Transcripts
Return to the list of transcripts
Transcript
Hearing: 6th May 2009, day 45
Click here to download the LiveNote version
- - - - - - - - - -
PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO THE DEATH OF
ROBERT HAMILL
- - - - - - - - - -
Held at:
Interpoint
20-24 York Street
Belfast
on Wednesday, 6th May 2009
commencing at 10.30 am
Day 45
1 Wednesday, 6th May 2009
2 (10.30 am)
3 MR UNDERWOOD: Good morning. Can I call Witness G, please?
4 WITNESS G (sworn)
5 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD
6 MR UNDERWOOD: Good morning.
7 A. Good morning.
8 Q. My name is Underwood. I am Counsel to the Inquiry. It
9 is my job to ask most of the questions. After that,
10 though, other people may have some supplemental
11 questions for you.
12 We are calling you G, so I am not going to ask you
13 your full names. Can I get you to look at a document on
14 the screen and ask you if it is your statement? It
15 starts at page [81638]. Perhaps I can ask you to keep
16 your eyes on it while we scroll through to [81645]. Is
17 that your witness statement?
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 Q. Are the contents of it true?
20 A. Yes, they are.
21 Q. Thank you. I have some questions I want to ask you to,
22 as it were, put flesh on the bones of some of it.
23 If we go to page [81641], at paragraph 12 you say:
24 "There is one conversation during the course of our
25 duties that I can readily remember, without needing to
1
1 be reminded. I cannot remember the date of this
2 conversation, but I am now informed that it was on
3 9th May 1997. Reserve Constable", that's McCaw under
4 that P20 cipher, "and I were at Mr Jameson's house, the
5 one to which he had moved after splitting up from his
6 wife. We had brought him back to change for an event
7 that he was attending that evening. I cannot remember
8 the time of day, but I would guess that it was after
9 lunch. Timothy was staying with his father at that
10 time."
11 You go on to recount then in the next paragraph what
12 it was that Timothy Jameson told you.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What I want to ask you about is how clear your
15 recollection of that is now.
16 A. It's quite clear.
17 Q. We know that you acted on it, because you went with
18 Mr McCaw and took the information that you heard to
19 detectives?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You have obviously given a statement or two about this.
22 You have now experience of being interviewed about it by
23 the Inquiry and I think by DCI K, or at least detectives
24 acting with DCI K, in about 2001.
25 You are clear now, are you, that this is
2
1 an uninfected recollection, despite all of that
2 interviewing process?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. If we go down then to paragraph 13, you tell us there
5 what was said, but can I ask you now from your own
6 recollection, without reference to that, to go through
7 with us what happened with Timothy Jameson?
8 A. Yes. Well, Reserve Constable McCaw and I were out the
9 back having a smoke, and Timothy Jameson was with us.
10 We were just chatting about general things and it came
11 up in the conversation about the assault on Mr Hamill in
12 Portadown. Timothy had said he was there that night and
13 he was coming up through the town and saw a fracas and
14 heard somebody shout the word "Fenian". He said he ran
15 past and, as he ran past, he put the boot in.
16 Q. Did you question him? Did you ask him more?
17 A. No.
18 Q. You, I think, made no note of that. Is that correct?
19 A. At the time?
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. We have heard some evidence about the way people were
23 trained to make notes and whether they made detailed
24 notes and whether they made them.
25 Did your training give you any reason to believe
3
1 this was the sort of thing you should have made a note
2 of?
3 A. Possibly, yes, but our first instinct was to go and tell
4 someone.
5 Q. If I take you to page [81200], you can see this is
6 a draft witness statement for the moment containing the
7 comments of a senior officer, Colville Stewart.
8 At paragraph 23 he talks about his involvement in
9 this, because he discussed this in 2001 with others. If
10 we pick up the second paragraph of this, he says:
11 "As I recall, Timothy Jameson had suggested to two
12 officers...", you and Mr McCaw, "that he had kicked
13 Robert Hamill or words to that effect. I had a serious
14 problem with the fact that two officers who were aware
15 that Robert Hamill had died had not arrested Jameson and
16 issued a caution. They should have ferried him to the
17 nearest police station."
18 What do you say about that?
19 A. He didn't say he had kicked Robert Hamill. He said he
20 had put the boot in on the way past.
21 Q. How did you read "putting the boot in"?
22 A. That he was part of the assault.
23 Q. How do you deal with the concept that, instead of taking
24 this to detectives, you could have arrested and
25 cautioned him?
4
1 A. We knew there was an ongoing investigation and that
2 senior CID officers were carrying out that investigation
3 and we thought it best to take that information to them.
4 Q. Again, we have also heard there may be differences
5 between the practice between reserve constables and, as
6 it were, full-time constables about whether they would
7 actually go round arresting people.
8 Did you have any experience or very much experience
9 of arresting people in 1997?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Had you arrested anybody?
12 A. My first arrest was in Portadown in 1995 after joining
13 the police in 1987.
14 Q. Had you arrested very many people between 1995 and 1997?
15 A. No.
16 Q. I want to take you to some documents in 2000.
17 First of all, can we look at page [15944], please?
18 This is a notebook entry of a detective we are calling
19 H. Do you know who we are talking about when we call
20 him H?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. It is a notebook entry for 29th November 2000. He says:
23 "0915 hours, interview of G. Stated he was Reserve
24 Constable McCaw's partner on the builder's escort during
25 1996 and 1997. He stated at no time did McCaw ever
5
1 discuss anything about a phone call made by McKees or
2 Atkinson and he knows nothing about one. He stated
3 that the only thing he recalls about the entire Hamill
4 incident was that both he and McCaw had heard that
5 Timothy Jameson had heard and saw a lot that night in
6 town and was present when a lot of the fighting went on.
7 He stated [15945] that both he and McCaw went to DI Irwin and
8 told him this as soon as they heard it."
9 So on this notebook entry, what you were telling
10 this officer in November 2000 was that you had heard
11 that Timothy Jameson had heard and saw a lot that night
12 in town. That's what you passed on.
13 Did you tell this officer just that, or did you tell
14 this officer that Timothy Jameson had also admitted
15 putting the boot in?
16 A. Exactly as I related to you.
17 Q. Okay. Because, you see, the first record we have of you
18 telling anybody he had put the boot in crops up at
19 page [19483].
20 This is a statement you made in December 2000. Is
21 that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. If we look at the bottom four lines, you say in that:
24 "Timothy must have come out to us. He said he saw
25 a crowd at the end of Thomas Street and he heard someone
6
1 say the word 'Fenian'. He said he ran up the town and
2 from this I took it that he was down at the bottom end
3 of the town, the Country Fried Chicken end. He then
4 said [19484] as he ran past he put the boot in."
5 Can you confirm that this was the first written
6 record of that conversation he had with you?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. Again, going back to the conversation you had
9 with Timothy Jameson, were you and Mr McCaw equally
10 distant from him or was Mr McCaw further away? Can you
11 recall?
12 A. No, we were all together.
13 Q. Have I got this right: that it was your suggestion to
14 Mr McCaw that you needed to take this to detectives?
15 A. Well, we discussed it and we thought it best between us
16 to go to ...
17 Q. Did you sense any reluctance on Mr McCaw's part to do
18 it?
19 A. Not that I can remember.
20 Q. You appreciate, of course, that Mr Jameson denies that
21 he said this. Does that alter your view?
22 A. None whatsoever.
23 Q. I want to turn now to what was reported to the
24 detectives when you got there.
25 Is this right, that you first of all met
7
1 Detective Inspector Irwin at the police station?
2 A. That's correct.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: This is both of you, is it?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 MR UNDERWOOD: Then the scene moved on to another office.
6 Is that right?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. I want to deal first of all with what happened with
9 Mr Irwin. Was he on his own when you met him?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can you help us with whereabouts that was in the police
12 station?
13 A. It was in the CID department.
14 Q. Is that one big office or a series of small offices?
15 A. It is a series of offices.
16 Q. So he was in one of the offices or in a corridor or
17 what?
18 A. It was in his office where we had the discussion with
19 him. He had his own office.
20 Q. Both you and Mr McCaw were in there at the time, were
21 you?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Have I got this right: was it Mr McCaw who did the
24 talking?
25 A. Yes.
8
1 Q. Are you clear he passed on the words to the effect that
2 Mr Jameson had put the boot in?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Mr Irwin denies that. I think you know that. Again,
5 does his denial affect your recollection of this?
6 A. None.
7 Q. We have also got some reason to believe that Mr Irwin
8 was in a hurry and he was just about to go off and
9 follow up another lead on the Hamill investigation.
10 Can you recall, did he give any sort of impression
11 of being distracted, of not being -- listening
12 carefully, something like that?
13 A. Not that I can recall, no.
14 Q. Did he lead the way on to the second office, Mr Irwin?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So -- again, if you can't remember the detail, tell
17 us -- is this the -- he leads the way, followed by
18 Mr McCaw, then followed by you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You went to another office. Is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. I don't think you know whose office that was. Is that
23 right?
24 A. It was the boss's office.
25 Q. How far did you physically get into that office?
9
1 A. I went into the room and closed the door behind me.
2 Q. Who was present apart from you and Mr McCaw?
3 A. The boss and DI Irwin.
4 Q. Mr Irwin didn't stay. Is that right?
5 A. He did stay.
6 Q. He did? Right. The boss was Mr McBurney?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And the IO was a lady detective. Is that right?
9 A. There was no other person there.
10 Q. Sorry. Who was the IO?
11 A. It was Detective Inspector Irwin.
12 Q. I see. Sorry. We called him something else. We called
13 him the office manager, you see.
14 You are clear about this are you, that the four of
15 you were in that room?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. At any stage, did you encounter a lady detective in
18 this?
19 A. At no point.
20 Q. We have heard from a lady detective that at some point
21 probably on that day Mr McCaw came to see her and
22 Mr McBurney.
23 Now, could that have happened? Was there any point
24 at which you were in the police station at which
25 Mr McCaw could have gone off and done that?
10
1 A. No.
2 Q. Can you recall the reaction of Mr McBurney?
3 A. No, I can't, no.
4 Q. Can I help you with this? Did people seem surprised,
5 pleased, irritated?
6 A. No, it all seemed very matter of fact.
7 Q. Okay. Again, just to be clear, who did the talking of
8 you and Mr McCaw when you were in that room?
9 A. Mr McCaw.
10 Q. Again, are you clear that words to the effect that
11 Timothy Jameson had put the boot in were relayed to
12 Mr McBurney?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Can I take you back to your statement at page [81643]?
15 At paragraph 17 you deal with this and you say:
16 "I cannot recall Detective Inspector Irwin and
17 Detective Chief Superintendent McBurney taking any
18 notes. They did not ask us any questions or give us any
19 instructions, nor were we told to make a statement.
20 I do not know whether they took us seriously, but
21 I would like to think that they did. I was not familiar
22 with the normal procedure in these circumstances because
23 CID was much further up the chain than we were; we would
24 not have known what to say in these matters. We had
25 passed on all the information that we had and they knew
11
1 where we were if they had wanted to contact us, and we
2 certainly would have given them a statement had they
3 asked. I recall asking Detective Chief
4 Superintendent McBurney if we should make notebook
5 entries to record the conversation, but my recollection
6 is that he said, 'Don't bother, boys. We'll deal with
7 it'. We therefore left the station and returned to
8 Mr Jameson's house to continue our duties."
9 When you say "my recollection is that Mr McBurney
10 said, 'Don't bother, boys. We will deal with it'".
11 Is that a clear recollection now?
12 A. I don't believe it to be verbatim, but it was something
13 along that line.
14 Q. Because, if we look at page [14351], if we highlight the
15 text, the last quarter of it, three lines down there you
16 say:
17 "I cannot recall if either the detective inspector
18 or the detective superintendent gave me or McCaw any
19 instructions about the information they had been given
20 by Davy McCaw. I cannot understand why neither me or
21 Davy McCaw made notebook entries concerning what
22 Timothy Jameson had told us. I am not sure whether the
23 detective superintendent told us not to make entries."
24 This is a statement you made on 23rd March 2001.
25 Your recollection in March 2001 appears to have been
12
1 then that you couldn't remember whether you had been
2 told not to make notebook entries.
3 Again, with the assistance of that, how clear are
4 you on that part of it?
5 A. I'm fairly clear that I had asked the boss about the
6 notebook entries.
7 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you. Those are all the questions
8 I have for you. As I say, other people may have some
9 more.
10 MR FERGUSON: No questions.
11 Questions from MR ADAIR
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Adair.
13 MR ADAIR: G, can you now remember, or are you aware, that
14 the day this conversation apparently took place with
15 Timothy Jameson was 9th May 1997?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You would have been made aware of that --
18 A. I have been made aware of that, yes.
19 Q. What had happened the day before in Portadown that was
20 of interest both to the police and to the local
21 community?
22 A. What had happened the day before?
23 Q. What had happened the day before 9th May that was the
24 news in Portadown both to the police and to the local
25 community?
13
1 A. That Mr Hamill had passed away.
2 Q. He had died?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So it was a particularly significant day concerning the
5 whole investigation into what had happened to
6 Robert Hamill?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. On that day, according to you, you are told by Jameson
9 that he had actually put the boot into somebody during
10 the course of the fracas which involved the death of
11 Robert Hamill?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, even if you hadn't experience in arresting people
14 and investigation, would it not have been absolute
15 common sense to make a note of that at the time?
16 A. As I said, it was our immediate concern to go and tell
17 the authorities, the people that were investigating it.
18 Q. Or even if you hadn't that much experience in arresting
19 people, here was somebody effectively admitting that he
20 had been involved in an assault where, during the course
21 of that, Robert Hamill had died. Isn't that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: As a result of --
24 MR ADAIR: Pardon?
25 THE CHAIRMAN: In the course of which there was an assault
14
1 as a result of which Robert Hamill had died.
2 MR ADAIR: Yes, sir. That's a better way of putting it.
3 Even though you hadn't a lot of experience in
4 arresting, would the first reaction of any police
5 officer, if those were the words that were spoken, not
6 be to arrest the person?
7 A. In that instance I didn't believe so.
8 Q. Why not?
9 A. Because we knew that there were senior officers
10 investigating it. So we went and gave them the
11 information as soon as practicable.
12 Q. So is it the position then that, as far as you were
13 concerned, if somebody admits being involved in a crime
14 to you, that if CID are investigating that crime, you
15 wouldn't arrest them?
16 A. It would depend on the circumstances. I don't believe
17 Mr Jameson would have been a flight risk at that time.
18 So we would have been able to be in contact easily.
19 At the end of the day, we were escorting his father.
20 So we would have been able to get contact and be
21 arrested at a later date if that was appropriate.
22 Q. So you neither take a notebook entry of it, nor -- did
23 you even consider arresting?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Did you even talk it over with Reserve Constable McCaw
15
1 about whether you should arrest him?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Now, I am not taking issue with you, because I can't say
4 one way or the other what words were said by
5 Timothy Jameson to you and Reserve Constable McCaw.
6 Do you understand me?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. But what I want to ask you about is what was relayed to
9 senior police officers and by whom. Do you understand?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, we know that between 1997 and when you were first
12 talked to by H in the year 2000 that you neither hear
13 nor do anything more about Timothy Jameson. Isn't that
14 right?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. Before we leave that, at any stage during that period
17 from 1997 up to 2000, had you ever even informally made
18 any enquiries as to whether Timothy Jameson had been
19 charged for putting the boot into somebody?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did it ever cross your mind?
22 A. Did I ever think about it?
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. Personally yes.
25 Q. Did you ever make even an informal enquiry from anybody
16
1 in Portadown Police Station?
2 A. No.
3 Q. So the next thing that happens then, as far as this
4 whole incident is concerned, as far as you are
5 concerned, is when you are talked to by Officer H. Is
6 that right?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. If we call up page [15944] again, please, and if you
9 would highlight just the bottom half, please. Now,
10 Mr Underwood has taken you through this already in
11 relation to this notebook entry of H, but so
12 I understand what you are saying, you will see that
13 according to H you told him that you and Reserve
14 Constable McCaw had heard -- in other words, had heard
15 from somebody else -- that Timothy Jameson had heard
16 and saw a lot that night in town. That's his notebook
17 entry of what you told him.
18 Do I understand that what you are telling us here
19 today is that you, in fact, told H exactly what you have
20 recounted to us today about Timothy Jameson telling you
21 he put the boot in and he ran past the crowd and so on?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So instead of putting that down, H has put down
24 something completely and utterly different. I mean, H's
25 notebook entry is just nonsense in relation to what you
17
1 say you told him. Isn't that right?
2 A. It is certainly different.
3 Q. Well, it is totally different. You understand the
4 difference between --
5 A. I understand it. I can see it, yes.
6 Q. What you are saying is you told him that Jameson
7 actually told you that he had run past and put the boot
8 in?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you told H about the "Fenian" word and essentially
11 you told him everything that you have told us today --
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. -- but he has recorded something totally different.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In fact, what you were being talked to and the reason H
16 had contacted you was not about this conversation with
17 Jameson, but was about a mobile phone that you and
18 Reserve Constable McCaw had shared in 1997 during the
19 course of your duties. Isn't that right?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. This arose just out of the blue?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Then if we call up, please, page [57519], this again is
24 a further notebook entry of the same officer, H.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Have we a date for it?
18
1 MR ADAIR: Yes, sir, 7th December 2000.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
3 MR ADAIR: So it is just over a week afterwards, G, when he
4 contacts you again. Do you see that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. If we just highlight the entire text:
7 "Duty Gough. Duty reference Hamill enquiry actions.
8 1100 hours approx contacted by RCon G after I had
9 contacted Portadown police station willing". I think
10 that should read "wanted", but it may be "willing"; I am
11 not absolutely sure, "to speak to him. I clarified with
12 him where he had heard that Timothy Jameson had been in
13 town and heard and saw also."
14 So H is effectively again, you will see in this
15 notebook entry, repeating the contents of his notebook
16 entry of 29th November. Do you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. He goes on then to say that you said to him:
19 "He went on to say", that's you, "that since he had
20 spoken to me he had given it a lot of thought and
21 remembered it was he and P19 ..."
22 Just stopping there for a second, is that somebody
23 different?
24 A. No.
25 Q. It should be Reserve Constable McCaw?
19
1 A. It should be Reserve Constable McCaw.
2 Q. "... were in Bobby Jameson's house when Timothy Jameson
3 told him that he was in town that night and saw a lot
4 going on and ran past and put the boot in."
5 Do you see that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So if H is right, this is the first time that you make
8 any mention whatsoever of Timothy Jameson having told
9 you about putting the boot in?
10 A. If he is correct, yes.
11 Q. Pardon?
12 A. If he is right, yes.
13 Q. Well, did you say to him that you had given it a lot of
14 thought since you had spoken to him and now remembered
15 about Timothy Jameson telling you he had put the boot
16 in? Did you say that to him?
17 A. I don't remember saying that.
18 Q. Because that would tend to confirm that you hadn't told
19 him on the previous occasion, wouldn't it?
20 A. If you took it that way, yes.
21 Q. Pardon?
22 A. If you took it that way, yes.
23 Q. Well, can you think about it now, G? It may be you
24 can't remember it, going back that far, but could you
25 have said to him that you had given it a lot of thought
20
1 and now remembered?
2 A. I can't remember saying that.
3 Q. So once again, if you are right, this notebook entry
4 simply doesn't record either the tenor or the nature of
5 the conversation you had with H on 7th December. Isn't
6 that right?
7 Now, on that same day
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry. I didn't get an answer.
9 MR ADAIR: What's your answer to that?
10 A. I don't think it is right. He has the detail on that
11 one, but he has made mistakes there with names and other
12 mistakes, so possibly he has made mistakes in other
13 statements.
14 Q. So he has it wrong again?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. On that same day, on 7th December, you make a witness
17 statement to that same officer, H. If we call up
18 page [19483], please, do you remember making this
19 witness statement to H?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. If we go over to page [19484].
22 Before we deal briefly with some of the contents of
23 this, you have told us in no uncertain terms that you
24 remember clearly what was relayed by Reserve Constable
25 McCaw to both Detective Inspector Irwin and to the boss.
21
1 Isn't that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, if we highlight just the middle third of this page,
4 please, you see, if we start at the words:
5 "We left at the earliest opportunity and went to
6 Portadown Police Station and both Squawker and myself
7 went to the CID office."
8 "Squawker" is Reserve Constable McCaw?
9 A. Yes, he is.
10 Q. "Squawker knew the Detective Inspector in CID and
11 I remember we met him in the corridor. Squawker said to
12 him, 'Could we have a word with you?' and I remember he
13 took us into his office. I remember that Squawker did
14 the talking and while I can't remember exactly what
15 Squawker said, I remember he, that is the DI ..."
16 Just stopping there. so back in 2000, on the 7th,
17 you can't remember exactly what Squawker had said to the
18 Detective Inspector. Is that right?
19 A. I couldn't remember verbatim what he had said, no.
20 Q. "I remember he, that is the DI, took us to a person who
21 I think was a detective superintendent and again
22 Squawker spoke to him ..."
23 Look at these next words:
24 "... but I couldn't recall any of either
25 conversation."
22
1 So how does that fit in with what you are telling us
2 today, if you couldn't recall -- in 2000, if you
3 couldn't recall any of either conversation, how can you
4 tell us in 2009 that you can remember, not verbatim, but
5 effectively what was said?
6 A. It is exactly that. I can remember that the
7 conversation that Reserve Constable McCaw had with the
8 officers didn't require me to give any input on my own.
9 So I was satisfied that all the information we had
10 received was relayed, but I couldn't remember the exact
11 contents of the conversations verbatim, which is why --
12 Q. That's not what you say -- sorry. I interrupted you.
13 Go on.
14 A. I have answered.
15 Q. I am sorry for interrupting you.
16 But that's not what you have said in your statement.
17 In your statement you have said, "I couldn't recall
18 any". It couldn't be any clearer that you couldn't
19 recall any of either conversation. Either conversation
20 means the conversation with Irwin and the conversation
21 with the detective superintendent?
22 A. Uh-huh.
23 Q. What I am trying to understand, G, is why you would say
24 that in 2000, but today tell us you recall quite clearly
25 the conversation.
23
1 A. Because the only reason we went to see the detective
2 superintendent was to pass that information on. We
3 didn't go to see that senior officer for any other
4 reason.
5 Q. Okay.
6 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: Will you excuse me for
7 one moment? I wonder, while we have this page up, if we
8 could just go back a little bit earlier up the page when
9 it says something about what you thought "putting the
10 boot in" meant. I just think that might be useful.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: The bottom of the previous page?
12 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: Further up that same
13 page. No, the next page [19484]. That's right. Three
14 lines down:
15 "The way he said it, I took it to mean ..."
16 Do you see what I mean?
17 MR ADAIR: Yes.
18 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: As though he did it as
19 he was running past and he wasn't part of it. I just
20 wondered if that would be helpful, to understand what G
21 thinks "putting the boot in" means.
22 MR ADAIR: Can you help us with that? What did you
23 understand by what Jameson had told you about running
24 past and putting the boot in.
25 A. Exactly as it says. It was like an opportunist thing on
24
1 the way past. I don't believe he was part of it from
2 the start. He came across it, took some minor action in
3 it, and went on.
4 Q. He took some what?
5 A. Minor action in it.
6 Q. By putting the boot into people?
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we just go to the previous page?
9 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: He had a swipe on his
10 way past?
11 A. Yes.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we go to the previous page where this
13 begins, please?
14 MR ADAIR: If we highlight just the bottom four or five
15 lines, please. Just going to what I think is the
16 relevant part, sir, you see about three lines down [19483]:
17 "He said he saw a crowd at the end of Thomas Street
18 and he heard someone say the word 'Fenian'. He said he
19 ran up the town, and from this I took it that he was
20 down at the bottom end of town, the Country Fried
21 Chicken end. He then said ..."
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Over the page, please [19484]. Thank you.
23 MR ADAIR: "... as he ran past, he put the boot in."
24 You must have known at that stage that that was the
25 very incident in which Robert Hamill had ended up being
25
1 killed and another person injured.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What you say in this statement, just to finish, the next
4 sentence:
5 "He didn't say who he put the boot into or how he
6 put the boot into them."
7 So he had been telling you that he'd put the boot
8 into a number of people?
9 A. No.
10 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: He kicked as he went
11 past, I think.
12 A. Yes.
13 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: A little bit further
14 down:
15 "He was telling us it like as if he had a swipe on
16 the way past the crowd."
17 MR ADAIR: And wasn't -- just to highlight:
18 "The way he said it, I took it to mean that he did
19 it as he was running past and he wasn't part of it. It
20 was like an opportunist thing on the way past. He was
21 telling us it like as if he had a swipe on the way past
22 the crowd."
23 That's what you have described. Is that, ma'am,
24 what ...?
25 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: It was the bit I was ...
26
1 yes.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: I think in the context "them" shouldn't
3 necessarily be read in the plural, i.e. shouldn't
4 necessarily mean that he struck more than one person.
5 MR ADAIR: Well, I think that's a possible interpretation of
6 it, sir, yes. I don't think that's a big issue in the
7 overall context of this evidence, subject to your own
8 views, of course.
9 Then, finally, if we just go back to page [19484]
10 and highlight the bottom four lines, please, this issue
11 recalling for the first time this conversation on
12 7th December 2000 on that day, according to H. In the
13 statement you say again:
14 "Since I spoke to Detective Sergeant H on Wednesday,
15 29th November 2000, I have had time to recall this
16 incident in 1997. I can't recall exactly when
17 Timothy Jameson told us this. I don't think he told us
18 this immediately after the incident and I don't think he
19 told us this a week or two weeks after it, and I would
20 only be guessing to try and say when, but I think it was
21 before Drumcree 1997."
22 I mean, had it not stuck out in your mind that this
23 had been recounted to you the day after Robert Hamill
24 died.
25 A. No.
27
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you give us the date of Drumcree 1997?
2 MR ADAIR: When you say "Drumcree 1997", what date or dates
3 are you referring to?
4 A. Drumcree Sunday was always held on the first Sunday of
5 July.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes.
7 MR ADAIR: Then the next statement you make, G, is on
8 23rd March of 2001, which is at page [14351]. Do you
9 remember making this statement to the Ombudsman's
10 Office?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Just about -- if you would highlight the middle third
13 again of that page, please, you see you say in this
14 statement:
15 "When we went to Portadown station, me and
16 Davy McCaw could have been in the Detective Inspector's
17 office for about 5-10 minutes. I cannot recall
18 verbatim what Davy McCaw told the Detective Inspector
19 but I am almost 100% sure that Timothy Jameson's
20 comments about putting the boot in would have been
21 relayed. The detective inspector brought us to the
22 detective superintendent's office. The meeting would
23 have lasted no more than 15-20 minutes and
24 the detective inspector would have been present
25 throughout. Davy McCaw would have told the detective
28
1 superintendent exactly what he would he would have
2 told the detective inspector."
3 I mean, is the reality not, G, if you look back in
4 this now -- forget about all these statements you made,
5 Inquiry statements, witness statements and so on. Is
6 the reality not that senior officers were informed that
7 Jameson had information that might be of use to them and
8 that's effectively what was relayed by McCaw?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Just for completeness, G, I want you to think back in
11 relation to the time you spoke to the boss, which is the
12 detective superintendent. Was that not, in fact, in
13 a very small office, and present at that time were
14 a senior lady detective, the detective superintendent
15 and Reserve Constable McCaw and you weren't in the office
16 at all? Is that not the reality of it?
17 A. That's not correct.
18 MR ADAIR: Yes. Thank you.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you help us: plainly as a matter of law
20 there is no obligation on a police officer to make
21 an arrest whenever the opportunity occurs?
22 A. No, sir.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Was there any force direction about when you
24 should or should not make an arrest?
25 A. Not that I was aware of, sir, no.
29
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
2 Yes, Mr McGrory?
3 Questions from MR McGRORY
4 MR McGRORY: One minor matter, if you please, sir.
5 I represent the Hamill family. My name is McGrory.
6 There is just one thing I want to clarify with you
7 on that. You spoke to H on 29th November and again on
8 7th December 2000. When you first spoke to him on
9 29th November, you, of course, assumed that it was
10 already in the system that Jameson had told you that he
11 had put the boot in?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Was it your understanding that when H came back to you
14 on 7th December, that he was coming back for the purpose
15 of making the statement --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- for whatever investigation he was involved in at that
18 point?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. He didn't say to you then, on 7th December, a week
21 later, eight days later, "You didn't tell me that bit
22 last week"?
23 A. No.
24 MR McGRORY: Thank you.
25
30
1 Questions from MR McCOMB
2 MR McCOMB: Just a few questions, G. My friend Mr Adair has
3 covered an awful lot of ground with you.
4 May I just ask you about your relationship with
5 Mr McCaw, as we now know him, [Reserve Constable McCaw]?
6 You had worked together for about 18 months on and off,
7 I think -- is that right -- by this time?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Did you confide much in each other?
10 A. Yes, we would have, yes.
11 Q. Just in relation to the events surrounding Mr Hamill's
12 death, were you aware, or have you ever become aware of
13 the fact that Mr McCaw also had been involved in
14 information which might have been helpful to the police
15 in the form of a potential witness, Tracey Clarke?
16 A. I was only made aware of that quite recently.
17 Q. Yes, you have said that. Mr McCaw never discussed that
18 with you?
19 A. Never.
20 Q. Even though on this day, the day that you say you had
21 the conversation with Mr Jameson, it would appear that
22 he had already been involved in what could be a major
23 breakthrough so early on in a murder investigation?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Now, so far as you and Mr McCaw were concerned, you had
31
1 had quite regular dealings with Mr Bobby Jameson
2 I understand. Is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You had ferried him from place to place and looked after
5 him. Were you regularly in his house or not?
6 A. Yes, we would have been, yes.
7 Q. At that time, Timothy was living elsewhere with his
8 mother. Is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you remember that or not?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Take it from me.
13 So far as Timothy was concerned, would it be right
14 to say that you hadn't a particularly close relationship
15 or rapport with him?
16 A. No. That is right.
17 Q. You would have seen him on and off, but would he even
18 have known who you were by name?
19 A. Possibly not, no.
20 Q. When I say "you", either you or Mr McCaw?
21 A. No, that's right.
22 Q. Because you would both be very much one or the other so
23 far as he was concerned. Would that be right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Do you say that when Timothy Jameson was speaking to you
32
1 when you were out having a smoke outside the -- what did
2 he say? Do you recall what he said? We have heard --
3 we have seen your statements?
4 A. Uh-huh.
5 Q. Do you have a picture now or a recall of him saying,
6 "I was in town that night", something like that?
7 A. As it was in my statement. That's what he said.
8 Q. I will just expand on it if I possibly can. Did he say
9 what he saw? What is the content of that? Did he say,
10 "I saw this, that or the other thing happening",
11 anything specific?
12 A. Just as it was in my statement, that he had heard the
13 word and seen the group at the end of Thomas Street.
14 Q. He had heard the word "Fenian" being shouted?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. He had seen a group?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. He gave you no further detail about what any of those
19 people in that group were doing or what was being done
20 to them?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Then you have described as he ran past. What did he
23 say, "As I ran past, I put the boot in"?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Just as cold as that? He says, "I was in the town that
33
1 night. I saw a group, I heard the word 'Fenian'. I saw
2 a group of people. As I ran past, I put the boot in"?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Was that a sort of narrative? It wasn't in answer to
5 any questions which -- these were not things that were
6 elicited by any questions either by you or Mr McCaw?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did you not think it was a bizarre thing for a young man
9 to admit to if he was admitting to a crime?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did you think he was admitting to a crime, that, as he
12 ran past, he put the boot in?
13 A. I think he certainly was putting himself there at the
14 place and time and he had some minor involvement.
15 Q. Yes. He was putting himself there at the place and
16 time, but he could be doing that as a witness rather
17 than as a suspect, as a person who might be involved in
18 a crime?
19 A. I think he had some involvement in it.
20 Q. As you know, he has himself given evidence and denies
21 having made this averment or statement or whatever it
22 was. He denies that he ever said he put the boot in as
23 he ran past or otherwise.
24 You had some experience of taking statements
25 yourself, I understand. Isn't that right?
34
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. According to -- I think it was Mr Honeyford, you were
3 a good police officer and you took good statements.
4 Would you agree that you had had some experience in
5 that?
6 A. Yes, yes.
7 Q. Did it occur to you that this was something which could
8 be very important in the ongoing investigations into the
9 affair of Robert Hamill and his death?
10 A. It did, yes.
11 Q. Did you and Mr McCaw come to a quick decision, "We will
12 leave it at this and we will let the CID people deal
13 with it"? Why did you not pursue it? This presumably
14 was of some great interest.
15 A. After the event?
16 Q. No, as he was saying this --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- did you form a decision in your mind, "Oh, well, we
19 won't pursue this. We will not ask him about it in the
20 comfort of his own home. We will forget about all that.
21 We will just go and tell the CID"?
22 A. Yes. Our first thought was to go and tell the senior
23 officers that were dealing with it.
24 Q. It was not to get any more of the picture about what he
25 did or perhaps people whom he might have known who might
35
1 have been in this crowd?
2 A. Well, I think my experience of taking witness statements
3 and the difference between that and interviewing
4 a suspect is great, and I would not have had the
5 experience of that, which is why we passed it on to the
6 CID.
7 Q. Did you think, "He may have admitted something. We had
8 better stop here in case ..."?
9 What was your thinking about it?
10 A. I was shocked at the content, which is why McCaw and
11 I took it immediately to the CID.
12 Q. You didn't say to him, "You'd better say nothing more
13 about this. This is very serious. You may be admitting
14 to taking part in a murder"?
15 A. Certainly not.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: There would be no obligation under PACE to do
17 that unless he was going to go on and ask further
18 questions.
19 MR McCOMB: Of course. Absolutely. You formed a decision,
20 following on from that, not to ask further questions,
21 not to elicit any more?
22 A. No.
23 Q. In a sense, here was a young man who, if you are right,
24 was confiding in you in perhaps the comfort of his own
25 surroundings.
36
1 Would that not have been a golden opportunity to
2 perhaps glean some more information which might have
3 been of help to the police investigation?
4 A. I thought there was sufficient information that would
5 have given us to take to them immediately.
6 Q. I leave it like that. Is it possible there was just --
7 was there just the one time that you had this
8 information from Mr Jameson and went to the CID?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, in your statement to the Inquiry, as we have heard,
11 you said you were now informed it was 9th May. When you
12 were making your statement on 7th December, as we have
13 already heard, you said you thought it was some weeks
14 later, perhaps just coming up to Drumcree, the first
15 week in July that you had this conversation?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What's your memory now about that?
18 A. The same.
19 Q. That it was which, the 9th or later on?
20 A. That it was before Drumcree 1997.
21 Q. And I suppose literally 9th May is before Drumcree?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. But in the sense of the English language, surely, would
24 you not remember it was 9th May or it was much later on?
25 Which was it, in fact? Which was the time that you had
37
1 this conversation with Mr Jameson and that you relayed
2 it to the CID?
3 A. Sorry. I don't understand what you are asking here.
4 Q. You say that you went with Mr McCaw on 9th May -- isn't
5 that right --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- to the CID --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. -- telling them what Timothy Jameson had just said to
10 you?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, back in December 2000, unless I have misunderstood
13 this, you say that you don't remember exactly when this
14 conversation took place with Mr Jameson, but you thought
15 it was some time afterwards, some time shortly before
16 Drumcree?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Which is in July?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So what is it now that makes you assert that it was on
21 9th May that you went there rather than some time
22 shortly before July?
23 A. Because I had been told it was 9th May.
24 Q. And that's the only -- I am sorry.
25 A. The only recollection at that time was that it was
38
1 before Drumcree.
2 TECHNICIAN: We have a technical problem. We can sort it
3 out.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: There is a new microphone.
5 MR McCOMB: I think just following on what we were saying,
6 if it had been 9th May, which was the day after
7 Robert Hamill died and the day this news was breaking,
8 which could be fundamentally important to
9 an investigation -- I am sure you would agree that would
10 be the case.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Would you not agree that that's a thing which you would
13 remember: "It was McCaw and I who may have started to
14 crack the Robert Hamill case by going and relaying this
15 information"?
16 A. No, I didn't remember.
17 Q. Okay. Just one last thing. Did you not think it might
18 be important to have a clear picture of what exactly it
19 was that Mr Jameson said that he had done before you
20 went off and told the CID about him having told you
21 something?
22 I suggest to you that you really would -- if he had
23 said this, your natural instinct would have been to try
24 to find out a little bit more so that you could then let
25 the CID people know: (a) whether to treat him as
39
1 a witness, (b) as a suspect?
2 A. We felt that we had all the information that he had
3 given us and we took it immediately to the senior
4 detectives to let them deal with it. They were the ones
5 investigating.
6 MR McCOMB: Thank you.
7 Cross-examination from MS DINSMORE
8 MS DINSMORE: Good morning.
9 A. Morning.
10 Q. My name is Dinsmore. I act on behalf of both Mr Robbie
11 and Mrs Eleanor Atkinson. I am not going to explore any
12 of the matters that have been dealt with you apropos
13 Timothy Jameson whatsoever.
14 However, no doubt the Inquiry would find it helpful if
15 you could maybe tell us a little about Reserve Constable
16 McCaw and a little about his relationship with the McKees.
17 So am I right in thinking that you were the fellow
18 partner in the Protection Unit with Mr McCaw?
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. That was never mixed up. It was always the two of you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Yes. I think I am right from your interview you
23 probably worked alongside him for a period in the region
24 of 18 months?
25 A. Yes.
40
1 Q. You got to know him obviously quite well then?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. It is quite -- if we could maybe call up, just to help
4 you, because you have given us a broad outline. In your
5 Inquiry statement if we could have page [81645] and look
6 at paragraph 23, now that gives us a broad outline.
7 Really, what I would love you to do now or would ask
8 you to do now, if you would be good enough, is to fill
9 in a little bit about that.
10 It is quite clear that the Brownstown Business
11 Centre featured significantly in your working day, and
12 that in the working day of Mr McCaw?
13 A. Yes, that's right.
14 Q. And that the premises owned by Michael McKee were in
15 that vicinity also?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. It is quite clear that Mr McCaw was a regular frequenter
18 of those premises?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, you have said there that you never were into the
21 gym, but your colleague was. He used the facilities?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You said he would take fits and starts about it and he
24 would get a notion in his head.
25 Now, that maybe tells us a couple of things about
41
1 this man. The first thing is -- could you tell us what
2 this gets a notion in his head -- that wouldn't just
3 relate to running to the gym? That would maybe be a bit
4 of this man's personality, would it be?
5 A. Yes, that's correct.
6 Q. Could you maybe just tell us a little more about that?
7 I am going to explore why I am asking this, so there is
8 no trap in it whatsoever.
9 What the Panel know is that Mr McCaw was
10 instrumental in bringing forward a witness Mrs McKee
11 and, in fact, went with her to a meeting in a private
12 car park late at night to meet other police officers.
13 So I want to know a little bit about what you could help
14 us about his relationship with her and about his taking
15 notions in his head about things.
16 Is there anything you can expand on that for us
17 a bit?
18 Maybe that's a bit unfair, because there are two
19 things there. I have left the first thing. I was wrong
20 to do that. I was only doing that so you had a kind of
21 context as to, "Why does this lady want to know this?"
22 Can you tell us a bit about this man's personality?
23 Was he a manic type? Was he a gentle type? Was he
24 a diligent type? Was he, "Here, I have got a notion
25 about this", or, "I have an idea about this. This is
42
1 the way it is".
2 I mean, tell us about this man?
3 A. David could be quite childlike. He would take something
4 in his head like exercise and the exercise would become
5 the be all and end all. That would last maybe six to
6 eight weeks and then he would go on to something else.
7 He took a religious kick for a while. He would play
8 gospel tapes in the car and read the bible and read
9 pieces of scripture to me. Then him and I would argue.
10 That would die after another six weeks and then
11 something else would be different. David was quite --
12 sort of jumped from one thing to another.
13 Q. As a result of that, just how seriously would you be
14 taking whatever his latest notion was? I mean, would
15 you think, "Goodness. This is another notion he has",
16 or would you play along with him or whatever?
17 A. In relation to?
18 Q. Well, for example, if you hadn't been there and heard
19 what Timothy Jameson said and if Mr McCaw had come to
20 you, or David, as you call him, came to you and said,
21 "Wait until you hear this. Do you know what young
22 Timothy has just said? Do you know Timothy, Bobby's
23 son? He has just told me this ..."
24 If you hadn't heard it yourself, would your
25 immediate reaction be, "Aye. Right. Um. I wonder,
43
1 would David have got this right?"
2 A. David wasn't a liar.
3 Q. He wasn't a liar, right, but was he a bit fanatical if
4 somebody had told him something?
5 A. Not in relation to police work. His personal life.
6 Q. Personal life?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. That then leads me to the next aspect, the personal
9 life. The relationship with Mrs McKee, could you expand
10 on that a bit, and, indeed, with Michael McKee? He was
11 at the club a lot, and when he was not on a workout
12 fanaticism, but I think your statement says he would
13 have been drinking tea with them a lot. He was quite
14 friendly and he would have sat and drunk tea with them.
15 Is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. On a very, very regular basis?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you remember being interviewed by two people from the
20 Independent Police Complaints Commission,
21 a xxxxxxxxxx and a xxxxxxxxxx.
22 A. The Ombudsman, yes.
23 Q. The Ombudsman, yes. I wonder if we could have [14620]
24 on the screen, please. If you just take a wee -- this
25 really follows through nicely from what you have already
44
1 been telling us. If we could look at paragraph 3, this
2 is a note they have made.
3 Firstly, can you confirm this is an accurate note of
4 what you remember from that meeting with them? Do you
5 want to take a moment and have a wee read at it?
6 A. Yes, please. (Pause).
7 Q. Okay?
8 A. Okay. Thanks.
9 Q. Now, is that -- I mean, there you have told them he was
10 a strange guy. I think that's what you were telling us
11 too.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Also, he was quite hard to get on with. Can you expand
14 that a wee bit for us?
15 A. Certainly at times.
16 Q. What would make him hard to get on with?
17 A. Well, I am an atheist.
18 Q. So when he was on one of his religious kicks --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- that was hard. What other aspects of it would be
21 hard to get on with?
22 A. He would try to get me to train with him and, you
23 know ...
24 Q. So whatever he was into, he wanted you into as well. Is
25 that it?
45
1 A. Well, he done his best.
2 Q. You said he would get involved in things that didn't
3 concern him. Tell us a little more about that now?
4 A. I don't really know what I mean by that.
5 Q. Was he a gossip?
6 A. No, I wouldn't say he was a gossip. David just liked
7 chatting to people and he was very gregarious and sort
8 of outgoing. If he didn't get any joy from me, he would
9 have went and talked to someone else.
10 Q. So would he have been working the room at this club
11 a good bit, like looking for somebody to, what we would
12 call in Northern Ireland, "ganch" to?
13 A. I wouldn't know how he got on up there.
14 Q. But you do know he was there a lot?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you know he socialised a lot there. You referred to
17 him sitting drinking tea.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You were interviewed by H on 7th December. Now, that
20 interview doesn't relate to any of the matters I am
21 exploring with you. That related to the
22 Timothy Jameson, but H asked you at that stage if
23 Mr McCaw and Andrea McKee were having an affair and you
24 said you don't know. Is that --
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Was Mrs McKee asked about this?
46
1 MS DINSMORE: No, she wasn't.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Should she not have been, if this is to be
3 pursued?
4 MS DINSMORE: Well, I wasn't in a position to establish, nor
5 am I in a position to establish an affair. Therefore,
6 I would respectfully suggest --
7 THE CHAIRMAN: You had access to this. If you were going to
8 pursue it with anyone, the first thing would be to ask
9 her, if you had a basis. I am not sure that you have
10 any basis -- if you have no basis to ask her, I am not
11 sure you have any basis for it now, have you?
12 MS DINSMORE: But I am not seeking to establish an affair.
13 What I am seeking to do is what was the perception of
14 the relationship that existed between them. She
15 couldn't comment on the perception of the relationship
16 that existed between them. That's a matter for other
17 people.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, it is not appropriate if you are
19 seeking to draw out a perception that there was
20 an affair. If you wanted to do that, Mrs McKee should
21 have been asked about that.
22 MS DINSMORE: Perhaps I will approach it in a slightly
23 different way, with your indulgence, Mr Chairman.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: I shall be listening carefully.
25 MS DINSMORE: As always, Mr Chairman.
47
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, let's see.
2 MS DINSMORE: What I am interested in is your answer to that
3 was, "Well, he wouldn't have told me anyway". You said,
4 "He would not have told him much anyway".
5 Now, I am interested in the "not having told him
6 much anyway", because that was your reaction when asked
7 about that, but he wouldn't -- so he never said to you
8 about any gossip about any telephone calls emanating --
9 which, Mr Chairman, you will recall was put to
10 Miss McKee, telephone calls going from the McKees' house
11 or from the Atkinson house to any persons?
12 A. No.
13 Q. So he never alluded to that to you. In fact, you made
14 that quite clear, which is evidenced in the notebook
15 entry of the -- if we could call up [15944]:
16 "At no time did Reserve Constable McCaw ever discuss
17 anything about a phone call made by McKees or Atkinson
18 and he knows nothing about one."
19 Isn't that right?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. So whatever the state of knowledge was regarding those
22 persons who frequented the Tae Kwon Do club, it never
23 reached you, any gossip that was allegedly going on?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Nor, and indeed the point which my learned friend raised
48
1 with you in relation to Tracey Clarke, you knew nothing
2 in relation to any of that?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. Then in relation to the -- did you -- did he involve you
5 at all apropos the club other than sort of asking you to
6 go training and suchlike?
7 A. No.
8 Q. So that we are absolutely clear, your evidence that is
9 before this Inquiry that Reserve Constable McCaw is someone
10 who frequented the club a lot, interfered in matters that
11 were of no concern of his. Is the answer to that yes?
12 A. Certainly frequented the club a lot.
13 Q. Also, that other -- I understood -- correct me if I am
14 wrong now, but I understood that you agreed that this
15 was an accurate note and it says that he was involved in
16 matters that didn't -- he would get involved in things
17 that didn't concern him.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. We know that to be the case. We also know it to be the
20 case that he was more than just a sporadic fanatic about
21 fitness. He also used the -- went to the club on
22 an almost everyday basis. Yes?
23 A. Yes.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: I think this is repeating what we have had
25 already.
49
1 MS DINSMORE: It is indeed. I fully accept that.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Shall we go on to something new, if there is
3 anything?
4 MS DINSMORE: If you just allow me a moment. There is,
5 I would respectfully suggest, some method in the
6 repetition, because I am now asking --
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well then.
8 MS DINSMORE: If you will allow me then, I will move to it,
9 Mr Chairman.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
11 MS DINSMORE: So we have a clear picture then, do you agree,
12 in relation to Reserve Constable McCaw that he, in fact,
13 had extensive dealings with the McKees --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- outside his police work and outside his remit as
16 a policeman?
17 If I make it simpler for you. It is no part of his
18 police work that he sits and drinks tea on an almost
19 daily basis with the McKees. Isn't that right?
20 A. That's correct.
21 MS DINSMORE: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you,
22 Mr Chairman.
23 Questions from MR DALY
24 MR DALY: If I can ask you briefly on behalf of
25 Andrea McKee, is it fair to say your dealings with her
50
1 and knowledge of her were very limited?
2 A. Very.
3 Q. And it was really through her administration of the club
4 and your presence in the club via your work that you got
5 to know Andrea McKee?
6 A. Yes, very slightly.
7 Q. What sort of person did she come across as to you?
8 A. Quite a nice girl, in the very little contact I had with
9 her.
10 Q. Did she appear to be hardworking and efficient?
11 A. I couldn't really comment on that, to be honest with
12 you.
13 Q. Did the club appear to you to be run in an efficient
14 way?
15 A. It seemed to be busy.
16 MR DALY: Thank you.
17 Questions from MR LUNNY
18 MR LUNNY: Witness G, how long did you spend in the police?
19 A. Almost 15 years.
20 Q. When did you leave?
21 A. May 2002.
22 Q. When you left, did you leave on good or bad terms?
23 A. Good.
24 Q. What sort of work are you involved in now?
25 A. I am a key account manager for a security company.
51
1 Q. Does that security company work for various other
2 companies and institutions?
3 A. Yes, it does.
4 Q. Is the Police Authority or the Police Service of
5 Northern Ireland one of your clients?
6 A. Yes, it is.
7 Q. Why have you come along to give evidence to the
8 Tribunal?
9 A. To assist in the Inquiry.
10 MR LUNNY: Thank you.
11 Further questions from MR UNDERWOOD
12 MR UNDERWOOD: There is just one matter that perhaps
13 I should have touched on first of all.
14 After Timothy Jameson told you what he told you, did
15 you leave Mr Jameson senior unprotected until you went
16 to the police station, or did you wait until the shift,
17 as it were, had been relieved?
18 A. No, we left him at his offices.
19 Q. Does that mean he was not protected?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Was that unusual?
22 A. No.
23 MR UNDERWOOD: That's all I have to ask. Thank you.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr O'Connor, I note that you have not
25 challenged what the witness says about his dealings with
52
1 Mr Irwin over this matter.
2 MR O'CONNOR: I have not challenged on the basis that
3 everything would be covered by Mr Adair. The only point
4 that I may have challenged, I felt it was one word
5 against the other.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: I ask that simply so that we don't draw any
7 inference from the fact you have not challenged. It is
8 challenged, is it?
9 MR O'CONNOR: It is challenged. Just to understand the
10 rules of engagement, as it were, I understood we didn't
11 have to challenge absolutely everything.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: You don't have to challenge absolutely
13 everything. This is rather important. That's why
14 I have taken the trouble to ask.
15 MR O'CONNOR: If you feel, Mr Chairman --
16 THE CHAIRMAN: I think you have done it now, unless you
17 think your case will be furthered by further questions.
18 That's entirely a matter for you.
19 MR O'CONNOR: I had made a judgment call it would not be
20 furthered in any way by further questioning.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: So be it. Thank you. We will take our break
22 now. Fifteen minutes.
23 (The witness withdrew)
24 (11.50 am)
25 (A short break)
53
1 (12.05 pm)
2 MR UNDERWOOD: Richard Bradley, please.
3 MR RICHARD SAMUEL BRADLEY (sworn )
4 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD
5 MR UNDERWOOD: Morning, Mr Bradley. My name is Underwood.
6 I am Counsel to the Inquiry. I have a number of
7 questions for you. When I am done, it may be that other
8 people have some follow-up questions.
9 Can I ask your full names, please?
10 A. Richard Samuel Bradley.
11 Q. If you would look at the screen, please, I want to show
12 you a document that starts at page [81519]. We will
13 scroll through it quite briefly. Is that your witness
14 statement?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. Are the contents of it true?
17 A. Yes. There are some aspects I would wish to clarify.
18 This statement was made 10 years after -- 10 to
19 12 years after the incident and it was off the top of my
20 head. So if you are going through it, I will clarify
21 it.
22 Q. Are there matters you want to clarify at the outset or
23 do you want to do it as I am asking questions?
24 A. You ask the questions and we will go through the
25 paragraphs.
54
1 Q. If we look at page [81520], at paragraph 10 you tell us
2 about the way in which a complaints and discipline
3 investigation would mesh with a criminal one. You say:
4 "The criminal investigation had primacy over the
5 disciplinary investigation."
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. "The DPP would receive the criminal file and make
8 a decision about an allegation against officers of any
9 criminal nature."
10 You go and give an example:
11 "By way of example, if there was a complaint of
12 assault against an officer, that was a criminal
13 allegation. There could also be included within the
14 complaint an allegation of verbal abuse, which would be
15 a discipline matter. In those circumstances, I would
16 serve a full 17(3) notice on the police officer
17 concerned alleging the assault and the verbal abuse.
18 When the officer was interviewed, I would caution him
19 and advise him what was alleged". It goes over the
20 page, [81521]. "All of the allegations would be put to
21 him, the criminal and the discipline allegations, as
22 they were all one sequence of events."
23 Now, is that accurate?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So let's take a case where somebody makes a complaint of
55
1 a criminal nature against a police officer, so says,
2 "The police officer came and thumped me". It has both
3 a criminal aspect -- that could be an assault -- and
4 also there is a disciplinary side of it, that could be
5 something for which the officer could be suspended for
6 dismissed.
7 Is what you are saying there that the criminal side
8 comes first. Once the DPP has sorted that out, you then
9 conduct the Complaints & Discipline investigation?
10 A. I would have all done -- there would have been two or
11 three separate files in relation to it done at that
12 stage when I was putting in the criminal investigation.
13 I wouldn't be going back to the police officer after
14 the criminal investigation to interview in relation to
15 the -- let's say the criminal allegation and the
16 discipline allegation.
17 Q. Right. Let's take that simple case. An allegation is
18 made that a police officer thumped somebody. It is
19 treated both as a crime and as a disciplinary matter.
20 Would one officer be told off to investigate both?
21 A. That's correct. In the great majority of cases, yes.
22 Q. Would the form 17(3) be served at the earliest possible
23 opportunity?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Would consideration be given to suspension at the same
56
1 time as the 17(3) was served?
2 A. Depending on the nature of the allegation.
3 Q. Well, the outcome might depend on the nature. Would it
4 also determine whether you thought about suspension?
5 In other words, did you always think about
6 suspension or did you only think about suspension in
7 serious cases?
8 A. In serious cases, that's correct.
9 Q. The other matter I want to ask you about this is, what
10 would somebody have to do in order to make
11 an allegation? Would there be any formality in it?
12 A. I don't understand.
13 Q. Right. You talk there about allegations against
14 officers of any criminal nature, and that would lead to
15 an investigation both criminally and Complaints &
16 Discipline, but if I were a member of the public and
17 I simply brought to your attention, as a police force,
18 that a police officer had thumped me, without writing it
19 out an a statement, without making a formal complaint,
20 would you regard that as sufficient to trigger
21 an investigation?
22 A. That's correct. That's the way the law -- the
23 Police Act was at that time, yes, if he came in and made
24 a verbal statement.
25 Q. Equally, if, in the course of some other criminal
57
1 investigation, you learn that a witness has something to
2 say which might show that a police officer had committed
3 a crime, would that be sufficient to trigger
4 an investigation?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Why is that?
7 A. "Might" is the word. If he makes an allegation, yes.
8 Q. Let's bring this to the Robert Atkinson question. We
9 know that in a statement which was made over the course
10 of 9th and 10th May 1997 Tracey Clarke said five people
11 were guilty of the assault of Robert Hamill and
12 Robert Atkinson had rung one of them up and asked him --
13 tipped him off to dispose of his clothing.
14 Now, she was not making a formal complaint against
15 Mr Atkinson there. Was that sufficient in itself in
16 that witness statement, in your view, to trigger
17 an investigation into Mr Atkinson?
18 A. Now, I wasn't aware -- as I say, I made the statement
19 from that point of view which was ten years later.
20 Now, when I looked at the file in relation to it or
21 the bit and pieces that I was given, there was no
22 justification for a complaint investigation on what she
23 says, because it was all hearsay.
24 Q. Right. So a member of the public tells you that
25 somebody has told her that a police officer has
58
1 committed an extremely serious crime and the police just
2 say, "It is hearsay. Let's not do anything about it".
3 That's your answer, is it?
4 A. In them circumstances. When I discovered the
5 circumstances of it, you know, of what that lady had
6 said, I did not consider there was -- it was warranted
7 to serve 17(3), let's just say. I am not saying --
8 actually an investigation was conducted into the matter.
9 Q. Of course. Can I just make it clear? I want to come on
10 a bit later to what actually happened to Mr Atkinson.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. At the moment, what I am attempting to do is to get you
13 to help the Panel to understand what systems were in
14 place.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I am using Mr Atkinson as an example, because it is
17 something we are fairly familiar with. I am not
18 suggesting at this stage that you knew what was going on
19 when she made the allegation or you took a decision on
20 9th May. I am just asking in principle what a member of
21 the public had to do to get the RUC to act.
22 Let's go back again to the question. If, on
23 10th May, the witness statement had come into the HOLMES
24 system, which disclosed, albeit hearsay, this allegation
25 that Mr Atkinson had tipped off Allister Hanvey, is it
59
1 your evidence that that's not sufficient to trigger
2 either a criminal or an investigative process, because
3 it is hearsay?
4 A. No, I did not say that.
5 Q. Right.
6 A. I am saying, yes, in relation to the whole package, that
7 was all the allegations and that aspect come into it,
8 there would be an investigation.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Criminal or disciplinary or both?
10 A. Criminal. Criminal and disciplinary, yes.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Just so I can make an accurate note, are you
12 saying on reflection that Tracey Clarke's statement
13 would justifiably have given rise to a criminal
14 investigation and also to a disciplinary investigation?
15 A. I maintain that it was part and parcel of the
16 investigation that was being conducted.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Which is that? The criminal investigation?
18 A. The criminal investigation and the disciplinary
19 investigation.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: They went hand in hand, do you mean?
21 A. Yes, they went -- yes.
22 MR UNDERWOOD: This is my fault. I am giving this as
23 an example. The example contains a whole load of
24 complications, doesn't it?
25 Imagine that Tracey Clarke's statement had been made
60
1 and there was not, at that stage, any criminal
2 investigation at all. She simply comes in out of the
3 blue and says, "I know about the murder. Let me tell
4 you about who did it and let me tell you also about
5 a police officer who covered it up". At that stage the
6 police don't know anything about it. So imagine there
7 were no investigations.
8 Of itself, would the allegation against a police
9 officer justify an investigation into him, both
10 criminally and in terms of discipline?
11 A. Yes, it would, yes, yes.
12 Q. Thank you. Now, let's try to put that back into the
13 melting pot.
14 If you have already got a criminal investigation
15 into the murder, you would have expected this to be
16 wrapped up in that criminal investigation, would you?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. But to make it more complicated, we already have
19 a neglect complaint as well: namely, that of the
20 officers, four of the officers, including Mr Atkinson,
21 had not got out of the Land Rover.
22 So you have already got the neglect complaint, the
23 criminal investigation into the murder itself.
24 Where would you see this new allegation fitting into
25 those two?
61
1 A. I would say it was part and parcel of the whole
2 investigation and that is the way the detective chief
3 superintendent investigated it. When he investigated
4 it, all aspects of it was put to him.
5 Q. There is this difficulty, you see. We know that two
6 files were sent up to the DPP, one for the murder and
7 one for the neglect.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. When you say it was part and parcel, which file would
10 you have expected the complaint against Mr Atkinson to
11 go into? The tipping-off complaint, I mean.
12 A. Into the second -- the complaint file.
13 Q. Into the neglect file?
14 A. Yes. Aye, well now, when you talk about the discipline
15 aspect, neglect of duty, it was a criminal offence as
16 such. It was that offence of a police officer not
17 acting properly.
18 Q. It is probably my fault for being loose with terms.
19 Leave aside the tipping-off allegation. There was
20 a criminal investigation into murder and there was
21 a criminal investigation into neglect of duty. That's
22 right, isn't it?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. But neglect of duty also, of course, was a Complaints
25 & Discipline matter. That's correct too, isn't it?
62
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. If I understand your evidence, what would have happened
3 is you would have let the DPP take his course on the
4 neglect complaint, on the criminal side of it, before
5 you actually did any more yourself on the Complaints &
6 Discipline side. Is that right?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. So --
9 A. Certainly in that case, because it was being
10 investigated by the detective chief superintendent.
11 Q. Fine. Have I got this right: you would have expected
12 the detective chief superintendent to include the
13 tipping off allegation in the neglect complaint?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Right.
16 A. And he did do that.
17 Q. Would it follow that -- sorry. Let me preface this.
18 We know that the ICPC was supervising the neglect
19 complaint so far as it was a criminal investigation.
20 Were you aware of that?
21 A. Yes, and from the discipline point of view.
22 Q. Right. Again, I am not particularly interested in what
23 you know actually happened. I want, if I can, to find
24 out what should have happened in terms of the ICPC.
25 Would you have expected the ICPC to have supervised
63
1 the tipping off part of the investigation?
2 A. They did, as far as I'm aware. They were present during
3 the interview by the detective chief superintendent. As
4 far as I'm aware, they were present during the
5 interviews of the four police officers.
6 Q. Let's disentangle that, shall we? We know that they
7 supervised the complaint about not getting out of the
8 Land Rover.
9 What I am asking you is: should they have supervised
10 the complaint that Mr Atkinson tipped off Mr Hanvey?
11 Could you just answer that one precisely for me?
12 A. Yes, they should, yes, yes.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Where you have a set of facts that give rise
14 to both an allegation of a criminal action and
15 an allegation of a disciplinary nature, although you say
16 the disciplinary body should investigate the
17 disciplinary matter, would it do that quite
18 independently of the criminal investigation, or would
19 they share resources, or would the disciplinary men sit
20 in on any criminal interviews?
21 How does it work in practice?
22 A. When the complaint is made, it is referred to the
23 Independent Commission for Police Complaints. They
24 appoint a supervising officer, which in this case was
25 xxxxxxxxxx. He was a prominent solicitor in
64
1 Northern Ireland. He is dead now. He was the
2 supervising officer and he would supervise the whole
3 investigation.
4 Now, as far as I'm aware --
5 THE CHAIRMAN: When you say the whole investigation --
6 A. The whole investigation, yes, because at the end of the
7 day they have to give a --
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Including the criminal investigation?
9 A. Oh, yes. There is no question about that. Sure, he sat
10 in on the interviews of the police officers.
11 MR UNDERWOOD: By that, do you mean the criminal
12 investigation into not getting out of the Land Rover?
13 A. That's correct. Aye. The criminal investigation from
14 the complaint against police aspect.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: I see.
16 A. Oh, yes.
17 MR UNDERWOOD: He wasn't supervising the murder
18 investigation?
19 A. Oh, no. Unless -- no, but it was all part and parcel of
20 the thing, but I wouldn't say he was there whilst -- the
21 supervisor was not there whilst the police officers
22 interviewed the defendants, the civilian defendants.
23 I wouldn't think so, no.
24 The full complaint against police is supervised by
25 the Independent Commission for Police Complaints, and
65
1 that's the law -- that was the law at that time
2 Q. Now, let's think ourselves back to 10th May 1997. There
3 is a murder investigation going on. There is the
4 neglect complaint, i.e. not getting out of the Land Rover,
5 and then there is this revelation in the witness
6 statement that Robbie Atkinson tipped off
7 Allister Hanvey to get rid of his clothing.
8 Now, you have told us that was sufficient in itself
9 to trigger an investigation into Mr Atkinson. Was that
10 alleged offence by him sufficiently serious to warrant
11 consideration of suspending him?
12 A. From my point of view, certainly not.
13 Q. Certainly not sufficiently serious to consider
14 suspending him?
15 A. Not on the basis of what was said. It was hearsay.
16 It's based on hearsay. As far as I can recall, this
17 lady, or whoever it was, was alleging that somebody else
18 told her.
19 Q. I follow. So it is sufficient to start a criminal and
20 discipline investigation, but not sufficient to trigger
21 consideration of suspension because of the secondhand
22 nature of the evidence. Is that it?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. I didn't think it, but at the end of the day, it's the
66
1 powers that be that decide on the suspension, actually
2 the Chief Constable, not myself as such.
3 Q. I am not asking you to question what was done. I am
4 asking you for, as it were, your expert assistance for
5 the Panel here --
6 A. Yes, yes.
7 Q. -- so they can understand what, in 1997, was the
8 understanding of what would happen. Do you follow me?
9 A. I understand. I understand.
10 Q. We know that by about the middle of May, corroboration
11 had come in to the effect that, in fact, a telephone
12 call had been made from the Atkinson household to the
13 Hanvey household which supported the hearsay allegation.
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. I don't know whether you knew about that.
16 A. I am not sure when I got to know that.
17 Q. Would that new piece in the jigsaw have itself been
18 enough to warrant consideration of suspending
19 Mr Atkinson in your understanding of how the processes
20 worked?
21 A. I personally don't think so, not at that stage --
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. -- because we are still working on the aspect of
24 hearsay --
25 Q. Fine.
67
1 A. -- of a person saying that another person said it.
2 I was not -- I wouldn't have been aware of that
3 circumstance at that time.
4 Q. I am not suggesting you were.
5 A. I just want to clarify that.
6 Q. Of course. I hope I am making this clear. What I am
7 trying to get you to assist the Panel with is
8 understanding how the systems worked and how they should
9 have worked in 1997.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, again, let's take ourselves to the middle of May.
12 You have this allegation made, which is hearsay, in the
13 witness statement that Robbie Atkinson told
14 Allister Hanvey to burn his clothes or destroy them.
15 You have some corroboration in the telephone records.
16 You have told us that the allegation made in the first
17 place was enough to trigger an investigation into
18 Mr Atkinson.
19 At what point in this scenario, would you, if you
20 had been doing it, serve a form 17(3) on Mr Atkinson?
21 A. This is the point. I didn't think it was necessary to
22 serve a 17(3).
23 Q. Again, I am not asking you because -- I am not
24 suggesting you had full knowledge of this.
25 A. Uh-huh.
68
1 Q. I am asking you in principle, if you had been informed
2 in mid-May 1997 of the allegation made by Tracey Clarke
3 and of the corroborating phone records and there had
4 been -- if, for example, as soon as Tracey Clarke's
5 statement was made an investigation had begun, when
6 would you have served a 17(3)?
7 A. The thing is, I did not serve a 17(3).
8 Q. No-one did, did they?
9 A. No.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you help us to this extent? What more
11 than the fact of the telephone call would you have
12 required?
13 A. The person who could prove that he done it.
14 MR UNDERWOOD: Well, would you have considered interviewing
15 the officer?
16 Again, just take my two pieces of information: the
17 first is the statement of Tracey Clarke making the
18 secondhand allegation; the second is the corroborating
19 telephone records.
20 You have said you would have had an investigation.
21 What I am interested in -- again, I am not asking you
22 why something did or did not happen. I am not
23 suggesting you were responsible for what was going on
24 here for the moment. I am just asking what, in
25 principle, should have happened.
69
1 If you had those two pieces of information, the
2 witness statement, which is secondhand, and the
3 corroborating phone record, and you have
4 an investigation into the officer, what would have
5 happened? Would he have been interviewed?
6 A. He certainly would have been interviewed and -- now,
7 hold on a second. And he was interviewed, but you are
8 asking me would he have been interviewed? He would have
9 been interviewed in relation -- under the umbrella of
10 the complete complaint against police. That's what
11 I would have done.
12 Q. Right. Before he was interviewed would he have been
13 served with a 17(3) in the ordinary course?
14 A. He would, yes, yes.
15 Q. Because it is a bit difficult to have an investigation
16 without serving a 17(3) on the officer, isn't it?
17 A. But the overall complaint against the police, he was
18 served with the 17(3) from the point of view of the
19 overall complaint against police.
20 Q. The problem with that 17(3), wasn't it, was that that
21 only complained about him not getting out of the
22 Land Rover. It didn't tell him he was being
23 investigated for a very serious allegation of colluding
24 with a murder suspect.
25 Do you accept that?
70
1 A. I do, yes.
2 Q. There is something else in one of your answers I want to
3 ask a bit more about.
4 You told us very kindly that you would expect
5 decisions about suspension and so on to go up to more
6 senior officers. In fact, you mentioned the Chief
7 Constable. Again, I want to ask you, not about what
8 happened here or what should have happened here
9 specifically, but about the practice in 1997.
10 Where, in the course of a witness statement such as
11 Tracey Clarke's, an allegation such as the one against
12 Mr Atkinson emerged, was it the practice that this would
13 be referred up to a senior level, Chief Constable or
14 assistant chief constable, something of that nature?
15 A. All complaints go to the deputy chief constable. He was
16 delegated by the Chief Constable to look after the
17 complaints, and obviously his staff looked after the
18 files from the very start and they make the decision.
19 Q. Very sadly, Mr McBurney, as you know, has died.
20 A. Terrible.
21 Q. What we don't want to do is take advantage of his death
22 in order to make him responsible for things he can't
23 answer for.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What I want to try to get your assistance on is the
71
1 degree to which he was bound as a matter of course, as
2 a senior officer, to pass things up the chain.
3 Your evidence is this, is it: that you would have
4 expected, if he knew about the allegation made by
5 Tracey Clarke, that he would have taken up to deputy
6 chief constable level?
7 A. Yes. Oh, yes. No doubt. But I will tell you another
8 thing. The Independent Commission for Police Complaints
9 had a big say in the matter. They would have been the
10 ones who would be saying to Mr McBurney, "I think
11 a suspension is warranted here". There would be
12 discussions from that point of view. So bear that in
13 mind.
14 It wasn't all police, you know, having to deal with
15 a situation. They were there supervising it. So --
16 Q. Of course. Please?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can I just get your help with this?
19 With the ICPC, we know, so far as the neglect
20 complaint is concerned, that was a formal complaint made
21 by the Hamill family through their solicitor and it went
22 to the ICPC under the statutory framework, but there was
23 no formal complaint about Mr Atkinson and so --
24 A. No, it was based on a statement made in relation to the
25 investigation.
72
1 Q. Exactly. Now we know that the ICPC, if it learned about
2 something like that, could ask the Chief Constable to
3 refer the matter to it for investigation.
4 Were you aware of that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Is this the sort of allegation in these circumstances
7 you would have expected the ICPC to ask the Chief
8 Constable to refer to them?
9 A. I would hark back to the circumstances of the
10 allegation, but certainly if that type of an allegation
11 was made, it would certainly be -- you know, it would
12 certainly be -- a 17(3) would certainly be served on the
13 person.
14 Q. Taking you back to an answer you gave me about
15 five minutes ago, where you said you would have expected
16 the ICPC to be supervising the allegation that
17 Robert Atkinson tipped off Allister Hanvey, what I am
18 suggesting to you is the only practical mechanism
19 whereby that could have occurred is that the ICPC, on
20 reading Tracey Clarke's statement, would have said to
21 the Chief Constable, "Good grief! This is serious. We
22 are already supervising part of this investigation.
23 Will you please refer to us the investigation of the
24 tipping off allegation?"
25 Would you have expected that?
73
1 A. Yes, yes, yes.
2 Q. Can you think of any other mechanism whereby the ICPC
3 could have supervised the tipping-off?
4 A. Well, they certainly were supervising the overall
5 investigation, which also included that aspect.
6 Q. Well, in fact, we know they weren't. In fact, we know
7 they didn't bother turning up to the interview of
8 Robert Atkinson in 1997 when he gave his alibi. So you
9 have a false impression on this.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I don't want to be unfair to you about this. This is
12 why I am asking you about matters in principle.
13 You very fairly said you would have expected the
14 ICPC to be investigating all of the complaints?
15 A. Yes. By the way, I would wish to make it plain that you
16 are not being unfair to me. Question away. I'm
17 an abrupt type of an individual. So don't think that
18 I am being ...
19 Q. We can all be a bit like that.
20 A. Continue. No, but it doesn't mean that I'm angry or
21 anything like that. Just continue.
22 Q. I want your help on this, though. Are you standing by
23 your evidence that you would have expected the ICPC to
24 be supervising the tipping-off allegation as well as the
25 neglect one?
74
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. All I want your help on is whether you can think of
3 another way of that actually coming about other than my
4 suggested one, which is, when the ICPC, Mr xxxxxxxxxx in
5 particular, read Tracey Clarke's statement, they would
6 have said, "Good grief! That's a serious allegation.
7 Please, Chief Constable, let us supervise that."
8 A. Yes, and another thing, I probably should have been
9 saying that myself when I got sight of it as well. So
10 obviously 17(3) probably should have been served on him.
11 Q. Let's look at that. Paragraph 14 of your statement --
12 we have it up on the screen in front of us -- you say:
13 "I think that in the early stages of the
14 investigation that I became aware that Reserve
15 Constable Atkinson had allegedly contacted one of the
16 suspects in the case and warned him to dispose of his
17 clothing. This was a criminal matter and I was not
18 involved in that part of the investigation and therefore
19 did not see the statements supporting the allegation
20 until I received a copy of DCS McBurney's DPP file in
21 December 1997."
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I want to try -- because it is very important, not least
24 to be fair to Mr McBurney, to try to discern who knew
25 what when.
75
1 Can you help us about when you did become aware
2 there was an allegation made against Mr Atkinson like
3 this?
4 A. I honestly do not know. I do not know. It could have
5 been months. It could have been -- it certainly wasn't
6 in the very early stages, because the statements would
7 not have been taken from the persons. You know, it
8 takes a while to get the statement, but I honestly do
9 not know. I cannot recall.
10 Q. You tell us there that you saw a copy of the DPP file on
11 the neglect, which was made in December 1997.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Can you help us about whether actually you knew about
14 this allegation before you read that file?
15 A. I have said there I think in the early stages of the
16 investigation I became aware. I honestly cannot say.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. It may have been talked -- I liaised with Mr McBurney on
19 occasions during the investigation, and he may have --
20 it may well have been talked about at that stage, you
21 know, at some stage, but I don't -- I honestly do not
22 know when.
23 Q. Help us with this. If you had been told about it at
24 an early stage, would you have taken it seriously; in
25 other words, would you have considered a 17(3)? Would
76
1 you have asked what consideration had been given to
2 suspension?
3 A. Not on the basis -- when I got the file, if I considered
4 that 17(3) was warranted, I would have served it on him,
5 but on the basis of the fact that it was hearsay, and,
6 actually, I think also that the people who were alleged
7 to have said it had come up with something different,
8 that -- you know, I don't think it was warranted --
9 Q. All right.
10 A. -- on the basis of the evidence, full stop, but
11 I certainly would have served the 17(3) when I got the
12 file and I looked at the evidence, and if I had seen
13 that there was a blunt allegation against Reserve
14 Constable Atkinson, I would have served 17(3) on him.
15 I suppose I should have, but, at the end of the day,
16 I did not and that was it.
17 Q. Let's have a look at the neglect crime file, if we may.
18 It starts, I think, at page [60541]. That is the
19 page reference that we put in your statement for you.
20 If we look at page [60549] --
21 A. What was that on [60541]? I looked at it, but --
22 Q. I don't think it was actually anything particularly
23 relevant, to be honest.
24 A. Okay.
25 Q. It is the page number we have stuck into your witness
77
1 statement. It may not be the helpful one.
2 If we look at [60549], this is the neglect crime
3 file that went up to the DPP, and it is signed off by
4 Mr McBurney in December 1997.
5 We can look at more of this, if you want to, but, if
6 you look at paragraph 123, he gives you his conclusions
7 about the allegation that they didn't get out of the
8 Land Rover:
9 "Having assessed these papers, I am satisfied that
10 collectively, and as individuals, the four police
11 officers concerned did not wilfully neglect to perform
12 their duty on the date in question and therefore
13 I recommend no further action criminally or disciplinary
14 in this instance."
15 That's what you would have read in December 1997 in
16 respect of the four officers not getting out of the
17 Land Rover. Is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. If we look at -- I am sorry to jump about -- if we go
20 back to paragraph 24 of your statement, which is at
21 page [81523], time moves on. That report went to the
22 DPP and the DPP decided not to take any criminal action.
23 If we look at paragraph 24, you say:
24 "Having received the DPP's decision that no criminal
25 proceedings were to be taken against the four officers,
78
1 I commenced my disciplinary investigation."
2 Then you tell us what you did in terms of
3 interviewing people.
4 So this is the sequence, is it? The crime file goes
5 to the DPP. The DPP decides what action to take, which
6 was, in fact, no action. You then start your Complaints
7 & Discipline side of things.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, if we go back to the crime file, page [60549] --
10 A. You did mention there about me receiving the complaint
11 crime file. 1997 may have been a bit early. It would
12 have been some time after that.
13 Q. Again, that's my fault. You told us you received it.
14 You didn't tell us when.
15 A. At some stage. It may not have been until late 1998 or
16 something like that. I'm not sure now. I'm not sure.
17 Q. Again, to be fair, we know that Mr McBurney was asked to
18 do a follow-up after a criminal trial and he did
19 a follow-up on the neglect complaint. We can see it if
20 you want to. That wasn't until June 1999. So it may
21 well be that it was much later than December 1997 --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. -- that you would have seen it.
24 A. It may well be. As I say, I can't be sure.
25 Q. Certainly, but the point I am on at the moment is the
79
1 sequence of events. Once the DPP had decided what to do
2 or not to do, that's when you started your side of the
3 matters. That's fair, is it?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Now, what I want to do is go back to that neglect crime
6 file at page [60549]. We have read paragraph 123. If
7 we look at paragraph 124, Mr McBurney said:
8 "In addition to the Hamill complaint of inactivity
9 is an allegation based on hearsay and contained in the
10 statement of Witness A."
11 He sets it out. It is the tipping-off allegation.
12 He then -- again, if you want to, we can look at all of
13 it, but what follows is three pages of analysis of that
14 with a conclusion at page [60552]. Can we look at that?
15 Paragraph 135. This deals with events, but if we pick
16 it up four lines from the bottom:
17 "Having found no evidence other than the telephone
18 billing to substantiate the allegation of Witness A, one
19 can remain sceptical, but there is absolutely no other
20 evidence to substantiate the allegation by Witness A.
21 I therefore recommend 'no prosecution'."
22 Now, what you have then is two conclusions in this
23 report. One is that there should be no further action,
24 criminal or disciplinary, in respect of the officers not
25 getting out of the Land Rover.
80
1 The second conclusion is recommendation of no
2 prosecution in respect of Mr Atkinson tipping off.
3 Do you agree?
4 A. Yes, yes.
5 Q. You started an investigation into one of those: namely,
6 the four not getting out of the Land Rover, but not in
7 respect of the other one. Is that correct?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Why is that?
10 A. Because I dealt with it as an overall -- I dealt with it
11 within the realms of the overall complaint.
12 Q. But no part of your investigation involved the
13 allegation that Mr Atkinson had tipped off Mr Hanvey,
14 did it?
15 A. No, unless -- I'm not sure what I said to Reserve
16 Constable Atkinson when I interviewed him. Maybe
17 I could see the tape-recorded interview or, you know,
18 the transcript of it?
19 Q. We can look at that, but --
20 A. I certainly served the telephone bill and other exhibits
21 in relation to that on him. I gave them to him and it
22 was part and parcel of the investigation.
23 Q. Uh-huh.
24 A. I'm not sure whether I mentioned to him during the
25 interview -- that's why I would like to see it --
81
1 whether I mentioned the question of that, you know, in
2 the early stages.
3 Q. Of course. We can dig that out, if you like. Can we
4 just go to your statement for the moment at
5 page [81524]? It is paragraph 27:
6 "I did not receive any additional papers in 2000
7 linked to the allegation of criminal behaviour by
8 Robert Atkinson, and my discipline file concerned only
9 the allegation of neglect of duty by the four officers
10 in the Land Rover on 27 April 1997. I did not know any
11 details of the matter involving
12 Reserve Constable Atkinson."
13 A. Yes, but that only relates -- that only relates to the
14 further investigation, the later investigation,
15 I think --
16 Q. I see. All right.
17 A. -- so far as I know.
18 Q. Sorry. I didn't mean to talk over you.
19 I see the time. What we will do is dig you out your
20 interview of Mr Atkinson and give you a hard copy to
21 look at over the break, if that's all right.
22 A. That's okay. That's okay.
23 MR UNDERWOOD: I wonder if that is a convenient moment then?
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
25 (12.55 pm)
82
1 (The luncheon adjournment)
2 (2.00 pm)
3 MR UNDERWOOD: Mr Bradley, have you had a chance to look at
4 the interview now with Mr Atkinson?
5 A. I have, yes.
6 Q. Let's get it up on screen so others can see it. It is
7 page [61216].
8 Just to get back into context here, I was asking you
9 why you appeared not to have picked up the opportunity
10 to have an investigation into the tip-off allegation
11 after the crime file had wended its way through the DPP.
12 You wanted to look at this to see whether, in fact,
13 you had interviewed Mr Atkinson about that. Is that
14 right?
15 A. Yes, and I did.
16 Q. Let's have a look at it, shall we, because you say -- if
17 we look at page [61217], what you are doing there is
18 reading the complaint, that is the neglect complaint.
19 Then, if we go over to [61218], about a quarter of
20 the way down you say:
21 "During the criminal investigation offences of
22 withholding information and assisting offenders were
23 considered against you in light of revelations that were
24 possibly in touch by telephone with a suspect in
25 relation to the matter. This basically is the
83
1 allegation and evidence."
2 You go on:
3 "Now I have to ask you, were you the occupant of
4 a Land Rover parked in the vicinity of
5 Market Street/Woodhouse Street junction in Portadown on
6 27th April 1997 at 1.45 am or thereabouts?
7 "Answer: I was."
8 Then you go on, and if we go down:
9 "In view of the allegation, which is tantamount to
10 neglect of duty, I am required to caution you under the
11 RUC discipline regulations. Before continuing, you are
12 aware that the matter was investigated from a criminal
13 point of view and was referred to the Director of Public
14 Prosecutions who directed 'No Prosecution' against any
15 police officer. Is that correct?
16 "Answer: That's correct."
17 Then you go on:
18 "Is it correct that you were served with discipline
19 form 17(3) notice of allegation of complaint against
20 police", that's xxxxxxxxxx, in fact, Lurgan, and
21 going over the page:
22 "... on behalf of Diane Hamill ..."
23 He says:
24 "Answer: That's correct."
25 You then say:
84
1 "Is that a copy of the form 17(3) which you signed
2 confirming receipt?"
3 Now, can I show you a form 17(3), to see if it's the
4 form that you were there talking about? It is at
5 page [10009]. This is notice of an allegation of
6 complaint to R Atkinson. It says to him. Then it says:
7 "As required by the above legislation, you are
8 hereby informed in writing that a report, allegation or
9 complaint has been made against you by ..."
10 That should read "xxxxxxxxxx":
11 "... Solicitors ... on behalf of Diane Hamill", etc.
12 Then what follows is the complaint about neglect.
13 Again, look at this by all means over the page, if you
14 want, [10010]. This is dated 13th May 1997.
15 Now, taking all that together, can you help us: did
16 you actually question Mr Atkinson about the tip-off
17 allegation?
18 A. I did.
19 Q. Shall we go back to the interview then, page [61219]?
20 I have taken you to the question in the middle where
21 you say:
22 "Is it correct that during form 17(3) service you
23 also received a form relating to Evidence by Inference
24 which basically explains that if you do not answer
25 relevant questions or provide explanations during the
85
1 interview, it could be detrimental to you giving
2 evidence at your possible disciplinary proceedings", and
3 it goes on a bit more.
4 Then, towards the bottom, the final question:
5 "I have already explained the allegation which is
6 contained in form 17(3) and I now caution you."
7 You give the caution. Then over the page at
8 [61220], he adopts, I think, the interviews that were
9 transcribed in respect of earlier interviews. Is that
10 right?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. At [61221] you produce at the top the documents that
13 have been put to him in the course of previous
14 interviews. Is that right?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. That's the map and the itemised telephone bill?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. Where in there is there any form 17(3) reference or
19 caution in respect of the tip-off?
20 A. I have already explained there was no 17(3) made out in
21 relation to that aspect, but I told him the nature of my
22 enquiries that included the aspect of the -- making the
23 telephone call, and it's there.
24 Q. So you were actively investigating, were you, the
25 possibility that he had made the tip-off?
86
1 A. Oh, yes, because, at the end of the day, I served --
2 when I first served his interview notes, it included the
3 itemised telephone bill, and, at the end of the day,
4 when I told him the nature of my enquiries, I cautioned
5 him and told him the nature of my enquiries, and I went
6 into a spiel in relation to all the allegations in
7 relation to the neglect of duty, and, also, I continued
8 on to say -- and it is important:
9 "During the criminal investigation, offences of
10 withholding information and assisting offenders were
11 considered against you in light of the revelations that
12 you were possibly in touch by telephone with a suspect
13 in relation to the matter."
14 He had already got the telephone bill. Now, I may
15 well have said after that, "The allegation -- this is
16 basically the allegation: I told you that the whole
17 investigation was under the umbrella of the one
18 complaint".
19 So that's the way I seen it.
20 Q. I see that. Are you telling us you did actually put
21 your mind to the question of whether he did tip off
22 Mr Hanvey?
23 A. Yes, I had to, because, at the end of the day, it was
24 part and parcel of the interview notes that Detective
25 Chief Superintendent McBurney had, you know, interviewed
87
1 him in relation to.
2 Q. So you already had those and those were adopted by
3 Mr Atkinson. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You didn't conduct any further interview yourself?
6 A. No, because I couldn't, because every aspect -- it would
7 have been duplication. I wouldn't have been allowed to.
8 Q. Why is that?
9 A. Because the solicitor could come round and say, "He has
10 already been interviewed in relation to that matter".
11 Any questions that I could have possibly put to him was
12 put to him by Mr McBurney.
13 Q. Was there any possibility that you could have come to
14 a different conclusion than had been reached in respect
15 of the criminal side of it then?
16 A. There could, if there had been evidence.
17 Q. But how would that evidence have been fed in, if you
18 couldn't interview him?
19 A. I had nothing to interview him about. Can you explain
20 to me what I could have interviewed him in relation to?
21 Q. At the moment, I am asking you questions.
22 A. Yes, that's okay.
23 Q. You have given me an answer, which is you could have
24 reached a different conclusion from the criminal side of
25 it, if there had been new evidence.
88
1 A. No -- from a discipline point of view.
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. It is possible, because at the end of the day is the
4 same -- the balance of probabilities, is it?
5 Q. Take it from me it is the same standard.
6 A. That's okay.
7 Q. What I am asking you about is this: if it is possible
8 you could have reached a different conclusion, if there
9 had been different evidence --
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. -- how could Mr Atkinson have dealt with that evidence
12 if you weren't allowed to ask him more questions?
13 A. Hypothetical. You are saying "if".
14 Q. All right, but your answer then is that nonetheless --
15 A. There was none. I had read the file prior to it.
16 Q. I am so sorry. Your evidence nonetheless is that you
17 were, within the constraints of the system, looking at
18 this independently to see whether there was
19 a disciplinary case made out. Is that it?
20 Specifically, you are telling the Tribunal you were
21 looking at this tip-off allegation to see whether there
22 was a disciplinary case made out?
23 A. Yes. I certainly put it to him and it was included in
24 the investigations --
25 Q. Right. So it is --
89
1 A. -- or my investigation of him.
2 Q. Right. Now let's look at your report, shall we? That's
3 at page [60562]. It is not at that page. It starts, to
4 be fair, at [60558]. It is an update. It deals with
5 Mr Hull, deals with Mr McNeice, deals with criminal
6 proceedings. If we look at page [60561], we have
7 discipline matters complained of:
8 "None. It is of a criminal nature. Misconduct by
9 an officer of justice. Please see outline of case."
10 You are referring back here to Mr McBurney's neglect
11 report. Is that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You then deal with the interview of police involved,
14 service of form 17(3).
15 In the final paragraph on there, you say:
16 "Following interview after PACE Caution by
17 DCS McBurney and DI Irwin, Chief Inspector Bradley
18 interviewed the police officers after discipline caution
19 by way of tape recorder and they made oral statements
20 agreeing to their already made statements being used in
21 the disciplinary enquiry."
22 That's what you have just been telling us, isn't it,
23 in respect of Mr Atkinson?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, if we look at your conclusions at page [60562] and
90
1 your signature:
2 "Please see conclusions at part 1, pages 43-49",
3 etc. That's Mr McBurney's conclusions.
4 You deal with the claims by Hull and McNeice. Then
5 you say:
6 "The Director of Public Prosecutions has decided
7 that there is no reasonable prospect of convicting any
8 police officer on the evidence and it is considered that
9 the same criteria applies to discipline. The evidence
10 is equally not sufficient to warrant disciplinary
11 proceedings."
12 That's it, is it?
13 A. That's it.
14 Q. No reference to the tip-off?
15 A. I already explained to you, in relation to the
16 investigation, I included all under one umbrella of the
17 complaint against police. I have already explained to
18 you --
19 Q. Forgive me --
20 A. I said, if I had served 17(3) on the officer in relation
21 to that allegation, I certainly would have been making
22 specific reference. I would have been putting it down
23 there.
24 Q. Let's go back. At page [60562] at the top under
25 "Conclusions", you say:
91
1 "Please see conclusions at part 1, pages 43-49 and
2 54 and in particular paragraph 123 and the penultimate
3 paragraph of page 54."
4 Now, paragraph 123 is on page [60549]. Let's have
5 a look at that. That deals with the neglect complaint,
6 not getting out of the Land Rover. So your reference
7 back to the conclusion in the report is only a reference
8 back to the neglect complaint.
9 A. Uh-huh.
10 Q. What I am asking you to do for the Panel here is tell
11 them where it is in your conclusion you dealt with the
12 thing you say you were investigating: namely, the
13 tip-off.
14 A. Dealt with where? Dealt with where?
15 Q. That's what I am asking. In your report.
16 A. I didn't deal with it in the report.
17 Q. Why is that?
18 A. All I can say is I don't know why. I don't know why.
19 I did investigate the officer in relation to the
20 allegation and there was none. Perhaps maybe because
21 there was no 17(3) served, and the reason I didn't serve
22 17(3), there was no substance whatsoever to the
23 allegation from the outset, full stop. That's all.
24 Q. That's what I was going to suggest to you.
25 A. Yes.
92
1 Q. In fact, the RUC took the view this was a hearsay
2 allegation and didn't merit proper investigation?
3 A. Oh, no, because it did.
4 Q. Where? By whom?
5 A. By Mr McBurney and myself, because I interviewed the
6 officer. Okay. I may not have put reference to my --
7 to the matter in my -- what do you call it -- summing up
8 which was two, three pages, because Mr McBurney had done
9 the whole lot from the outset.
10 Q. But this is what I am getting at. You see, you expected
11 the ICPC to supervise his investigation, but it didn't.
12 You were to come in after and conduct an independent
13 analysis of the investigation, or an independent
14 analysis of allegations from a Complaints & Discipline
15 point of view, but you couldn't because you were not
16 allowed to interview and you didn't have any other
17 evidence.
18 In fact, what happened is that Mr McBurney did what Mr
19 McBurney did untrammelled by the ICPC or by you. Is that fair?
20 A. No, because, at the end of the day, when the file went
21 to the Independent Commission for Police Complaints,
22 which including everything on it, they issued
23 a statement of satisfaction in accordance with the law.
24 So, as far as I was concerned, it was investigated
25 properly. The Independent Commission was an independent
93
1 body of professional people and they made that decision.
2 Q. Again --
3 A. They didn't question me in relation to not investigating
4 that matter, because I did investigate it. Okay?
5 Q. Mr Bradley, you must not take all of this as critical of
6 you.
7 A. No, no.
8 Q. What we are trying to find out is whether something
9 slipped between the cracks and, if so, at what point.
10 Can I just pick you up on part of that last answer?
11 Was it of comfort to you, in looking at all of this,
12 that the ICPC had been involved?
13 A. There is no question about it. They certainly had a big
14 say in the matter from that point of view.
15 Q. I think you went as far as this, didn't you: that so far
16 as things like service of form 17(3)s and suspension
17 would have been concerned in relation to Mr Atkinson,
18 they would have had a say in that on your understanding?
19 A. This is a very difficult thing. You keep on about this
20 17(3).
21 Q. Uh-huh.
22 A. Here is an example. If a person makes a complaint,
23 let's say, of assault, and a number of the witnesses
24 say -- give evidence -- make a statement to say that
25 this happened and all, and they also include -- let's
94
1 say there was three, four witnesses and three or four
2 say, "Oh, aye, and the police officer said 'F*** off'"
3 or whatever in that. I never seen the circumstances
4 when a separate 17(3) would have been taken out in
5 relation to them other three witnesses.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you just help me about this, which I am
7 not following?
8 The neglect, failing to get out of the Land Rover
9 soon enough, was a quite separate matter from the
10 tip-off, was it not? It wasn't a police officer
11 allegedly misbehaving in some way and adding some
12 abusive words in it. The tip-off was quite separate,
13 wasn't it?
14 A. Yes, but it was all under the one -- it happened out of
15 the same set of circumstances, the way I look at it.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, but am I right in thinking that you
17 cannot question an officer about a matter unless he has
18 received a 17(3) form relating to it? This is a matter
19 of law and the regulations which can be looked to the
20 see if I am right.
21 A. But it is not the point that you cannot. You can.
22 Whether it is accepted at the end of the day is another
23 thing.
24 As I was saying there about the witnesses making
25 allegations, are we saying that every time a witness
95
1 says, "Oh, aye, he told me to f*** off", you serve
2 a separate 17(3), 17(3), 17(3)? This is what I am
3 getting at.
4 Q. Can we go back to an actual 17(3), the one served on
5 Mr Atkinson on 13th May?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. It is at page [10009]. What I missed was the top. It
8 says:
9 "RUC (discipline and disciplinary appeals)
10 Regulations 1988 (as amended). RUC Reserve (part-time)
11 (discipline and disciplinary appeals) Regulations 1988
12 (as amended).
13 "Notice of report, allegation of complaint -
14 personal explanation.
15 "To: R Atkinson.
16 "As required by the above legislation, you are
17 hereby informed in writing that a report, allegation or
18 complaint has been made against you by [X]."
19 Now if, as you told us this morning, the assertion
20 in Tracey Clarke's witness statement that Mr Atkinson
21 tipped off Mr Hanvey was treated as a complaint, then
22 surely somebody was required to serve a 17(3) on
23 Mr Atkinson about that?
24 A. Here is another point. That lady's name again?
25 Q. Tracey Clarke.
96
1 A. She did not make a complaint. She made a statement of
2 fact within a statement. At the end of the day, where
3 do you draw the line? And it was based on hearsay.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: But you do have to have what will pass as
5 a complaint before you have anything to investigate.
6 A. Yes. A person --
7 THE CHAIRMAN: It doesn't matter, does it, if the person who
8 gives you the information expresses it in the form of
9 a complaint if it is in substance a complaint? Is that
10 right?
11 A. Aye, but the point is, is it -- it wasn't a complaint.
12 She was making a statement in relation to
13 an investigation.
14 MR UNDERWOOD: Forgive me. I thought you had accepted this
15 morning that what she had said deserved to be taken
16 seriously as a complaint and deserved in itself to give
17 rise to an investigation, and you went on to say that
18 investigation was, in fact, conducted. It was wrapped
19 up with the other investigations. Is that correct?
20 A. I said that, but, at the end of the day, if there had
21 been legitimacy in my eyes at that time, if I felt there
22 had been legitimacy in relation to what she had said,
23 I would have served a 17(3) because there was no
24 problem. That's the point.
25 MR UNDERWOOD: That's very helpful. Thank you very much,
97
1 Mr Bradley. That's extremely helpful. As I said at the
2 outset, other people may have some more questions for
3 you. That's all I have.
4 SIR JOHN EVANS: Could I just ask before -- I hope I am
5 not --
6 MR ADAIR: Please carry on, sir.
7 SIR JOHN EVANS: I think there is a confusion in my mind, if
8 not in anybody's else's, about the last questions you
9 were asked about a complaint. Tracey Clarke did not
10 make a complaint.
11 The fact she had not made a complaint but she had
12 raised issues with you, could it not still be a matter
13 for investigation as a discipline matter?
14 A. Yes, it could be --
15 SIR JOHN EVANS: Right.
16 A. -- but here, there were 40, 50 different witnesses in
17 that matter in this investigation and many of them -- of
18 the persons made different allegations in it, but 17(3)s
19 were never served in relation to them either.
20 SIR JOHN EVANS: Understood. In relation to a 17(3) there
21 are decided cases as well as legislation which says what
22 a 17(3) is for?
23 A. Yes.
24 SIR JOHN EVANS: 17(3)sets out the caution --
25 A. That's correct.
98
1 SIR JOHN EVANS: -- before the officer is interviewed?
2 A. That is correct.
3 SIR JOHN EVANS: There is also advice and guidance about
4 when a 17(3) must be served?
5 A. Yes.
6 SIR JOHN EVANS: Would you comment on the situation then
7 that a 17(3) must be served as soon as practicable?
8 A. That is correct.
9 SIR JOHN EVANS: Then there therefore must be justifiable
10 grounds for a delay.
11 A. That is correct.
12 SIR JOHN EVANS: What might they be?
13 A. I cannot recall.
14 SIR JOHN EVANS: Well, could they be that they might hinder
15 a criminal investigation?
16 A. That's correct. That's one of them.
17 SIR JOHN EVANS: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr Bradley.
18 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: Sorry, I am just trying
19 to understand, from what Sir John said about it being
20 not a complaint but a disciplinary matter inside
21 a witness statement, but, in fact, had there been more
22 evidence, it would have been more than a disciplinary
23 matter, wouldn't it, because it was actually perverting
24 the course of justice?
25 A. That's correct, or -- yes, no doubt. That was
99
1 investigated. That aspect was investigated by
2 Mr McBurney to the hilt.
3 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: But under the cover of
4 the --
5 A. Of the complaint against police.
6 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: -- disciplinary matter?
7 A. No, under the aspect of the complaint against police
8 from a criminal point of view.
9 I did -- okay. 17(3). I'll get to the point again.
10 17(3) was not served, and I have given you the reasons
11 there if you wish to accept it, but, at the end of the
12 day, he was interviewed after discipline caution in
13 relation to the matter. That's what I say.
14 So the CID man investigated him from a criminal
15 point of view, that's from perverting the course of
16 justice, assisting offenders, etc. Then I took up and
17 interviewed him in relation to the discipline aspect and
18 I put the same facts, basically the same facts to him.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: About the tip-off?
20 A. Yes, that is what -- that was in my -- that was in my
21 interview, the taped interview that I conducted with
22 him, and he agreed to his statements which he made in
23 the criminal investigation, plus the itemised telephone
24 bill, to be used in the discipline investigation. That
25 is all I can say.
100
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Adair?
2 Questions from MR ADAIR
3 MR ADAIR: Mr Bradley, I want to just try and I hope just
4 summarise my understanding of what you are saying, so
5 that I have it right and hopefully that the Panel can
6 get it right. I am not going to get too hung up on
7 whether a formal complaint has been made or whether it
8 is a complaint contained, for example, within
9 a statement. Are you with me?
10 My understanding is that you do accept that whether
11 or not there is a formal complaint against a police
12 officer or whether it is a complaint contained within
13 a statement if you and C&D regard the complaint as
14 well-founded, you will potentially: (a) serve a 17(3)
15 and interview the officer?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, is that a fair summary?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, I don't know -- and, again, perhaps Sir John knows
20 or perhaps you know, but is there something -- is there
21 some guidance, or was there guidance in 1997, for C&D in
22 relation to coming to a view as to whether a complaint
23 was well-founded? Did it have to be -- was that
24 a judgment call by C&D? Was there a standard which you
25 applied or can you help us about that?
101
1 A. I would safely say the person who comes in and makes
2 an allegation verbally or by letter, that would be the
3 minimum, but this question of hearsay --
4 Q. No, no. Don't go to --
5 THE CHAIRMAN: It is the standard of proof you are being
6 asked about.
7 MR ADAIR: I am just asking you: what was the standard that
8 was applied? When C&D were considering whether to issue
9 a 17(3) -- a witness might come in and it might be
10 absolutely apparent to you that he or she is lying
11 through their teeth.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Will you issue a 17(3)?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You will?
16 A. Yes. I would not issue it immediately. I would take
17 the statement and it will be sent to the Independent
18 Commission for Police Complaints and an officer would be
19 appointed and then the 17(3) would be served when he
20 received -- the investigating officer would serve it.
21 You don't serve 17(3)s, you know, if a person comes
22 into the police station and makes a complaint. It goes
23 up to the Independent Commission for Police Complaints.
24 Q. Right. I am just trying to find out what standard you
25 applied before serving an officer with an allegation of
102
1 misconduct. What standard did you apply? Did you have
2 to think that it was possibly true? Did you think that
3 there was a reasonable prospect of it being true? Did
4 you have to -- was it prima facie true? Was there any
5 standard?
6 A. None, if it came down to you to investigate and it was
7 a letter, whatever it was on it, it was served. 17(3)
8 was served.
9 Q. Well, it wasn't in the case of Atkinson, where we know
10 there was a complaint.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So how can that be right?
13 A. That wasn't a complaint. That was a statement in
14 relation to the -- that was a statement in relation to
15 the investigation.
16 Q. Well, I thought you had accepted that whether it was
17 contained within a formal complaint or whether it was
18 contained within a statement, for example, a witness
19 statement, but was in essence a complaint, that in
20 either of those circumstances the serving of a 17(3)
21 would be considered.
22 Did I pick you up wrong about that?
23 A. You didn't.
24 Q. Then go back to my question. We know that, for example,
25 Atkinson was not initially served with a 17(3), even
103
1 though there had been a form of complaint within
2 a witness statement. Right?
3 Was that because, as you keep saying, it was hearsay
4 and you didn't think there was sufficient evidence to
5 connect him to the allegation?
6 A. I have said earlier -- I am not going to dwell on it --
7 I have said earlier 17(3) probably should have been
8 served. I am not going to dwell on it any further, you
9 know, from that point of view.
10 Q. That's fine. I am just trying to find out was there
11 a generalised standard that was used, or was it simply,
12 every single complaint that was made a 17(3)was issued?
13 A. I am aware of a multitude of CID investigations and
14 during interviews in relation to crimes, some witness
15 may have said in a statement such and such about
16 a police officer.
17 I am not aware of any -- this is just in general --
18 17(3)s coming to light in relation to it -- go on ahead.
19 Q. Please, you carry on.
20 A. I do not recall any circumstances, because, at the end
21 of the day, 99% of the interviews include -- what do you
22 call it -- breaches by -- alleged breaches by police
23 officers. Nearly every one of them, there would be
24 complaints against police in relation to every
25 investigation. So I don't know.
104
1 Q. But there aren't 17(3)s served?
2 A. No. Maybe now, but I don't know. I don't know the
3 circumstances at the time.
4 Q. All I am asking is, therefore, somebody has to form
5 a judgment before the 17(3) --
6 A. Yes, and I certainly did. When I got the file
7 eventually. I certainly made a judgment that there was
8 no necessity to serve the 17(3). I probably was wrong,
9 but, at the end of the day, I didn't think it on the
10 basis of what was said, you know, in the hearsay.
11 Q. That's fine. I am only trying to get to the bottom of
12 what the standard was or whether it was a judgment.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Adair, I think strictly these are matters
14 of law. I suspect there are two stages at which you
15 have to consider the standard. The one is that at which
16 you decide to launch disciplinary proceedings, whether
17 or not it is appropriate at that stage to issue
18 a Section 17(3) notice or 17(3) form.
19 At that stage, it would seem that the standard is
20 a prima facie case, because if you had to be satisfied
21 beyond real doubt, there would not be much point in the
22 disciplinary proceedings and, of course, you don't know
23 what the defendant may say.
24 When you come to having conducted your disciplinary
25 proceedings, you shouldn't make an adverse finding
105
1 except on the criminal standard.
2 MR ADAIR: Yes, but I understood the 17(3) was served before
3 there were any --
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Sir John has pointed out there may be
5 circumstances in which --
6 MR ADAIR: Subject to the caveat about the criminal
7 proceedings.
8 SIR JOHN EVANS: I think the simple answer for me is --
9 perhaps the witness should comment on this -- once
10 a complaint is made, it has to be recorded in accordance
11 with the Act. An investigating officer is appointed and
12 a 17(3) must be served as soon as practicable unless
13 there are other reasons not to do so. It is as simple
14 as that.
15 Is that correct, Witness?
16 A. That's correct. That's correct.
17 MR ADAIR: Does that include the fact that the person who
18 makes the decision doesn't believe the allegation?
19 A. Oh, no. No. His Lordship mentioned there the reason.
20 Q. I think you have just elevated Sir John.
21 A. It is nice to see some smiles.
22 SIR JOHN EVANS: It is nice to see somebody with some
23 intelligence in the room!
24 A. You mentioned it there. If it hindered the
25 investigation, there is no question about it. That was
106
1 one aspect.
2 I cannot -- I want to be honest. I cannot comment
3 on that aspect. It may well be the chief investigating
4 officer, Mr McBurney, had that in mind, but I do not
5 know that aspect of -- he certainly didn't mention it.
6 MR ADAIR: Okay. I want to move on to a different aspect.
7 Again, I hope to be relatively brief. I want to
8 summarise as I understand the position concerning your
9 involvement into the neglect complaint.
10 Do you understand what I mean by the neglect
11 complaint; the four officers in the Land Rover?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now, we know that Superintendent McBurney was appointed
16 as the senior investigating officer on the day of
17 Robert Hamill's death, 8th May. Okay?
18 Now we know also that a number of days later, you
19 and Mr Anderson, who are both from Complaints and
20 Discipline -- isn't that right -- were appointed as
21 essentially the officers involved in the Complaints and
22 Discipline end of the neglect complaint. Is that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. We know also, and can you confirm that you knew at the
25 time, that Mr Mullan from the ICPC and Mr xxxxxxxxxx from
107
1 the ICPC were both involved -- I will put it neutrally
2 for the moment -- in an overseeing role. You are
3 nodding your head.
4 A. Yes, supervised it. Supervised it. We had to keep them
5 informed and documents sent to them in relation to the
6 matter.
7 Q. I understand.
8 Now, we know that on 12th May -- you may not be
9 aware of this, but I just want your comments about
10 this -- from the policy book which appears at [00926],
11 if we could just have that on the screen, we know on
12 12th May there was a meeting between a number of senior
13 officers involved in the investigation, Complaints &
14 Discipline and the ICPC, Mr McBurney -- I am not sure
15 whose name that is blanked out -- Mr Mullan,
16 Superintendent Anderson. That's your partner. Is that
17 right?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. We see from there that Detective Chief
20 Superintendent McBurney briefed the ICPC of the incident
21 and investigation so far. Is that right?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Now, you have already -- I am going to suggest to
24 you if we look at page [80990], which is the Inquiry
25 statement of Mr Mullan from the ICPC -- is that up on
108
1 your screen, Mr Bradley?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. If you look at paragraph 13. If you would highlight
4 paragraph 13.
5 A. That's 15.
6 Q. Paragraph 13, [80989], we know that at that meeting, at
7 which your partner Mr Anderson was present from C&D, you
8 will see that Mr Mullan is going to tell us:
9 "I recall that it was at this meeting on
10 12th May 1997 with DCS McBurney that I first became
11 aware of the witness Tracey Clarke and the allegations
12 against RC Atkinson. My file note 4A at page 27270
13 states, 'It was at this juncture that Detective Chief
14 Superintendent McBurney referred to a matter arising.
15 During interview of Tracey Clarke, the latter stated she
16 had been talking to a person named Hanvey prior to his
17 arrest by police. According to Ms Clarke, Mr Hanvey had
18 boasted to her that one of the four officers at the
19 scene (Reserve Constable Atkinson) had told him to get
20 rid of the clothing he was wearing at the time of the
21 assault'."
22 So we know that on 12th May, if this is right, both
23 Complaints & Discipline and ICPC had been made aware
24 by Superintendent McBurney of the allegations concerning
25 Constable Atkinson?
109
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So can we assume that -- you were asked about this
3 phrase you used in your Inquiry statement, that at
4 an early stage you became aware of those allegations.
5 Can we assume for the moment that if Mr Anderson was
6 aware of it at the latest on 12th May, that probably you
7 would have been aware of it as well?
8 A. Probably, but I am not 100% --
9 Q. I understand that. It would have been unusual if you
10 had been kept out of the loop, as you and Mr Anderson
11 were there in an investigatory capacity, albeit in
12 relation to the neglect complaint?
13 A. Probably, but not certain.
14 Q. I understand. So as far as -- so the two officers from
15 Complaints & Discipline, one and probably two from
16 Complaints & Discipline, at that stage are aware of
17 the allegations. Is it Mr McBurney's responsibility to
18 serve the 17(3)s or is it C&D?
19 A. C&D.
20 Q. Then turning to the ICPC situation, if this is all
21 right, once again at a very early stage, the ICPC had
22 been made aware by Mr McBurney --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- of the allegations.
25 A. Yes.
110
1 Q. Can you help us: have they power to refer that matter to
2 the Chief Constable and, through him, to a deputy chief
3 constable to consider suspension of that officer?
4 A. No question about it.
5 Q. That was their --
6 A. They are the primary -- they are the primary
7 supervisors. They control the whole situation, the
8 Independent Commission for Police Complaints, and they
9 dictate the terms.
10 MR ADAIR: Thank you very much.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Have you anything, Mr McGrory?
12 MR McGRORY: I am not seeking to confuse matters further,
13 sir.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: You are hoping to bring clarity to it all.
15 Questions from MR McGRORY
16 MR McGRORY: I hope I may be able to.
17 Mr Bradley, my name is McGrory. I represent the
18 family of Robert Hamill.
19 You were a chief inspector at this time in 1997
20 attached to Complaints & Discipline. Isn't that
21 correct?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. That was your sole function?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Had you been involved in the investigation of complaints
111
1 prior to that, for long prior to that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Can you tell us for how long?
4 A. I was 12 years in Complaints & Discipline. I left it
5 in 2001. That occurred in 1997. So I would have been
6 eight or nine years.
7 Q. Did you come on the scene after the introduction of the
8 Independent Commission for Police Complaints in 1988?
9 A. That's correct. When they took over, as far as I can
10 recall now.
11 Q. Prior to that internal discipline, am I correct in
12 saying that it was entirely a matter for the police
13 force?
14 A. No. Prior to that, there was the Police Complaints
15 Board.
16 Q. Yes, but that was associated with the Police Authority,
17 was it not?
18 A. Oh, no.
19 Q. That was independent as well?
20 A. Independent as well.
21 Q. Can you remember then when the transition took place in
22 1998 when the Independent Commission for Police
23 Complaints was established?
24 A. I don't recall the exact circumstances, but I was about
25 at the time.
112
1 Q. It is just that -- would you have familiarised yourself
2 with the circumstances in which the ICPC would become
3 involved in a complaint as a chief inspector involved in
4 complaints?
5 A. Yes. It was usually the more serious-type allegations.
6 Q. Am I correct in saying that the legislation established
7 certain authorities for taking decisions about when the
8 ICPC was involved. Do you remember that?
9 A. What was that again?
10 Q. Let me phrase this in another way. Do you remember that
11 the Chief Constable had authority over the conduct of
12 complaints for lower ranking officers?
13 A. For trivial complaints, the Chief Constable had
14 authority, but if they were being supervised by the
15 Independent Commission, you had no authority. The ICPC
16 made the decisions.
17 Q. Let's just deal with the circumstances in which the ICPC
18 might become involved.
19 Now, it would be correct to say that if a member of
20 the public becomes aware of something and complains of
21 it, that the ICPC, after 1987, have to be involved?
22 A. The matter was referred to them and they decided on the
23 degree and type of case it was.
24 Q. In other words, the decision whether or not they became
25 involved was theirs?
113
1 A. Oh, yes.
2 Q. Once a member of the public complained?
3 A. Yes. Aye. There was the internal discipline not
4 complained of. That was dealt with by the Chief
5 Constable.
6 Q. That's what I am getting at.
7 A. Oh, sorry.
8 Q. I think it is my fault for not framing the questions
9 properly.
10 A. Yes, yes.
11 Q. Now, those are the circumstances in which they must
12 become involved, that is when the public complain?
13 A. Aye, but not -- aye. They become involved, but they do
14 not supervise all.
15 Q. Not necessarily, no.
16 What I want to talk about is, in what circumstances,
17 when the public doesn't know something has happened,
18 does the ICPC become involved?
19 A. Would that not have been when the Chief Constable would
20 refer it to them?
21 Q. Yes, indeed. I am going to suggest to you that is
22 precisely when that happens.
23 A. Yes. Well, I think that was -- I'm just -- I wasn't too
24 sure in relation to the new body, but yes, that's ...
25 Q. In fact, it will probably ring a bell with you now if
114
1 I say there was a power under Article 8 of that 1987
2 legislation given to the Chief Constable to choose to
3 bring in the ICPC --
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. -- whether or not the public had complained or a member
6 of the public had complained.
7 A. That's correct, yes.
8 Q. Indeed, are you aware that is what happened in this case
9 initially?
10 A. I am not aware --
11 Q. No. Maybe I had better show you something then, just to
12 be clear about this?
13 A. -- or I don't recall.
14 Q. Page [44407]. This is a memorandum from
15 a Superintendent of Complaints to Assistant Chief
16 Constable Hays. Does the name Hays ring a bell?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. He was, I am going to suggest to you, an assistant chief
19 constable who had responsibility for complaints?
20 A. Yes. Yes, in his day, yes.
21 Q. You remember that. Now, in the second paragraph of this
22 memorandum, the superintendent is telling Assistant
23 Chief Constable Hays that:
24 "... this matter was referred to the ICPC under
25 Article 8(1) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
115
1 by the Chief Constable."
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. "[It] was made prior to the receipt of a formal
4 complaint, which was received ... on 7 May ..."
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. We know that a formal complaint was made on behalf of my
7 clients, that's the Hamill family, by the late
8 xxxxxxxxxx on 6th May, which was received on
9 7th May.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. But prior to that, the Chief Constable himself had
12 already referred it under that power that you have
13 referred to --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- to the ICPC.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. That is the issue of obviously what happened, because at
18 this point we don't have the information. Nobody has
19 the information on 7th May, or prior, within the police
20 system about the phone call. You accept that. That
21 comes in on 9th May.
22 A. What phone call?
23 Q. The alleged phone call between Reserve
24 Constable Atkinson and the suspect.
25 A. Yes. I understand what you are -- yes, yes.
116
1 Q. That's not in the system on 7th May.
2 A. Yes, yes.
3 Q. So when the original -- the very first complaint is
4 opened by the Chief Constable himself --
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. -- a little bit prior to the formal complaint arriving?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So the Chief Constable has invoked a power --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- that he retains under this legislation to ask the
11 ICPC to investigate something?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Can you tell us, as someone who was -- who dealt only
14 with the issue of complaints around about this time, was
15 that a common occurrence?
16 A. No, no.
17 Q. Of course, moving on a little bit, it goes without
18 saying that if the public, and in particular the family
19 of a victim like Robert Hamill, are not aware of
20 a detail, they can't make a complaint of it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So, in other words, that if the police service --
23 personalities within the police service become aware of
24 a detail which, objectively, an uninterested person
25 looking at the situation might think would merit
117
1 a referral to the ICPC, that power exists to ask the
2 Chief Constable to bring the ICPC in?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You see, what I am going to say to you is that the
5 Hamill family were utterly unaware of the allegation
6 about the phone call --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. -- until the year 2000 --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- when they were informed of that by the Coroner.
11 So in circumstances where the family of the victim
12 and no other member of the public who might be in
13 a position to make a complaint have the information,
14 that it is open to those concerned in the investigation
15 to take that decision to bring in the ICPC anyway?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And, in fact, I will go one further than that and say
18 that the ICPC did not actually have the power to
19 supervise any investigation of the phone call unless it
20 had been asked to do so by the police.
21 A. Yes.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Is this the position? The ICPC's powers are
23 triggered either by a referral by the Chief Constable or
24 a complaint from a member of the public?
25 MR McGRORY: Yes.
118
1 THE CHAIRMAN: But only by one or other of those two?
2 MR McGRORY: Yes. That's my understanding of the powers.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: I suspect that Mr Underwood could have
4 prepared, with no more detail than we need for our
5 purposes, a summary of the regulatory provisions.
6 MR McGRORY: Can I say, sir, I have had a very hasty look at
7 the powers over lunchtime and that is why I thought it
8 appropriate to raise it now. It may be that there are
9 other witnesses who can advance this further.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: I am sure that a document prepared could be
11 agreed.
12 SIR JOHN EVANS: I think put shortly Mr McGrory is right.
13 The Chief Constable has the power to refer, but the ICPC
14 can call in, if they are made aware of it by some other
15 means.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
17 MR UNDERWOOD: I think the position -- at the risk of making
18 this at least four-way -- was, until PONI, the
19 supervising body could not call in of its own volition.
20 So the ICPC had no power to self-refer, but it could ask
21 for a referral to be made to it. That's the highest of
22 its powers.
23 Again, we can agree a note on what Articles 8 and 9
24 mean about this. In fact, we are seeing Mr Macauley
25 tomorrow, who I will not say lives and breathes
119
1 Article 8 and 9, but will be able to tell you about
2 Article 8 and 9 in more detail.
3 MR McGRORY: Yes. There is actually -- I think we will just
4 take it no further with this witness. There are other
5 people who can deal with this. Thank you very much,
6 Mr Bradley.
7 MS DINSMORE: No questions.
8 MR UNDERWOOD: I have nothing arising. Thank you very much,
9 unless the Panel has anything.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, sir.
11 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much.
12 (The witness withdrew)
13 THE CHAIRMAN: We just have one more fairly short witness.
14 MR UNDERWOOD: Fairly short. He was an eyewitness.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we will have our break now.
16 Fifteen minutes.
17 (3.00 pm)
18 (A short break)
19 (3.15 pm)
20 MR UNDERWOOD: John Johnson, please.
21 MR JOHN WILLIAM JOHNSON (sworn)
22 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD
23 MR UNDERWOOD: Good afternoon, Mr Johnson.
24 A. Good afternoon.
25 Q. My name is Underwood. I am Counsel to the Inquiry.
120
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. It is my task to ask questions to start with. Other
3 people may have some supplemental questions at the end
4 of it.
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. Firstly, can I apologise for keeping you hanging around
7 all day?
8 A. There is no problem on that.
9 Q. I think you came over from Bulgaria?
10 A. That's right, yes.
11 Q. Secondly, can I ask you your full name, please?
12 A. John William Johnson.
13 Q. I want to ask you about the early hours of
14 27th April 1997. You are aware of that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I know at that point you were living in a flat over
17 Jameson's Bar?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Let's see if we can have a look on the screen at
20 photographs which might help pinpoint where you were and
21 what you could see from that. Can we have a look at
22 page [01048]?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. This is obviously an oblique photograph of Jameson's.
25 A. Yes.
121
1 Q. Can you help us with which windows represent the flat
2 you were in?
3 A. Can we use that pencil or is it that one there?
4 Q. I don't think we can mark it. Can you tell us in your
5 own words for the moment and we may be able to mark on
6 the screen afterwards?
7 A. Oh, right. I was on the top floor, up on the top floor.
8 The first door, the brown door on the left, would have
9 been a door going up for apartments on the left-hand
10 side of the building with no access to the right of the
11 building.
12 The middle doors were the entrances for the bar.
13 The door on the very right would have been the door for
14 the apartments going up to Toddy's Bar and Restaurant,
15 and also to the apartments up on that side as well.
16 Q. On the top floor, we can see, going away from us, a deep
17 window, then two shallower windows --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- then two deep windows.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Which, if any of those, was your flat?
22 A. The two big windows, because one was for a bedroom and
23 the other one was for -- no. There would have been one
24 of the big windows and the -- one big one and the small
25 one for the bedroom.
122
1 Q. Right.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: So if we count those along from the left, can
3 you tell us which numbers they would be? If you look at
4 the top floor --
5 A. Yes.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: -- and you count the windows from the left of
7 the building.
8 A. Yes. It would be the fourth, window number four.
9 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you. In fact, we can, I think, look at
10 page 268 in the virtual reality suite. It is the
11 third volume of photographs. Don't worry. It will come
12 up.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: It will come up. That window was the window
14 of your living room, was it?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR UNDERWOOD: We can do something called a screen shot on
17 this, on which you can write. So if we can have that
18 facility. Perhaps you could mark with the pen, please,
19 which windows you are talking of here.
20 A. Where was I? I was here, wasn't I? Did I say four?
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Four, you said, from the left.
22 A. That would be here.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
24 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much. If we can go back to
25 the photograph album and look at the next -- perhaps we
123
1 could look at page 262 on here?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. We will just leave this open for the moment while I am
6 asking you questions about it. Perhaps a screen shot
7 can be made of this.
8 I want to ask you whether something drew your
9 attention to events in the street.
10 A. Yes. I was asleep, but there was -- obviously there was
11 a lot of commotion going on downstairs. I didn't know
12 if it was coming from the bar downstairs. When I looked
13 through the window, it was going on in the main street.
14 Q. Was the commotion shouting, or something different?
15 A. Yes, because it woke me. It woke me up, you know.
16 There was lots of people in and that.
17 Q. Now, we have this photograph taken from a flat on the
18 floor below yours.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Was your view anything like this?
21 A. Yes. I would have had a wee bit more -- I think it
22 would have been a bit more length. I would have been
23 a wee bit more back, if you know what I mean, a wee bit,
24 you know. It seems very close there to the main road.
25 I was a wee bit, a wee bit more -- this looks like it is
124
1 sort of coming from the first lot of apartments.
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. I think I was a wee bit -- because I had a bit more view
4 of the length, you know.
5 Q. Can you tell us what you saw when you looked out?
6 A. Yes. There was a lot of people over the whole street,
7 you know.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. It seems to be -- having lived in Portadown, it seems to
10 be like that there, because it has happened before
11 that there was two factions confronting each other. Do
12 You know, there seems to be scuffles in different parts
13 of it all, you know.
14 Q. A number of different groups fighting or scuffling?
15 A. It was obviously -- it was spread out a wee bit. It
16 wasn't just -- not like one army fighting. It was a wee
17 bit spread out, you know.
18 Q. We have heard various versions of numbers.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. I don't want you to be specific about numbers, but what
21 would be helpful is if you could give us some idea of
22 whether this was a large group fighting a small group or
23 whether there was any sort of rough equivalence of
24 numbers on one side or the other.
25 A. I couldn't see properly round the left-hand corner, so
125
1 it seems to be there were sort of charges going on. So
2 it would -- but certainly, we are not talking that there
3 was a couple of dozen people there. I would have
4 imagined at the time that there would have been maybe
5 over fifty people involved there.
6 Q. All right. Did you see anybody on the ground?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. How many people were lying on the ground?
9 A. There was one person on the ground.
10 Q. Can you help us, doing the best you can after these
11 years, with whereabouts on here he was?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You can mark it with a pen, if you would, please.
14 A. Yes, yes.
15 Q. Okay. We will call that number 1 --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- for the purpose of this. I am going to jump ahead.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Eventually, did you see that person get up?
20 A. In the end yes.
21 Q. Right, because we know there were two people --
22 A. That's correct, yes.
23 Q. -- one of whom was able to walk afterward and one of
24 whom wasn't.
25 A. Yes.
126
1 Q. This person -- we will call him number 1 now -- what was
2 happening to him when you saw him on the ground?
3 A. I would say there was about five or six people that was
4 kicking him all round. He was getting just kicked,
5 like.
6 Q. Right. In a statement you made to the police, which we
7 will look at in a bit --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. -- you said that you watched the events on and off for
10 a bit. You went back into your flat and back to the
11 window again.
12 A. Yes. I put a dressing gown on and that, you know.
13 Q. Now, was this kicking going on all the time you were
14 going backwards and forwards, as far as you are aware,
15 or did you see it on one of these occasions?
16 A. No, I watched that, yes.
17 Q. So you saw it when you first looked out the window. Is
18 that right?
19 A. Yes, yes.
20 Q. There came a point when you went back in to get your
21 dressing gown --
22 A. Just grabbed it, like.
23 Q. -- and went back to the window again?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. From the beginning of it until you finally stopped
127
1 looking out of the window, was he still being kicked?
2 A. Yes, uh-huh. He was being kicked, not for a short
3 period, you know, quite a bit, and then it stopped, but
4 then a few boys went back and he got still kicked again
5 while he was still laying on the floor.
6 Q. So did it stop and restart just once, as far as you were
7 aware?
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. Right. Were you aware that there was also something
10 going on to the left-hand side that you couldn't see?
11 A. Yes, because there was like a charge and there was -- it
12 was somebody seemed to be for some -- yes. There was
13 something going on and picked on, but then it went round
14 the corner. A lot of shouting. Then everybody more or
15 less sort of then had sort of disappeared, the crowd,
16 and gone from the first one then to the -- round the
17 corner to the second person then.
18 Q. All right. Was that the point at which they stopped
19 kicking the person we are calling number 1 here?
20 A. Yes, yes.
21 Q. Again, I am jumping ahead.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Were you watching when an ambulance came and took away
24 the two people?
25 A. There was -- yes. I didn't -- I saw that the
128
1 ambulancemen went up round the corner and brought
2 somebody out on a stretcher that went to the ambulance.
3 The other person then got -- managed to get up and ...
4 Q. Right. Could you actually see the ambulance or did you
5 just deduce there was one from the presence of the
6 ambulancemen?
7 A. Yes, I presumed there was one, because I saw the
8 attendants going up there.
9 Q. Okay. Now, can you give us any idea of time from the
10 moment you first looked out of the window to the point
11 at which you stopped looking out of the window? If you
12 can't, you can't.
13 A. I would imagine that it may have been about 45 minutes
14 maybe, something like that.
15 Q. Within that period, how long after the ambulance had
16 taken people away were you still looking out?
17 A. I think, when they got up, I think I went back to bed
18 then, you know, after the boy off the ground went back
19 and it seemed to me that sort of it was over then, you
20 know.
21 Q. Would this be fair then: it was your impression that
22 from the moment you started looking out to the point
23 when people were taken away was about 45 minutes?
24 A. No, I don't think -- I think it could be that after the
25 boy was on -- the one that was on the floor, I would
129
1 imagine that it would have been, I would say, at least
2 half an hour anyway, you know. It would have been at
3 least 30 minutes.
4 Q. What would have been?
5 A. Before the ambulance and from when the kicking started,
6 in other words.
7 Q. All right. I want to ask you about police activity now,
8 if I may.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. First of all, did you see a police Land Rover?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you help us with marking on here where you saw it?
13 A. The Land Rover -- I don't think that Harp sign was
14 just in front of my view a bit. I would be really a wee
15 bit behind the Harp sign.
16 Q. Again, to be helping you, the Harp sign is above the
17 first floor. If you were on the top floor, then it
18 wouldn't have obstructed your view, according to what we
19 have seen.
20 A. That's right. Otherwise, if I mark it now sort of on
21 the Harp sign, it would be about there somewhere, you
22 know.
23 Q. Was that Land Rover there all the time while you were
24 watching?
25 A. The Land Rover had come -- the Land Rover -- the
130
1 scuffling had started. The Land Rover came there, and
2 then the kicking started on one person that was sort of
3 surrounded and the Land Rover was there.
4 Q. It stayed there throughout, did it?
5 A. The Land Rover stayed there, yes.
6 Q. Were you conscious of any other police vehicles turning
7 up at any point?
8 A. Well, that one was there, but later on, another vehicle
9 came down as well.
10 Q. Did you hear that or did you see it?
11 A. Well, I did see it, you know.
12 Q. Right. Now, I want to ask you about policemen, or
13 police officers more accurately.
14 Did you see any police officers on the street?
15 A. When the man on the -- was being attacked on the street,
16 the police was there in a Land Rover.
17 Q. Uh-huh. When you say "in the Land Rover", can you --
18 A. In the Land Rover, but they didn't make no attempt to go
19 over to the person that was being attacked.
20 Q. Right. How many officers could you see in the
21 Land Rover?
22 A. I don't know who was in the back of the Land Rover, but
23 there would have been at least two there, but I can't
24 see in the back of the Land Rover. So I couldn't see
25 what -- you know, because there is, like, no windows.
131
1 It's ...
2 Q. But could you see officers in the front of the
3 Land Rover?
4 A. Yes, yes.
5 Q. So are you saying that for the entire period that the
6 man was being kicked --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. -- there were officers sitting in the front of the
9 Land Rover?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. How did you feel about that?
12 A. I felt terrible, but I couldn't do nothing, you know.
13 Q. Was there any activity around the Land Rover at all?
14 A. Yes, there was. Then the guy was laying there
15 unconscious. A woman went to -- I thought he was dead,
16 to tell you the truth. You know, I thought he was dead,
17 but then there was confirmation with boys going over to
18 the Land Rover and then the police got out of the
19 Land Rover.
20 Q. You began to say, "a woman went"?
21 A. Yes, a woman.
22 Q. Tell us about that.
23 A. All I know is a woman was sort of lifting his head and
24 that, but I can't make a description or that. It was
25 sort of night-time, you know.
132
1 Q. Sorry. Then you said something about boys going to the
2 Land Rover?
3 A. Then there were some of the -- went to -- there was like
4 a bit of a confrontation round the police Land Rover
5 then, and the police got out of the Land Rover and
6 seemed to be sort of -- whether they are -- to me, it
7 looked like they were negotiating with the people there.
8 Q. Can you help us with whether this was before or after
9 the back-up car arrived? If you can't remember --
10 A. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure.
11 Q. Can you remember whether this was before or after the
12 ambulance arrived?
13 A. This was before the ambulance arrived.
14 Q. It is the police from the Land Rover who were doing this
15 negotiating, was it?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did they get out to do it?
18 A. Yes, they got out.
19 Q. Can you recall whether they got out of the front or out
20 of the back, or both?
21 A. That I am afraid I can't help you with. They came from
22 the back and went round the front, but there were
23 certainly police on the street. You know, there was
24 police on the street.
25 Q. But are you clear that the police on the street came
133
1 from the Land Rover?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Right. Did they then do anything to help quieten things
4 down or to help the person on the ground or anything
5 like that?
6 A. There was -- there seemed to be -- there seemed to be
7 what I call a gang or whatever. There seemed to be,
8 like, as if there was a bit of a spokesman that was
9 speaking to the police and somebody -- one of them
10 was -- went in the back of the Land Rover.
11 Q. Can you recall what he was dressed like?
12 A. No. I'm sorry.
13 Q. Can you recall what anybody there was dressed like?
14 A. No. People were moving and, you know ...
15 Q. Did you recognise anybody?
16 A. No. I am not originally from Portadown. You know, some
17 people would have relations. I am from England
18 originally. So I wouldn't have -- didn't know local
19 people, if you know what I mean.
20 Q. Did you see, at any stage, any police officer doing
21 anything to help keep the peace or try to gain the
22 peace?
23 A. Well, no. All I saw was the police round, but I never
24 seen any police trying to draw weapons or batons or
25 anything like that. It was after that -- and even when
134
1 drifting from this one, when obviously there was
2 something happening round the corner as well, but the
3 police didn't drive up with the Land Rover. There was
4 no -- nobody made no attempt to go up there. The police
5 Land Rover stayed where it was there.
6 Q. Okay. Now, I want to take you to look at a statement
7 that was taken from you in May 1997. Can we look at
8 that at page [09123]? This is dated 9th May 1997.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. It was taken from you by a detective constable called
11 Mr Williamson.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Can I ask you how you came to the attention of the
14 police, as far as you are aware?
15 A. I didn't contact the police. I think they contacted --
16 I don't know if they came up at the time to the
17 apartments or -- but I didn't contact the police. They
18 contacted me.
19 Q. Right. If we look towards the bottom of this, about
20 half a dozen lines from the bottom --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. -- roughly in the middle of that passage. You there
23 say:
24 "I could see a police Land Rover parked over on the
25 other side of Market Street near the
135
1 Alliance & Leicester."
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. "There were people near it. As the police went towards
4 them, they backed off."
5 Yes.
6 Q. Now, can you describe what you meant there?
7 A. "There were people near it. As the police went ...".
8 Yes. They went back towards the -- back into the
9 middle of the town, you know. I don't think there
10 was -- the police were talking, but I don't think they
11 were being attacked or anything by the police, you know.
12 They were just sort of -- backed off, and a lot of
13 them -- but there was one that seemed to stay. They
14 backed off but there seemed to be one that was
15 negotiating with the police, whether, you know --
16 Q. Okay. Then, if we go to page [09124], the final
17 paragraph -- I am so sorry -- the final sentence, you
18 say:
19 "I do recall something like when the police were
20 trying to help the man on the ground some of those
21 around were still trying to kick at him but were pushed
22 away."
23 Now, did you tell the police that in this statement?
24 A. "I do recall something like when the police were trying
25 to help ..."
136
1 I don't remember the police being round that person
2 on the ground.
3 Q. But here we are, 9th May, very close to the events, and
4 you have allowed to be recorded in a statement which you
5 signed --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- that passage:
8 "... when the police were trying to help the man on
9 the ground, some of those around were still trying to
10 kick at him, but were pushed away."
11 Is your recollection now --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- that police did try to help the man on the ground?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Can you help us with how that got into your statement?
16 A. I can't, because at the time I was so sure that the --
17 I was annoyed the next day because the police didn't
18 make an effort to stop it happening. So that's all
19 I know.
20 Q. Tell us about the process by which this officer,
21 Mr Williamson, took your statement.
22 Did he ask you questions and write down as he was
23 going along, or did he ask you some questions and then,
24 at the end of it, write this out for you, or did you
25 write it, or how did it go?
137
1 A. I wouldn't have wrote it. I didn't write it.
2 I definitely -- I didn't write it, you know. I probably
3 signed it at the time, at the end, like, you know, but
4 I didn't write it.
5 Q. Did you tell him you were upset about the police not
6 helping enough?
7 A. I don't recall, but it may have been possible. I was
8 upset, like, about it, you know.
9 Q. How did you feel about getting involved with giving
10 statements to the police and perhaps raising your
11 profile?
12 A. Well, it would have been a bit hard for me on there,
13 because I have a business in Portadown and, to tell you
14 the truth now, if it wasn't for living in Bulgaria and
15 having sold the business, I don't know what I would have
16 done, because I think it would be hard to come down
17 here. I think my business could be threatened, I think,
18 you know.
19 Q. Did the fact that you had a business and you might have
20 been concerned about consequences have any influence
21 about what you allowed to go in the statement?
22 A. Well, at the time of the Sunday morning when the police
23 came, I didn't -- I wasn't aware that somebody had died.
24 If I'd have known that, maybe it would have --
25 I would've been maybe more reluctant on giving
138
1 a statement, but I thought it was just an enquiry at the
2 time on what happened, of, you know, what the events
3 were in the town, but I didn't hold nothing back.
4 I just gave my opinion of what happened.
5 Q. That's what the Panel want to know. If your opinion was
6 that the police hadn't done enough to help, or, indeed,
7 anything to help, and you weren't holding anything back,
8 they are going to want to know why it is you allowed to
9 go into it the passage:
10 "I do recall something like when the police were
11 trying to help the man on the ground some of those
12 around were still trying to kick at him but were pushed
13 away."
14 Now, can you help them how that got in there then in
15 those circumstances?
16 A. I don't know how that got in there.
17 MR UNDERWOOD: Very well. Thank you very much, Mr Johnson.
18 As I said, other people may have some questions for you.
19 A. Okay. Thank you.
20 Questions from MR FERGUSON
21 MR FERGUSON: Mr Johnson, you say that you probably signed
22 the statement?
23 A. I'm usually -- usually, I presume normally when -- I am
24 not one for always getting involved in -- I don't get
25 involved in trouble, but I would imagine that normal
139
1 procedure would be when you sign a statement, but
2 I don't recall. I don't -- it is 12 years ago. I know
3 they wrote everything down, but I don't -- to be
4 truthful, I don't remember signing anything.
5 Q. Are you denying signing this statement?
6 A. Pardon?
7 Q. Are you denying that you signed this statement?
8 A. I just don't recall signing a statement. That's what
9 I'm saying, you know.
10 I presume when the police write something down,
11 at the end you sign it. So at the time I just presumed
12 that I signed some statement before they left.
13 Q. But you don't know whether you signed it or not?
14 A. I'm not sure.
15 Q. You are not sure?
16 A. Uh-huh.
17 Q. Was it read over to you?
18 A. Pardon?
19 Q. Was it read over to you?
20 A. It was read over, yes. Uh-huh. It was read over, yes.
21 Q. And you signed it?
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. You don't know?
24 A. I don't know. I presume I signed it. Normally, you
25 sign a statement, but ...
140
1 Q. Why would you purport to make a statement and then not
2 sign it?
3 A. Well, I presume it is signed, but it is 12 years ago.
4 I just, you know -- I am swearing on oath if I can't
5 remember if I signed it or not, but I presume that they
6 came there to take a statement and it is normal procedure
7 to sign it, so -- but if I can't recall 100%, there is no
8 point in telling you a lie, you know. It is as simple
9 as that.
10 Q. So you can't remember if you signed it?
11 A. I'm sure if I did sign it that the police would have it
12 or whoever investigated that my signature is there or
13 not, you know.
14 Q. Yes. You see, you would agree, would you not, that the
15 account, especially the last -- the end of your
16 statement --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- is completely different from the evidence you are now
19 giving today?
20 A. The last bit there.
21 Q. Can you account for that?
22 A. No. All I remember is just -- that has always been in
23 my mind, that the police just didn't -- were not over --
24 near that person at all.
25 Q. Could we have [09123] up, please, and [09124]?
141
1 At the end:
2 "I do recall something like when the police were
3 trying to help the man on the ground ..."
4 Did you see the police trying to help the man on the
5 ground?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Why did you put that in your statement?
8 A. Well, as far as I recall -- I don't know why it's there,
9 but I don't remember the police being -- trying to help
10 the man at all.
11 Q. But you made this statement shortly after these events?
12 A. Yes. I would have glanced, probably, through it, but
13 whether I studied it, you know, really studied, I am not
14 sure on that, but ...
15 Q. I mean, I want to be absolutely clear about this,
16 Mr Johnson. Are you saying the police put those words
17 into the statement?
18 A. No, I am not saying that at all, like. I am not saying
19 that they put these words in a statement, but I wasn't
20 writing it, so I didn't write the statement. So -- but
21 all I know is that I am 100% sure that the police
22 weren't round that person, because that sticks
23 clearly -- that sticks in my mind.
24 Q. So either the police made this up and put it in your
25 statement, which you signed. That's one possibility?
142
1 A. It is possible.
2 Q. Or alternatively, you are not telling us the truth.
3 A. Well, I'm telling the truth as best of my ability.
4 Q. Are you?
5 A. Yes. I have no reason to lie. I don't -- there is no
6 reason to lie at all.
7 Q. When did you see your statement again after May?
8 A. When did I see the statement again?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. I saw my statement today.
11 Q. Today?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You hadn't seen it in between?
14 A. I hadn't seen it in between.
15 Q. I mean, the words at the very end:
16 "I do recall something like ..."
17 Are you denying those are your words?
18 A. It says:
19 "I do recall something like when the police ..."
20 but --
21 Q. "... like when the police were trying to help the man on
22 the ground ..."
23 A. They didn't help. There was nobody round the man on
24 the ground. There was only a woman in the end
25 that went to help the man on the ground that was
143
1 unconscious.
2 Q. Can you assist me, please? Where did this come from,
3 this:
4 "I do recall something ..."
5 A. I don't know, because nobody helped the man off the
6 ground as well. It was in the end, when he was laying
7 there, that he lifted himself up in the end. There was
8 no pulling or trying to lift him off the ground or
9 nothing. So if the police had lifted him off the
10 ground, I would have remembered that, but he -- I'm
11 surprised that he got off the ground at all, and it was
12 unaided that he got off the ground.
13 Q. Has anybody spoken to you about giving evidence to this
14 Inquiry other than the police?
15 A. No. No.
16 Q. Nobody?
17 A. No. No.
18 Q. Has anybody threatened you?
19 A. No. No.
20 Q. Has anybody suggested that you should tell lies about
21 this?
22 A. No. No way. No. No.
23 Q. You see, you also have told us that for the entire
24 period where the lad was being kicked the police were at
25 the Land Rover.
144
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Are you sure about that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. This part of your evidence about some one person seeming
5 to be negotiating with the police --
6 A. Yes. That was after the man was ready -- he was still
7 laying on the ground unconscious, but there was nobody
8 then round there -- round him at all. There was nobody
9 kicking him then. That was a bit after that, you know.
10 Q. Did you tell the police about that?
11 A. Pardon?
12 Q. Did you tell the police about that?
13 A. I only told the police when they came round. They were
14 asking me questions and I told them what happened.
15 Q. This is part of what happened, you say.
16 A. Of? Right, can you repeat that there?
17 Q. This was part of what happened, one man negotiating, as
18 you say.
19 A. Well, I presume -- like negotiation. From a distance
20 away was negotiating -- he seemed to be like a spokesman
21 for whoever the gang was, or whatever, and seemed to be
22 talking to the police. I mean, the police -- when he
23 went into the Land Rover, they didn't drag him in or
24 nothing. He went in the Land Rover. He wasn't dragged
25 in or nothing.
145
1 Q. But did you tell the police about that when they came to
2 interview you in your flat?
3 A. No. I think they were -- I don't think I was probably
4 asked the whole -- the whole -- everything. I think
5 I was just sort of -- I didn't go through exactly
6 everything that happened. They just asked about the
7 person getting kicked, and I told all that, and -- but
8 they didn't ask -- I was more or less -- when they were
9 asking some questions, told them, and they were writing
10 it down. I didn't sort of sit there from the beginning
11 and just give a whole story, you know. They were asking
12 questions, writing down. I was telling what was
13 happening.
14 Q. You know, or you knew, the importance of telling the
15 truth to the police?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You would have been anxious to do that?
18 A. Well, I remember telling the police when they were in my
19 flat that they did not leave the Land Rover, but it
20 seems to be maybe that they didn't write that down as
21 well. I am telling them, but what they wrote down is
22 what they wrote down. If something is not wrote down,
23 I only -- it wasn't up -- I didn't know what they wanted
24 to write down, you know. I just told them all what was
25 happening. They wrote down in a statement what ...
146
1 Q. But when you read it over, you would have seen what they
2 had written?
3 A. Yes, I would have glanced through it, and that was --
4 the only bit that doesn't -- that seems to be correct,
5 except for the bit at the back, where I recall -- where
6 that bit, "the police were trying", that's the only bit
7 that doesn't seem to be -- make sense to me. That's the
8 only bit there. The rest seems correct, but that bit
9 there doesn't seem correct.
10 Q. Were the police polite to you when they questioned you?
11 A. Yes, they were okay, yes. Uh-huh.
12 Q. No complaints?
13 A. No, no.
14 Q. No suggestion they bullied you?
15 A. No, no, no, no.
16 Q. Just there were some things you didn't tell them which
17 you are now telling us?
18 A. I told them really what they wanted to know. I think
19 they were asking -- if I recall, they were asking
20 questions of what had happened and I gave the answers to
21 what they want and they were writing down. I don't
22 think they asked me to make a full story of it. I think
23 I was more or less answering questions to what
24 they asked.
25 Q. Well, what questions did they ask which brought forward
147
1 the answer about the police trying to help the man on
2 the ground? What question was that in answer to?
3 A. I don't think they asked a question on that. I don't
4 know why that -- all I know is that they didn't, and
5 I don't recall saying that bit. I don't remember --
6 I don't remember -- the police were not round there
7 trying to help. They were not.
8 Q. You are not telling the truth, are you?
9 A. I am telling the truth. I have no reason not to tell
10 the truth.
11 MR FERGUSON: Thank you.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr O'Hare?
13 Questions from MR O'HARE
14 MR O'HARE: Just a few matters, Mr Chairman.
15 You only saw one man lying on the ground. Isn't
16 that correct, Mr Johnson?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. This man got to his feet unaided?
19 A. Pardon?
20 Q. This man eventually got to his feet unaided?
21 A. He got to his feet unaided.
22 Q. In fact, did anybody have to help him to his feet?
23 A. No. In the end, he got up unaided. He was sort of
24 staggering a bit obviously, but he got up
25 unaided.
148
1 Q. You are quite clear about that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Perhaps page [09124] could be put back up on the screen?
4 A. If that can -- right.
5 Q. Perhaps if the middle portion of that could be
6 highlighted:
7 "The man I'd seen was helped to his feet ..."
8 Did you tell the police that?
9 A. Where is that bit here?
10 Q. Just five lines down.
11 A. "The man I'd seen was helped to his feet and walked to
12 the ambulance."
13 There was ambulancemen after the woman -- there was
14 ambulancemen that went over to him and I think they
15 realised he was not maybe in immediate danger. That's
16 when I saw the ambulancemen then go round the corner and
17 put someone on a stretcher. However, the ambulancemen
18 were with him. Whether they spoke to him, "Aye, okay", or it
19 seemed to be that they helped him, but he did get up on his
20 feet. You know, the ambulancemen were with him. I think
21 they checked that the -- but they straightaway went then round the
22 corner. It must have been to check that he was -- that there
23 was somebody injured round the corner, and then maybe --
24 they didn't lift him, help him -- or they may have
25 lifted his head or something, but they didn't help him
149
1 exactly right up on his feet. He got on his -- to his
2 feet by himself.
3 Q. Why did you say in that statement:
4 "The man I'd seen was helped to his feet ..."
5 A. Well, he wasn't helped up to his feet correctly. It may
6 have been lifted sort of his head up and whatever and
7 then he got up.
8 Q. Well, maybe it is just my understanding of the way it is
9 phrased, Mr Johnson. Perhaps you will forgive me if
10 I am wrong, but the impression from that:
11 "The man I'd seen was helped to his feet."
12 "Was helped to his feet" must mean he was helped to
13 his feet by people, a person or persons?
14 A. Two ambulancemen went over and then he got up himself.
15 Q. Okay. I will move on. The gang leader, as you
16 described him, he got into the back of the Land Rover
17 himself?
18 A. I don't know if he was the gang leader, but there was
19 somebody seemed to be a spokesman or something. He got
20 in the Land Rover.
21 Q. Did he just get in himself?
22 A. Well, he wasn't dragged in. Let's put it that way.
23 Q. Did the police pull him into the Land Rover perhaps.
24 A. Well, I didn't see him being put in, like.
25 Q. You didn't see him being put into the Land Rover?
150
1 A. You know, he went in the Land Rover, but he wasn't
2 dragged.
3 Q. Perhaps I could go back to that sentence we are just
4 reading there:
5 "The man I'd seen was helped to his feet and walked
6 to the ambulance. I also saw the police put a man into
7 the back of the Land Rover."
8 He went, yes. They opened the door and he went
9 into the Land Rover. He wasn't dragged in. Let's put
10 it that way.
11 Q. Well, did you see the police put him into the back --
12 put him in the Land Rover, into the back of the
13 Land Rover, or didn't you, Mr Johnson?
14 A. He was in the back, and he didn't stay there, by the
15 way. He came back out of the Land Rover as well.
16 Q. Did the police put him into the back of the Land Rover
17 or didn't they, Mr Johnson?
18 A. Well, they may have helped him in or opened the doors, but
19 he wasn't dragged in.
20 Q. But you were standing watching this, were you not?
21 A. Yes, but, you know, it is not daytime lights, you know.
22 It is the middle of -- it's like 2 o'clock in the
23 morning or whatever. It's not that lit up down there.
24 Q. Going on to the final paragraph of page [09124], you
25 have already told us that you only saw one individual on
151
1 the ground.
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Perhaps if the final paragraph of [09124] could be
4 highlighted, please. The final sentence, sorry. You
5 only saw one person on the ground?
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. "I do recall something like when the police were trying
8 to help the man at the ground some of those around were
9 still trying to kick at him ..."
10 A. No, they weren't pushed. The police wasn't round the man.
11 Q. But some of those around him were still trying to kick
12 at him?
13 A. There was -- after the first kicking, there was a few
14 while the police were -- while your man was maybe, like,
15 negotiating with the police, there was a few boys then
16 went back and were doing a bit more kicking as well.
17 Q. Were the police outside the Land Rover at this stage?
18 A. They were round -- they were at the -- they were -- aye,
19 they were in, but they were still at the Land Rover.
20 They were nowhere near your man that was on the ground.
21 Q. Is it your evidence that they were outside the
22 Land Rover at the time these people were kicking this
23 man on the ground?
24 A. I think the police were at the Land Rover.
25 Q. Outside the Land Rover?
152
1 A. Because they were -- when they were negotiating with
2 your man in the street, they were outside the
3 Land Rover.
4 Q. They were negotiating with the man?
5 A. I don't know if it is negotiating, but they were talking
6 with the man, yes.
7 Q. Can you give us any explanation as to why those last
8 three lines appear in your statement?
9 A. Why they ...?
10 Q. Why those last three lines appear in your statement.
11 Can you help us at all as to why they are there?
12 A. No.
13 Q. You signed the statement at the end of it. Isn't that
14 correct, Mr Johnson? See where it says below that last
15 line:
16 "Signature of witness: J Johnson."
17 A. Okay.
18 Q. That's where you would have signed in handwritten
19 manuscript your name, J Johnson?
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. But you also signed the front page of the statement as
22 well. Perhaps [09123] could be put back up on the
23 screen?
24 A. Okay.
25 Q. Do you see where it says P45 there?
153
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. In the original document, your signature would also have
3 appeared at that stage too?
4 A. Okay.
5 Q. So, in fact, your statement was signed twice.
6 A. Okay, yes.
7 Q. Do you see that declaration at the top of the
8 page that's in front of you there, page [09123]?
9 A. Up here?
10 Q. It is a paragraph -- perhaps it could be highlighted?
11 A. Yes. Okay.
12 Q. "I declare that this statement consisting of 3
13 pages ..."
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. So in the original handwritten statement there would
16 have been three pages -- do you understand -- as opposed
17 to one and a half pages in the typed?
18 A. Okay
19 Q. "Each signed by me": each page would have been signed by you.
20 A. Right.
21 Q. "[It] is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and
22 I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence at
23 a preliminary inquiry or at the trial of any person,
24 I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully
25 stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not
154
1 believe to be true."
2 A. Were there three pages? I only saw two pages today.
3 Q. Yes, there are two pages in the typewritten version of
4 it. In the original handwritten document, that would
5 have run to three -- if this police officer is telling
6 the truth about this, then it would have run to three
7 pages. Your signature would have appeared at the start
8 of it after the certificate heading. Your signature
9 would have appeared on each of the three pages and then,
10 finally, the third one would have been the last one.
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. You must have known -- you were a businessman at the
13 time, Mr Johnson. Is that right?
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. What sort of business did you run?
16 A. Hairdressing.
17 Q. You employed people?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You would have known the importance in your business of
20 keeping accurate records?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You would have read through this statement. Isn't that
23 correct?
24 A. To tell you the truth, I glanced through the statement.
25 It was Sunday, I think, when they came round, and when
155
1 it is finished, like, I just sort of glanced through it
2 and signed, because I presumed that what they wrote down
3 was what I said or whatever they asked me and that, and
4 I signed it then and that was it, but I can't say that
5 I studied it from word to word really, like.
6 Q. You knew the police were investigating a murder. Isn't
7 that correct?
8 A. Well, I didn't know it was a murder then, you know.
9 Q. You didn't, on 9th May 1997, know it was a murder?
10 A. I didn't know that the guy had died. I don't know.
11 Q. You didn't know that he had died on 8th May, the day
12 before you made your statement?
13 A. I didn't know that he was dead. They were really --
14 I mean, they were only enquiring what I saw and I didn't
15 see the man that was killed, because it was out of view.
16 It was only what I saw on the other man.
17 Q. Had there been talk about the death of this man in your
18 hairdressing salon.
19 A. I am not in the hair -- I would not -- at the time,
20 I had businesses in Southern Ireland as well. I was
21 not -- I would not be -- the only day I was in my
22 business would have been a Saturday that I would have
23 been in and I had my own appointments and so ...
24 MR O'HARE: You see, I have to suggest that the contents of
25 that statement are your words, Mr Johnson, and that is
156
1 the account that you gave to the police when they asked
2 you to make this statement, and that those are your
3 words at the end of that statement; that the police were
4 trying to help this man who was on the ground. That's
5 why the words appear in your statement. Thank you.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr McGrory?
7 Questions from MR McGRORY
8 MR McGRORY: Sir, just one or two things.
9 Mr Johnson, I represent the family of the man who
10 was killed, Robert Hamill.
11 Now, you are not from these shores obviously.
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. I take it you have no --
14 A. I am not political.
15 Q. Well, you took the words right out of my mouth.
16 A. Right. That's right.
17 Q. You have no axe to grind in terms of --
18 A. Because my shop business has always had customers from
19 both sides, always has been, and I employed people from
20 both sides as well. So ...
21 Q. So you have no interest in shoring up --
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. -- one point of view or another in terms of who support
24 the police and who don't and all that sort of thing?
25 A. That's right. My customers were politicians as well the
157
1 like of xxxxxxxxxx MP that has been coming to me for
2 40-odd years. I had all different people that come to
3 me and there was never any problems.
4 Q. When you were spoken to on 9th May, the police officer,
5 I am sure, did not give you any -- he didn't give you
6 any details as to what had happened in terms of who was
7 arrested or not arrested?
8 A. No, no, no. You know.
9 Q. You see, there was a man put into the Land Rover and let
10 out again.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So that's something you remember?
13 A. That's all I remember, yes.
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. You know, when something like that happens, there was
16 a lot of different things, you know. You have got
17 groups here and there. I am not there as a reporter at
18 the time to take every detail down, you know. At the
19 time I don't know whether -- I just -- at the time, I'm
20 thinking it is a fight. You know what I mean? I didn't
21 know if -- if you knew somebody was going to be dead,
22 you would have maybe took more details, but, you know.
23 Q. The man who died around the corner, you don't know
24 what's going on with him until you see him taken away on
25 a stretcher. Isn't that right?
158
1 A. Yes, but I didn't know obviously that he was -- well,
2 I didn't know if he was dead or not, but I knew he must
3 have been, because the ambulance went over to the first
4 one and then it seems to be that they left him. They
5 didn't bring him to the ambulance. They straightaway
6 went over to the second man.
7 Q. You obviously saw the stretcher coming into the
8 ambulance?
9 A. Yes, yes.
10 Q. You did say in the first part of this statement that the
11 police who had got out of the Land Rover -- I had better
12 show it to you. It is [09123], the last two lines:
13 "There were people near it. As the police went
14 towards them, they backed off."
15 A. Yes, they backed off. It seemed to be that they just
16 wanted to speak to one person. It seemed to be they
17 wanted -- you know, the rest backed off and there was
18 one person left with the police, you know.
19 Q. At this point, you didn't see those police heading up
20 round the corner at all?
21 A. No, I didn't see any police going up round the corner at
22 all at any time.
23 MR McGRORY: Okay. Thank you.
24 Questions from MR McCOMB
25 MR McCOMB: Just a very few questions. You said you hadn't
159
1 seen your statement between the time you made it on
2 9th May and until today.
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. Have you just come back from Bulgaria then after quite
5 a length of time?
6 A. I just came back on Sunday morning.
7 Q. When were you first aware you might be giving evidence
8 to this Inquiry?
9 A. I was aware -- what -- I was back from -- in Portadown
10 a couple of times, like, but there was one letter that
11 came to the shop, but the business has sold and I think
12 there was mail going there, but nobody -- I wasn't aware
13 of it. It was only I think last year that there was
14 a letter that was there when I went to visit the girls
15 who bought my shop and there was -- that they would want
16 me to give -- maybe appear. That's when I think I phoned
17 an office up to say that I am no longer living in
18 Northern Ireland, that I was living in Bulgaria.
19 Q. You phoned the Inquiry office. Is that right?
20 A. It must have been. I think, if I am correct, would that
21 have been when somebody contacted me then in Bulgaria to
22 come down?
23 Q. When that happened, you say about a year ago, did you --
24 A. This information of the letter was -- that I was coming
25 was this year, you know, that I was coming here.
160
1 Q. Right. Did you try then to recollect what had happened
2 or had you kept a fairly vivid image of the events of
3 this night in your mind over the past 12 years?
4 A. Yes, pretty vivid. The bit that sticks in my mind as
5 the vivid bit was because, in my opinion, the police did
6 not help the person on the ground. That's the bit.
7 Because I was thinking, if it was my son or daughter or
8 something that that happened to, somebody should have
9 helped, and --
10 Q. Have you been following the events of this Inquiry
11 perhaps on the website or --
12 A. No, none at all.
13 Q. So you have had nothing to jog your memory in any way,
14 you say?
15 A. No, because I -- nothing at all. I have been in
16 Bulgaria for the last, you know, over three years or more.
17 Q. As I understand it, the way you gave your evidence,
18 there was a period of about half an hour with intervals
19 in which you went to and fro from your window and at
20 these intervals --
21 A. I would have only gone once. I would have got my
22 dressing gown, because it was a bit cold, and that's it.
23 I would have gone then to the window again.
24 Q. Over the period of about half an hour, if what you say
25 today is correct, there were people kicking at a man on
161
1 the ground, the man who ultimately got up and walked to
2 the ambulance. Is that right?
3 A. Well, when he was kicked, he was laying there
4 undefending himself on the ground --
5 Q. But in any event -- sorry?
6 A. -- and then there was people came round a second time
7 and then he was left there then.
8 Q. Did you have a phone in your flat?
9 A. No, I haven't got a telephone in the flat.
10 Q. Now, you have described how at the Land Rover there were
11 a number of people. You described at one stage a chap
12 who seemed to be negotiating with them or a spokesman
13 I think --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- who then got into the back of the Land Rover and
16 stayed there for a while.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you assist us, because I didn't quite follow you,
19 were the police in or out of the Land Rover at this
20 stage?
21 A. Out of the Land Rover.
22 Q. They were out of the Land Rover?
23 A. Yes. I am not saying that every single policeman was
24 out of the Land Rover, but there were certainly
25 policemen on the ground.
162
1 Q. It would seem it is clear there were four people
2 altogether in that Land Rover crew. Can you say how
3 many people were out?
4 A. How many?
5 Q. How many policemen were out?
6 A. Well, there were certainly more -- there were
7 certainly -- certainly two out, but there was other
8 people in the street at the time all round as well.
9 There could be more, but you wouldn't necessarily see
10 just everything just round the Land Rover. There was
11 other people round there as well, you know, of the
12 group.
13 Q. Did these police officers stay by the Land Rover?
14 A. They were standing round the Land Rover.
15 Q. Did they appear to be discussing things with some
16 others, with some civilians?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You never saw one man come over to the Land Rover, did
19 you, and open a door and perhaps pull out the driver of
20 that Land Rover? Did you ever see that happen?
21 A. No, no.
22 Q. I suggest to you, I am afraid, that your memory of this
23 is very incorrect. I don't intend to go over what has
24 already been covered, but may I ask you perhaps, that
25 night, had you had a few drinks on you?
163
1 A. No. I was at home that night and I was in bed.
2 I hadn't -- because Saturday -- as far as I recollect,
3 it was a Saturday, and on Saturday in my shop it would
4 be one of the busiest days, like, and I would be there
5 and I just at the time had split up with my wife and
6 that's why I was living in that apartment. I was only
7 just moved in there and I wasn't going out really.
8 Q. Did you know any of the people who lived in the
9 apartments below you?
10 A. No.
11 Q. And you have never discussed any of these events with
12 people?
13 A. I really -- even the bar down below that was below me,
14 I didn't go into the bar down below at all, because if
15 I went for a -- if I did go for a drink, I tended to go
16 more round a hotel. I don't like political bars, if you
17 know what I mean. I tend to stick to hotels and that.
18 Q. Tell me this. If what you say is correct -- these
19 police officers, they offered you no threats, no abuse.
20 They were polite and courteous with you when they came
21 to your flat to ask you questions about what you had
22 seen?
23 A. Yes, right.
24 Q. This was on 9th May. Now, if what you say is correct,
25 you must have been outraged at this lack of activity by
164
1 police officers.
2 A. I was.
3 Q. Did you communicate that at all to these officers?
4 I mean, these were different policemen. You had nothing
5 to fear from them, had you?
6 A. I said that to the ones who came for the interview, yes.
7 Q. You said to them that you were outraged?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Again, you did look, surely, at your statement, and
10 there is a total conflict there, is there not, with what
11 you say at the end?
12 A. I told them that I was outraged, but they were doing the
13 writing. I don't know if they had to write that or not.
14 I didn't ...
15 MR McCOMB: Thank you very much.
16 Questions from MR MALLON
17 MR MALLON: Just a very few questions. Firstly, when
18 you were looking out of your window could you see the
19 whole of the Land Rover?
20 A. I could see that the -- yes, because the back -- you
21 know, I could see the whole Land Rover.
22 Q. You could see the front doors, the back doors, the
23 bonnet, all of it?
24 A. Well, I can -- I could see the back door. You can't see
25 into the back of the Land Rover but you can see if the
165
1 door is open, you know.
2 Q. Could you see the front doors?
3 A. Open.
4 Q. The driver's doors?
5 A. I could see the driver's door, yes.
6 Q. Yes. Were they open or closed?
7 A. When was this?
8 Q. When you first saw the Land Rover?
9 A. They were closed.
10 Q. They were closed?
11 A. Yes, and it stayed closed and the police were sitting in
12 the Land Rover with the doors closed.
13 Q. Now, did you see two people approach the passenger side?
14 That is the passenger side of the Land Rover. Did you
15 see two people there at any time?
16 A. There was -- I don't know about two people. There
17 was -- there was a lot of people there still on the
18 streets, you know, but I don't remember seeing just two.
19 All I know is, when there was a crowd had gone to the
20 Land Rover, that when the police were at that, the rest
21 were sort of backed away but one stayed then away from
22 the crowd with the police.
23 Q. Thank you. Now, can we go back to what I was saying?
24 Before that crowd went to the Land Rover -- before that
25 crowd went to the Land Rover --
166
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. -- did you see anyone at the passenger side? I can
3 think of specifically two people who have given evidence
4 of being there.
5 Now, did you see anyone at the passenger side of the
6 Land Rover?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Right. You didn't see anybody at the driver's side of
9 the Land Rover?
10 A. Well, on the driver's side I wouldn't be able to see it,
11 you know. I'd be -- that would be on the other side,
12 you know. I'm looking from here. The driver's side
13 would be -- you know, the passenger side would be
14 towards me.
15 Q. Are you sure?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Because evidence has been given that the front of the
18 Land Rover was towards the Alliance & Leicester and the
19 driver's side would have been the side closest to you
20 and that the back would have been closer to you than the
21 front of the Land Rover.
22 A. The Land Rover came from up the town and it was facing
23 to the bottom of the town.
24 Q. Could we have the construction, please? Standard model,
25 please. Can you see the position on that map -- there.
167
1 That's it. Is that the Land Rover as you remember it?
2 A. No. There was -- there was a Land Rover facing -- there
3 was -- there was two Land Rovers. There was another one
4 facing the other way, you know.
5 Q. Yes, but when you first looked out --
6 A. The first Land Rover that was there was the one that was
7 facing. This would have been the second Land Rover.
8 The first one that came on the scene was facing the
9 other way.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Which way do you mean? Was it facing up
11 towards the church or down towards Boss Hogg's, the first
12 one?
13 A. Where is Boss ... it was facing the opposite direction
14 from that.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: This is the first one you saw, is it?
16 A. The first one I saw was facing the other way.
17 MR MALLON: You see, I have to suggest to you as a matter of
18 fact that the first Land Rover which arrived had come up
19 from that photograph's left and had parked just there?
20 A. It couldn't have -- the first -- the Land Rover that is
21 facing there could not have come from up the street down
22 to there, because all the crowd was up that part. The
23 Land Rover did not drive through the crowd. It came
24 from up the other end of the town, because all the
25 crowd, it was -- it couldn't have drove -- it couldn't
168
1 have drove through there. It came the other way.
2 Q. You see, I have to suggest to you that it was there even
3 before the crowd arrived. It had been sitting there for
4 some time before the crowd arrived?
5 A. Which one? This one here?
6 Q. This one here, the one that you didn't see?
7 A. Well, if that one was sitting there and if you say the
8 crowd was there, it would have been then that all the
9 commotion of the crowd was in front of it, but the
10 Land Rover I saw came from -- drove up from the other
11 end of town and sat there and the doors didn't open.
12 Q. That might have been the second Land Rover or third
13 Land Rover that arrived?
14 A. Well, I didn't -- certainly there was no third
15 Land Rover when -- I didn't see a third Land Rover.
16 There was one in the -- the one that I saw that I took
17 sort of the interest in was because they sat in there
18 and didn't get out while the kicking was going on.
19 That's why -- and I could see it was nearer to me, you
20 know.
21 Q. You see, I have to suggest to you --
22 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think anyone has suggested a third
23 Land Rover came, did they? I thought the final vehicle
24 was a much bigger vehicle.
25 MR MALLON: I am going to deal with the two police cars that
169
1 arrived.
2 The Land Rover arrived there. You didn't see it.
3 Evidence has been given that two police cars, one
4 a liveried police car, one another police car, arrived
5 and pulled in slightly to the right of that photograph,
6 slightly down to the right.
7 A. Where on that photograph? On the right?
8 Q. Can you see that? If you look at the right of that
9 photograph, you can just see a portion of road going to
10 your right, and about in the very corner of that -- yes,
11 about there -- that was where the car stopped.
12 A. Where?
13 THE CHAIRMAN: We know those would not have been visible
14 from a window in Thomas Street.
15 MR MALLON: I know that.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Not much help is gained by asking the witness
17 about those two cars.
18 MR MALLON: On the other hand, for completeness, I feel
19 I must.
20 Did you see any officers come from that corner into
21 the crowd?
22 A. Are we talking this corner on here? Is that --
23 Q. Pan it slightly to the right. Just there. From in and
24 around --
25 A. No, nobody could have come -- no, no. That is the --
170
1 the person was laying -- the person was laying -- no.
2 The Land Rover -- no. The Land Rover didn't come
3 from -- it would round be here. They didn't come from -- the
4 Land Rover was sitting in -- the Land Rover was where
5 I have put the wee -- can you see the dot?
6 Q. Yes, I can see the dot.
7 A. It was up here.
8 Q. You see, I have to suggest to you that that was -- if it
9 was there at all, it was a second Land Rover?
10 A. Well, it could be the second Land Rover, but the other
11 one -- that's the only Land Rover first that I saw where
12 the police were that was facing that way when the
13 kicking was going on. That one with the back wasn't --
14 the one from the back, it would have been -- to have got
15 there when all the riot was going on, he would have had
16 to back up from the top of the town. He couldn't have
17 gone through the crowd, he couldn't have drove through
18 the crowd.
19 Q. I have to suggest to you that whether or not you accept
20 it, that Land Rover that you concede was there from
21 before this incident started, a second Land Rover came,
22 two police cars came and eventually a DMSU came.
23 A whole pile of policemen.
24 A. Yes. Okay.
25 Q. You saw only two?
171
1 A. I saw only two. I haven't got the view of the whole
2 street now.
3 Q. The police then drove the crowd up the town. A line of
4 policemen drove the crowd in front of them up the town.
5 That's what the evidence has been. Did you see that?
6 A. No. I didn't see no line -- I seen no lines of police
7 at all.
8 Q. And you saw the whole incident?
9 A. I saw -- I didn't see what was going on round the corner
10 where the man was killed. I don't know if there was
11 lines of policemen up there or what. I don't know.
12 I am only telling what I see from my window on that bit.
13 Q. Now, do you see that Land Rover that we have positioned
14 in the middle of that photograph?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is it your evidence that you didn't see it?
17 A. The first Land Rover I saw was one that came facing the
18 other way.
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. That was the first Land Rover.
21 Q. Did you ever see a Land Rover positioned there?
22 A. There was a second Land Rover, but how it got there
23 I don't -- that's the bit that I missed, how it got
24 there. I remember seeing, but whether that was the
25 second one --
172
1 Q. You mentioned that two Land Rovers were there in your
2 statement.
3 A. There was the first one and then a second.
4 Q. Yes, and where did the second one go?
5 A. I don't know. I didn't take no notice of where -- maybe
6 I had gone back to bed after that, you know. I didn't
7 sit -- stay there all night looking through the window,
8 you know. That's it. Once -- but I don't know if it
9 was sitting -- I mean, if you are saying that one was --
10 it couldn't have drove through the crowd. It either had
11 to come after the crowd had gone and drove up that way
12 or it would have had to -- if it was there, then it
13 would have had to be hidden by -- I certainly didn't see
14 that one before the kicking started. Let's put it that
15 way. I only saw it when they started -- the one that
16 came up from the other direction, but, you know -- but
17 I didn't -- you know, I think the Land Rover with the
18 second one would have been after the kicking had
19 stopped. I think that's when that would have -- was up
20 there, the second one.
21 Q. Can you give any evidence about what occurred around
22 that Land Rover -- do you see the one that's in the
23 photograph?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Can you give any evidence of what occurred around that
173
1 Land Rover? Yes or no?
2 A. No.
3 MR MALLON: Thank you.
4 Further questions from MR UNDERWOOD
5 MR UNDERWOOD: Just one matter arising out of that,
6 Mr Johnson.
7 Mr Williamson, who is the police constable who took
8 your statement, told the Inquiry in an interview that
9 that last sentence in your statement may have come from
10 his prompting?
11 A. From?
12 Q. His prompting. He may have prompted it from you.
13 A. Right.
14 Q. That sentence is the one to the effect --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- that the police were helping the man on the ground?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Doing the best you can now, can you recall whether there
19 was any conversation about that when you were being
20 interviewed by the officer?
21 A. To be honest, no.
22 Q. One final matter. You have been shown a model with the
23 Land Rover parked at the junction facing towards the
24 right-hand side.
25 A. Yes.
174
1 Q. If the Land Rover had been there, would you have been
2 able to see that from your flat?
3 A. Which one?
4 Q. The one actually parked -- let's go back to that model
5 and let me show you. The standard model, please.
6 Do you see the Land Rover there is parked between
7 the Alliance & Leicester and Halifax?
8 A. I think it is possible that from where I was that it may
9 have been out of view from my window. It's a long time
10 since I looked out the window there now and I can't --
11 but if that's the actual position where it is sitting
12 and looking --
13 Q. Don't take it from us that it is. At the moment, I am
14 asking you, if there was a Land Rover there, whether you
15 would have been able to see it from your window. That's
16 all.
17 A. I'm not sure on that whether I could see it from there,
18 the way that one is positioned.
19 MR UNDERWOOD: Right. Thank you very much, Mr Johnson.
20 Questions from THE CHAIRMAN
21 THE CHAIRMAN: If you remember, when the gentleman who is
22 just standing up now, first began to ask you questions,
23 you said you could see the back door and the driver's
24 door of the Land Rover. If you could see the driver's
25 door, then that would suggest --
175
1 A. The Land Rovers moved -- had not stayed permanent there
2 all the time. The Land Rovers had -- one of them had
3 moved, you know. They didn't stay put in one place.
4 They, I think -- you know, it moved.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. You are free now to go. Thank
6 you.
7 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much for coming, Mr Johnson.
8 (The witness withdrew)
9 MR UNDERWOOD: That concludes the evidence for today.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: 10.30 am tomorrow morning.
11 (4.40 pm)
12 (The hearing adjourned until 10.30 am tomorrow morning)
13
14
15 --ooOoo--
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
176
1 I N D E X
2
WITNESS G (sworn) ................................ 1
3 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD ............... 1
Questions from MR ADAIR ................... 13
4 Questions from MR McGRORY ................. 30
Questions from MR McCOMB .................. 31
5 Cross-examination from MS DINSMORE ........ 40
Questions from MR DALY .................... 50
6 Questions from MR LUNNY ................... 51
Further questions from MR UNDERWOOD ....... 52
7
MR RICHARD SAMUEL BRADLEY (sworn ) ............... 54
8 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD ............... 54
Questions from MR ADAIR ................... 101
9 Questions from MR McGRORY ................. 111
10 MR JOHN WILLIAM JOHNSON (sworn) .................. 120
Questions from MR UNDERWOOD ............... 120
11 Questions from MR FERGUSON ................ 139
Questions from MR O'HARE .................. 148
12 Questions from MR McGRORY ................. 157
Questions from MR McCOMB .................. 160
13 Questions from MR MALLON ................. 165
Further questions from MR UNDERWOOD ....... 174
14 Questions from THE CHAIRMAN ............... 176
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
177
