans belonging to the

16 deceased". Then:

17 "A report of Lawrence Marshall's findings so far

18 should arrive with us at some point this week."

19 Was it your task, then, to ensure that the forensic

20 science examinations were conducted and the reports

21 delivered?

22 A. Well, it wasn't up to me to ensure that the forensic

23 science examinations took place. That would have rested

24 with the scientists themselves. It would have been

25 taken that that is what they were going to do once they

1 received items at the lab or had received instructions

2 from the police in relation to what they were looking

3 for.

4 Q. We know it took another four months or so for

5 Mr Marshall to produce his report, and he will tell us,

6 I think, in due course that was because he was

7 overwhelmed with work.

8 Did you have any further dealings with it, in order

9 to chase up the report?

10 A. Not to my recollection, no.

11 Q. What was your position on this in terms of liaison? Did

12 you actively deal with FSANI to get the report, or did

13 you wait for somebody to chase you and then you chased

14 the FSANI --

15 A. My primary role as Exhibits Officer was to receive

16 exhibits from other police officers or other people, to

17 make sure that they were properly bagged and labelled,

18 and recorded, and then I would liaise with my seniors to

19 decide what is the next step in relation for these

20 exhibits. Should some of them be taken to the forensic

21 science laboratory, or should some be returned to the

22 people they were taken from or simply just held in

23 abeyance, as it were?

24 Q. But was anybody else in the RUC liaising with the FSANI

25 in order to get a report, or was it your task?

1 A. It may well have been the case that an action was raised

2 and allocated to another police officer to obtain that

3 report.

4 Q. Okay.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you help me to understand: this is

6 information that you have put into the HOLMES computer,

7 I take it. Is it?

8 "I liaised with Lawrence Marshall," and so on.

9 A. Yes, I would have written a result in the action.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: And that would have gone on to the HOLMES

11 file?

12 A. That is the assumption, yes.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: What would happen to that piece of

14 information once it was on HOLMES, or what action did

15 you take to see whether or not it was circulated?

16 A. Well, once it's submitted to HOLMES, it's up to someone

17 else to make sure that the information is circulated or

18 passed on so someone else can make a decision on it.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: So it wasn't any part of your duty to make

20 sure that got to the right person?

21 A. No. Once I result my action and hand it in, that's the

22 end of the story, as far as I'm concerned. It's down to

23 someone else to decide what the next step should be:

24 should any further actions be raised off the back of

25 this particular action?

1 THE CHAIRMAN: One would think that this information ought,

2 in the normal course, to go to Mr McBurney. If so, that

3 was not your responsibility?

4 A. It may well -- that may well have been the case.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: But it wasn't your responsibility to see that

6 he got it?

7 A. Not necessarily, no. It could well have been

8 a situation where I did say to someone else of a higher

9 rank that, "Here is information about a certain item",

10 but, again, I can't recollect if that ever happened.

11 MR UNDERWOOD: Can I go back then on your role as Exhibits

12 Officer, and take you back to your statement at page

13 [80899], paragraph 17?

14 You say there:

15 "My role as Exhibits Officer meant that I had to

16 ensure exhibits were handled properly. Uniformed

17 personnel and detectives would complete a search and

18 come back with exhibits that they had seized or had been

19 handed to them. I would make sure that they were

20 properly bagged, sealed and labelled."

21 Now, we have been hearing some evidence about some

22 searches, and we know that there would be a log keeper,

23 that there would be search packs, and that the log would

24 be completed by the log keeper and then something

25 happened to the log and other documents afterwards.

1 Can you help us with that? As Exhibits Officer, did

2 you get anything other than anything that was seized in

3 a search? In other words, did the search pack come back

4 to you with the log?

5 A. No.

6 Q. So how could you ensure continuity if you didn't get the

7 log?

8 A. Are you talking about an actual search log?

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. No, I wouldn't have received that. A search log would

11 be treated as a document and it would have been usual

12 practice for that search log, that document, to be

13 handled in to the HOLMES office, and they would register

14 it. It would get a document number. But the Exhibits

15 Officer would never have seen a search record.

16 Q. Right. So imagine I was searching. I have got a search

17 pack. I complete the log and I have found a pair of

18 jeans, which I have seized. I bag and label those

19 jeans, or I want to call those jeans AU1. I give you,

20 as the Exhibits Officer, the jeans, AU1. Is that right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And I give the log to the HOLMES receiver. Is that

23 right?

24 A. Well, yes. The search log goes into the HOLMES office,

25 and the exhibit comes to me, and it has an exhibit label

1 or, if it hasn't, I make sure it's properly bagged and

2 properly labelled.

3 Q. Right.

4 A. The information on the label is -- it will normally be

5 supplied by the officer who took possession or seized

6 the item.

7 Q. So if I make a complete pig's ear of the search, and

8 I only search the letterbox, and take some letters when,

9 in fact, there is a house full of machine guns and other

10 things that I should have searched for, you, as the

11 Exhibits Officer, are never going to know that, are you?

12 A. No, because I have no knowledge of that.

13 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much, Mr McDowell. Those are

14 the only questions I have. As I said, others may have

15 some more questions for you.

16 Examination by MR McGRORY

17 MR McGRORY: I have some questions to ask you, Mr McDowell,

18 on behalf of the Hamill family.

19 Perhaps I could have that paragraph 16 back up on

20 the screen of your statement.

21 It's the first few lines I'm interested in,

22 Mr McDowell. Perhaps you could explain this.

23 "When Mr Hamill died and the investigation changed

24 from GBH to murder, the investigation was moved up

25 a gear and the officers in charge decided that they

1 would have to carry out searches and arrests."

2 Now, that would suggest to me that you are being

3 critical here of the investigation up to that point, and

4 that nobody was looking to arrest anybody until it

5 became a murder.

6 Is that what that means?

7 A. No.

8 Q. What do you mean by --

9 A. Just simply what it said; it moved up a gear.

10 Q. But we have a situation where we have a very serious

11 assault --

12 A. Absolutely, yes.

13 Q. -- at least a GBH, perhaps with intent to endanger life,

14 or intent to do GBH, and that, do you accept, would be

15 an investigation into a very serious crime?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. So why does it have to go up a gear because the victim

18 dies?

19 A. Why does it have to go up a gear?

20 Q. Yes. What wasn't being done in the GBH that needed to

21 be done because it was a murder?

22 A. I have no knowledge of anything not having being done

23 that should have been done prior to becoming a murder

24 investigation.

25 Q. It's just that in using the phrase "move up a gear", it

1 suggests that something extra needed to be done.

2 A. No. That wasn't my thinking at all. It was a figure of

3 speech.

4 Q. It is what you go on to say after that that makes me

5 suggest that, which is that "the officers in charge

6 decided they would have to carry out searches and

7 arrests".

8 It implies that certain searches and arrests maybe

9 that could have been done, weren't done?

10 A. No. That would not have been the case. If there had

11 been information or evidence there pointing the finger

12 at a particular person, or persons, I would have assumed

13 that steps would have been taken to locate those people

14 and arrest them.

15 Q. You see, are you not really suggesting there that,

16 really, once Mr Hamill died, people went, "Oh dear, we

17 had better get the finger out here"?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Well, let's just have a look again at some of the things

20 that were done then in the GBH inquiry.

21 You said in paragraph 10 of your statement, in the

22 very last line, that you read the statements to get

23 a picture of events and for evidential purposes.

24 Statements from the police officers in the Land Rover.

25 A. Well, statements from police officers. I don't

1 recollect whose statements they were.

2 Q. Indeed, in fact there were quite a few. In terms of

3 those who were on the scene, there were the four police

4 officers in the Land Rover. Do you remember that?

5 A. Yes, I remember there had been four police officers in

6 the Land Rover.

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. And other police officers.

9 Q. Indeed. And we have two back-up crews who come in two

10 separate cars. Do you remember that?

11 A. Yes, I have a general recollection of that, yes.

12 Q. You see, I'm suggesting you are a fairly important

13 person in this, because you are one of two CID officers

14 on the job here on the Sunday morning.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. There's DC Keys. Do you remember DC Keys?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. He comes out a few hours before you, in the middle of

19 the night, really.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Do you remember that that was the case?

22 A. Yes, I was told that morning that that had indeed

23 happened.

24 Q. Then you were due on duty around 9.00, but P39 -- do you

25 know who that is --

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. -- rang you and asked you to come in an hour earlier.

3 A. That's correct, yes.

4 Q. So obviously P39, who is the senior officer, felt that

5 two CID people were required fairly early in the day.

6 A. Yes, I would accept that.

7 Q. Well, I'm suggesting that is quite a reasonable thing

8 for P39 to think because there is a lot to be done.

9 A. Given the nature of the incident, yes.

10 Q. Yes, and that one of the jobs that you either took upon

11 yourself to do, or were given, is to have read the

12 statements of those who were there at the time of the

13 incident.

14 A. Yes. I read police statements in relation to the

15 incident.

16 Q. Yes. Can you help us as to whether -- the number of

17 statements that you read?

18 A. Five, six statements.

19 Q. So it would have been more than just the four in the

20 Land Rover?

21 A. I believe so. Again, we are going back a long time, but

22 that may well have been the case, yes.

23 Q. You say in your statement that you assumed that P39 had

24 read them as well?

25 A. Well, I would have expected that to be the case, yes.

1 Q. Yes. Can you tell us for sure whether P39 had read

2 them?

3 A. No, I can't.

4 Q. Of course, the purpose of reading them is for the

5 investigator -- that is you, the detective -- to be able

6 to take a view as to what else needs to be done to catch

7 the people who did this?

8 A. That's part of the process, yes.

9 Q. In other words, what further information you might need?

10 A. Yes, well, we would have been hoping for information

11 that would help.

12 Q. Can you help us if you raised any questions in your mind

13 when you read those statements, when you came on duty,

14 as to what else -- what other information you needed?

15 A. No.

16 Q. You see, we have heard a lot about debriefings, and

17 mechanisms for getting information from those who were

18 on the scene, and Mr Underwood has asked you a little

19 bit about this, but I just want to say to you, I'm not

20 so hung up on the term "debriefing". I want to just try

21 and get from you what processes would have been in place

22 for a detective like you, coming on the scene late, for

23 getting the information that you needed to carry out

24 a proper investigation?

25 A. What do you mean by "processes"?

1 Q. What steps would have been taken to get the information

2 that a detective needed?

3 A. Speaking to people would have been one way.

4 Q. Exactly.

5 A. Speaking to other police officers, if they were

6 available at hand --

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. -- and if we knew who those other police officers were.

9 Speaking to members of the public.

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. They would have been standard processes, as you describe

12 them.

13 Q. Yes.

14 THE CHAIRMAN: If a police officer wasn't available, would

15 you find out when he or she would be on duty?

16 A. Erm, yes.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: You seem a bit hesitant about that.

18 A. Well, if I had been aware of a particular police

19 officer, even a police officer who had been named, that

20 may have had some sort of connection with the incident,

21 it would have been good practice to find out if that

22 police officer is available, and, if not, when, so that

23 we could speak to him or her.

24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

25 MR McGRORY: You see, the four police officers in the

1 Land Rover -- let's deal with them -- they all made

2 statements off their own bat, it would seem, and you

3 were asked about this earlier, and that didn't seem to

4 surprise you. Is that still your evidence?

5 A. Yes. If a police officer is involved in something,

6 quite often he or she sits down and records a statement.

7 Q. But then, fairly quickly afterwards, I'm suggesting to

8 you, you would expect a detective or a senior police

9 officer to review those statements and see if any

10 further information was needed?

11 A. Yes, that would quite often be the case, yes.

12 Q. Because, of course, as a police officer, you will know

13 that someone simply voluntarily writing down or telling

14 what it is they remember seeing isn't perhaps as

15 effective a way to get information as someone teasing it

16 out of them?

17 A. In some cases that would be the case, yes.

18 Q. I'm suggesting to you in any case, no matter how much

19 you want to impart information, how experienced you are,

20 that if there's somebody you are talking to you, sort of

21 saying, "What do you mean by that? Can you tell us

22 a little bit more about that?", or, "What about that

23 person?", that is a better way to get the information.

24 A. Well, some police officers are extremely good at making

25 detailed statements; others are less so.

1 Q. Yes. But will you agree with me at least, Mr McDowell,

2 that it is better to be spoken to in terms of gathering

3 the information than just leaving the person to their

4 own devices?

5 A. Sometimes that's best practice, yes.

6 Q. That's as far as you will go on that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. When you read the statements then, do you remember if it

9 occurred to you that there might be more information

10 that could be teased out of those officers? When you

11 read them.

12 A. I don't remember thinking that. I do remember reading

13 statements and trying to gather information about people

14 who may have been present, descriptions of individuals

15 or any information that may be in those statements which

16 might point at certain individuals being involved in the

17 assault.

18 Q. You see, somebody did, because within about 24 hours or

19 so, a Detective Sergeant Bradley did talk to them again,

20 the Land Rover police.

21 Do you know anything about that?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Do you know who Detective Sergeant Bradley is?

24 A. I do, yes.

25 Q. Was he involved as your superior in this at some point?

1 A. Not initially. He would have been at a later stage.

2 Q. Can you tell us how much later?

3 A. Not specifically, no.

4 Q. You see, we will talk to him about that. But either he,

5 off his own bat, or somebody instructed him to go and

6 speak to his officers on the 28th, the next day and ask

7 further questions, but that wasn't you?

8 A. It certainly wasn't me.

9 Q. Now, you went down to the scene with DC Keys about

10 10 o'clock.

11 A. I think so, yes.

12 Q. Your memory is that it was already cordoned off by then?

13 A. From recollection, yes.

14 Q. You said you were going down to have a look and see what

15 you could learn from the scene?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Can you tell us if you had read those statements before

18 you went down at 10 o'clock?

19 A. No.

20 Q. So when you went down at 10 o'clock, you have only got

21 what DC Keys --

22 THE CHAIRMAN: The answer isn't clear about whether he

23 wasn't able to remember or whether he was saying --

24 MR McGRORY: Sorry. That is my fault.

25 You are saying you can't remember whether or not you

100

1 had read the statements?

2 A. I don't recall statements being available to me at that

3 particular point in time.

4 Q. But anyway, you go down with DC Keys at about

5 10 o'clock?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And you are trying to find out whether or not there is

8 any evidence available at that point?

9 A. Yes, at the scene, yes.

10 Q. Yes. Now, can I just ask you about Scenes of Crimes

11 policy? Would you have expected Scenes of Crimes to

12 have been there by then?

13 A. Bearing in mind the state of the scene, yes. If there

14 had been certain conditions at the scene, yes.

15 Q. You are aware that the incident was at 1.00 am, between

16 1.00 am and 2.00 am?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. You are now there as a second detective at 10 o'clock in

19 the morning.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. As a detective, would it have been your preference that

22 Scenes of Crime had done its business?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. You, in fact, yourself, had a look around the scene.

25 You said you had a look around -- this is paragraph 6,

101

1 just for the sake of completeness.

2 You looked for hard evidence such as blood or any

3 instrument that may have been used in the assault.

4 Do you see that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. You didn't see any blood and you don't remember

7 Detective Constable Keys -- you didn't find anything?

8 A. No. We found nothing, or at least I found nothing.

9 Q. Now, did you go in through the cordon, in order to look

10 for this evidence?

11 A. I think so.

12 Q. Well, you would have been aware, of course, that that's

13 something you ought not to have done, unless you knew

14 that Scenes of Crime had done its business?

15 A. No, we were in a position that we were allowed to go in

16 there and have a look. We had to do that. It's

17 accepted.

18 Q. But who allowed you to go in?

19 A. I don't recall that anyone actually allowed us to go in.

20 Q. Was there a scene log keeper on duty at that time?

21 A. I don't remember.

22 Q. You see, would it not have been important for you to

23 ascertain, when you got there at 10 o'clock, whether or

24 not Scenes of Crime had been and gone, before you went

25 in through the cordon?

102

1 A. Not necessarily, no.

2 Q. Well, you are aware --

3 A. One step doesn't have to precede the other.

4 Q. Sorry, say that again.

5 A. One step doesn't have to precede the other. In other

6 words, it's not obligatory that we have to contact or

7 liaise with the Scenes of Crimes officer before actually

8 going into the scene. It can be the other way round.

9 Q. That is not what I'm getting at, Mr McDowell. What I'm

10 concerned about is -- and I will be clear about this --

11 the risk of contamination of the scene.

12 What I'm suggesting to you is a detective should not

13 walk all over the scene without first ensuring that the

14 Scenes of Crime people haven't done what they need to

15 do.

16 A. No, that wasn't the case on the morning. We went to the

17 scene to have a look.

18 Q. Yes, but you have told us that you crossed the cordon?

19 A. Well, I assume I crossed the cordon. I can't remember

20 exactly.

21 Q. But you were looking for hard evidence such as blood or

22 instruments?

23 A. Yes, that's normal practice.

24 Q. Is that normal practice before Scenes of Crime have even

25 done their business?

103

1 A. I don't know whether Scenes of Crime had been there or

2 hadn't been there, but the assumption is that they had

3 been. I did not appear on or at the scene until

4 approximately 10.00 am that morning, presumably six or

5 seven hours after the actual incident took place. But

6 it would have been a natural assumption that a Scenes of

7 Crime officer had already been there, and, indeed, gone.

8 Q. Isn't the reason --

9 A. And had there been a Scenes of Crime officer there when

10 I arrived, along with Detective Constable Keys, another

11 natural assumption is that we would have spoken to him

12 or her before actually going in there.

13 Q. Did you?

14 A. No, because there was no one there to speak to.

15 Q. So are you just saying you made an assumption that they

16 had been and gone?

17 A. Yes, because I wasn't informed whether or not a Scenes

18 of Crime officer had been there.

19 Q. But should you not have asked?

20 A. It didn't occur to me at the time. It occurred to me

21 that it was more important to have a look at the scene,

22 to familiarise myself with the scene, and if, in the

23 process of doing so, I spotted something which might

24 have been of evidence, I would have taken steps to seize

25 it.

104

1 Q. You are aware, of course, of the reason for caution

2 being required?

3 A. Absolutely, and I was very cautious that morning.

4 Q. It's just that there was a Scenes of Crime officer,

5 a Mr Ardis.

6 Does the name mean anything to you?

7 A. Yes, I know that gentleman.

8 Q. Can you remember if he was there when you arrived?

9 A. No, I don't recall Mr Ardis being present when

10 I arrived.

11 Q. Because we will hear from him, but he says he got there

12 around about 10.00?

13 A. He may well have done so, but I don't recall him being

14 there.

15 MR McGRORY: If you will allow me one moment. No, I have

16 nothing further.

17 Examination by MR MALLON

18 MR MALLON: With your permission, Mr Chairman, I appear for

19 Robert Atkinson.

20 Just to deal with the point that my learned friend

21 made just a moment ago, you went down to the scene, you

22 didn't check to see if SOCO were there, and just one

23 other thing: did you suit up before you went down?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Why not?

105

1 A. Because we didn't have suits in those days.

2 Q. No suits?

3 A. No suits.

4 Q. No procedures for preserving the scene of the crime --

5 A. We didn't --

6 Q. -- from your own personal contamination?

7 A. We didn't have suits in those days.

8 Q. What else did you do to preserve the scene?

9 A. Preserve it?

10 Q. Mm-hm.

11 A. How do you mean "preserve" it?

12 Q. Preserve it from any interference and leave it as it was

13 so that it could be properly mapped and examined by

14 a professional?

15 A. That wouldn't have been my responsibility to preserve

16 the scene. If there is a scene in place, there is

17 a scene log officer, and there are other uniformed

18 officers of a higher rank usually, but if there's any

19 preservation to be done, it's down to them to make sure

20 that the procedures are followed properly. A scene log

21 officer, for example, notes the name, rank and number of

22 someone going in, the time that person goes in, and the

23 time that person comes out. So that's part of the

24 preservation process.

25 Q. Yes. Tell me, insofar as the chain of command and the

106

1 rank goes at this scene, you were below Detective

2 Inspector Irwin, were you?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Above him was P39, and above her,

5 McBurney.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Now, were you included in all policy matters, or were

8 you excluded from policy decisions?

9 A. I would have had nothing to do with policy matters or

10 decisions.

11 Q. So if we look at it then, your role was principally as

12 an investigator at their direction, and also, as

13 a subsection of that, you would also have been

14 an Exhibits Officer?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Being an Exhibits Officer wouldn't have stopped you, for

17 instance, taking out or being involved in investigatory

18 procedures?

19 A. Yes, if I had been detailed to do so.

20 Q. Yes.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Mallon, at the moment I don't quite see

22 how this impacts on Mr Atkinson's case. Can you

23 enlighten me, please?

24 MR MALLON: Yes. What I'm trying to do is to establish what

25 this man's duties are, because I have a certain document

107

1 that I will put to him eventually, and I am going to put

2 to him that in normal investigatory work, and in this

3 work, he was much more than he has indicated in his

4 evidence as an Exhibits Officer.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you can come to it fairly quickly,

6 then.

7 MR MALLON: Yes.

8 You have indicated that most of your duties and most

9 of your statements record exhibits coming in or out, but

10 any administrator could do that. That is an

11 administrative procedure. Simply checking coming in,

12 checking the documents, checking that the person gives

13 them, checking that the chain of evidence continues. It

14 doesn't require to be a detective to do that. You are

15 a detective involved in a murder investigation.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: How many questions is this going to be? Can

17 we have one question at a time, please, and preferably

18 a short one?

19 MR MALLON: Were you involved in more than simply exhibits?

20 A. Yes, initially, yes.

21 Q. Were you involved in this matter going right through to

22 Mr Atkinson's involvement?

23 A. It depends what point in time -- Mr Atkinson -- his

24 involvement.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Did you have anything to do with

108

1 Mr Atkinson's involvement or possible involvement?

2 A. Directly, no.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.

4 MR MALLON: What about Mrs McKee?

5 A. Mrs?

6 Q. McKee.

7 A. McKee?

8 Q. Andrea McKee?

9 A. I have no recollection.

10 Q. Not involved in any way with her?

11 A. I don't remember her.

12 Q. Right. Were you involved in her court case?

13 A. I don't remember.

14 Q. Could you look at document [37547], please? That is

15 a document to yourself, Detective Sergeant McDowell. Is

16 that you?

17 A. No, I'm not a detective sergeant.

18 Q. Oh, right. That's not involved with you?

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I think that puts an end, doesn't it,

20 to your question?

21 MR MALLON: It does.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. Pity you didn't notice that,

23 Mr Mallon, but never mind.

24 MR MALLON: This document is dated 7/3/2001, and I wondered

25 if he, in fact, had advanced in rank. That is where the

109

1 mistake has been made.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: That's something which could have been

3 established much earlier. Moreover, it's quite apparent

4 from this witness's statement that he never was

5 a detective sergeant. Let's get on then with someone

6 else.

7 MR MALLON: The document was lodged under his name in my

8 computer.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: It shouldn't have been.

10 Yes, Mr Berry?

11 Examination by MR BERRY

12 MR BERRY: Mr McDowell, I just want to clarify that last

13 point. I take it you know a Detective

14 Sergeant McDowell.

15 A. I do, yes.

16 Q. I think it is familiar to a lot of us in the case, that

17 he would have been based primarily in Lurgan. That

18 person does exist. I'm not sure if he is anonymised or

19 not. Is it Wenford McDowell?

20 A. Yes.

21 MR BERRY: Thank you.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Adair? I should jump in now if

23 I were you.

24 Examination by MR ADAIR

25 MR ADAIR: Just a couple of matters I want to ask you about,

110

1 Mr McDowell.

2 Have you any recollection in relation to potential

3 arrests in the early part of the GBH investigation as to

4 whether there was a delay because of an administrative

5 matter? Can you remember anything about that?

6 A. No.

7 Q. How many interview rooms were there available to

8 detectives in J Division?

9 A. In J Division? I can't remember the specific number of

10 interview rooms in each particular station within the

11 division, but probably half a dozen anyway.

12 Q. Right. Well, I think the Inquiry will hear evidence in

13 due course that there were a number of arrests of,

14 I think, five people for a serious arson charge, and the

15 evidence will be that led to a delay in the arrests in

16 relation to this case for a period of days.

17 Have you any recollection of that?

18 A. No. No.

19 Q. The only other thing I want to just ask you -- well, two

20 other things, as once again -- you were asked about

21 being involved in interviews in relation to both Hanvey

22 and Hobson. Do you remember that?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Were you actually -- I think the Inquiry are maybe aware

25 of this already. Were you actually an interviewer or

111

1 did you enter those rooms as an Exhibits Officer and

2 show people items of clothing and take a note as to

3 their response?

4 A. My recollection is of the latter; entering as

5 an Exhibits Officer and showing items to the prisoners.

6 Q. I'm not going to go through the details of it. You will

7 find it, sir, and members of the Panel, at pages 09699

8 and 09703, and you will find that he was in one of the

9 interviews for four minutes and the other for five

10 minutes.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

12 MR ADAIR: Thank you. Just one final thing -- I withdraw my

13 thank you for a moment.

14 The final thing I want to ask you about was: do you

15 remember being asked about the expression you used,

16 "stepping up a gear"?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. When this became a murder investigation, as opposed to

19 a GBH investigation, was there an incident control room

20 set up?

21 A. I believe so, yes.

22 Q. Was Superintendent McBurney brought in?

23 A. Yes, he took charge.

24 Q. Were five additional detectives brought in?

25 A. A number of additional detectives were certainly brought

112

1 in, yes.

2 MR ADAIR: Thank you.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Underwood?

4 MR UNDERWOOD: I have nothing arising out of that, thank

5 you.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

7 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: You are free now to go.

9 (The witness withdrew)

10 MR UNDERWOOD: I'm loath to break with this week's

11 tradition of sitting until 5.30, but that does conclude

12 the evidence for today.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

14 MR UNDERWOOD: Tomorrow morning we have Detective Chief

15 Inspector P39, who may take some time, and then,

16 slated for the afternoon, a witness we are calling G,

17 who probably won't take very long.

18 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we had better sit at 10 o'clock.

19 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much.

20 (3.45 pm)

21 (The hearing adjourned until 10.00 am on Friday, 1 May 2009)

113

1 INDEX

2 PAGE

3 MR IAN ALEXANDER RITCHIE (sworn) ................. 1

5 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD ............... 1

7 Examination by MR ADAIR ................... 7

9 Examination by MR McGRORY ................. 15

11 Examination by MR McCOMB .................. 21

13 Examination by MR MALLON .................. 23

15 Examination by MR O'CONNOR ................ 26

17 Further examination by MR UNDERWOOD ....... 29

19 MR GEOFFREY WARD (sworn) ......................... 30

21 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD ............... 30

23 Examination by MR ADAIR ................... 37

25 Examination by MR McGRORY ................. 40

114

2 Examination by MR MALLON .................. 41

4 MR ERIC JOHN WILLIAMSON (sworn) .................. 52

6 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD ............... 52

8 Examination by MR ADAIR ................... 60

10 Examination by MR McGRORY ................. 64

12 Examination by MR MALLON .................. 66

14 Examination by MR O'CONNOR ................ 71

16 MR JOHN MCDOWELL (sworn) ......................... 75

18 Examination by MR UNDERWOOD ............... 75

20 Examination by MR McGRORY ................. 91

22 Examination by MR MALLON .................. 105

24 Examination by MR BERRY ................... 110

115

1 Examination by MR ADAIR ................... 110

116

Robert Hamill Inquiry

Witness Timetable

Transcripts

Transcript

Hearing: 30th April 2009, day 42