Transcripts
Return to the list of transcripts
Transcript
Hearing: 15th May 2009, day 50
Click here to download the LiveNote version
- - - - - - - - - -
PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO THE DEATH OF
ROBERT HAMILL
- - - - - - - - - -
Held at:
Interpoint
20-24 York Street
Belfast
on Friday, 15th May 2009
commencing at 10.30 am
Day 50
1 Friday, 15th May 2009
2 (10.30 am)
3 (Proceedings delayed)
4 (10.40 am)
5 MR UNDERWOOD: Good morning. Gregory Mullan, please.
6 MR GREGORY MULLAN (sworn)
7 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD
8 MR UNDERWOOD: Morning, Mr Mullan.
9 A. Good morning.
10 Q. My name is Underwood. I am Counsel to the Inquiry.
11 I have a few questions for you, and then I know there
12 will be some supplemental questions from some of the
13 other advocates.
14 What are your full names, please?
15 A. Gregory Mullan.
16 Q. Thank you. We have a witness statement from you that
17 will come up on screen. I just want you to see it when
18 it does. There are 24 pages of this. Can I ask you to
19 keep your eye on the screen as we scroll through it
20 quite quickly?
21 A. Uh-huh.
22 Q. Is that your witness statement?
23 A. It would be, yes.
24 Q. Before I ask you whether it is true, I just invite you
25 to look at paragraph 8, which we find on the third
1
1 page of it, [81389]. You say there:
2 "I have been referred to the letter at page 63686,
3 which was signed by myself on behalf of Supervisor
4 xxxxxxxxxx ..."
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. "... to confirm that the ICPC was supervising the
7 investigation of the complaint. This letter makes it
8 clear that the ICPC 'must supervise in these
9 circumstances'; this is effectively a reference to the
10 Article 7 of the 1987 Order."
11 Then you set that out. Can I invite you to look at
12 that letter? We have it in two forms. Can we look it
13 at conveniently for us at page [15265].
14 Is this the letter you are talking about of
15 13th May?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. If we look at it, what it actually says to Mr McBurney
18 is:
19 "I am writing to advise that you that the Commission
20 has decided to supervise the investigation of the above
21 complaint and I am undertaking the responsibilities of
22 Supervising Member.
23 "Mr Greg Mullan is the staff member who will be
24 assisting me.
25 "To enable me to fulfil my function as Supervisor,
2
1 it is a requirement that I be kept abreast of all
2 significant developments, and I would request
3 particularly that you forward, as early as possible, for
4 my consideration, all related items of documentation
5 which you receive.
6 "I would remind you that my approval must be
7 obtained prior to your investigation report being
8 referred to the Commission under Article 9(7) of the ...
9 Order."
10 There is nothing there to the effect that the ICPC,
11 "must supervise in these circumstances", is there?
12 A. Well, I think the "must" was put to me by -- I thought
13 it was "shall". In the letter to the ACC we would have
14 made it clear that we were supervising under 9(1)(a).
15 This is a standard letter.
16 Q. Let's just clear this up. Where a complaint was
17 referred to the ICPC, there were two possibilities,
18 weren't there?
19 One is, if it was a very serious matter, the ICPC
20 was bound to -- never mind the word, it had to do it.
21 If it was a less serious matter, the ICPC had the choice
22 whether to supervise.
23 A. Discretion.
24 Q. Either way, you could only -- look back at this first
25 paragraph:
3
1 "I am writing to advise you that the Commission has
2 decided to supervise the investigation."
3 That makes it look, doesn't it, as if there was
4 discretion exercised there?
5 A. It was a standard letter that we issued when we were
6 taking on supervision to the investigating officers, and
7 clearly, it could be improved, but it ...
8 Q. It doesn't actually help us, does it, to tell what type
9 of referral it was?
10 A. That would have been in the letter to the ACC.
11 Q. What I'm saying is this letter doesn't help us, does it?
12 A. It doesn't say 9(1)(a), no.
13 Q. Apart from that one issue, are you content that the
14 statement you have signed for us is true?
15 A. Could you refer me back to that "must" again?
16 Q. Yes. It is the third page of your witness statement,
17 [81389], paragraph 8:
18 "I have been referred to the letter", as I say, we
19 are using a different page reference, "which was signed
20 by myself on behalf of Supervisor xxxxxxxxxx to confirm
21 that the ICPC was supervising the investigation of the
22 complaint. This letter makes it clear that the ICPC
23 'must supervise in these circumstances'."
24 A. To be fair, I think when I was being interviewed that
25 was said to me. I don't know whether it was me who said
4
1 that.
2 Q. That's why, to be fair, I was drawing that to your
3 attention before I asked you whether the statement was
4 true. Apart from that, is the statement true?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you. I want to ask you about the link between the
7 neglect complaint --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. -- and the murder investigation. We know that
10 Mr McBurney was SIO for both of those?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. The reason given in the journal for that or rather what
13 was reported on HOLMES was that the neglect and the
14 murder complaint were inextricably linked. Were you
15 conscious of that being the reason?
16 A. No. We --
17 Q. Go on, please.
18 A. We were interested in the neglect aspect only. The
19 murder investigation was up to Mr McBurney.
20 Q. Yes. You commented in your statement about the
21 possibility of one SIO being in charge of both the
22 murder and the neglect?
23 A. Uh-huh.
24 Q. As far as you were concerned, in what you saw of the
25 neglect complaint, was it surprising that one SIO would
5
1 be responsible for both the murder and the neglect?
2 A. We really didn't think about it, no. That's the way it
3 was. That's who was appointed, and it was approved by
4 the supervising member, Mr xxxxxxxxxx. So that was
5 it.
6 Q. Can we look at page [27270]? This is the second page of
7 a file note of yours from 13th May. It is dealing with
8 the meeting you had on 12th May. I think you have seen
9 this.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. At the top of the page we see your note:
12 "It was at this juncture", that's in the meeting of
13 12th May, "that Detective Chief Superintendent McBurney
14 referred to a matter arising. During interview of
15 Tracey Clarke, the latter stated that she had been
16 talking to a person named Henvey", you have written down
17 there, "prior to his arrest by police. According to
18 Ms Clarke, Mr Henvey had boasted to her that one of the
19 four officers at the scene (Reserve Constable Atkinson)
20 had told him to get rid of the clothing he was wearing
21 at the time of the assault."
22 If we go further down, there is (a) to (g). Just
23 after (g), we have:
24 "At this juncture the detective chief superintendent
25 presented a substantial file incorporating all items of
6
1 documentary evidence assimilated by him to date."
2 Now, did that file contain Tracey Clarke's statement
3 with the allegation against Mr Atkinson?
4 A. I would need to look at the file notes. I don't believe
5 so, no, from my recollection, no.
6 Q. So he kept out of the file to give to you
7 Tracey Clarke's statement, did he?
8 A. I mean, if we were to look at my file notes, because
9 I would have summarised every statement we got. If
10 Tracey Clarke's statement is not there, then it wasn't
11 summarised. We didn't get it.
12 Q. Okay. We will have those looked up.
13 Then, looking back at the top paragraph on this
14 page, there is this allegation that, according to
15 Ms Clarke, Henvey had boasted to her that Atkinson had
16 told him to get rid of the clothing he was wearing at
17 the time of the assault.
18 How did that strike you?
19 A. It was a matter arising. We went there in our remit,
20 which we made clear to both the family solicitors and
21 PSNI, and we were supervising the complaint that we
22 received.
23 Q. Right.
24 A. That was the alleged neglect of duty. It came as
25 a surprise that this was raised, but I noted it because
7
1 it was raised, but you can see further on down there is
2 no follow-up action or anything. It was just something
3 that was noted.
4 Q. Let me ask you about that. What was the nature of the
5 neglect complaint?
6 A. It was that police failed to act promptly to intervene.
7 Q. Uh-huh. Specifically, it was that they sat there
8 watching Mr Hamill being beaten to death, wasn't it?
9 A. No. It was what -- it was in xxxxxxxxxx's letter
10 of complaint which police failed to act promptly, and
11 that's what it was.
12 Q. Was the possibility that Mr Atkinson was able to
13 identify one of the murderers or alleged murderers
14 relevant to that?
15 A. I can't answer that question.
16 Q. Why not? You were supervising, were you not?
17 A. We were supervising the fact that the police did not get
18 out of the Land Rover.
19 Q. Right. So was it relevant to that to know whether one
20 of the police in the Land Rover saw one of the murderers
21 committing the murder?
22 A. That was up to Mr McBurney surely. He was investigating
23 the murder.
24 Q. Right. So it is completely irrelevant, is it, to the
25 question of whether the police got out of the Land Rover
8
1 that one of the officers saw the murder taking place?
2 A. Would that not be down to Mr McBurney?
3 Q. Why wasn't it down to you?
4 A. Because we were supervising the fact that police failed
5 to intervene as quickly as possible.
6 Q. Do you think it at all relevant, even conceivably
7 relevant to that, that one of the officers saw the
8 murder taking place?
9 A. Well, I mean, that whole murder was being investigated
10 by IO McBurney. It wasn't being supervised by us. We
11 had our remit what we were supervising.
12 Q. What were you doing?
13 A. We were supervising what was referred to us.
14 Q. How?
15 A. I think if you read through the file minutes, it makes
16 clear the progress of supervision and how we went about
17 supervising that aspect.
18 Q. It is your evidence that it just didn't matter at all
19 that you got evidence that one of the officers saw the
20 murder?
21 A. Well, I mean, that was something Mr McBurney was
22 investigating. It wasn't something --
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me put the question slightly differently.
24 You didn't see it as having any relevance to your
25 investigation?
9
1 A. Not at the time, no.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Not even to be a complaint whose
3 investigation by your body should wait until the
4 conclusion of the murder investigation?
5 A. It wasn't a consideration at the time. I can remember
6 that our focus was on the complaint and this was
7 a matter arising. I mean, the supervisor never came to
8 me and said, "I think we should look at this aspect", or
9 whatever. It was just a matter arising. It wasn't
10 followed up by us.
11 MR UNDERWOOD: The ICPC could not self-refer, could it?
12 A. No.
13 Q. So if, in the course of investigating something, it
14 learned of a very serious allegation being made against
15 a police officer, it just turned its eye to it, did it,
16 it didn't do anything?
17 A. It wasn't as if that allegation wasn't being
18 investigated. It was being investigated. It just
19 wasn't being investigated under our supervision, because
20 it wasn't referred to us.
21 Q. Imagine, instead of an allegation arising to the effect
22 that Mr Atkinson tipped off Mr Hanvey, an allegation
23 that Mr Atkinson had gone out and murdered someone as
24 a result of that.
25 Of course, no such allegation has been made, but
10
1 imagine something like that coming up in the course of
2 an investigation. Would you just say, "Oh, well,
3 nothing to do with us. Doesn't matter"?
4 A. I mean, at no stage did the supervisor say to me -- and
5 I was the administrative back-up to the file -- "Look,
6 I am very concerned about this particular aspect. I am
7 going to contact our Chief Executive or our Chairman and
8 say we want this, we -- and ask police to refer it to
9 us".
10 At no stage did PSNI, who were quite well aware of
11 the remit of our supervision, contact us, to my
12 knowledge, and say, "Should you not be supervising this
13 particular aspect?"
14 Q. You were the head of the supervisory function of the
15 ICPC, were you not?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you have no responsibility whatsoever for
18 considering whether a very serious allegation made
19 against a police officer should go further?
20 A. Well, it was being investigated. It just wasn't being
21 investigated under our supervision. It is not as if it
22 is being ignored.
23 Q. Just ignored by you?
24 A. It was being investigated. It just wasn't investigated
25 under our supervision because it wasn't referred to us
11
1 and we had no power of self-referral.
2 Q. Did it ever cross your mind that you might have a chat
3 with a policeman and say, "Look, we should be
4 supervising this. Could you refer it to us?"
5 A. Not at the time, no.
6 Q. Could we have a look at page [60549]? This is the
7 report of Mr McBurney arising out of the neglect
8 complaint. In paragraph 12 he says:
9 "Having assessed these papers, I am satisfied that
10 collectively and as individuals the four police officers
11 concerned did not wilfully neglect to perform their duty
12 on the date in question and, therefore, I recommend no
13 further action criminally or disciplinary in this
14 instance."
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you recall that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. If we go further down to paragraph 124, he says:
19 "In addition to the Hamill complaint of inactivity
20 is an allegation based on hearsay and contained in the
21 statement of Witness A, 'I remember Robbie Atkinson's name
22 coming and Allister (Hanvey) said that Robbie Atkinson
23 had been very good to him because on the Sunday morning
24 after the incident in the town centre he rang him at
25 about 8.00 am and told him to get rid of the clothes he
12
1 was wearing'."
2 We can jump the next two pages that deal with that.
3 If we go to [60552], we get the conclusion on this. the
4 final four lines on this page, what Mr McBurney wrote
5 was:
6 "Having found no evidence other than the telephone
7 bill to substantiate the allegation of Witness A, one
8 can remain sceptical, but there is absolutely no other
9 evidence to substantiate the allegation by Witness A.
10 I therefore recommend 'No Prosecution'."
11 You saw this report, didn't you?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. This was a report which, on its face, covered the
14 neglect complaint -- is that right --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- which you were supervising?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did it not strike you as strange that there were four
19 pages at the end of it dealing with something else?
20 A. This report would have went to the Director of Public
21 Prosecutions. So my assumption at the time was that
22 this is -- it is mentioned here and I think he mentions
23 it somewhere for ease to the reader or something, which
24 would have been the PPS or the DPP at that time. This
25 would have went to the DPP.
13
1 Q. Nothing to do with you at all?
2 A. No. I think Mr McBurney made it clear in his report, if
3 you go back into the subject of the report, that we were
4 supervising the neglect of duty aspect only and he
5 clearly says that in the report.
6 Q. So as far as you were concerned, it was nothing to do
7 with you?
8 A. It was his report, but the only aspect was the
9 supervised aspect, was the neglect of duty aspect, yes,
10 and we subsequently issued a statement to that effect.
11 Q. You did. Let's have a look at your recommendation on
12 that, shall we? It is page [14757]. (5):
13 "I must admit to having my suspicions regarding the
14 purpose of the two telephone calls made from the
15 Atkinson household to the Hanvey home. However, in the
16 final analysis Reserve Constable Atkinson denies any
17 knowledge of the calls and witnesses have come forward
18 to explain their purpose. The prospect of proving these
19 allegations, even if additional lines of enquiry were
20 pursued, is, in my view, remote."
21 Did you write that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Why?
24 A. On reflection, I don't know. I read obviously the whole
25 report and it was just a final paragraph just giving my
14
1 comments, but, I mean, we weren't supervising that
2 aspect. I probably shouldn't have written it. It was
3 just an observation on the report.
4 Q. You knew, didn't you, that phone records had been sought
5 in May 1997?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You didn't bother, did you, to enquire what the result
8 of that was?
9 A. No.
10 Q. You didn't inform yourself, did you, that
11 Detective Inspector Irwin had got a tip-off about
12 Atkinson from Andrea McKee and had then taken
13 a contradictory witness statement from Andrea McKee?
14 A. I had no knowledge of that.
15 Q. You didn't question, did you, whether there was any
16 corroborative evidence of the allegation such as, for
17 example, destruction of a silver jacket?
18 A. I had no knowledge of that but we were not supervising
19 that, so why would I?
20 Q. You did not question the existing evidence, for example
21 from Jonathan Wright, that Allister Hanvey was wearing
22 a grey jacket on the night?
23 A. I have no knowledge of anything you are saying.
24 Q. Would you accept that an innocent reader might, on your
25 recommendation, think the ICPC has had a look at what
15
1 McBurney wrote in the final four pages of his conclusion
2 and agreed with it?
3 A. This is an internal document. It was an internal
4 document to the supervisor. I mean, even our statement
5 subsequently makes no reference to it.
6 Q. Are you satisfied you did a competent job on this?
7 A. We didn't supervise it. It is a throwaway paragraph at
8 the end of a report. It meant nothing.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Can I just come back to Mr McBurney's report?
10 You said it was a report prepared for the DPP.
11 A. I think so.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Is the position, as you saw it, that rather
13 than simply subtract from it a part of it which related
14 to the neglect complaint and sending that to you, he
15 simply sent you the whole of it?
16 A. That was my reading of it at the time, yes.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Then you made a comment on the part of it
18 which was not your concern.
19 A. Yes, absolutely. You are absolutely right.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
21 MR WOLFE: I have no questions.
22 MR O'HARE: I have no questions.
23 MR McGRORY: I do have some questions, sir.
24 Questions from MR McGRORY
25 MR McGRORY: My name is McGrory. I want to ask you some
16
1 questions on behalf of the family of Robert Hamill.
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. Can I just ask you about a couple of not just
4 procedural, but matters of sort of public attitudes
5 towards the police and ICPC in general around about this
6 time?
7 Would you agree that the ICPC -- that the view of
8 its independence and impartiality and ability to perform
9 a function of that kind was not universally accepted
10 within the Nationalist community?
11 A. I think I couldn't disagree with that, and obviously
12 xxxxxxxxxx, in the mid-1970s, you know, because of
13 general public disquiet, then led a research project on
14 behalf of the Government to see how it could be
15 improved. Hence, PONI came into being.
16 Q. Yes, indeed. Do you also recall there was a reluctance
17 within the legal profession to engage directly with the
18 ICPC in the conduct of the complaints because of
19 a belief that the material that was generated in the
20 conduct of a complaint would be made available to the
21 chief constable and the police service in the context of
22 any civil proceedings?
23 A. I wouldn't say that was widespread. There may have been
24 one or two solicitors with that view, but my impression,
25 thinking back ten years, I can't remember it being
17
1 widespread.
2 Q. You don't remember that there was a live issue within
3 the legal profession about the disclosure of material by
4 the ICPC to the chief constable for use in civil
5 proceedings?
6 A. I wouldn't remember that, anything like that in any
7 detail, no.
8 Q. That's okay.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you help me, Mr McGrory? Suppose there
10 was not a policy of disclosure. Would that have been
11 disclosable in discovery?
12 MR McGRORY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. That was the next
13 question. Were you asking me, sir?
14 THE CHAIRMAN: I am asking you.
15 MR McGRORY: Oh, yes, absolutely.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: It would have been disclosable in discovery?
17 MR McGRORY: Yes.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: You have, I take it, in Northern Ireland, and
19 had then, third party discovery?
20 MR McGRORY: Indeed.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: I am just wondering what was the legitimate
22 basis for the concern. They were concerned about
23 something that was being done, that, if there were to be
24 litigation, they would have to do, that is ICPC?
25 MR McGRORY: Oh, yes. I am not blaming the -- you have
18
1 really hit on the point of the question, sir, which is
2 that a legal adviser would be cautious about advising
3 a complainant to proceed with the complaint while there
4 was civil litigation pending; in other words, the view
5 in the legal profession was that the complaint should be
6 put in abeyance until the conclusion of civil
7 proceedings.
8 That is a view that I am telling you from the Bar
9 was prevalent amongst the legal profession.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: That would apply whatever the policy of the
11 ICPC about disclosure?
12 MR McGRORY: Oh, indeed.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: So, in other words, solicitors might say,
14 "Whether they disclose or not, there will be a duty of
15 third party disclosure, so we prefer not to make our
16 complaint at this stage".
17 MR McGRORY: Absolutely.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
19 MR McGRORY: I need ask you no further about that,
20 Mr Mullan.
21 A. Thank you.
22 Q. Can I ask you, please, to look at page [44407]?
23 Now, this is a memorandum from Assistant Chief
24 Constable Hays, I believe, to the Superintendent of
25 Command Secretariat following an enquiry made by
19
1 a non-Government organisation about the Robert Hamill
2 matter. It is dated 27th June 1997.
3 Now, the enquiry seems to have been just about what
4 was happening in terms of a complaint at this stage.
5 Just look at the first couple of paragraphs.
6 A. Uh-huh.
7 Q. The second paragraph in particular:
8 "It is believed that this matter was referred to the
9 ICPC under Article 8(1) of the Police (Northern Ireland)
10 Order 1987, by the Chief Constable."
11 Do you see that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. "This referral was made prior to receipt of a formal
14 complaint, which was received at Gough Barracks on
15 7th May 1997 in the format of a letter from [blank]
16 (solicitor acting on behalf of Miss Hamill)", the late
17 xxxxxxxxxx?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. This would suggest that the chief constable exercised
20 his power under Article 8 of the Order as the
21 appropriate authority to refer the matter to the ICPC
22 before there was a complaint?
23 A. I have no knowledge of that.
24 Q. No knowledge whatsoever?
25 A. Absolutely. The first documentation we got was
20
1 a Form 17(2), with which was attached the
2 xxxxxxxxxx letter of complaint.
3 An Article 8 referral from the chief constable is
4 only when there is -- it is a non-complaint matter. The
5 first documentation we got was clearly a complaint and
6 that's why we regarded this as a complaint.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Would it be more accurate to refer to the
8 solicitor's letter as a formal complaint, because there
9 had been no shortage, had there, of complaints by the
10 Hamill family before that?
11 MR McGRORY: Well, there had been no complaint from the
12 Hamill family until xxxxxxxxxx wrote.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: I am not speaking of a formal complaint, but,
14 if you like, a grumble that the police had been
15 inactive.
16 MR McGRORY: Oh, yes. There had been politicians, local
17 representatives, members of the community who had been
18 complaining in the media about the perception of police
19 conduct within maybe 24 hours of the incident. I have
20 no doubt that's why the chief constable made the
21 referral.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: That's the point.
23 MR McGRORY: Oh, yes, but my point is that if there was
24 an Article 8 referral?
25 A. I am not aware of any Article 8 referral.
21
1 MR McGRORY: We will have to speak to Assistant Chief
2 Constable Hays as to why he took the view that there
3 was.
4 A. I mean, in our correspondence it is quite clear what we
5 were supervising under. It was supervising a complaint
6 which we received from Mrs xxxxxxxxxx under 9(1)(a), which
7 is an Article 7 complaint.
8 Q. I am going to come to that in a moment.
9 You see, the reason you have given Mr Underwood for
10 limiting the scope of your supervision to the issue of
11 whether or not the police got out of the Land Rover is
12 that it wasn't included in the letter of complaint from
13 Mrs xxxxxxxxxx.
14 A. It was never referred, any other aspect.
15 Q. But what I am suggesting to you is that there is some
16 evidence before us that, in fact, there was also
17 an Article 8 referral, but --
18 A. What was it? I have no knowledge of it. What did --
19 Q. Then I can take the matter no further with you,
20 Mr Mullan. It is just a bit of a puzzle.
21 Let's put it this way. Had there been an Article 8
22 referral --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- would you have regarded your authority as being under
25 Article 8 as opposed to Article 9?
22
1 A. Articles -- you are saying -- our authority -- what do
2 you mean under Article -- could you be clear what
3 Article 9 is again? The legislation is a long time ago.
4 Q. Excuse me. Article 7, I meant. Article 7 is --
5 A. A complaint.
6 Q. -- a complaint.
7 A. Article 8 is a non-complaint matter.
8 Q. But which has been referred to you by the chief
9 constable.
10 A. Yes. If we got an Article 8 referral, we would have had
11 some terms of reference round the Article. What are we
12 to supervise? It would have outlined some terms of
13 reference.
14 Now, if all we got was the letter of complaint from
15 xxxxxxxxxx, albeit it couldn't be an Article 8
16 referral, because it was a complaint, but let's say it
17 was, that's what we still would have supervised, because
18 that's the only terms of reference that we had.
19 Q. But say the chief constable had, as is suggested in this
20 note, made an Article 8 referral to the ICPC?
21 A. But what was the nature of the referral, we would need
22 to know.
23 Q. You don't know, because you say you never got it?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Say he did refer to you a general concern about the
23
1 conduct of the police in the Land Rover, because of
2 public disquiet, and you were asked to look into it
3 under Article 8 by the chief constable?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. That request was made prior to the Article 7 complaint
6 coming into the system. Would you have regarded the
7 first referral as your primary authority for being
8 involved?
9 A. Ten years back, I would probably say yes.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: Can I just intervene?
12 This is dealt with in the third paragraph of that
13 page that's on the screen, dealt with in the third
14 paragraph, isn't it:
15 "... in the absence of written confirmation of
16 the ... referral."
17 Then it was decided what to do. They had not
18 received a written confirmation?
19 A. Yes. This is the first time I have seen this letter,
20 but it is quite clear there. If we had undertaken this
21 case under Article 8(1), I don't think we would have
22 supervised under 9(1)(a). It would have been 9(3)(b) or
23 something. I just can't remember at the time.
24 It is clear we took it under 9(1)(a) because of the
25 complaint. It is all we had, the complaint.
24
1 MR McGRORY: I accept that entirely. That's quite clear.
2 We need to explore with somebody else as to why
3 Assistant Chief Constable Hays thought there was ever
4 an Article 8 referral?
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. So we will leave that to next week.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: May I just ask for help? Would there be any
8 difference in the powers of the ICPC between a referral
9 under the one and a referral under the other Article?
10 MR McGRORY: I don't think so, sir, but where I would submit
11 there might be a difference is in what they regarded as
12 the scope of the complaint.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: That would depend on the terms of the
14 complaint?
15 MR McGRORY: Of course.
16 Sorry. Mr Underwood wanted to say something.
17 Can I ask you just to look at another document,
18 please? It is [27209]. Do you recognise the
19 handwriting?
20 A. Yes, that's my handwriting.
21 Q. Now, the date of this note appears to be
22 19th September 1997 --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- which is between the two interviews of Reserve
25 Constable Atkinson in the context of the complaint
25
1 issue.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, the first of those interviews took place on
4 9th September. That was attended by Mr xxxxxxxxxx?
5 A. It was.
6 Q. The second was scheduled for 9th October. You may or
7 may not be aware of that.
8 A. I'm aware there was a second interview, but I'm not
9 aware of the date.
10 Q. Yes. Now, in the first large paragraph there's
11 a sub-paragraph beginning:
12 "The investigation team intend to re-interview
13 Constable", I see it says there "Atcheson", but it is
14 obviously "Atkinson".
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. "... re his alleged involvement with Hanvey."
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 Q. You say:
19 "On your behalf, I advised that this aspect was
20 outside the Commission's remit."
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, can you help us as to whether or not that was your
23 opinion being given to Mr xxxxxxxxxx, or a reflection of
24 an opinion expressed by Mr xxxxxxxxxx to you?
25 A. Both myself and Mr xxxxxxxxxx were of the view that the
26
1 only aspect we were investigating was the neglect of
2 duty aspect. I think, if you look at Mr xxxxxxxxxx's
3 minute, which is below that, he says:
4 "I confirm position re interview of
5 Constable Atkinson."
6 So, I mean, he was aware of it and he agreed with
7 the position.
8 Q. You would have been aware, as would Mr xxxxxxxxxx, but
9 you can only speak for yourself, that the reason why the
10 ICPC had been established was because there was a public
11 concern that the pre-existing complaint system lacked
12 a degree of independence?
13 A. I think that was throughout the UK, because the PCA was
14 established in the mid-1980s. As a follow-up to that,
15 the Police Complaints Board was replaced by the ICPC
16 with the same powers as the PCA in 1986.
17 Q. Within the broad definition of public interest, the
18 element of independence that the supervision of
19 a complaint investigation by the ICPC brought was
20 important?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Of course, it was important because the public could be
23 satisfied that the police were not to be left entirely
24 to investigate themselves?
25 A. I can understand that, yes.
27
1 Q. I mean, the whole purpose of the ICPC was to act as
2 a watchdog of the already pre-existing complaints and
3 discipline procedures within the police.
4 A. Well, we supervised I think it was about 8% of all the
5 complaints we received.
6 Q. So obviously the small number of complaints that were
7 referred to you were referred because the public had
8 an interest in those particular complaints being
9 independently monitored.
10 A. Is that the non-complaint matters you are talking about?
11 Q. Any matter which you ended up in supervising.
12 A. Yes, we could supervise -- a serious injury was
13 a mandatory supervision and we had a discretionary power
14 to -- but it had to be referred to us first before we
15 could supervise it.
16 Q. Of course, and there were mechanisms within the
17 legislation to trigger the referral?
18 A. We could not refer it ourselves.
19 Q. I am not 100% sure about that. We will come back to
20 that. Once you are involved, one you are involved
21 through the triggering mechanisms within the
22 legislation, isn't it the purpose of your involvement to
23 act as a watchdog on the Complaints and Discipline
24 branch?
25 A. Well, under the terms of reference that was referred,
28
1 yes.
2 Q. I mean, that was the public interest that we are talking
3 about. That's the basis of it, that the public could be
4 satisfied that there was -- somebody was watching the
5 police investigating the police?
6 A. Yes, on those cases we were supervising.
7 Q. Yes, of course. Yes.
8 Now, would you accept that it would have been in the
9 public interest that the ICPC took a fairly broad view
10 of how it supervised those complaints, in the sense that
11 it would be keeping an eye out for any sense or any
12 suggestion that the police weren't independently
13 investigating?
14 A. If something happened during the course of a supervised
15 investigation that led us to believe -- at the end of
16 the day we had to sign off a statement -- right --
17 Q. Exactly.
18 A. -- to say, "This investigation has been thoroughly and
19 meaningfully carried out, and it has been carried out to
20 the satisfaction of the supervising member."
21 So we would not have issued that statement if we had
22 thought it wasn't carried out to the satisfaction of the
23 supervising member.
24 Q. So in order to perform your statutory function of being
25 a watchdog and deciding whether or not the complaint had
29
1 been satisfactorily investigated, you had to ask
2 yourselves the question, "Well, is there anything here
3 that we need to be worried about in terms of the
4 independence of the investigation?"
5 A. In terms of the independence of the investigation?
6 Okay.
7 Q. Did you have to ask yourself that question?
8 A. I mean, at the beginning of the investigation -- if you
9 are getting at the approvement of the
10 investigating officer, I don't know really where you are
11 coming from.
12 Q. Never mind this case. Any case you are supervising?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In terms of signing a certificate of satisfaction, don't
15 you have to address the question in the public interest,
16 "Has this been looked at thoroughly and independently?"
17 A. That would have been the case, yes. I agree.
18 Q. Thank you. One of the functions of the ICPC, one of the
19 key functions, I suggest to you, was in the appointment
20 of the investigating officer of the complaint --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. -- and that the reason for that function was so there
23 would be somebody watching over the appointment to see
24 whether or not the investigating officer was suitably
25 independent.
30
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. There was a rule of thumb, was there not, Mr Mullan,
3 that the investigating officer of the complaint would
4 generally be removed in some sense from the police that
5 were being investigated?
6 A. My recollection was that the investigating, if I am
7 correct at the time, would not have come from the same
8 subdivision.
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. That was the sort of distancing then.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: From the same subdivision as?
12 A. The police were broken into divisions and subdivisions.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I appreciate that.
14 A. So the investigating officer wouldn't have been
15 stationed in Portadown in that subdivision.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: The investigating officer of the crime should
17 be from a different division than the investigating
18 officer of the complaint? I am not sure what --
19 A. In this case, it was the one investigating officer.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: You mean that the investigating officer,
21 whether or not investigating the crime, came from
22 a different division or a different --
23 A. In the supervised investigation, that was, I think, the
24 rule of thumb, that the investigating officer who was
25 investigating what we were supervising came from
31
1 a different subdivision.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Thank you.
3 MR McGRORY: Indeed, another rule of thumb, if it wasn't
4 a strict rule, in fact, was that the investigating
5 officer would be at least two ranks above the officer
6 being investigated?
7 A. I'm not sure if that was written down anywhere, but
8 I wouldn't disagree with you.
9 Q. Well, in order to satisfy that rule, I would suggest to
10 you that, as this was a reserve constable, the
11 investigating officer need not have been a chief
12 superintendent?
13 A. No.
14 Q. And that the other, not just rule of thumb, but very
15 strict practice, normally was that the investigating
16 officer in a complaint came from J Division?
17 A. Oh, no. In a complaint? The vast majority of them did,
18 but whether people in -- if it was a serious shooting
19 perhaps by police, whether they would have had the
20 credentials and experience, they quite often would have
21 chosen a senior detective to carry out that type of --
22 let's say it was a police shooting, and a person from
23 Complaints and Discipline branch would have been
24 an adviser to that person.
25 Q. Yes, but, you see, this was not a serious shooting. The
32
1 complaint, as you say, was whether or not the police had
2 got out of a Land Rover.
3 A. That's right.
4 Q. So in those circumstances would the IO not have -- would
5 you not have expected the IO to have come from within
6 Complaints and Discipline section?
7 A. We were told who the IO was. It was up to us to approve
8 the IO. It was whoever was nominated was approved.
9 Q. This is part of the problem. Can you help us with who
10 nominated Mr McBurney in the first place?
11 A. I have no idea. He was nominated to us.
12 There was some confusion in the early days whether
13 it was Superintendent Anderson or Mr McBurney. Then at
14 our first meeting with Mr McBurney, he clarified the
15 situation to say that indeed it was him who was
16 investigating it. At which stage, Mr xxxxxxxxxx approved
17 his appointment.
18 Q. But part of Mr xxxxxxxxxx's statutory responsibility was
19 to approve that appointment. Isn't that right?
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. So part of his responsibility, and indeed yours as his
22 adviser, was to ask yourselves the question, "Well, is
23 there any reason why we should have a different IO for
24 the complaint than for the murder here?"
25 A. Well, I mean, I want to be as open and honest to the
33
1 Inquiry, but I don't -- again, it was Mr xxxxxxxxxx's
2 decision. I certainly didn't query it. Mr xxxxxxxxxx
3 did not query it. Mr xxxxxxxxxx personally approved the
4 appointment and that's the way it went.
5 Q. You see, I am suggesting to you that it is in the public
6 interest that, if at all possible, and unless there is
7 some very good reason, there should be two separate IOs;
8 one for the complaint and one for the crime?
9 A. I think I can recall instances whereby there was
10 a referral to ourselves, it might have been a serious
11 police shooting, where a detective with the assistance
12 of someone from Complaints and Discipline branch carried
13 out the investigation, but what you are saying here,
14 should this have been split?
15 Q. Exactly.
16 A. Well, it wasn't something we considered at the time that
17 I'm aware of, and certainly, once Mr xxxxxxxxxx approved
18 the appointment of the investigating officer, then
19 that's where we went from there.
20 Q. Can I suggest to you some reasons why that would have
21 been a good idea, if it hadn't occurred to you? One of
22 them being that the investigating officer of the murder
23 has his own set of priorities in terms of the murder
24 investigation that could potentially conflict with the
25 set of priorities that the complaint officer might have.
34
1 A. Potentially, but it wasn't a consideration that we gave
2 at the time.
3 Q. No. Can I ask you just to look -- if you could look,
4 please, at the legislation. I haven't -- it is
5 Article 9 of the legislation.
6 I wonder, could anybody help me with an Inquiry
7 reference? We have had it scanned on recently. Sorry.
8 I should have sought out this reference before I got on
9 my feet. We don't have it. I know it was shown to
10 a witness previously. I will try by reading it and we
11 will see if we can follow this.
12 Article 9 reads:
13 "9(1), the Commission shall supervise the
14 investigation."
15 It sets out a number of circumstances at 9(1). Then
16 at 9(3) it says this:
17 "The Commission may supervise the investigation:
18 "(a) of any complaint the investigation of which it
19 is not required to supervise under paragraph (1) and of
20 any matter referred to it under Article 8(1) if the
21 Commission considers it is desirable in the public
22 interest that it should supervise that investigation."
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, that, I am suggesting to you, is granting to the
25 Commission some degree of discretion as to whether it
35
1 should continue to remain in a supervisory capacity once
2 a referral has been made to it?
3 A. Continue to remain? I don't understand.
4 Q. You had a choice, Mr Mullan, whether or not you
5 continued in your supervision of this complaint after
6 9th September?
7 A. Why? Why is that?
8 Q. Well, you had the power to remain?
9 A. I mean, what you are reading there is -- my
10 interpretation of it is, if the chief constable referred
11 a matter to us under Article 8(1), we had the discretion
12 whether or not to supervise it. No more than that.
13 Q. And, indeed, that it would be desirable in the public
14 interest?
15 A. If it is desirable -- we supervise it if it is desirable
16 in the public interest, but we need a referral to make
17 that determination.
18 Q. But you had the referral.
19 A. Where was the 8(1) referral?
20 Q. You are already involved here.
21 A. It was a complaint.
22 Q. But you are in the picture. You know --
23 A. It's not --
24 Q. Let's put it this way. You know there is public concern
25 at the very least about the conduct of these officers in
36
1 the Land Rover?
2 A. Which we were supervising.
3 Q. Yes, and the public concern was whether or not those
4 police officers did their duty and helped Mr Hamill.
5 A. Did they act as promptly as they should have done in the
6 circumstances was what we were supervising.
7 Q. Yes, in any way that was their duty to act.
8 A. I mean, our terms of reference were clear from the
9 xxxxxxxxxx letter and that's what we supervised.
10 Q. But by any stretch of the imagination, Mrs xxxxxxxxxx's
11 letter would have been tailored to the information she
12 had at her disposal?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you were privy to a lot more information?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And it was your statutory duty to inform yourself as to
17 whether or not that information required you to continue
18 supervising?
19 A. Again, I don't follow this "continue supervising" line.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Continue on to what?
21 A. Continue to what?
22 MR McGRORY: Do you accept that you opted out on
23 19th September?
24 A. We didn't opt out of anything. If it is not referred to
25 us, we can't opt in.
37
1 Q. On 19th September you wrote to Mr xxxxxxxxxx and
2 expressed the view that you were no longer required to
3 continue to supervise.
4 A. We never supervised in the first instance. My minute to
5 Mr xxxxxxxxxx is the fact that, when Mr Atkinson was
6 interviewed in Mr xxxxxxxxxx's presence, as you can see
7 from my minutes, I had a plethora of questions that
8 I suggested the IO put to him, none of which were in any
9 way to do with the Hanvey aspect. It was all about his
10 conduct at the scene, which we were supervising.
11 Q. Let's just look at that. Mr xxxxxxxxxx attended the
12 interview on 9th September.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, without having to go through the entire interview,
15 I am suggesting to you that a good third of the
16 interview, a good third of the time was spent
17 questioning Mr Atkinson about knowing Mr Hanvey?
18 A. I don't -- well, the fact is that Mr xxxxxxxxxx's minute,
19 if you look at it, it is one sentence at the very bottom
20 of it in relation to that aspect of it, because I was
21 surprised when it actually -- he was interviewed in
22 relation to Hanvey. I didn't expect it certainly.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McGrory, the position seems to be this:
24 that it may be wholly or in part as a result of what was
25 said at that interview that the Commission learned of
38
1 what we have referred to as the tipping-off allegation,
2 and it becomes a question of the proper construction of
3 the legislation whether that knowledge imposed a duty
4 upon the Commission to in some way take the matter unto
5 themselves. Isn't that the position?
6 MR McGRORY: The Commission learned of the tipping-off
7 allegation at the meeting on 12th May. It then
8 supervised the interview of Mr Atkinson on
9 9th September.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: No. Forgive me. You are missing my point.
11 The question is: once it learned of the tipping-off
12 allegation, even if it was irrelevant to the matter it
13 was at that stage considering, the complaint, the
14 conduct complaint, once it learned of the tipping-off
15 allegation, whether it should have done more in relation
16 to that depends upon the proper construction of the
17 legislation, doesn't it?
18 MR McGRORY: Well, it would be my --
19 THE CHAIRMAN: It is a question of law.
20 MR McGRORY: Yes, but my questions are on the basis that the
21 legislation not only permits but obliges them to
22 investigate the tipping-off issue.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, that will be decided as a matter of law
24 what is the true construction of the legislation --
25 MR McGRORY: Yes.
39
1 THE CHAIRMAN: -- but it seems that whatever you say is the
2 proper construction of the legislation, that wasn't how
3 Mr Mullan saw it. That's the position, isn't it?
4 MR McGRORY: Yes, but my difficulty with that is that I am
5 not so sure I accept that that's not how the ICPC saw
6 it, because the ICPC attended an interview on
7 9th September, a great deal of time of which was taken
8 up with probing Mr Atkinson about the tipping-off
9 allegation. So that was very much within their sights.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: But whether they were required as a matter of
11 law to do something about it depended on what their
12 powers were, and it is not for Mr Mullan to say, "These
13 were our powers". That's a matter of law.
14 If your point of law is good, then you have the
15 point to make that the Commission knew of the
16 tipping-off allegation, but did nothing about it.
17 If, on the other hand, on the true construction of
18 the legislation its coming to their knowledge did not
19 give them the power, then there is no criticism.
20 So, in other words, once the Commission agrees it
21 knew of the fact of the tipping-off allegation, what
22 they should have done then depends upon the proper
23 construction of the legislation.
24 Isn't that a correct analysis?
25 MR McGRORY: Yes, I accept that entirely, sir, but I still
40
1 feel that there should be some probing of the reason
2 that Mr Mullan has given for taking that construction of
3 the legislation that he appears to have taken and
4 whether or not that has any credibility as a matter of
5 their public obligation and public duty to investigate
6 the tipping-off allegation.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: So in effect, you are saying you want to
8 explore whether the Commission deliberately ignored the
9 tipping-off allegation?
10 MR McGRORY: As one possibility.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
12 MR McGRORY: Or that it was well aware that it was within
13 its powers and remit and, for some unexplained reason,
14 abdicated its responsibility.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I can't help feeling that the proper
16 order of proceeding in this is first to have submissions
17 as a matter of law, which don't concern Mr Mullan, about
18 the proper construction of the legislation, and for
19 a ruling upon it, because if the ruling is that their
20 knowledge of it did not give them jurisdiction, then
21 questions of deliberately giving a blind eye are neither
22 here nor there unless there is some other course they
23 could have taken.
24 MR UNDERWOOD: May I suggest a third way?
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
41
1 MR UNDERWOOD: If it is right that the complaint was
2 a Section 7 complaint transmitted by the chief constable
3 and was restricted to the question, "Did the police get
4 out of the Land Rover in time?", then nonetheless there
5 is an argument to be had about whether the facts to do
6 with the tipping-off allegation should have been
7 investigated under that, because, as I attempted to put
8 to Mr Mullan, the question whether Mr Atkinson was able
9 to see Hanvey and able to see him doing something which
10 required him to tip him off might very well have been
11 germane to the question: did they get out of the
12 Land Rover in time? In other words, what did they see?
13 If that's right, never mind whether they should have
14 formally got a referral of the tipping-off allegation,
15 Mr McGrory might well, you may think, be entitled to
16 probe with Mr Mullan why it was, within the complaint
17 they thought they were investigating, they did not cover
18 this.
19 That, I apprehend, would not require a ruling on the
20 issue of law.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that's right, although I think the
22 issue will have to be considered --
23 MR UNDERWOOD: Certainly.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: -- what is the proper construction of the
25 legislation.
42
1 MR UNDERWOOD: That's clearly right, with respect.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: If Mr McGrory at this stage, without a
3 ruling, confines himself in that way, then I think his
4 questions are permissible.
5 MR McGRORY: I am grateful, sir.
6 In your own statement at paragraph 22, page [81393],
7 you actually say:
8 "Had we been minded to, I suppose it would have been
9 possible for the ICPC to have contacted the chief
10 constable and asked him to refer the Reserve
11 Constable Atkinson allegations to us."
12 A. Yes. I mean --
13 Q. So having been -- sorry. Do you want to comment on
14 that?
15 A. It was a decision for the supervising member if that's
16 the source of action that he would have took. He would
17 have advised me that that's the course of action he
18 would have took. I can't remember it ever happening.
19 We were very strict on what we supervised and we
20 supervised what was referred to us.
21 Q. So even if you felt you required some further referral,
22 you could have simply asked for it?
23 A. It's possible, yes.
24 Q. But you didn't?
25 A. No, we didn't.
43
1 Q. Just finally leaving aside whether or not you could have
2 asked for it to be referred, I am suggesting to you that
3 it is inconceivable, Mr Mullan, that information and
4 material showing that one of those in the Land Rover was
5 actively phoning and helping one of the murderers of
6 Robert Hamill was not directly relevant to the
7 investigation into whether or not they acted properly in
8 getting out of the Land Rover?
9 A. I think Mr xxxxxxxxxx's view at the time was that it was
10 far more integral to the murder investigation. I mean,
11 it is an attempt to pervert the course of justice, and
12 that's where it lay more than neglect of duty of police
13 officers getting out of a Land Rover, to my
14 recollection, sir.
15 Q. If so, why sign yourselves out of the supervising
16 process on 19th September?
17 A. Because it was part of the overall murder investigation,
18 that aspect of it.
19 Q. But your supervision does not interfere with the murder
20 investigation.
21 A. But we were supervising the aspect of the Land Rover.
22 We were not supervising the aspect of Reserve
23 Constable Atkinson.
24 Q. But had you gone along to the October investigation and
25 sat and watched, you weren't hindering the murder
44
1 investigation.
2 A. But we weren't involved in the murder investigation, so
3 why would we have wanted to sit there? We were not
4 supervising the murder investigation.
5 Q. Because it was stated at the end of the September
6 interview that the purpose of the next one was to deal
7 with the phone calls and the billing.
8 A. But we were not supervising that issue so why would we
9 have sat?
10 Q. Because you walked away from it.
11 A. It was never referred to us. I mean, we supervise
12 what's referred to us.
13 Q. And you regard that as the fulfilment of your public
14 duty under this legislation?
15 A. Yes. I think we complied with the legislation,
16 absolutely. Absolutely.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: I am not sure that you are responding to
18 Mr Underwood's invitation to enquire whether the
19 tipping-off allegation affected a decision about whether
20 Mr Atkinson had neglected his duty by remaining in the
21 Land Rover.
22 That's the basis upon which this questioning would
23 be permissible without the need for a ruling. It is
24 a matter for you whether you want to pursue that.
25 That's the only way to pursue it.
45
1 MR McGRORY: I have only one other point I want to raise
2 with this witness, and that is the results of the
3 telephone billing enquiry, would you have regarded that
4 as a significant development?
5 A. A development in?
6 Q. A significant development in the general investigation
7 of Mr Atkinson's conduct.
8 A. I mean, I will get back to the point. I am sure for
9 Mr McBurney's investigation, his internal investigation,
10 yes, absolutely, but for our supervising investigation,
11 we were not supervising that aspect of it.
12 MR McGRORY: We have come round in circles as to whether or
13 not you should have been. I don't think I can take the
14 matter any further.
15 A. Thank you.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Who is next?
17 MS DINSMORE: No questions.
18 Questions from MR DALY
19 MR DALY: Briefly, Mr Mullan, on behalf of Andrea McKee, if
20 I can take you to page [81401], it is actually -- just
21 over the page, please, [81402]. It was actually
22 paragraph 48 of your statement that I was looking for.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
24 MR DALY: I think it was the statement Mr McGrory had up
25 earlier, your original statement to the Inquiry.
46
1 If I can ask you about -- you had said in your
2 statement -- it is not on the screen -- you did not know
3 that Andrea McKee had accompanied Tracey Clarke to the
4 police station on 8th May 1997 when Tracey Clarke had
5 made her statement.
6 A. I had no knowledge of that. To the best of my
7 recollection, no, I had no knowledge of that.
8 Q. Mr Wolfe is assisting me. [81406]. Thank you.
9 Paragraph 64. In any event, would there have been
10 anything wrong with that per se if Andrea McKee had
11 accompanied Tracey Clarke?
12 A. I don't know how I could -- I don't know what you want
13 me to say wrong or right. It's -- I don't know.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Is it within your knowledge of police
15 practices to say?
16 A. That someone can bring a friend with them when they are
17 making a statement?
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
19 A. I mean, I don't have the expertise to say someone can
20 bring a friend and have a friend when they are making
21 a statement. I don't know.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: I think, Mr Daly, it may be a matter for us.
23 MR DALY: Yes, sir.
24 Further, within your statement at paragraph 50 you
25 have been asked to describe the ICPC's role regarding
47
1 the DPP and progress of allegations against RC Atkinson
2 in 2000, [81402].
3 Now, you refer to a meeting on 27th June 2000
4 between Mr xxxxxxxxxx, DCS McBurney, DI Irwin, Raymond Kitson
5 and yourself at the offices of the DPP.
6 A. What paragraph is that again? Sorry.
7 Q. It is paragraph 50, I am working from. It is not on the
8 screen. Do you recall having a meeting?
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 50 is, page [81402], which is still
10 on our screens.
11 A. It reads:
12 "I am not entirely sure of the date, but around
13 September 1999 the DPP wrote formally to advise the ICPC
14 that there would be no prosecutions of any member of the
15 Land Rover crew."
16 That's paragraph 50
17 MR DALY: Do you recall, in any event, a meeting --
18 A. I have a vague recollection of it.
19 Q. Do you recall Andrea McKee being present?
20 A. At that meeting with the DPP?
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. No, Andrea McKee wasn't present. I must have had a file
23 note somewhere as to who was present.
24 Q. Do you recall any meeting with Andrea McKee --
25 A. No.
48
1 Q. -- being present.
2 A. No. Not in my presence.
3 Q. In relation to the resurrection of the investigation
4 against Reserve Constable Atkinson in June 2000, do you
5 recall that?
6 A. I recall it, but I wasn't at the meeting.
7 Q. You have indicated that apart from Andrea McKee's
8 evidence, you were not aware of any other reason why the
9 investigation was resurrected?
10 A. I am not aware of any other reason, no. I mean, the
11 chief constable came down and met with I think our Chief
12 Executive or maybe our Chairman -- I can't remember,
13 I would have to read my minutes -- I wasn't at that
14 meeting. It was on the back of what was discussed there
15 that this whole investigation into RC Atkinson's conduct
16 was resurrected as such.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: I think, Mr Daly, there may be some confusion
18 about which paragraph 50. The position is that
19 a statement was prepared for Mr Mullan based on the
20 interview, but Mr Mullan instead prepared his own
21 statement.
22 I think what we have at the moment on the screen is
23 the statement prepared by Mr Mullan. Yes. What you
24 were asking about I think may have been the original
25 statement prepared by the Inquiry.
49
1 MR DALY: That's right, sir.
2 MR EMMERSON: To assist, I think the cross-referencing in
3 this statement would be paragraph 68.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: In the longer statement?
5 MR EMMERSON: In the longer statement, if that assists.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I am grateful to you.
7 MR DALY: That's very helpful. I am obliged to Mr Emmerson.
8 [81407]. Do you see that paragraph 68?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Then just over the page, please, [81408]:
11 "One would assume that the statement Andrea McKee
12 gave on 26th June 2000 lent a different perspective on
13 the issue. Following this, the chief constable came to
14 see the ICPC and we supervised, met DCS McBurney and
15 then had a consultation with the DPP."
16 A number of issues were raised. Then at
17 paragraph 70:
18 "Apart from Andrea McKee's evidence, I was not aware
19 of any other reason why the investigation against
20 R/Con Atkinson was resurrected..."
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Does that imply, Mr Mullan, that there was some
23 assessment made of Andrea McKee's evidence at that
24 stage?
25 A. In what way?
50
1 Q. Apart from it, there was no other reason to resurrect
2 the investigation?
3 A. Well, it's my understanding -- and again, I wasn't privy
4 to the meeting that resurrected the investigation --
5 that it was predicated on that evidence of
6 Andrea McKee's, but I couldn't be 100% sure if there was
7 any other evidence. But I wasn't aware of any.
8 MR DALY: Thank you.
9 Further questions from MR UNDERWOOD
10 MR UNDERWOOD: Just one matter arising out of that.
11 Can we have a look at paragraph 68 of your witness
12 statement, please, Mr Mullan, [81407]? You say:
13 "I have been asked to describe the ICPC's role
14 regarding the DPP and the progress of allegations
15 against Reserve Constable Atkinson in 2000. A meeting
16 took place on 27th June 2000 between Mr [blank],
17 DCS McBurney, DI Irwin, Raymond Kitson and I at the
18 offices of the DPP. This is recorded in file note
19 214 ... since Mr [blank] had agreed to supervise the
20 investigation into the matter against Reserve
21 Constable Atkinson, the ICPC attended in a supervisory
22 capacity."
23 How did that come about?
24 A. How did the meeting with the DPP come about?
25 Q. How did it come about that the ICPC agreed to supervise
51
1 the investigation into Reserve Constable Atkinson?
2 A. I understand that the chief constable came down -- it
3 must have been some days earlier than that meeting --
4 met with our Chief Executive, and Mr xxxxxxxxxx would have
5 been there. I am not too sure who else was there,
6 because I certainly wasn't.
7 Q. There is no letter, is there?
8 A. There was supposed to be a letter. There is a minute on
9 that a letter confirming that was to follow.
10 Q. But there is not one, is there?
11 A. I am not aware that a letter was actually sent, but
12 there is certainly a minute there that a letter should
13 have been sent.
14 Q. Thank you very much.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we need to go back to paragraph 67 to
16 see that dealt with.
17 MR UNDERWOOD: Certainly.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
19 MR UNDERWOOD: Nothing else arising. Thank you.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mullan.
21 (The witness withdrew)
22 MR UNDERWOOD: I don't know whether that's a convenient
23 moment?
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. Fifteen minutes.
25 (11.50 am)
52
1 (A short break)
2 (12.20 pm)
3 MR UNDERWOOD: Mr McCrumlish, please.
4 MR PAUL PATRICK MCCRUMLISH (sworn)
5 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD
6 MR UNDERWOOD: Afternoon, Mr McCrumlish.
7 A. Afternoon.
8 Q. My name is Underwood. I am Counsel to the Inquiry.
9 I have some questions for you. It may be there will be
10 some supplemental questions for you afterwards.
11 May I ask your full names, please?
12 A. Paul Patrick McCrumlish.
13 Q. If we look on screen, we will get [80888] up. This is
14 a statement that runs to seven pages. Can I just ask
15 you to keep your eye on it while we scan through all
16 seven of them? Is that your witness statement?
17 A. That's my signature, yes.
18 Q. Is the statement true?
19 A. I haven't had a chance to read the statement there, but
20 obviously I'm assuming it's the same statement I signed,
21 yes.
22 Q. Do you want to take time to look through it as it goes
23 through more slowly then?
24 A. Just give me the last page and I will be able to tell
25 you from there.
53
1 Q. Of course. Take the page before that, [80893].
2 A. Yes, just there. Yes, that's -- I'm happy enough with
3 that, yes.
4 Q. I have a few questions for you, as I say. Can we look
5 at paragraph 7 on page [80889]? You are dealing there
6 with an interview of Allister Hanvey on 10th May 1997.
7 On the third line of that you say:
8 "My own memory of the briefing and the interview is
9 very vague."
10 You go on to say you refreshed your memory from
11 a notebook entry and a journal entry.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I don't want to make this a memory test. What sort of
14 a memory have you of the briefing in the first place?
15 A. My memory is very poor of it now. Really, I think at
16 that particular time I did have to refer to my notebook
17 to give me -- to refresh my memory.
18 Q. Over halfway down that paragraph there is a sentence
19 which says:
20 "I recalled being handed several witness statements
21 which referred to Allister Hanvey being present at the
22 attack on Robert Hamill and I was also made aware of the
23 content of a statement which suggested that a policeman
24 had contacted Allister shortly after the incident and
25 had advised him to dispose of his clothing."
54
1 At this remove, can you help us with how many
2 statements you think you got there?
3 A. I can't tell you how many statements. I can't even say
4 if I had access to the statement that mentioned the
5 policeman.
6 Q. Just help us in general with how things worked in 1997
7 on interviews.
8 If you were brought in as a detective constable to
9 interview a suspect, what sort of briefing would you
10 expect to have?
11 A. It obviously depended on the case. My job at the time
12 was I was a member of the Regional Crime Squad. We
13 could get a call at any time to go to anywhere for to
14 support maybe local CID on enquiries.
15 It depended if prisoners had been arrested and
16 needed to be interviewed as soon as possible. So the
17 briefing could have been very brief.
18 Q. Right. Can you recall for us here whether there was any
19 briefing, any discussion at the briefing, about how to
20 approach the question of the tip-off by this constable?
21 A. I'm not altogether sure what you mean there by ...
22 Q. Right. I have just taken you to that passage towards
23 the bottom of the page here.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You were made aware of the content of a statement which
55
1 suggested that a policeman had contacted Allister
2 shortly after the incident and advised him to dispose
3 off his clothing.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. That's what I mean by the tip-off.
6 A. Yes, yes.
7 Q. So before you go into the interview, you are conscious
8 there is the prospect that he has been tipped off to
9 destroy clothing by a policeman?
10 A. Yes, that would be right.
11 Q. My question is: can you recall now whether there was any
12 discussion with the briefing officer about how to
13 approach that question?
14 A. No, that would have been very, very -- at that
15 particular stage, the whole idea would be to get the
16 interviews going.
17 If there had been a suggestion that a policeman was
18 involved, obviously it would have been told to me for to
19 maybe investigate that possibility.
20 Q. If we need to, we can look at the interview, but take it
21 from me for the moment that you raised the question with
22 Hanvey when you were interviewing him.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. But you didn't pursue, for example, the question of
25 where he might have disposed of clothing. So you
56
1 touched on it, but you didn't take it all the way.
2 Was there a reason for that?
3 A. That's possibly because I maybe wasn't given a full
4 briefing of what -- as I say, we could be told, "Go down
5 there". There is only a certain length of time
6 a prisoner can be left sitting in a cell. We have to
7 get him interviewed as soon as possible. So, with the
8 least bit of briefing, go and get him out and see what's
9 happening, see where he is coming from.
10 Q. In paragraph 9 of your witness statement, which we find
11 at page [80890], you look at this with hindsight and
12 say:
13 "I accept that by pursuing that line of questioning
14 it is possible I alerted Allister Hanvey to the fact
15 that the police had information on his involvement in
16 the assault and that an officer had been involved in
17 assisting him avoid detection."
18 Now, you appreciate that a possibility that the
19 Panel may have to consider is that senior detectives who
20 had this information about the tip-off might have
21 colluded with each other to try to cover up the tip-off.
22 One of the possibilities is that you were told to go
23 in there and ask questions about this, unwittingly, in
24 a way that would have allowed Hanvey to realise that the
25 senior detectives knew about the tip-off.
57
1 Do you follow that?
2 A. Yes. I don't think that was the case. If I hadn't
3 asked about the policeman, I would have been wrong.
4 As far as I was concerned, I had been told that
5 there had been a suggestion, or a statement was
6 available that suggested that a policeman had given
7 information to Hanvey, and I assumed that we were trying
8 to identify that policeman, and I think I would have
9 been wrong not to approach that question.
10 Q. Okay. I want to ask you if you can help on one other
11 matter. It is about the search of Hanvey's house on
12 10th May. I know that you weren't involved in that, but
13 as a result of your briefing to interview him, you were
14 conscious that there was a question about the
15 destruction of clothing. Is that fair?
16 A. Obviously I can't remember the full details. When
17 I went, it is normal, if you are going to search
18 a house, you are looking for something to connect the
19 person with the offence, and clothing is one of the
20 things; you can connect a person through fibres and
21 whatnot.
22 So I don't know the reason for -- without seeing it,
23 I don't know exact reasons why I was there, if you
24 know -- I know I was there to search for clothing.
25 Q. This is the interesting question for the Panel. On
58
1 10th May, essentially there was a very limited search
2 conducted, which in broad terms resulted in seizure of
3 those clothes that Hanvey identified as having been his
4 on the night, and then, on 13th May, there is a proper
5 search conducted, if I can call it that, which you are
6 involved with, in which much more effort is put into
7 looking for clothing and looking for evidence of burnt
8 clothes and so on.
9 Can you help us with why the second search was
10 conducted?
11 A. Obviously -- the first search you are talking about, was
12 I on that search?
13 Q. No.
14 A. That was on the 10th?
15 Q. That's right.
16 A. I was on two searches in Hanvey's house.
17 Q. There were two Hanvey homes, or two possibilities.
18 There was Thomas Hanvey's place and then there was his
19 parents' place. I think you were involved in both of
20 those on 13th May.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. I don't think you were involved in this, unless I have
23 it completely wrong.
24 A. I think I was at Hanvey's parents' home on two
25 occasions.
59
1 Q. Okay. Whether or not that's right, can you help us with
2 why there was a second search of the parents' home?
3 A. Well, you said there that the first search was carried
4 out and then I went on to do a proper search.
5 The first search, in my eyes, was a proper search as
6 well.
7 Q. Let's get this clear. I may have completely missed your
8 involvement in the first search, if there was one.
9 On 10th May, there were a group of searchers,
10 Sergeant Bingham was the team leader,
11 Detective Constable McAteer was present to arrest
12 Hanvey, and there were other Constables: Andrews,
13 Porter, Stewart, and they searched one room and one room
14 only and they seized three items of clothing only and
15 they arrested Hanvey and, after that, you interviewed
16 him.
17 Now, do you think you were present at that search?
18 A. I don't recall the names of the persons you listed, but
19 something tells me I was present at that. Is there
20 a record of that search?
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. Am I on the record?
23 Q. No.
24 A. Without seeing it, you know ...
25 Q. Fair enough.
60
1 A. I can recall being at the parents' house, I think on to
2 two occasions.
3 Q. You certainly were at the parents' house on two
4 occasions, if that helps. You went there on 11th May to
5 talk to the parents.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You deal with that in your witness statement. You tell
8 us that what they told you was regarded as so important
9 that you stopped just down the road and made a note.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Then you went back on the 13th and searched it.
12 A. Maybe I am getting it wrong then. Yes.
13 Q. I wonder if you can help us about why there was a second
14 search?
15 A. Obviously, without seeing the documentation, it is more
16 than likely that further information came in maybe to
17 identify clothing, and if the clothing was different
18 from what the first search had involved looking for, you
19 see, we would then have done a further search for that.
20 Q. As I say, I don't want this to be a memory test.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. That's probably the best I can do in terms of asking you
23 questions.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. As I suggested, it may be that others will have some
61
1 more questions for you.
2 A. Okay.
3 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much.
4 MR WOLFE: No questions.
5 Questions from MR McGRORY
6 MR McGRORY: A couple of questions, Mr McCrumlish. My name
7 is McGrory. I represent the family of Robert Hamill.
8 I just want to ask you about your memory of the
9 attitude of the Hanveys to you when you called on
10 11th May. It is in your statement. It begins at
11 paragraph 12. It is at page [80891], paragraph 14.
12 In paragraph 14 of your statement you refer to this.
13 There you say:
14 "I do remember that the parents were being very
15 guarded about their son. They were trying to defend
16 him ..."
17 So they did speak to you about the circumstances of
18 their son's arrest?
19 A. They were not telling me a lot. They were just saying,
20 "Look, as far as we are concerned, Allister was there,
21 but he was helping the police. He was not involved in
22 the murder or the assault", at that stage.
23 Q. They said to you that he was helping the police?
24 A. They made reference to the fact that Allister had told
25 them that he had helped the police on the night to keep
62
1 the crowd back.
2 Q. In fact, they even referred to a policeman -- isn't that
3 right -- that he helped somebody in particular, but they
4 don't name him?
5 A. That's correct. I asked for the name of the policeman
6 and they refused to identify him for me. They said this
7 particular policeman would be saying that Hanvey did
8 help him and ... does that clear it up?
9 Q. That's clear. By this time, he was arrested the
10 previous day, the 10th. So he is in custody. So
11 obviously he had no opportunity to speak to them from
12 the moment of his arrest. Then you go out on the 11th.
13 A. Uh-huh.
14 Q. They volunteered this information. This is something
15 they brought up. Is that right?
16 A. Yes, as far as I'm aware, yes.
17 Q. You say there was -- this is Mr Hanvey senior here?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. He is a bit cocky about this?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. He is almost sort of saying, "We have a policeman. We
22 are not going to tell you who it is, but there is
23 a policeman going to speak for our son"?
24 A. His attitude was more or less, "Just wait and see.
25 I can prove my son was not involved. Just wait and
63
1 see."
2 Then he identified a policeman would be saying
3 Hanvey was not involved, but had helped to keep the
4 crowd back.
5 Q. This is perhaps reflected in the attitude of Mr Hanvey
6 himself, Allister Hanvey, whom you had interviewed the
7 previous day?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I think you said he was a bit cocky?
10 A. Yes, very much so.
11 Q. I mean, this is a fellow who has been arrested on
12 suspicion of murder --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. -- and his attitude was, "You will not get me for this"?
15 A. Didn't care. Totally didn't care attitude.
16 Q. Indeed. There is one other thing I want to speak to you
17 about, Mr McCrumlish. You may be expecting this. This
18 is a comment on the very final paragraph of your
19 statement. If we could have it on the screen, [80893].
20 First sentence:
21 "I recall that the general feeling of the whole
22 investigation team was that Robert Hamill had been the
23 author of his own misfortune."
24 A. Yes, that's correct.
25 Q. Now, that's a rather unfortunately worded sentence,
64
1 Mr McCrumlish, but I want to explore with you whether or
2 not this is indicative of a view that had been formed
3 within the investigating team as to what had happened
4 here?
5 A. The general feeling was that Robert Hamill was leaving
6 the St Patrick's club and had come down Thomas Street
7 and had initiated an assault of a person at the door of
8 the Queen's Bar, and as this fight ensued, a bus which
9 was coming from the Coach Inn in Banbridge pulled up on
10 the main street of Portadown and a group of about fifty
11 revellers got off the bus while the fight was in
12 progress.
13 The general feeling was that, as a result of this,
14 persons from the revellers got involved in the fight and
15 it was just a melee at that stage. It was a general
16 feeling that Robert Hamill had brought it on himself,
17 although nobody deserved what he got that night. It was
18 a disgrace what happened in Portadown that night.
19 Q. But are you saying that there was a perception amongst
20 the police investigating this incident that this is what
21 had happened? This is not your view? This is something
22 you have picked up from others?
23 A. This was just a general talk between policemen and
24 between people just -- I couldn't even -- if you said to
25 me now, "Who told you that?" I couldn't tell you that,
65
1 but the general feeling was he brought it on himself.
2 Q. You see, that's a -- forgive me, Mr McCrumlish, if
3 I question this phrase "he brought it on himself".
4 How can any policeman express a view that someone
5 who has been subjected to a very severe beating, has had
6 his head jumped on, lying on the ground unconscious,
7 subject to a sustained attack, which I suggest is the
8 evidence as to what happened here, brought it on
9 himself?
10 I am suggesting that is an attitude which is not at
11 all -- does not at all sit well with the duty of
12 a policeman simply to investigate a crime.
13 A. This is not talking about the investigation. I am just
14 telling you what the general opinion was. If Mr Hamill
15 had walked down, walked past that person at the door of
16 the Queen's Bar without initiating an assault and walked
17 on down Woodhouse Street, we wouldn't be sitting here
18 today.
19 Q. That's a different matter, Mr McCrumlish. To say "he
20 brought it on himself" suggests there is some
21 justification.
22 A. Yes, he may have brought it on himself -- no, I do not
23 justify it in any way. What I said was, no matter what
24 happened on that street, Mr Hamill did not deserve what
25 happened to him.
66
1 Q. But he deserved something. Is that what you are saying?
2 A. No, he did not deserve -- he probably would have
3 deserved to have been prosecuted for the assault on the
4 individual at the bar. That's what he deserved.
5 Q. You see -- well, it's a matter for this Inquiry to make
6 a determination from the evidence it hears, and has
7 heard, about what happened on the night, but I want to
8 suggest to you that by no stretch of the imagination
9 would it fit the description you have given it as to how
10 it all began?
11 A. This was -- I am only -- you have asked me what my
12 feeling was on that and why I have said that last
13 line in my statement, and that is what I felt; that the
14 general talk was that he did play a part in the
15 beginning of the assaults.
16 Q. You see, you were brought in at a later stage. Isn't
17 that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. That is the view that you picked up at the point that
20 you were brought in?
21 A. No, I am not saying at that point. I am not saying what
22 point where I got that from, but at some stage in the
23 inquiry, it was the general feeling that that's what had
24 happened.
25 When you are brought in, you don't know the
67
1 circumstances until the enquiries are made and it is
2 only after the enquiries would be made that you could
3 maybe form an opinion in your mind as to what did, in
4 fact, happen on that night.
5 Q. But you have no personal basis for forming that opinion?
6 This is just --
7 A. It is just opinion that was general talk, and I can't
8 even say to you who would have said it.
9 Q. But it must have come from those who had been involved
10 in the investigation up to that point?
11 A. Well, I was involved in the investigation, and just
12 through talk, you know, through talk, this was the
13 opinion that I had, that he had brought it on himself.
14 MR McGRORY: Thank you very much.
15 Questions from MR O'CONNOR
16 MR O'CONNOR: Mr McCrumlish, I represent DI Irwin in this
17 Inquiry.
18 First of all, do you remember how it came about that
19 DI Irwin briefed you for the interview?
20 A. My recollection is very vague at the moment, but on
21 a case like that, the inspector has people who are --
22 have been arrested, and he needs to direct officers to
23 sort that out. He has to safeguard any forensics. He
24 has to organise searches. He has quite a lot on his
25 mind at that stage. He would be wanting to get things
68
1 moving as quick as we can, so he could sit down maybe in
2 light of maybe further information to weigh up
3 everything that was going on.
4 Q. In this case I am going to suggest to you that initially
5 it was Mr McBurney who initially was to interview -- was
6 to brief you regarding this interview, but that he
7 phoned in last minute and Mr Irwin then briefed you
8 instead.
9 Do you remember if that's -- any of that?
10 A. I can't remember that, but Mr McBurney would have been
11 the more senior officer and would have had the ultimate
12 decisions and directions.
13 Q. I think you say early on in your statement in
14 paragraph 5 that generally for briefings of murder
15 investigations if DI Irwin did a briefing, they were
16 supervised either by DCS McBurney or P39.
17 Do you know who P39 is?
18 A. No.
19 Q. I wonder if there's a cipher handy?
20 A. Yes, yes.
21 Q. Would that be right?
22 A. With the rank structure, yes.
23 Q. I want to take you to page [10083]. It will be on the
24 screen. It is the relevant part of your interview of
25 Allister Hanvey.
69
1 You have already said he was cocky during this
2 interview. You found him to be a cocky individual
3 during this.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What I am going to suggest to you, first of all, before
6 we move on to the interview, is that you were told
7 during the briefing by DI Irwin to keep the interview
8 general, not to mention such matters as getting rid of
9 clothes or phone calls, anything of that nature.
10 A. I think it would have been my briefing for to establish
11 clothing, what he was wearing and trying to cover --
12 obviously to glean as much information that I could
13 maybe feed out to maybe search teams outside, you know.
14 Q. To help with the investigation.
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. If I may, Mr Chairman, just briefly take you over the
17 relevant part of the interview, and then I will suggest
18 something to you.
19 In the interview you ask the questions from the
20 bottom of this page, beginning:
21 "Question: So there's no way that forensically your
22 clothes can be connected to Mr Hamill?
23 "Answer: None whatsoever", [10084].
24 "Question: Since we've already asked you about, have
25 you spoken to anyone --
70
1 "Answer: Aha.
2
3 "Question: -- about the incident
4 and you've said other
5 than your immediate family --
6 "Answer: Aha.
7 "Question: -- your parents and your uncle, you
8 haven't?
9 "Answer: Aha.
10 "Question: Have you ever received, other than
11 advice given by your solicitor, which you're totally
12 entitled to have -- have you received any advice from
13 any persons in relation to --
14 "Answer: No.
15 "Question: -- that night, or your actions that
16 night?
17 "Answer: No.
18 "Question: Either civilian or otherwise?
19 "Answer: No."
20 [10085].
21 Up to that point, you have asked about talking to
22 family, immediate family and wider family. You have
23 asked about talking to a solicitor and talking to
24 civilians or otherwise. That's before you get to asking
25 about talking to any police about your actions that
71
1 night. That is your next question. His answer is:
2 "Answer: No. As I have said, the only policeman
3 I knew there was Jim Murphy and I haven't seen him
4 since -- so I haven't seen him.
5 "Question: Well, were you speaking to him about your
6 actions?
7 "Answer: No.
8 "Question: No?
9 "Answer: No. As I say, I was only talking to him
10 after, after.
11 "Question: Well, was it that -- was that that
12 night or --
13 "Answer: Oh, yes, that night. Then the police
14 moved everybody away up the town out of the road. [10086]
15 "Question: Oh, a short time after the incident
16 happened?
17 "Answer: Oh, yeah, aha.
18 "Question: That's all I have to ask at the time."
19 So there was no suggestion other than -- maybe
20 I should put it this way: you didn't give anything away.
21 There was nothing there outside an ordinary interview
22 process that could have alerted Allister Hanvey to the
23 specific allegations about tipping off police.
24 Do you agree with me about that?
25 A. I would agree with you, yes, but I really had -- if
72
1 I had a knowledge that there was a policeman was
2 possibly going to give evidence in support of
3 Allister Hanvey, I would like to have identified who the
4 policeman was, and when he named Jim Murphy, I probably
5 assumed that's the policeman we were talking about.
6 Q. I mean, by asking about the clothes in general at
7 page [10083]:
8 "Question: So there is no way that forensically your
9 clothes can be connected to Mr Hamill?"
10 That was not giving the game away or informing him
11 in any way that there was a tip-off to get rid of
12 clothes?
13 A. No. Searches were on going for clothing and whatnot.
14 Really, them questions are set there to close the gate
15 so he can't at a later stage say that he hadn't been
16 asked that question.
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. So I have the answer before he has maybe been educated
19 by a solicitor to say this or say that.
20 Q. Again, that's a general interview?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR O'CONNOR: Thank you.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: In effect, you are saying he need not
24 reproach himself because he didn't let anything slip
25 that he shouldn't have?
73
1 MR O'CONNOR: Yes, and by extension, there was nothing in
2 the briefing. That's my submissions.
3 MR MALLON: Mr Chairman, my learned friend jumped up too
4 quickly. I didn't get the chance to get to my feet.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Mallon?
6 Questions from MR MALLON
7 MR MALLON: Just two questions. Whenever you were talking
8 about clothing, did anybody ever ask about a silver
9 Skanx jacket? Were you ever briefed about a silver
10 Skanx jacket or anything of that nature?
11 A. My recollection of it was there was problems with
12 clothing. One person was describing a jacket as
13 a silver jacket, someone was describing it as a black
14 jacket with the word "CAT" on it in large yellow
15 letters. There were discrepancies in what he was
16 wearing.
17 Basically, we were trying to find out what he was
18 wearing because, if we could find out what he was
19 wearing, we could maybe connect him to the assault.
20 That was probably our utmost. There was problems in
21 finding out what he was wearing on the night.
22 Q. Was a blue Daniel Poole jacket ever raised with you?
23 A. I don't know. I don't recall that now. I remember
24 something about a silver jacket. I remember something
25 about a black jacket with "CAT" on the back and possibly
74
1 something on the sleeves, but I can't remember a blue
2 jacket, no.
3 MR MALLON: Thank you.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr McComb?
5 Questions from MR McCOMB
6 MR McCOMB: Just arising out of the last question and the
7 answer to it, I am afraid I don't have the
8 paragraph numbers just to hand, but I have taken a note
9 of every reference to clothing in your statement to the
10 Inquiry, Mr McCrumlish.
11 There is a reference to a briefing which had
12 a dark-grey jacket with sleeves. There is a reference
13 to a dark baseball jacket with grey sleeves. There is
14 a reference to dark-grey sleeves and burnt clothing, and
15 there is a reference also to a black Puffa jacket, grey
16 sleeves, with "CAT" in capital letters in yellow.
17 Unless, sir, you would wish me to refer -- trace
18 those in each paragraph, would you accept from me there
19 is no reference in your statement to the Inquiry
20 referring to a silver jacket as put by my friend to you?
21 A. Give me the descriptions of your -- which you have read
22 out again quite quickly? One of them could be described
23 as a light-coloured jacket, maybe it was referring to
24 a silver jacket. I am not sure.
25 Q. All I am saying is -- I mean, the word "silver" is, of
75
1 course, of significance in this case, because that's
2 referred to later on by other witnesses or other
3 parties.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. But at the stage at which you were interviewing and
6 carrying out our searches, should it be on the 11th or
7 13th, there is certainly no reference to silver. There
8 is reference to dark grey.
9 A. You know, in hindsight, looking back, it could have been
10 silver or dark grey.
11 Q. I appreciate --
12 A. I don't -- I can't recall, but what I said in my
13 statement I might have said --
14 Q. Would you take it from me that those specific
15 descriptions were taken from contemporaneous notes you
16 had made at the time --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- and that in those notes, while we have grey --
19 because one of the eye-witnesses to the events of the
20 night of 26th refers to grey.
21 It is only actually when Tracey Clarke, at a later
22 stage, as I understand it, referred to silver, that
23 silver comes into the picture, as it were.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. It is really only for this purpose: I wish to put to you
76
1 that at no stage when you were carrying out your
2 searches was there any briefing in relation to a silver
3 jacket. There were various other descriptions, but not
4 silver.
5 Really, that's the only thing I am putting.
6 A. It could have been anything, because if a witness says
7 to me "it's a grey jacket", in the town centre in
8 Portadown with them yellow lights, it could be a silver
9 jacket described as grey, but I have to take what the
10 witness tells me.
11 Q. I agree with you. We are not going into a debate about
12 colour and the effect of neon lights or anything on
13 things. I am just putting to you for the record there
14 was no reference to a silver jacket at any time which
15 concerned you.
16 A. If I haven't said silver, I can't say that, no.
17 MR McCOMB: Thank you very much. I have nothing else, sir.
18 Questions by MR O'HARE
19 MR O'HARE: Just a few brief matters.
20 In 1997, you told us you were attached to the
21 Regional Crime Squad in Gough.
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. How long had you been a detective constable in 1997,
24 Mr McCrumlish?
25 A. Now you have asked me!
77
1 Q. Would you take it from me it was about 24 years?
2 A. Yes, I will take your word on it.
3 Q. Can the Inquiry also take it that you have been involved
4 in many investigations in the North of Ireland, both
5 terrorist related and non-terrorist related?
6 A. That's correct, yes.
7 Q. Within those terrorist-related investigations, that was
8 both investigations concerning Republicans and
9 Loyalists?
10 A. Oh, yes, yes.
11 Q. Now, you were drafted in on 9th May to assist in the
12 Robert Hamill investigation.
13 Do you recall, were other detective constables or
14 detective sergeants drafted in from Gough as well?
15 A. There would have been, yes. What you will find is that
16 the local station have got limited resources of men for
17 to carry out an investigation like this.
18 So nine times out of ten, we would get a phone call
19 at home to say, "Appear in Portadown tomorrow for
20 9 o'clock". So that's your first word that you are on
21 to a new inquiry.
22 Q. Mr McGrory was asking you about this general talk or
23 opinion that was going on about Robert Hamill on the
24 night in question.
25 Did that general talk or opinion affect the manner
78
1 in which you carried out your duties in the
2 investigation of Robert Hamill's death?
3 A. Not in the slightest.
4 Q. Did you detect in any shape or form that this general
5 talk or opinion affected the manner in which other
6 detective constables -- I am talking about CID here
7 now --
8 A. Uh-huh.
9 Q. -- other detective constables, detective sergeants or
10 senior police carried out their duties in the manner --
11 sorry -- in the investigation of Robert Hamill's death?
12 A. None whatsoever.
13 MR O'HARE: Thank you, Mr McCrumlish.
14 MR UNDERWOOD: There is nothing arising. Thank you.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you just help us about one thing? The
16 point of a jacket is that it has sleeves as opposed to
17 a waistcoat?
18 A. Yes.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: I noticed you said "a grey jacket with
20 sleeves". Can you remember any reason for referring to
21 the sleeves separately?
22 A. Somewhere in the enquiry I believe one of the jackets
23 was described as having stripes on the sleeves or silver
24 stripes or grey stripes. I don't know, but there was
25 some mention of the description of the jacket. That
79
1 might well have been the black Puffa jacket with yellow
2 stripes or ... I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
4 MR UNDERWOOD: Unless there is anything else arising?
5 THE CHAIRMAN: No.
6 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much, Mr McCrumlish.
7 A. Thank you.
8 (The witness withdrew)
9 MR UNDERWOOD: That concludes the evidence for today.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: 10.30 on Tuesday morning.
11 (12.50 pm)
12 (The hearing adjourned until 10.30 am
13 on Tuesday, 19th May 2009)
14
15 --ooOoo--
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
80
1 I N D E X
2
3
MR GREGORY MULLAN (sworn) ........................ 1
4 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD ............... 1
Questions from MR McGRORY ................. 16
5 Questions from MR DALY .................... 46
Further questions from MR UNDERWOOD ....... 51
6
MR PAUL PATRICK MCCRUMLISH (sworn) ............... 53
7 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD ............... 53
Questions from MR McGRORY ................. 62
8 Questions from MR O'CONNOR ................ 68
Questions from MR MALLON .................. 74
9 Questions from MR McCOMB .................. 75
Questions by MR O'HARE .................... 77
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
