Transcripts
Return to the list of transcripts
Transcript
Hearing: 21st May 2009, day 53
Click here to download the LiveNote version
- - - - - - - - - -
PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO THE DEATH OF
ROBERT HAMILL
- - - - - - - - - -
Held at:
Interpoint
20-24 York Street
Belfast
on Thursday, 21st May 2009
commencing at 10.30 am
Day 53
1 Thursday, 21st May 2009
2 (10.30 am)
3 MR UNDERWOOD: Morning, sir. Before I call my first
4 witness, can I say something about the way in which,
5 after the summer recess and after the evidence is
6 concluded, potential criticisms may be dealt with?
7 A protocol is in the process of being drafted so
8 everybody will know where they stand on this, but can
9 I just float in public what I have floated behind the
10 scenes with a lot of my learned friends?
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
12 MR UNDERWOOD: We have endeavoured throughout this process
13 to ensure that where we have conceived that any
14 potential criticism may be made of a witness, then they
15 have been notified of that. They have been categorised
16 as a category B witness, given legal representation, and
17 given notice of what we think the criticism might be and
18 its source.
19 We recognise that there is a possibility after all
20 the evidence is out that criticisms which we have not
21 thought of may arise. That's not to pre-judge what the
22 ruling will be, of course, just merely to point out that
23 criticisms may be made in the course of final
24 submissions, and may be made in the report in due
25 course.
1
1 Although we are a long way from finishing the
2 evidence, I thought it prudent to make it clear at this
3 stage that we will have processes for ensuring that when
4 written and/or oral final submissions are made , if any
5 new criticism which has not yet been put to somebody
6 emerges, I will take it on myself to ensure that our
7 team informs that person of it and that reasonable steps
8 are put in place for them to deal with it at that stage.
9 Likewise, if, in due course, in a draft report
10 something emerges by way of criticism that has not been
11 floated before, again my team will take it on itself to
12 ensure that the recipient of that can deal fairly with
13 it.
14 As I say, a protocol will be drafted in due course
15 to deal with that, but I just want to make it clear that
16 there are steps that will be in place in due course
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. It seems to me that almost every
18 criticism which is likely to be considered will have
19 been made clear by the end of submissions and no-one
20 will have been deprived of the opportunity to respond to
21 them.
22 If one party makes criticisms of another that the
23 other party hasn't had the opportunity to deal with,
24 then we shall afford a brief opportunity to the counsel
25 for that particular person to give a response, but if
2
1 people have different ideas about it, then they will
2 have to say that there is not just one way of behaving
3 fairly and making sure that all concerned have the
4 opportunities to know what potential criticisms they
5 face and to be able to deal with them.
6 MR UNDERWOOD: Quite. I was going to keep it, I have to
7 confess, quite open in the protocol --
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
9 MR UNDERWOOD: -- so that whatever fairness dictates in
10 a particular circumstance will be permitted by it.
11 Whether that's legal representation and oral argument or
12 whether it is a letter --
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
14 MR UNDERWOOD: -- will depend on the circumstances.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, of course. Very well.
16 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't imagine anyone wants to say anything
18 at this stage.
19 MR ADAIR: No, sir.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Good.
21 MR UNDERWOOD: Certainly the interested parties will have
22 an opportunity to look at the protocol and comment on
23 it.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
25 MR UNDERWOOD: That having been said then, can I call
3
1 Albert McIntosh, please?
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
3 MR ALBERT NOEL McINTOSH (sworn)
4 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD
5 MR UNDERWOOD: Morning, Mr McIntosh.
6 A. Good morning.
7 Q. You will find the questions coming from this direction
8 but the voice coming from the opposite direction.
9 A. I am just getting some water here. Thank you.
10 Q. My name is Underwood. I am Counsel to the Inquiry.
11 I have a few questions for you. After that, it may be
12 that some others have some supplementals.
13 May I ask your full names, please?
14 A. My name is Albert Noel McIntosh.
15 Q. Let's see if we can identify your witness statement. If
16 I call up on screen page [80917], we find a document
17 that runs to nine pages.
18 Can I ask you just to keep your eyes on the screen
19 as we scroll through it quite briefly? Do you recognise
20 that as your witness statement?
21 A. Yes, that is.
22 Q. Are the contents true?
23 A. They are.
24 Q. Thank you. You know, because you were interviewed for
25 the purposes of this statement, that what the Inquiry is
4
1 concerned about is how allegations against Mr Atkinson
2 were dealt with within the RUC.
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. It is for the Panel to decide whether there was due
5 diligence in the investigation of the murder, which may
6 entail analysis of whether the part played by
7 Mr Atkinson was properly considered.
8 One of the possibilities, of course, is that there
9 was, as it were, suppression of the evidence against
10 Mr Atkinson at some level in the RUC.
11 Do you understand that that's the concern?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I think you knew Mr Atkinson. Is that right?
14 A. I did know Mr Atkinson. I joined the part-time reserve
15 of the RUC in 1971, in September, and I was stationed in
16 Portadown. I subsequently was transferred to Tandragee
17 in about 1972 and I remained there until 1976 as
18 a part-time Reserve Constable.
19 During that time, Robert Atkinson came as
20 a full-time Reserve Constable to Tandragee. I would say
21 it was probably 1973/1974. I don't think it would be as
22 late as 1975.
23 Q. I think your evidence is this, is it, that when you were
24 interviewing Mr Hanvey on 10th May and subsequently saw
25 the Hanvey parents on 11th May 1997, you did not know it
5
1 was Atkinson who was the alleged tip-off?
2 A. I can't remember for definite, but I don't believe that
3 we knew who actually was the tip-off, as you stated.
4 Q. Can you recall, after all this time, what impact it made
5 on you when you were told there was a possibility that
6 a policeman had tipped off a suspect?
7 A. Well, if a policeman has tipped off a suspect, that's
8 disgusting, and certainly in no way would it hinder me
9 doing my duty in relation to investigating the offence,
10 which obviously by that time was a murder. I would hope
11 it wouldn't make any difference to any other police
12 either.
13 Q. I know from your statement you are telling us that this
14 is one of many murders you investigated and it was
15 a long time ago and that your recollection is pretty dim
16 about it --
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. -- but can I just press you to see how far we can get
19 with some of the matters?
20 You would have been briefed by presumably the
21 detective inspector before you interviewed Mr Hanvey.
22 Would that be right?
23 A. On the Saturday, the day of the interviews with
24 Allister Hanvey, as in all murder inquiries, there are
25 daily briefings first thing in the morning, another
6
1 second briefing in around lunchtime and another one
2 later in the evening.
3 I would record all of these. I'd refer to them as
4 a conference and I would have them in my notebook.
5 I have no doubt -- little or no doubt that we -- either
6 myself or Detective Constable McCrumlish, who was with
7 me, would have been briefed fully in relation to the
8 interviews with Mr Hanvey before interviewing him
9 Q. Again, doing the best we can after all this time, we
10 know you must have had some information about the
11 tip-off, by the look of it.
12 A. We must have had some information, because obviously
13 before coming here I have read a transcript of the
14 interview, and we had some knowledge, but at this stage,
15 I cannot remember exactly what knowledge I did have.
16 Q. Let's see whether we can help by what other experience
17 you have of similar situations.
18 Was this the only occasion in your career where you
19 had to interview a suspect whom you thought had been
20 tipped off in some way?
21 A. I believe so. I can't remember any other.
22 Q. So it's likely that this would have been a pretty
23 singular event for you, the briefing?
24 A. I would agree with that, yes.
25 Q. If you had been told to conduct it in any particular
7
1 way, is that likely to have stuck in your mind, do you
2 think?
3 A. If a senior officer briefs you before going into
4 an interview and outlines the format of what he would
5 suggest to be the running order in the interview, you
6 would try to follow his guidelines as best as possible.
7 Q. But nothing sticks in your mind that was jarring about
8 this? You weren't, for example -- let me put it
9 clearly.
10 If somebody said to you, "Right. There is this
11 tip-off. I want you to make no mention of it", or,
12 "There is this tip-off. I want you to go so far and no
13 further", would that have been such an unusual sort of
14 request that you would remember it now, do you think, or
15 what?
16 A. Well, that would be an unusual request, but I can't
17 remember that happening.
18 Q. All right. One other matter I want to ask you about is
19 that you went to see the Hanvey parents on 11th May.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. We know you regarded what happened as so significant
22 that you stopped just down the road to make your notes
23 up about it.
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. We infer if you knew about something of the tipping-off
8
1 on the 10th, that when you went to see them on the 11th,
2 you would have had that in mind. Would that be
3 reasonable?
4 A. That would be correct, yes.
5 Q. Again, can you help us with whether there was any
6 briefing about that, how you would deal with them?
7 A. I do know that there was a conference that morning, and
8 after that conference, Detective Constable McCrumlish
9 and myself were detailed to go to interview
10 Allister Hanvey's uncle and to do a search there, and
11 I believe we had a warrant for that purpose.
12 After doing that, we returned to Portadown station
13 and after lunch we then went out to the Hanvey home and
14 we there spoke to Mr and Mrs Hanvey.
15 I can't remember exactly, but I'm sure we were told
16 what approach we should take to our interview with them.
17 Q. Again, nothing jarring in that stands out?
18 A. Nothing that comes to mind, no. I can't remember.
19 Q. This may be an obvious point, but let me make it clear
20 anyway. Is it your evidence then, that as far as you
21 are concerned, nothing in the briefings or instructions
22 to you struck you as wrong?
23 A. No, sir, nothing.
24 Q. One final matter, which is this. As you said, you, with
25 Mr McCrumlish, interviewed Hanvey, went to Thomas
9
1 Hanvey's place and spoke to his parents.
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Presumably it was no coincidence, was it, that the two
4 of you operated as that team to do all of that?
5 A. No, that's -- normally -- at that stage, I was in the
6 Regional Crime Squad. We would normally work in pairs,
7 and sometimes, because of other people being on courses,
8 on annual leave or in courts, the pairs would move about
9 a wee bit, but at that time -- I didn't normally work
10 with Paul McCrumlish, but for that inquiry, certainly at
11 the beginning of it I did.
12 I think later in the inquiry I moved over to some
13 other detectives.
14 Q. Sure. Sorry. I said it was one final matter. There is
15 something we forget, which is we didn't ask you in your
16 statement to identify a statement that you have made.
17 Can I just ask you to look at page [17363]?
18 Is that a statement you made on 10th November 2000?
19 By all means take time to read it.
20 A. That's correct, yes.
21 MR UNDERWOOD: Good. Thank you very much, Mr McIntosh. As
22 I say, other people may have some more questions.
23 A. Thank you.
24 Questions from MR McGRORY
25 MR McGRORY: I just want to draw your attention to one
10
1 matter, please. Sorry. My name is McGrory and
2 I represent the family of Robert Hamill.
3 A. Good morning, sir.
4 Q. Good morning. There is just one matter I want to draw
5 your attention to. It is page [80924]. It is page 23
6 of your statement -- sorry, paragraph 23. It is too
7 early in the morning.
8 I just want to see if you can give us a little bit
9 more information about this than is in your statement.
10 You see from your notebook that when you go to Mr and
11 Mrs Hanvey they said that:
12 "... Allister had told them about a policeman at the
13 scene asking Allister to assist in keeping the crowd
14 back and that he did so. But Mr Hanvey refused to give
15 details of this policeman. I found this unusual."
16 Can we take it then that the Hanveys volunteered
17 this information? This is a time, of course, when
18 Allister is in the police station being questioned about
19 this murder, and you go out to the house. Isn't that
20 right?
21 A. Well, I had interviewed Allister the previous day.
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. I'm not sure whether he was still in custody that day or
24 not.
25 Q. Well, would you take it from me that he is still there?
11
1 A. Okay. I certainly will.
2 Q. He is actually charged with the murder after this and
3 remains in custody for quite a while, but in any event,
4 you go out to the house the next day. You had been
5 interviewing Allister the previous day. Independently
6 they say to you, "There is a policeman that Allister
7 helped, actually helped on the night".
8 Is this what happened here?
9 A. Yes. Well, we were obviously discussing with Mr and
10 Mrs Hanvey at that stage what Allister had told to them,
11 his account when they were questioning him or
12 discussing --
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. -- and this is what Mr Hanvey had told us. Beyond that,
15 I say here that Mr Hanvey refused to give details of
16 this policeman. I found this unusual.
17 At this moment in time I can't distinctly remember
18 the incident, but obviously from this statement here
19 I would agree with that. If he was simply asked, "Look,
20 will you give us a hand here? We are getting things
21 tight. There is a fight going on in the street",
22 I can't think of any purpose why he would want to
23 refuse.
24 Q. In fact, it would be in his direct interests --
25 A. It would.
12
1 Q. -- to tell you who the policeman was.
2 A. Well, I have said I found this unusual.
3 Q. And obviously you say Mr Hanvey refused to give details.
4 You wouldn't have noted that he had refused to give them
5 if you had not asked him for them?
6 A. I have no doubt that we would have. We just didn't
7 simply say, "Who was this?" and leave it at that. We
8 would have progressed the situation, but I have used the
9 word "refused".
10 MR McGRORY: Yes. Thank you.
11 Questions from MR O'CONNOR
12 MR O'CONNOR: Mr Chairman, I don't have a number. My
13 statement is signed but does not have the Inquiry
14 numbers. I am looking for paragraph 8 of this witness's
15 statement.
16 MR UNDERWOOD: Page [80918].
17 MR O'CONNOR: I am obliged. If that can be put up on the
18 screen, please, [80918].
19 Mr McIntosh, this is paragraph 8 of your signed
20 statement to the Inquiry. It refers to briefings.
21 I just wanted to rehearse that to you and then ask you
22 about briefings, if you don't mind.
23 A. Sorry. Could you just introduce yourself to me, please?
24 Q. Sorry. My name is Hugh O'Connor. I appear for
25 Detective Inspector Irwin.
13
1 A. That's fine, yes.
2 Q. Also for, then, Inspector McCrum, but these are really
3 I suppose in relation to DI Irwin. You said:
4 "We normally received regular briefings each day
5 about the investigation."
6 You have touched on this, but I just want a little
7 more detail:
8 "To start with, when there was a murder involved, we
9 would have briefings at 9.00 am or thereabouts; then
10 another briefing at lunchtime some time between 1.00 pm
11 and 2.00 pm; then a further briefing in the evening
12 which could vary in time from 5.00 pm to 7.00 pm,
13 depending on what was being done at the time and who was
14 available to take the brief. After a period of time, it
15 is possible that the number of briefings may have
16 reduced down to two per day."
17 [80919].
18 Did you feel you were properly briefed throughout
19 the investigation?
20 A. Oh, yes. In all inquiries I have been involved in that
21 would have been the routine, morning, lunchtime and
22 evening, three briefings, certainly for the first
23 number of days, because things generally at the
24 beginning of an inquiry would sometimes move at a fairly
25 hectic pace. Therefore, you had to be kept up-to-date
14
1 and we were.
2 Q. This particularly inquiry, was this a busy murder
3 inquiry, in your view?
4 A. I would say it was, but all murder inquiries are busy
5 murder inquiries. I have never yet been on one that
6 wasn't.
7 Q. Now, in the interview of Allister Hanvey that you and
8 Mr McCrumlish were involved in asking questions, did you
9 ask any questions that would deliberately tip
10 Allister Hanvey off about what you knew or what you had
11 been told about a policeman giving information to him?
12 A. Well, when you say "you", do you mean me, myself, or
13 either of us?
14 Q. Either of you.
15 A. Either of us. Most definitely not. We wouldn't be
16 going down that line.
17 Q. Were you careful not to do that?
18 A. I would say we were.
19 MR O'CONNOR: Thank you.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Atchison?
21 Questions from MR ATCHISON
22 MR ATCHISON: Mr McIntosh, I appear on behalf of Mr Hanvey
23 and his parents.
24 Would it be fair to say, whenever you attended at
25 their property, although they were reluctant to furnish
15
1 a written statement, they did cooperate with you?
2 A. Yes, they did cooperate. They invited us into their
3 home. We sat in their -- I don't know whether they
4 would call it their living room or kitchen.
5 Q. Certainly they volunteered information in answer to your
6 question?
7 A. They answered our questions. Perhaps on occasions,
8 certainly like the one that has been highlighted about
9 the identity of the policeman, they weren't possibly as
10 forthcoming as they could have been.
11 Q. For example, they freely volunteered the jacket that
12 Allister was wearing on the evening and the clothing
13 that he had on?
14 A. Well, I think by that stage the description we were
15 looking at of the jacket was something different to what
16 they were telling us.
17 As far -- it was a black jacket with "CAT" on it,
18 I believe, whereas we were looking, I think at that
19 stage, for a jacket with grey or striped sleeves or
20 something.
21 Q. Well, if I could show you page [53667], please, this is
22 a word processed copy of your notebook.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. If we can highlight the first two-thirds, please, if
25 I could just refer you to the fact that:
16
1 "Mr Hanvey, who said that rumours were that the
2 first police at the incident were being untruthful about
3 what had happened and had actually instigated the
4 incident ..."
5 Is that right?
6 A. That would be right, because my notebook entry in
7 relation to the interview, it commenced in the Hanvey
8 home, where I recorded details of both Mr and
9 Mrs Hanvey.
10 However, as we progressed to speak to them, we
11 just -- I just remembered what had been said, and after
12 leaving the Hanvey home, we travelled down the country
13 road, probably round the first or second corner, pulled
14 into a grass verge and wrote up the notebook before
15 anything would be forgotten.
16 Q. Just focusing upon what you say Mr Hanvey told you,
17 given that it was alleged that Reserve
18 Constable Atkinson, who was a police officer at the
19 scene, was apparently helping Mr Hanvey, did you find it
20 remarkable that Mr Hanvey was, in fact, implicating
21 Reserve Constable Atkinson, amongst others?
22 A. I don't think I looked at it, at that time, as being
23 remarkable, but, to be truthful, I have to rely now on
24 my notebook entry, because it is 12 years ago. I can't
25 remember just from the top of my head at the moment from
17
1 my memory, and I am simply relying on what is written
2 here before me in my notebook.
3 MR ATCHISON: Very well. Thank you.
4 MR ADAIR: I have no questions.
5 MR UNDERWOOD: Nothing arising. Thank you very much.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
7 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you, Mr McIntosh.
8 A. Thank you very much. Thank you.
9 (The witness withdrew)
10 MR UNDERWOOD: Mr Wallace, please.
11 MR DANIEL BLAIR WALLACE (sworn)
12 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD
13 MR UNDERWOOD: Good morning, to you.
14 A. Good morning.
15 Q. You will find the questions coming from over this side,
16 even though the sound comes from the other side.
17 My name is Underwood. I am Counsel to the Inquiry.
18 I have some questions for you.
19 A. Right.
20 Q. When I am done, it may well be there will be some
21 supplemental questions from some of the others.
22 May I ask your full names to start with?
23 A. Daniel Blair Wallace.
24 Q. If we look on the screen at page [81594], we will see
25 a six-page document. May I ask you just to keep your
18
1 eyes on it while we scroll quite briefly through it?
2 Is that a witness statement you kindly signed for
3 the Inquiry?
4 A. It is, yes.
5 Q. Is it true?
6 A. It is.
7 Q. Mr Wallace, we have a document that you may not have
8 seen before. It is a journal entry of an ACC, Mr Hall.
9 Can I ask you to look at it? It is at page [74231].
10 Now, there is an entry down the bottom there, just
11 above the blacked-out section for 12th May 1997. The
12 second column deals with the working hours of Mr Hall
13 that day.
14 What the text says, as far as we can make out at the
15 moment, is, "Attend meetings at RHQ", which we take to
16 be Regional Headquarters. Then "C.C. I/C", which we take to
17 be "chief constable in the chair". Then, "Also briefed
18 CC, DCC and ACC 'C' re allegation against R/Con Atkinson
19 Portadown by Miss S Clarke",or, "T Clarke."
20 What we have here is a contemporaneous journal entry
21 from 12th May at which Mr Hall attended a briefing in
22 the presence of the chief constable and a DCC in which
23 he raised the question of the tip-off allegation against
24 Atkinson.
25 Can you help us with whether that was you, that DCC?
19
1 A. No, it wasn't. I wasn't at that meeting.
2 Q. There were two DCCs I think at the time. Is that right?
3 A. There was an establishment for two DCCs. Now, whether
4 there was a second DCC actually in post, again I am not
5 sure.
6 Q. But you are positive you weren't there in any event, are
7 you?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Can I ask why you can be positive about that?
10 A. Well, I would have recalled being present at a meeting
11 if there was an allegation of the nature referred to.
12 That's something that I would have remembered, I think.
13 Q. Thank you. I want to ask then just about structural
14 matters.
15 First of all, one of the issues the Panel is going
16 to be interested in is how matters got referred to the
17 ICPC and in what circumstances. I wonder if you can
18 help us about that.
19 Now, we know that the ICPC had no original
20 jurisdiction in the sense that it had to wait for things
21 to be referred to it as a matter of law. We have also
22 heard that it could, and on occasion did, raise matters
23 itself with the chief constable if it thought that they
24 ought to be referred to it. Can you comment on that?
25 A. Yes. I believe that was the procedure, yes.
20
1 Q. Now, having cleared out of the way the possibility that
2 you were present at any of this, we are left with your
3 evidence that you knew nothing about the allegation of
4 Mr Atkinson, I think. Is that correct?
5 A. Not until at least two to three months after the event.
6 Q. Sure. So all I can ask you about is your understanding
7 of what should have happened in relation to the ICPC
8 rather than what you knew at the time was happening?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Right. Now, if the ICPC had been told on 12th or
11 13th May 1997 of this sort of allegation, is that the
12 sort of thing you would have expected them to raise with
13 the chief constable or whoever it may be to ask for
14 a referral?
15 A. In all probability, yes.
16 Q. If that hadn't happened, what would have been the normal
17 system by which somebody who was in a position to make
18 a referral got to know about the allegation?
19 A. Well, if the circumstances of the allegation were then
20 known to the senior investigating officer of the
21 incident, he would be the trigger. He would then assess
22 the evidence that he had, and, at a time when he thought
23 it was most advantageous to the investigation, he would
24 then have made a recommendation to the ACC in charge of
25 Complaints & Discipline that here was a man who should
21
1 have been suspended as he was suspected of a serious
2 criminal offence.
3 Q. I will come to that, the suspension question, but at the
4 moment I am trying to keep it limited to the way in
5 which it would have got to the ICPC.
6 A. Again, he would have -- it would have started with the
7 senior investigating officer. He would have
8 communicated that to the ACC C&D. If he had considered
9 the matter to be a matter that was serious enough and
10 would require ICPC supervision, he would then have
11 referred the matter to the ICPC.
12 Q. Right. So it is the Complaints & Discipline direction
13 it goes through, is it?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. As we understand it, Complaints & Discipline were also
16 responsible for service of any Form 17(3)s. Is that
17 your understanding?
18 A. Where an allegation was made concerning the conduct of
19 an officer, the investigating -- the ACC C&D would have
20 directed an investigation. He would have appointed
21 an investigating officer and one of his first tasks
22 would be to serve a Form 17(3), which would have put the
23 alleged offending officer on notice that he was being
24 investigated, and, basically, he would have been given
25 an outline of the allegations that were being made
22
1 against him.
2 Q. The question of suspension, would that have been
3 considered at the same time?
4 A. Dependent on the state of the investigation at that
5 time, all the evidence that was going to be available,
6 had it been procured, was there other lines of enquiry
7 that still had to be followed, and, indeed, whether or
8 not the allegation was, in fact, going to be
9 substantiated.
10 Q. Can you help us also with the degree of formality that
11 was necessary to get Complaints & Discipline involved?
12 Here let me just put to you what happened, which is
13 that Mr McBurney was the SIO for the murder and he was
14 also investigating a complaint of neglect of duty of the
15 four officers in the Land Rover. It was in the course
16 of those investigations that he got a witness statement
17 which made this allegation against Mr Atkinson that he
18 tipped off one of the alleged murderers.
19 There he is, the SIO, in possession of information
20 which is second-hand, to be frank, that Mr Atkinson had
21 done this allegedly very serious thing.
22 Now, would it have taken any formal step to get
23 Complaints & Discipline involved in that?
24 A. Complaints & Discipline were already involved, because
25 they had appointed Mr McBurney as the senior
23
1 investigating officer for the original complaint arising
2 out of the incident.
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. That being the case, that -- matters that would then
5 have arisen in the course of the investigation were then
6 already encompassed within the overall investigation.
7 Q. Yes. Can I come back on that point to the ICPC?
8 Do I understand your statement to be saying that you
9 would have expected the ICPC simply to wrap up this new
10 allegation into the supervised investigation it was
11 already conducting?
12 A. I don't know how the ICPC would have viewed it, but
13 I would certainly have viewed the original complaint and
14 then the further allegation concerning the Reserve
15 Constable which arose as a result of the investigation
16 into the original complaint as being one complete
17 investigation, in that the aspect of the Reserve
18 Constable couldn't be left hanging in the air and
19 couldn't have been dealt with separately, in that it was
20 very much involved in the totality of the overall
21 investigation into the original complaint.
22 Q. Can I go this far and suggest to you that the perception
23 in the RUC would have been that the ICPC was supervising
24 the investigation which encompassed Mr Atkinson?
25 A. That would be my interpretation of it, and, indeed,
24
1 I would have found it very difficult for the supervisor
2 not to have been fully aware that, not only was there
3 the main complaint arising from the initial incident,
4 but the tangent to that complaint was, in fact, a very
5 serious complaint arising from the alleged activities of
6 Reserve Constable Atkinson.
7 Q. That's kind. Thank you.
8 There is only one other matter I want to ask you
9 about. That's in paragraph 12 of your witness
10 statement. We see that at page [81597]. If we can
11 highlight paragraph 12 and draw it to your attention.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You say:
14 "I can recall having answered questions about the
15 Robert Hamill case at Police Authority meetings,
16 questions that were raised by Mrs xxxxxxxxxx, who is now
17 the Ombudsman, and was at that time a member of the
18 Police Authority. She asked on at least three meetings
19 questions regarding the Hamill investigation. I can
20 recall reassuring her that the matter was the subject of
21 investigation, which Detective Chief
22 Superintendent McBurney, if my memory serves me right,
23 was the investigating officer and the matter was being
24 thoroughly investigated by us and viewed very seriously,
25 that it was being supervised by the ICPC and that we
25
1 would be reporting to the DPP in due course. In so far
2 as going into detail about the case, that would not have
3 been proper. I do not have a note ..."
4 Can you recall whether the Police Authority knew
5 about the tip-off allegation?
6 A. I certainly at no stage made any reference to the
7 tip-off allegation. So I don't know whether they would
8 have been aware of it from any other source, but they
9 certainly wouldn't have been aware of it as a result of
10 questions that were raised at Police Authority meetings
11 and which I gave answers to.
12 Q. Is that because of what you say there about you not
13 regarding it as being proper to go into detail with
14 them?
15 A. Whilst the Police Authority had a requirement to know,
16 first of all, that there was a serious complaint made,
17 and it was my responsibility to reassure them that, yes,
18 we were aware of the complaint, that we had appointed in
19 this case a senior detective to investigate the
20 complaint, and that the matters were being supervised by
21 the ICPC, and that in due course the full report would
22 be submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions to
23 consider whether or not prosecutions should ensue.
24 Q. This is no criticism of you, but let me ask something
25 about the system here. We know, of course, that the
26
1 allegation against Mr Atkinson of tipping him off was
2 not part of the original complaint, because the family
3 didn't know about that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. In fact, as I understand the evidence, the family didn't
6 come to know about that until June of 2000, when the
7 chief constable told them directly.
8 Likewise, on your evidence then, you had no reason
9 to believe that the Police Authority knew about it. Is
10 that right?
11 A. Certainly I do not recall specifically telling the
12 Police Authority in the context of those questions at
13 Police Authority meetings that there was
14 an investigation concerning another allegation.
15 Q. So would this be fair: that, in 1997, there was no
16 system in place by which an allegation which emerged in
17 the way the Atkinson allegation emerged would become
18 known to either a complainant or the Police Authority?
19 A. Sorry. I don't understand.
20 Q. I will do that again.
21 The Hamill family made a complaint, which is that
22 the officers didn't get out of the Land Rover.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. They didn't know what emerged in the course of
25 investigating that complaint: namely, this other very
27
1 serious allegation that Atkinson tipped off Hanvey.
2 There was no system in place for letting them know,
3 was there?
4 A. Not that I'm aware of. There was no system. Whether or
5 not it would have been discussed between them and the
6 police investigators, I have no knowledge of that.
7 Q. Sure, but there wasn't something like a force order to
8 the effect that, where there is a complaint and
9 something emerges of real significance, you go back to
10 the complainant?
11 A. No, no.
12 Q. Likewise, there was no system in place for ensuring that
13 the Police Authority got to know of a revelation like
14 the Atkinson tip-off. Is that fair?
15 A. Well, there was no system as such, but when a complaint
16 would be referred to the ICPC, then obviously the Police
17 Authority would become aware that there was a complaint
18 under supervision by the ICPC.
19 Q. So they know it to the degree that the ICPC is
20 supervising it. Is that fair?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR UNDERWOOD: Good. Thank you very much indeed,
23 Mr Wallace. Those are the questions I ask. As I say,
24 others may have some questions.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you just help about two things? You said
28
1 that once the senior investigating officer knew of the
2 tip-off allegation, he would inform the ACC C&D, who, if
3 he thought it serious enough to require ICPC
4 supervision, would inform the Commission.
5 He would do that, I take it, under delegated powers
6 from the chief constable?
7 A. That's correct, sir.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you -- or are you able to form
9 a judgment about this: would you have thought it serious
10 enough to be passed on to the ICPC?
11 A. I would.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Would that be done by letter or informally?
13 How would this work?
14 A. It was normally done by letter and done under the Police
15 (Northern Ireland) Regulations, I think they were.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you know whether, in fact, the ICPC was
17 informed of the tipping-off allegation?
18 A. Not in my time of service. I have since learned that
19 that did, in fact, happen, but that was at least two,
20 possibly three years after I had retired.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: But there was a letter, was there?
22 A. I have no idea.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: You don't know. You say you would find it
24 difficult to believe that the ICPC wouldn't be aware,
25 but, in fact, you would expect they would be aware
29
1 because of the view you think should have been taken of
2 the gravity of the allegation?
3 A. That's correct, sir. During the course of the initial
4 investigation which the ICPC were supervising, when that
5 allegation came to light, they would have been aware
6 that that allegation had been -- had come to the fore.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: You mean simply through the act of
8 supervising it?
9 A. Yes.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, finding out what's going on
11 in the investigation?
12 A. Yes, and, indeed, that would have been part and parcel
13 of their responsibility, so that they were fully au fait
14 with the course of the investigation.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Would it be the practice of the Commission to
16 make sure that it kept au fait with what was happening?
17 A. Well, in my experience of working with the Commission
18 and dealing with complaints that were being supervised
19 by the Commission, they were very much intent on being
20 au fait with the course of the investigation, and
21 bearing in mind that, at the end of the investigation,
22 they were required to issue a certificate to the fact
23 that the investigation had been carried out properly.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: So they don't just wait to be told?
25 A. Oh, certainly not. Their function would have been
30
1 completely negated had they decided to sit back and not
2 be actively involved.
3 In my experience, I found that they were actively
4 involved in investigations, and, once the additional
5 dimension appeared in respect of Reserve
6 Constable Atkinson, in my view, despite the fact that
7 the official notification didn't go to the ICPC until
8 June 2000, I think it was, they weren't at
9 a disadvantage or working in the dark, in that they were
10 fully aware that that allegation was part and parcel of
11 the entire investigation into the facts surrounding the
12 death of Mr Hamill.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
14 SIR JOHN EVANS: May I?
15 Mr Wallace, in 1997, can you recall, were there
16 subcommittees of the Police Authority?
17 A. Oh, there were subcommittees in the Police Authority,
18 each dealing with aspects of the Police Authority work.
19 SIR JOHN EVANS: Was one of them called Complaints and
20 Discipline?
21 A. That's correct, yes.
22 SIR JOHN EVANS: Which was the chief officer who reported to
23 it?
24 A. It was the Assistant Chief Constable Complaints and
25 Discipline.
31
1 SIR JOHN EVANS: Direct? You didn't do it yourself?
2 A. No.
3 SIR JOHN EVANS: Would it be normal practice for them to
4 take the members of that subcommittee into their
5 confidence?
6 A. Not being present, I don't know, you know, of the degree
7 of interchange that occurred between them.
8 What I can say is that, in fifteen years as a chief
9 officer dealing with Police Authorities and various
10 committees of the Police Authority, I never had any
11 difficulty in dealing with them about confidential
12 matters and feeling completely assured that those
13 matters remained confidential, and, indeed, during that
14 time I was never let down on any occasion by the Police
15 Authority.
16 SIR JOHN EVANS: That would be that you might share
17 a confidence even on the understanding that it wouldn't
18 be reported into the main committee, the main Police
19 Authority? It would remain a confidence?
20 A. Well, one didn't have to get undertakings of that type.
21 When I was answering questions to the Police Authority,
22 obviously the answers I gave were considered answers
23 against the background of the question, but, as I have
24 said, at no stage did I find that matters that I had
25 referred to then suddenly appeared in the press the next
32
1 day or were the subject of discussion outside the
2 confines of meetings.
3 SIR JOHN EVANS: Were those meetings of subcommittees held
4 in public?
5 A. No, they weren't, no.
6 SIR JOHN EVANS: Okay. Thank you, Mr Wallace.
7 A. Thank you.
8 Questions from MR McGRORY
9 MR McGRORY: If I may, sir.
10 Mr Wallace, my name is McGrory. I want to ask you
11 some questions on behalf of the family of Robert Hamill
12 A. Right. Thank you.
13 Q. I think you are the most senior former police officer we
14 have had here so far at the Inquiry.
15 A. That makes me feel very old, Mr McGrory.
16 Q. You also come across as a man, if I may say so, who has
17 perhaps reflected on the trials and tribulations and on
18 the responsibilities on the shoulders of senior
19 policemen in a jurisdiction such as this.
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. So I just want to ask you a few questions about that, if
22 I may, because they go perhaps directly to the heart of
23 this whole case.
24 In any society, the police force is clearly a very
25 important element in keeping law and order?
33
1 A. That's the primary responsibility, yes.
2 Q. With that responsibility come certain difficulties, in
3 that in any ordinary society you are going to meet with
4 resistance from certain quarters, particularly those who
5 perhaps are offending or connected with those who have
6 been offending --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. -- in terms of cooperation.
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. The police, of course, have to work around that. That's
11 part and parcel of the job in terms of meeting
12 resistance in the course of investigations?
13 A. That's correct, yes.
14 Q. It goes without saying, but, of course, you have
15 an extra dimension here in this jurisdiction. We have
16 had throughout many, many years, and still do,
17 regrettably, various paramilitary groups that are
18 engaged in serious violence.
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. And indeed, whose tentacles perhaps stretch throughout
21 the community in terms not just of the violence they
22 perpetrate, but the influence they have on others who
23 might be able to assist the police in their
24 investigations.
25 A. That's correct, yes.
34
1 Q. So it might make the job of policing even more
2 difficult, because the paramilitaries might be
3 exercising their influence to suppress evidence in
4 various ways?
5 A. That again is correct, yes.
6 Q. But also in this jurisdiction we have a situation where,
7 whether you agree with it or not, a substantial
8 section of the population have not perhaps got the
9 confidence in the police force that you would like them
10 to have --
11 A. Yes, that's correct.
12 Q. -- for historical and political reasons.
13 I am not going to go into the rights and wrongs of
14 it, but that was one of the realities of policing in
15 Northern Ireland?
16 A. Yes, that, and, indeed, as you alluded to, that made the
17 job that much more difficult.
18 Q. But, of course, one of the realities of the fact that
19 a section of the population perhaps hadn't -- didn't
20 retain the confidence of the police -- or the police
21 force didn't retain the confidence of that section of
22 the population was that having some independent scrutiny
23 of policing came all the more important --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- in this jurisdiction.
35
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Because, of course, for a police force to properly
3 police a community, it has to have the consent of the
4 community to police it. Isn't that right?
5 A. That is correct, yes.
6 Q. One of your difficulties was that there was a part of
7 the population in this jurisdiction that was withholding
8 its consent --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- for whatever political or historical reasons that
11 might have existed.
12 Now there were, of course, mechanisms in place to
13 some extent to try to ensure that those who didn't have
14 the confidence of the police force might be persuaded
15 otherwise.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Amongst those mechanisms were, of course, the Police
18 Authority, on which perhaps there were members from the
19 Catholic community, not those of strong Nationalist
20 views, who were invited onto the Police Authority so
21 they would feel they were at least somehow represented
22 on that body.
23 A. Yes. The Police Authority was mixed insofar as the
24 religious make-up of the members were concerned.
25 Q. From your point of view as a senior policeman who was
36
1 concerned that you would be able to do your job
2 properly, that was a good thing?
3 A. Of course it was, yes.
4 Q. Also, of course, there was the ICPC, which was set up in
5 1987 --
6 A. That's right, yes.
7 Q. -- which was another mechanism by which the public might
8 hope or expect that the police would be to some extent
9 policed --
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. -- or at least that there would be some independent
12 observation of how the police policed themselves?
13 A. That's correct, insofar as complaints and matters
14 arising from complaints were concerned, yes.
15 Q. Of course, the police did still police themselves
16 between 1987 and 1999, but the ICPC had a supervisory
17 role?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Of course, there is another guardian of the public
20 interest in all of this and it is the Executive, it is
21 the Government, that was entitled perhaps to ask
22 questions about policing issues.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Indeed it might go to national security. It goes
25 without saying that the Government has a direct public
37
1 interest in having some degree of liaison and contact
2 with the police force?
3 A. That's very much the case, yes.
4 Q. Indeed, in terms of public order and --
5 A. And especially against a background of an ongoing
6 terrorist campaign.
7 Q. Indeed. Of all places, in this jurisdiction it was
8 imperative that the Executive, that the Government, had
9 a good relationship with the chief constable and the
10 upper echelons of the police so that it could be
11 assisted in its very important job of governing?
12 A. Well, there was a definite demarcation line in that
13 relationship --
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. -- in that the chief constable was responsible for the
16 operational discharge of the policing function. The
17 Northern Ireland Office or the Secretary of State and
18 his ministers had obviously a responsibility for the
19 good governance of the province as a whole, but the
20 Secretary of State and his ministers did not tell the
21 chief constable how to exercise his powers as the chief
22 constable in dealing with the enforcement of matters of
23 law and order.
24 Q. Absolutely, and, of course, under no circumstances
25 should the Executive, in the form of a Secretary of
38
1 State, have any operational control over the affairs of
2 the police?
3 A. That's basically what I am saying.
4 Q. Of course, but apart from that, if the Secretary of
5 State asked the chief constable for some information or
6 detail about serious public concern about the conduct of
7 the police in a certain respect, it was entitled at
8 least to be told in some detail what was going on?
9 A. Oh, yes. There were meetings, either formal or
10 informal, where matters of mutual interest would be
11 discussed and exchanges would have taken place.
12 Q. Of course, if it came to the Secretary of State's
13 attention that there was talk in the community that
14 a policeman from the Protestant community was tipping
15 off a Loyalist suspect in the murder of a Catholic, that
16 this comes to the attention of the Secretary of State,
17 if the Secretary of State asks the chief constable, "Is
18 this true, and what's going on about this?", that the
19 Secretary of State would be entitled to be given some
20 real amount of information about that?
21 A. That would be correct, yes.
22 Q. At the very least, verification of the fact this was
23 known to the senior police --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- and that it was being investigated?
39
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Indeed, that there might be some substance to the
3 rumour?
4 A. Well, whether or not there would be substance to the
5 rumour would be based on the evidence that was available
6 to substantiate the allegation that was being made.
7 Q. But the Secretary of State would be entitled to know the
8 nature of the evidence, if not the final detail?
9 A. I never recall on any occasion when I spoke to the
10 Secretary of State of him ever seeking the finer detail.
11 That --
12 Q. No, but, of course, he might have said to you, "Deputy
13 chief constable, what's going on here? There is
14 a suggestion here that has come to my ears that
15 a policeman has done something like this."
16 A. Certainly --
17 Q. "What is the story? Is there an investigation? Is
18 there any evidence? Is there -- are you concerned about
19 it? Are you looking into this?", I mean, that you would
20 give the Secretary of State some sense of what was going
21 on.
22 A. Well, I can only tell you -- we are talking very
23 hypothetical here -- of what my response would have been
24 if the Secretary of State or one of the Ministers of
25 State had put that proposition to me. I would have told
40
1 him that, had I been aware that there was an allegation,
2 I would have viewed it as a serious allegation and one
3 that was the subject of detailed investigation.
4 In the case of this particular one, where it was
5 part and parcel of another major investigation that was
6 already underway, I would certainly have indicated that
7 to him, but, you know, one can't be precise insofar as
8 what one would have said or one wouldn't have said,
9 because you were talking in the context of a situation
10 that insofar as the Secretary of State was aware, he
11 would have required certain information and it would
12 have been dependent on how much of that information the
13 chief constable had as to what he could divulge to him.
14 Q. Yes. Sorry, sir?
15 THE CHAIRMAN: It might be helpful, because I think you have
16 seen correspondence between the police and the Secretary
17 of State and will know what information the Secretary of
18 State was given, to suggest, if there is any matter that
19 the Secretary of State was not informed about, what it
20 was and enquire why he wasn't informed, rather than just
21 a very general approach.
22 MR McGRORY: Yes, indeed, sir. Can we take a two-minute
23 break to allow me to get my hands on that
24 correspondence?
25 THE CHAIRMAN: We would be more helped, I think, if there
41
1 are specific questions. "The Secretary of State was not
2 told this. Is there a reason why not?"
3 MR McGRORY: Of course, sir. I was beginning to realise
4 I needed to go here. Had this witness said "Not at all.
5 I need not go there". If I might be allowed two minutes
6 to get that correspondence.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. We will give you a few minutes.
8 MR McGRORY: Just one minute.
9 (11.05 am)
10 (A short break)
11 (11.10 am)
12 MR McGRORY: I am grateful to you, sir. I hope I now have
13 my tackle in order for this series of questions.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Good.
15 MR McGRORY: Mr Wallace, I want you to have a look at
16 a document, and then, before we go into any detail of
17 it, I am going to tell you how it came into existence.
18 It begins at page [15385]. This is headed:
19 "Subject: meeting with Robert Hamill's family -
20 Monday 24.11.97.
21 "Staff officer to chief constable."
22 This is a briefing paper that was prepared for the
23 chief constable following receipt of a letter in the
24 chief constable's office from the Secretary of State
25 asking for information about the Hamill case following
42
1 a meeting that the Secretary of State had with the
2 Hamill family probably on Monday, 24th November. This
3 is the information that was prepared by ACC White which
4 went to the chief constable.
5 Now, the document runs for a number of pages and
6 there are a number of headings. So while we don't have
7 the letter that the Secretary of State sent to the chief
8 constable, we can presume that it probably was set out
9 under those headings.
10 If we scroll forward to page [15388], at the bottom
11 of that page headed 7, it says:
12 "Relationship between Accused and Police Officer."
13 Can you see that at the bottom?
14 A. I can indeed, yes.
15 Q. There is a four-line answer there to the chief
16 constable, which is:
17 "7.1. This matter is the subject of a criminal
18 investigation and a file will be forwarded to the DPP in
19 due course. It would", overleaf, [15389], "not be
20 prudent to make any comment about this at this stage,
21 nor to pre-empt the decision of the DPP."
22 Now, this is ACC White advising the chief constable
23 that there is an investigation, but that it wouldn't be
24 prudent obviously to say too much to the Secretary of
25 State about it.
43
1 We have a situation here where a reserve constable
2 is accused by a witness from within the community of
3 tipping off one of the murder suspects by phoning him
4 the next day.
5 Now, by any stretch of the imagination, Mr Wallace,
6 that is a very serious allegation to be made of a police
7 officer?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. One of the ways in which the witness has said the
10 contact was made between the police officer and the
11 suspect was by telephone.
12 Very quickly, the investigating police, Detective
13 Chief Superintendent McBurney -- well, it would have
14 been a different police officer at that point initially --
15 P39 seeks authority to look at the telephone records
16 and, lo and behold, there is telephone contact between
17 the police officer's home and the suspect's home within
18 hours of the incident.
19 So for investigative purposes, the information has
20 some grounding. Do you agree with that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, the police officer is interviewed in September of
23 1997 under the supervision of the ICPC, and again in
24 October.
25 The police officer, by October, has put forward
44
1 an innocent reason as to how the phone call might have
2 been made, and that is being investigated.
3 Now, all of that information is within the
4 possession of the police by the time they are asked for
5 some information by the Secretary of State's office
6 about what was, at this time, a rumour going round that
7 those in the Land Rover might have helped those who
8 committed the crime, because they knew each other, but
9 that appears it be the height of it, or somebody knew
10 each other.
11 What I just want to ask you is the Secretary of
12 State, obviously acting in the public interest as
13 a member of the Government, asked the chief constable
14 for information about this rumour, obviously concerned
15 about it.
16 First of all, in view of what you have said about
17 the confidence briefing that senior police would give
18 committees of the Police Authority, one would expect
19 that the Secretary of State could hold a confidence as
20 to the nature of evidence and the nature of the
21 allegation if she was told?
22 A. What's your question then?
23 Q. The question is: you would have expected the Secretary
24 of State to have honoured the same confidence about
25 information given to him or her as a subcommittee of the
45
1 Police Authority?
2 THE CHAIRMAN: There is a preliminary question before that:
3 is this the kind of information which should have been
4 provided to the Secretary of State?
5 You have to ask that question first and see what the
6 answer is before the question arises of whether the
7 Secretary of State can be trusted.
8 A view about whether or not there might be a risk of
9 a leak is obviously relevant to the first question, but
10 the first question should come first.
11 MR McGRORY: Well, it would be my preference to ask it the
12 other way round, but by all means, sir.
13 Can I answer that question, Mr Wallace? Would the
14 type of information that I have given you, that was in
15 the domain of the police, be expected to be given to the
16 Secretary of State?
17 A. That is very difficult for me to answer out of the
18 context of the overall investigation, but certainly in
19 my experience in dealing with various people,
20 Secretaries of State down through the years, the precise
21 detail of investigations and how they were progressing
22 were not matters that one would have disclosed, or,
23 indeed, have been -- would have been asked for
24 disclosure from the Secretary of State.
25 Q. Maybe not the precise detail, but would you agree with
46
1 me, Mr Wallace, that really no information has been
2 given -- really the chief constable is being advised to
3 really tell her nothing other than that the matter is
4 the subject of a criminal investigation; in other words,
5 the Secretary of State really could have been told,
6 "Well, you know, there is a specific officer in respect
7 of whom we have information that he might have been
8 tipping off a suspect and we are investigating that."
9 A. Yes, that -- had I been -- in the circumstances that you
10 have alluded to, and in the circumstances of this case,
11 had I been specifically asked, "Was there suspicions
12 arising concerning the loyalties and the actions of
13 a particular police officer in a particular case?",
14 I would have confirmed, yes, that there were suspicions
15 and that the matter was being fully investigated and
16 that in due course the matter would be referred to the
17 Director of Public Prosecutions.
18 Q. Indeed, the Secretary of State might have been advised,
19 "Well, in fact, the suspicion seems to be focusing on
20 an officer"?
21 A. If there was a specific officer, as there appears in
22 this case to have been, the subject of the investigation
23 or that aspect of the investigation, yes, then the
24 Secretary of State would have been told, "Yes, there
25 is".
47
1 Obviously, for the Secretary of State to write in
2 the first instance, the Secretary of State must have
3 been aware that there were allegations concerning
4 an individual police officer having been involved in
5 making phone calls to some of the prime suspects in the
6 murder case, and I would have confirmed that to the
7 Secretary of State, that there was and that the matter
8 was being investigated.
9 Q. Yes, because, of course, the context in which it is
10 taking place is that there are rumours going around and
11 the Secretary of State wants to know is there any basis
12 for this.
13 A. I would have confirmed to the Secretary of State that
14 that was one of the avenues of investigation that were
15 being followed and would form part of the overall
16 investigation.
17 Q. Of course, while the Secretary of State has no say and
18 shouldn't have any say in whether or not that police
19 officer is suspended, the Secretary of State might ask
20 the question of the chief constable, "Is that officer
21 still working?"
22 A. Oh, the Secretary of State could ask any question in
23 relation to it, but the question of suspension was
24 outside the ambit of the responsibility of the Secretary
25 of State.
48
1 Q. Oh, of course. Totally outside the Secretary of State's
2 responsibility.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. But the Secretary of State is entitled to know whether
5 or not there is a matter --
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Why? Yes, why?
7 MR McGRORY: Do you want me to say why, sir?
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I do. That's why I have asked you the
9 question.
10 MR McGRORY: Because the Secretary of State has a function,
11 as the guardian of the public interest, to know whether
12 or not there are members of the police still walking
13 about in policing duties who shouldn't be.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: What do you say about that?
15 A. Well, I would have thought that the question of
16 suspension or internal disciplinary matters was entirely
17 a matter for the chief constable and not any
18 responsibility of the Secretary of State.
19 The Secretary of State, in my knowledge, and in my
20 time as a chief officer spreading over 15, 16 years,
21 never interfered with the disciplinary processes that
22 they followed.
23 MR McGRORY: I am going to leave this particular point in
24 a moment, but let me make it very clear I am not
25 suggesting in any way that the Secretary of State had
49
1 a say in whether or not a police officer should be
2 suspended, but it is something in which she had
3 an interest, on whether or not it was of such a serious
4 nature.
5 A. Well, I am quite sure the Secretary of State, if the
6 matter had been referred to her, had an interest.
7 Q. Thank you, Mr Wallace.
8 Now, what I want to show you next is what the
9 Secretary of State said -- what the chief constable
10 actually said to the Secretary of State about this.
11 A. Right.
12 Q. If we could look, please, at page [15376], at point 5.
13 I need not show you the first page. This is the second
14 page of the letter the chief constable wrote to the
15 Secretary of State on 23rd December in reply. You see
16 there it is headed, "Relationship between some officers
17 and some of the defendants"?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. All the Secretary of State is told is:
20 "This allegation has been included in the criminal
21 investigation and will be considered by the Director of
22 Public Prosecutions."
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, the Secretary of State really -- I am going to
25 suggest to you that the Secretary of State really is
50
1 being kept in the dark about the fact that there is
2 indeed a live investigation into a grounded allegation
3 that a police officer made a phone contact with one of
4 his suspects that is the subject of a serious criminal
5 investigation. She is told really nothing of it at all
6 in this letter.
7 A. Well, the letter confirms that an allegation -- now, it
8 refers to "this allegation", so if we go back to the
9 heading, "Relationship between some officers and some of
10 the defendants", again not having sight of the Secretary
11 of State's letter, I don't know what request she made
12 for information --
13 Q. No.
14 A. -- but that would suggest to me that she was aware that
15 there was some relationship between some of the officers
16 and some of the defendants, and what that letter is
17 doing is confirming that this allegation obviously then
18 had been made and had been included in the criminal
19 investigation and that the evidence amassed from that
20 criminal investigation would be passed to the Director
21 of Public Prosecutions for his consideration.
22 Q. But, of course, what it is not telling her is that, in
23 fact, "There is an investigation into an allegation we
24 have received that a police officer was in contact with
25 one of the suspects".
51
1 A. Well, is that surely not inferred by, at 5,
2 "Relationship between some officers and some of the
3 defendants"?
4 Q. It is only saying it is being looked into in the context
5 of the criminal investigation. It doesn't inform the
6 Secretary of State, "In fact, we are investigating
7 an officer about this."
8 A. Well, it suggests to me, Mr McGrory, that the Secretary
9 of State was already aware, bearing in mind that one of
10 the paragraphs is specifically underlined as,
11 "Relationship between some officers and some of the
12 defendants".
13 So the fact that there was a relationship ongoing is
14 being confirmed and further confirmation that this
15 allegation -- that is about that relationship -- has
16 been included in the criminal investigation.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Wallace, if you were answering the
18 Secretary of State's letter, would the fact that one
19 witness connected with the allegation was regarded by
20 the police as a very vulnerable witness influence how
21 guarded you would be?
22 A. Well, without seeing the context of what the Secretary
23 of State initially requested, certainly that there would
24 be one of the considerations -- first of all, to confirm
25 that we had a witness would again be something that
52
1 probably would want to be held on a very close network
2 within the investigation team; and, secondly, the
3 allegation that witness was making would also be
4 something that would want to be held pretty close within
5 the investigation team.
6 MR McGRORY: You could say to the Secretary of State, "Look,
7 there is a serious investigation going on here against
8 a police officer, but some of the evidence is pretty
9 sensitive, so you should be aware of that, and would you
10 be careful about how you deal with that information?"
11 That's a perfectly proper way to inform the
12 Secretary of State that there is, in fact, a serious
13 investigation into a police officer without jeopardising
14 the investigation in any way.
15 A. I think paragraph 5 would make that pretty obvious, that
16 there was a relationship which, bearing in mind it was
17 part of a criminal investigation, must have been
18 considered as an illicit relationship between some
19 officers and some of the defendants, and that that was
20 part and parcel of an investigation which would be
21 eventually sent -- the result of which would be
22 eventually sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
23 Q. You see, I have been given today the answer that the
24 family received from the Secretary of State. The
25 heading in their letter is, "Relationship between
53
1 officers and defendants", and there is
2 a two-line answer, which is:
3 "The allegation that some officers and some
4 defendants had links has been included in the criminal
5 investigation and will be considered by the DPP."
6 A. Yes. That there was obviously a direct lift from the
7 letter from the chief constable to the Secretary of
8 State.
9 Q. You see, is it not slightly misleading, because
10 really --
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Forgive me. You see the need for care. The
12 Secretary of State passed on the information she had
13 been given to the Hamill family. The fact that the
14 Secretary of State might regard herself as a conduit for
15 information may indicate the care which has to be taken
16 to avoid endangering operational measures in what
17 information is disclosed.
18 MR McGRORY: You see, Mr Wallace, one of the difficulties
19 that we have about this case is that of all the
20 mechanisms in existence for protecting the public
21 interest, in the sense that the police are not left
22 entirely to police themselves -- and those mechanisms
23 include, as we have discussed earlier, the Police
24 Authority, the ICPC, and indeed the Executive in the
25 form of the Secretary of State. Of all of those
54
1 mechanisms, none of them succeeded in having
2 an investigation into this allegation that was
3 supervised to its conclusion.
4 Now, you may not be in a position to comment on
5 that, because you are not privy to all of the
6 information that we are.
7 A. I am not.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: For myself, I think that that point you are
9 making just now is wide of the mark that you have been
10 aiming at: namely, criticism of the police for not
11 providing more information to the Secretary of State.
12 The Secretary of State can't say, "I want you to do
13 more about this", and if she is going to make anything
14 public, there is a problem.
15 MR McGRORY: Absolutely. What the Secretary of State can
16 say is, "Have you used your powers to make sure every
17 aspect of this is being supervised by the ICPC?"
18 That's a perfectly proper function of the Executive.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: I hear you.
20 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: That kind of
21 conversation might very well have taken place but not be
22 recorded in a formal letter, an exchange which, you
23 know -- all supposition.
24 MR UNDERWOOD: I am so sorry to intervene. This has all
25 become a bit abstract, because we do have the documents.
55
1 Perhaps it would be helpful if I put them to the witness
2 out of fairness?
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
4 MR UNDERWOOD: Mr Wallace, can we just look at page [60487]?
5 I am sorry. It is going to take them a few minutes to
6 get them onto the system. They are material. They have
7 been disclosed. They are simply not available here.
8 Perhaps we can look at page [60818].
9 MR McGRORY: It would help if I knew the documents
10 Mr Underwood is referring to.
11 MR UNDERWOOD: [60818] is the letter from the Hamill family
12 to the Secretary of State.
13 MR McGRORY: Well, I haven't seen this, sir.
14 Further questions from MR UNDERWOOD
15 MR UNDERWOOD: 21st November 1997.
16 "Dear Dr Mowlam.
17 "I am writing to confirm our meeting on Monday,
18 24th November 1997 at 2.00 pm at Stormont. I had
19 indicated to your secretary that my solicitor ... is
20 unable to attend," etc.
21 Two paragraphs down:
22 "I also thought it might be useful if I outlined
23 some of the areas which we wished to discuss with you."
24 If I go down to 2 at the bottom:
25 "We would be grateful if you could update us as to
56
1 the progress made to date in the investigation of our
2 complaint. It is still the case that the police
3 officers involved have not been suspended. We would
4 have thought that in a case as grave as this suspension
5 would have been a matter of course. Why have the
6 officers not been suspended? 20,000 people, many from
7 our area", overleaf, [60819], "have signed a petition
8 calling for the officers to be suspended. This shows
9 how local people feel about this case. Is it true that
10 the officers are on sick leave? Is it also true that
11 they have put in claims as a result of what happened?
12 "Apart from the failure of the officers concerned to
13 save Robert, we are also concerned that they apparently
14 allowed a crowd of up to 30 people to assemble at what
15 is known as a sectarian flash point and failed to warn
16 Robert and his friends of the presence of this crowd.
17 Has an explanation been given for this failure?"
18 If we go down to 4 and just highlight 4 and 5 for
19 the moment:
20 "4. We believe that one of the problems faced by
21 the DPP in pressing charges against the accused was the
22 lack of forensic evidence. This problem was obviously
23 caused by the failure of the police to immediately
24 arrest individuals at the scene. Why was this not done?
25 We also understand that at least one of the accused was
57
1 identified by an officer as kicking Robert. If this is
2 the case, was he arrested at the scene or that night
3 and, if not, why not?
4 "5. There have been press reports that have claimed
5 there were links between some officers and some of the
6 defendants. Have these alleged links been
7 investigated?"
8 This will lead to a question, Mr Wallace. Trust me.
9 So, you know, specifically that numbered
10 5 paragraph dealing with the alleged links. I think --
11 I hope we can now go to the Secretary of State's letter
12 to the chief constable at [60487].
13 Here is the Secretary of State's letter. What this
14 does is send a copy of the letter we have just seen from
15 the family to the Secretary of State on to the chief
16 constable and this is the covering letter doing that.
17 What she is saying on 28th November 1997 is in the text
18 of it:
19 "I met with Diane Hamill together with three of her
20 sisters, [blank] from the Committee on the Administration of
21 Justice and Father [blank] at Diane Hamill's request to
22 receive the 20,000-signature petition calling for an
23 independent Inquiry into the death of their brother in
24 May this year. The petition also called for the
25 suspension of four police officers who allegedly failed
58
1 to intervene to stop the murder."
2 If we go down halfway into the next paragraph on the
3 right-hand side there is a sentence which starts:
4 "I explained to them that I could not comment on
5 their detailed questions because they either fell to you
6 or to the Attorney General. I also sought on more than
7 one occasion to get the family to encourage their
8 relatives and friends to cooperate with the processes
9 that exist for investigating the murder and the
10 complaint against the police officers."
11 Overleaf, [60488]:
12 "It is clear that the family are not helping
13 themselves, although this may well be as a result of the
14 advice they are receiving."
15 If we skip a paragraph:
16 "Notwithstanding this, they are clearly upset, not
17 just by the death of their brother but also by the
18 alleged police inaction (why didn't they intervene/why
19 were no arrests made on the evening or the next morning
20 after the attack/why were no charges brought until after
21 the death, etc), and by what they see as a cover-up by
22 the authorities (the police did not want the case to go
23 to court because of the bad publicity it would give/
24 the Hamills fully expected the sixth person to be
25 charged to be released and believed a recent
59
1 conversation with Mr Kitson in the DPP's office was
2 simply preparing them for this). I am concerned to make
3 the system stand up to their criticism. I want to
4 defend it where this is possible and, if necessary, to
5 explain why things have happened the way they have and
6 where we have now got to. For example, they may not
7 have received information because it was under
8 investigation.
9 "I should be grateful, therefore, if you would
10 supply me with as much detail as possible on the points
11 in the attached letter and annex so that I can reply to
12 Diane Hamill. I have sought to mark those which I think
13 are for you and I have also written to the Attorney
14 General. If the matters are sub judice, then I will say
15 so, but I want to answer as many of the points as I can
16 and to be as open as circumstances permit - I think they
17 deserve to be told all we can. I would like to",
18 overleaf, 60489, "try and set the record straight with
19 them and not to miss this opportunity to inform them of
20 the considerable amount of work that has gone into
21 investigating the murder and the complaint.
22 "I know that you and the Attorney General will have
23 reservations about what I want to do, and I appreciate
24 this. I want, however, to give these people an honest
25 response to what they see as reasonable questions on
60
1 which they have had no response to date.
2 "I said would I try to respond to them within two
3 weeks (or three weeks at the latest) and it would be
4 very helpful, therefore, to have your report in a couple
5 of weeks so that I can do this."
6 Bearing in mind that the annex to that was the
7 letter containing paragraph 5, and I shall just read it
8 again to you:
9 "There have been press reports that have claimed
10 there were links between some of the officers and some
11 of the defendants. Have these alleged links been
12 investigated?"
13 That was the question. Now, if we go to the answer,
14 which is page [15376]:
15 "5. Relationship between some officers and some of
16 the defendants.
17 "This allegation has been included in the criminal
18 investigation and will be considered by the Director of
19 Public Prosecutions."
20 Here is the question: after all of that, do you
21 think that was a fair response?
22 A. Yes, in that the request was for confirmation that
23 an allegation -- that there was a relationship between
24 some officers and some of the defendants. That was the
25 rumour that was circulating, and the answer clearly
61
1 indicates this allegation had obviously been taken on
2 board, because it was included in the criminal
3 investigation, and the findings of that investigation
4 would then be considered by the DPP.
5 Q. Thank you. I am so sorry to intervene --
6 A. I would have --
7 Q. I am sorry, Mr Wallace. Do go on.
8 A. I would have thought that was an answer to the question
9 posed in the original letter.
10 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you. As I say, I am sorry to
11 intervene. I hope that's fair to the witness.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr McGrory?
13 Questions from MR McGRORY (continued)
14 MR McGRORY: That's enormously helpful to have that
15 material.
16 I am going to suggest to you, Mr Wallace, that, in
17 fact, that is not a proper answer, because what the
18 Secretary of State is saying to the chief constable is
19 "Look, chief constable, I have met these people. There
20 are these rumours going round. They are very upset that
21 there may have been some connection between these police
22 in the Land Rover, any of them, and these people who
23 killed their brother. Now, I want to help them and
24 I want to satisfy them that we are looking into this as
25 thoroughly as possible".
62
1 So what the Secretary of State is asking herself is,
2 "Is there anything I need know here to make sure that
3 the chief constable and his people and his mechanisms
4 are operating?", because, you see, the Secretary of
5 State also, I suggest to you, had a relationship with
6 the ICPC.
7 Are you aware of that, that she could ask them
8 questions?
9 A. Oh, of course, yes.
10 Q. Of course.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I think we had evidence from Mr Mullan here last week
13 that, in fact, the Secretary of State sent an official
14 down to read the ICPC file at one point.
15 A. Oh, I wasn't aware of that, Mr McGrory.
16 Q. No, but in any event, the Secretary of State is clearly
17 performing her public duty as accepted by you, "Look,
18 wearing my hat as guardian of the public interest and as
19 guardian of the interest of the Hamill family and the
20 wider public, that if there is any hint whatsoever that
21 there is police corruption here, I want to be satisfied
22 as Secretary of State that the police force and whoever
23 else has responsibility for this are looking into this."
24 A. Yes, and that's -- with respect, Mr McGrory, I would
25 have thought that's what paragraph 5 clearly confirms to
63
1 the Secretary of State based on the question that she
2 posed to the chief constable, that, yes, in relation to
3 the relationship between some officers and some of the
4 defendants, that this allegation is -- has been
5 investigated and has been included as part of the
6 criminal investigation.
7 That, in fact, is confirming that an allegation of
8 that nature had been made and that it was taken on board
9 by the investigators, included in the criminal
10 investigation and would then form part and parcel of the
11 total file being sent to the Director of Public
12 Prosecutions.
13 Now, I would have thought that the Secretary of
14 State would then have been in a position, and indeed
15 I am presuming she was then in a position, to confirm to
16 the family, yes, the allegation concerning
17 a relationship between some officers and some of the
18 defendants was, in fact, established, and that the
19 allegation of that relationship has been investigated
20 within the context of the overall criminal
21 investigation, and that the results of that
22 investigation will be put before the Director of Public
23 Prosecutions for his consideration.
24 Q. Yes. You see, what the Secretary of State is not told,
25 and does not know, is that there is actually some
64
1 evidence against a police officer which is a specific
2 police officer, which is specifically being
3 investigated. She is not told that.
4 A. And indeed, in my experience, Mr McGrory, I wouldn't
5 recall -- do not recall circumstances in which
6 the minute details of investigations were communicated
7 to the Secretary of State in respect of what evidence
8 there was available, what evidence was likely to stand
9 up, what evidence was likely to be sufficient to enable
10 the DPP to level charges and to sustain those charges.
11 Q. Mr Wallace, I am not talking about minute details --
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McGrory, forgive me. It is quite clear
13 that you see the Secretary of State's role in this as
14 one of acquiring information from the chief constable
15 that she can then, perhaps filtered, supply to the
16 family.
17 Would you like to put in plain terms what is the
18 information which should have been provided for
19 forwarding to the Hamill family?
20 MR McGRORY: I think I have done that, sir, and I was --
21 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think you have.
22 MR McGRORY: -- about to do it again.
23 Surely it was incumbent on the chief constable to
24 inform the Secretary of State not that, "Yes, that's
25 being looked into. It is part of the investigation",
65
1 but, "Yes, in fact, an element of this investigation
2 involves a specific allegation from a member of the ..."
3 even just that information, "information has been
4 received that one of those police officers did know one
5 of the suspects and did engage in corrupt behaviour."
6 A. Mr McGrory, I can only assist the Inquiry by indicating
7 what I would have answered to the Secretary of State and
8 the answer I would have given based on the information
9 that I have had an opportunity to read this morning
10 would have been in line with paragraph 5.
11 Q. I can ask you to do no more than that.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: You appreciate, Mr McGrory, the kind of
13 information you are saying should have been provided
14 would have been provided and very likely disseminated,
15 would have led to questions about the name and
16 speculation about the name, and one can see why all of
17 this may be an obstacle to proper police investigation.
18 Is that right?
19 A. I would agree with that, sir.
20 MR McGRORY: No, no, sir. I have one more question on this
21 point, which is --
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Just one more, yes. Let it be a question and
23 not a speech, please. Your opportunity to question is
24 not an opportunity to make public pronouncements, and
25 that's largely what you have been doing.
66
1 A question, please. One.
2 MR McGRORY: Sir, I actually do dispute that. In any event,
3 I am performing a very important function here on behalf
4 of the family and I am asking questions --
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Your function is to ask questions, not to
6 make speeches. Whatever your function, that is what you
7 are here to do.
8 Now, if you have a question, please put it.
9 MR McGRORY: My question is this, Mr Wallace: are there not
10 occasions when the Secretary of State may be given some
11 information and can be asked or expected not to reveal
12 it to anybody?
13 A. Are we talking here in general terms?
14 Q. No, no. Let's just deal with the specifics of this.
15 Could the Secretary of State not have been told "Look,
16 Secretary of State" -- I have already asked this
17 question -- "Look, Secretary of State, there is actually
18 a specific allegation here. There is some information,
19 the detail of which we don't think it appropriate to
20 give you, that one of those officers might well have
21 done something corrupt or wrong, but we would rather you
22 didn't just tell the family that for operational
23 reasons"?
24 A. Mr McGrory, I can only reiterate what I have already
25 said, that in my view the answer as illustrated at
67
1 point 5 in that letter was, in fact, a proper answer to
2 the Secretary of State's request. It was confirming --
3 and I'll say it again, and I appreciate I may well be
4 boring everyone -- the relationship between some
5 officers and some of the defendants, that this
6 allegation was investigated as part of the overall
7 criminal investigation, and that the findings of that
8 investigation would be placed before the DPP.
9 Now, I can only say, Mr McGrory, that I believe that
10 that response to that part of the letter was, in fact,
11 adequate.
12 Q. You have already said that, Mr Wallace, and that, with
13 respect, is not my question.
14 My question is: could the Secretary of State not
15 have been given more information than she was, but asked
16 not to convey that on to the family for operational
17 reasons? A very specific question.
18 A. Well, if you are asking me, "Would I have included
19 another" --
20 Q. No, I am not. Go on. Answer, please.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Let him answer. He is answering the
22 question.
23 A. If you are asking me, "Would I have included another
24 sentence to that effect?" I wouldn't have.
25 MR McGRORY: You wouldn't have, but that's still not my
68
1 question. My question is: would you have trusted the
2 Secretary of State not to pass on information if she had
3 been asked not to?
4 A. Well, that's an entirely different question,
5 Mr McGrory --
6 Q. It is.
7 A. -- insofar as the relationship between the chief
8 constable and the Secretary of State, and again, I can
9 only speak from my personal experience of having worked
10 with almost every Secretary of State who was in
11 Northern Ireland.
12 At no stage did I have any problems with any
13 breaches of confidentiality where one talked on
14 a one-to-one with the Secretary of State.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: You do appreciate, don't you, Mr McGrory,
16 your last question was inconsistent with your earlier
17 line of questions that information should have been
18 given which could be passed on to the Hamill family.
19 MR McGRORY: Absolutely not inconsistent, sir.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. I hear you. I don't agree. Very
21 well then. Thank you.
22 MR McGRORY: Thank you, Mr Wallace.
23 Now, I want to just ask you briefly just about this
24 issue of suspension and the extent to which the chief
25 constable or deputy chief constables would be involved
69
1 in that.
2 Isn't there a clear difference between disciplinary
3 issues and the issue of whether or not a police officer
4 has committed a serious crime?
5 A. Yes, of course there is, yes.
6 Q. Obviously suspension would be considered if a police
7 officer is accused of, or might have been involved in,
8 a serious crime?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. That would be considered right at chief constable or
11 deputy chief constable level?
12 A. It could be considered by the assistant chief constable
13 in charge of C&D or it could be referred to my level.
14 Now, I had cases where suspension requests were
15 referred to my level and there were other cases where
16 members were suspended that hadn't been referred to me
17 because the matter had been dealt with by the assistant
18 Chief Constable Complaints & Discipline
19 Q. Now, one other very minor issue, Mr Wallace. It is not
20 minor, but it will not take me very long. You have
21 already said that in your meetings with the Police
22 Authority that xxxxxxxxxx took a particular interest
23 in this case.
24 A. Yes. That's correct.
25 Q. She had asked you some specific questions?
70
1 A. Well, the format was that members who had questions
2 to -- that they required answers for, gave prior notice
3 of questions that they intended to ask.
4 I attended Police Authority meetings either in my
5 capacity as the deputy chief constable acting for the
6 chief constable or accompanied the chief constable to
7 Police Authority meetings.
8 At at least two, or possibly three, of those
9 meetings, which were on a monthly basis, Mrs xxxxxxxxxx
10 asked questions insofar as related to the Robert Hamill
11 Inquiry and I answered, to my recollection, at least on
12 three occasions, that, yes, there was a very serious
13 incident in which a person lost their life, that it was
14 the subject of investigation, that the investigating
15 officer was Detective Chief Superintendent McBurney,
16 that the matter was being supervised by the ICPC, and
17 that, in due course, a full report on the matter would
18 be submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
19 Q. Of course, xxxxxxxxxx was due to become the Ombudsman
20 in November of 1999. Isn't that correct?
21 A. Oh, yes, but at the time she was asking the questions,
22 she didn't know that was what the future held.
23 Q. Well, can you be sure about that --
24 A. Oh, yes.
25 Q. -- because she became Ombudsman in 1999?
71
1 A. Yes, and the setting-up of the -- you know, the process
2 that brought about the Ombudsman was still very much in
3 an embryo stage in 1997.
4 Q. Well, I don't know if -- in fact, a little bit later
5 I think. It wasn't until after the Northern Ireland
6 Act, the Good Friday Agreement -- no, it was a separate
7 Act. It was still very much -- thank you for that.
8 In 1997/1998, it was still being discussed?
9 A. Mr xxxxxxxxxx -- not xxxxxxxxxx, but Dr xxxxxxxxxx -- was
10 given the task of looking at the whole ICPC set-up and
11 the whole question of how complaints could be dealt with
12 and that the Ombudsman -- the office of Ombudsman arose
13 out of that, sir.
14 Q. Thank you for that.
15 As we know, the Ombudsman -- one of the big issues
16 is whether or not the Ombudsman's Office should have
17 powers to self-refer, which the ICPC may not have had in
18 terms of choosing itself independently to investigate
19 matters.
20 A. Oh, yes.
21 Q. Indeed. That was one of the big issues in debate and,
22 of course, one of the other issues was whether or not it
23 should have independent investigative powers --
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. -- as opposed to the supervisory powers that the ICPC
72
1 had.
2 A. And those were matters that Dr xxxxxxxxxx inquired into
3 at great length, and I gave evidence, too, in the course of
4 his inquiry about what was felt to be the right course.
5 Q. So it would have been well-known, of course, within the
6 entire police force, particularly in the upper ranks,
7 that significant change was imminent?
8 A. Indeed, I can tell you that I was one of the promoters
9 of change, because I believed that the situation could
10 only be resolved with the appointment of someone
11 completely outside the police to investigate the police.
12 Q. Of course, at some point in 1999, the appointment of
13 xxxxxxxxxx as the Ombudsman was made public?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR McGRORY: Thank you.
16 MS DINSMORE: No questions.
17 MR McCOMB: No questions.
18 MR ADAIR: I have no questions, sir.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Wolfe, do you desire to ask any questions
20 arising out of Mr McGrory's questions?
21 MR WOLFE: What I would raise with the Inquiry is the
22 question of whether Mrs Mowlam, the then Secretary of
23 State, had any concerns about the nature and extent of
24 the information provided by you.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: I was going to enquire whether the Secretary
73
1 of State protested she had not been told enough.
2 MR WOLFE: Exactly, sir. I think that's the answer to my
3 learned friend's questions, with all due respect. If
4 she was upset, that is the litmus test, I think.
5 MR McGRORY: Can I add something to that, sir? I have
6 written to Mr Underwood this morning putting him on
7 notice that this was a line of enquiry I had, which is
8 that we might wish to receive evidence, not just as to
9 whether or not the Secretary of State felt afterwards
10 that she should have been told more, but what the
11 Secretary of State's office would be expected to be told
12 in this or in any other case.
13 It is a line of enquiry which Mr Underwood and the
14 Inquiry might make, sir.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the letter of the Secretary of State
16 which has been shown on our screens does set out certain
17 limitations on the answers she expects.
18 I wonder, because there was one passage which was
19 not referred to, could we have that on the screen again?
20 MR UNDERWOOD: [60487] is the Secretary of State's letter.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
22 MR UNDERWOOD: I took Mr Wallace to a few lines on that
23 page and most of [60488].
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we just go back to the previous page,
25 please, [60487]? The paragraph beginning:
74
1 "Briefly, the background ..."
2 MR UNDERWOOD: Yes. I should, in fairness, have put that.
3 Let me just let you see that, Mr Wallace:
4 "Briefly, the background is that Diane Hamill wrote
5 to me in August requesting a meeting. I agreed, as they
6 were raising issues about the system", underlined, "for
7 investigation, but explained that I could not comment on
8 the investigations into the death or the complaint
9 themselves. Having arranged to see me on 24th November,
10 Diane Hamill sent me a letter on Friday, 21st November
11 listing a number of points. This became the focus of
12 the meeting, but the delegation also raised a few
13 additional points."
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Thank you.
15 MR UNDERWOOD: To anticipate your question, sir, we are not
16 aware of any response back from the Secretary of State
17 saying, "That's inadequate", and from what we have seen,
18 of course, she adopted paragraph 5 in the reply that she
19 did give to Mrs Hamill -- Miss Hamill, rather.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, but no doubt PSNI will be able to say if
21 that is the position.
22 MR UNDERWOOD: Yes. Can I just conclude on this as well?
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
24 MR UNDERWOOD: We also have the documents which reflect this
25 that went on to the Attorney General for his commentary.
75
1 I seem to recall that got a rather dustier response than
2 the chief constable gave.
3 MR WOLFE: Certainly, if I become aware of any letter sent
4 from the Secretary of State to the police, I will tell
5 you.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Thank you.
7 MR McGRORY: Can I make an additional short submission on
8 this, sir? It doesn't have to be done in the presence
9 of the witness. It is just in terms of what further
10 enquiries ought to be made. I don't know whether this
11 is an appropriate time or whether you would prefer me
12 to --
13 THE CHAIRMAN: You had better tell us now.
14 Submissions by MR McGRORY
15 MR McGRORY: Yes. The Secretary of State may not have been
16 unhappy, because she never knew just what it is she
17 could have been told and wasn't told and, secondly,
18 I think it is perhaps --
19 THE CHAIRMAN: She would have been able to see that the
20 answer was a guarded one, wouldn't she?
21 MR McGRORY: Well, we can't know that. She is deceased, so
22 I think my --
23 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we could perhaps attribute to the
24 Secretary of State a certain astuteness.
25 MR McGRORY: Not if she is being misled, sir.
76
1 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Then what else do you want
2 investigated?
3 MR McGRORY: I think, sir, it would be proper for the
4 Inquiry to ask an official in the Northern Ireland
5 Office whether or not the NIO or the Secretary of
6 State's office would expect to have been told more about
7 this. If the answer is "no", well, so be it, but if the
8 answer is "yes", then there is a live issue before the
9 Inquiry.
10 REV. BARONESS KATHLEEN RICHARDSON: Of course, it is true,
11 isn't it, had she been told something and told to keep
12 it to herself, we would never know it?
13 That was your suggestion earlier: could she have
14 been told something which she was not at liberty to
15 divulge to others. In which case, how could we possibly
16 know that that had happened if she had not divulged what
17 she knew?
18 MR McGRORY: My point was that she could have been told it
19 in that letter and then we would know that she had been
20 told it, but that she was someone who could be trusted
21 to hold a confidence.
22 With respect, Madam, that's a separate issue.
23 I make the submission, sir.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McGrory, Counsel to the Inquiry will take
25 it into consideration and make a decision.
77
1 MR McGRORY: Thank you, sir.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr Wallace.
3 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much, Mr Wallace.
4 (The witness withdrew)
5 MR UNDERWOOD: One more witness, who is Mr Bingham, who
6 I anticipate might be quite quick.
7 MR MICHAEL ANDREW BINGHAM (sworn)
8 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD
9 MR UNDERWOOD: Morning, Mr Bingham.
10 A. Morning.
11 Q. My name is Underwood. I am Counsel to the Inquiry.
12 I am sorry we have kept you waiting.
13 Can I ask you your full names, please?
14 A. It is Michael Andrew Bingham.
15 Q. Can we have a look at page [81500] on the screen? This
16 is an eight-page document. Can I ask you to keep your
17 eyes on it while we scroll through it quite briefly? Is
18 that your witness statement?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Is it true?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. I want to ask you questions about the search of the
23 Hanvey home on 10th May 1997. Can you tell us whether
24 you have any independent memory of that at all?
25 A. Vaguely.
78
1 Q. Right. Let me show you the warrant. It is at
2 page [51350]. This is the HOLMES version. If we look
3 underneath the second line:
4 "Whereas it appears from the application on
5 affirmation of Dereck Bradley, a constable of the Royal
6 Ulster Constabulary of Portadown, that there is
7 reasonable cause to believe that certain articles,
8 namely trainers and clothing sought in connection with
9 the offence of murder, are on the premises of
10 Allister Hanvey", and it gives the address, and then you
11 get the warrant.
12 So what we know from the warrant then is that it
13 authorised the seizure of trainers and clothing. Do you
14 recall that?
15 A. I can't honestly recall it, no.
16 Q. Okay. Then if we look at your paragraphs 14 and 15,
17 which we find on page [81504], you tell us about how the
18 search went. Looking at paragraph 14, you say:
19 "When we arrived at the house, Mrs Hanvey met me.
20 As outlined above, as team leader I had to explain to
21 her the legislation and the circumstances surrounding
22 the search to satisfy her why we were there. I then
23 conducted a house damage check through all the bedrooms,
24 bathrooms, kitchen, outhouses and any vehicles to ensure
25 that any damages was recorded in advance of the search."
79
1 Now, I would like to contrast that with what you
2 noted on the search log. If we look at page [73990], do
3 you see about halfway down there is a box which has:
4 "Existing damage/condition on first inspection."
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What you have noted is:
7 "Bedroom in fair condition."
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, what that suggests is that it is only the bedroom
10 that you checked for damage. Would that be fair?
11 A. I can't honestly recall from memory.
12 Q. We also, sticking with this, can see from the log that,
13 in fact, it was only a bedroom that was searched,
14 because if you look at page [73996] --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- we see the way in which you have logged the actions.
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 Q. "0721. Admitted entry by Mrs Hanvey. Explained ..."
19
20 "0727. Team A entered house. Commenced search of
21 bedroom 1.
22 "0730. Constable Porter seized", three items of
23 clothing.
24 A. Uh-huh.
25 Q. "0740. Team A out of bedroom."
80
1 And that's it.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Again, it is not a memory test. Just helping us as best
4 you can with the way in which you conducted searches and
5 the way you wrote them up on a log, does that suggest to
6 you in fact you concentrated yourself on that bedroom?
7 A. That would appear to be the case.
8 Q. You tell us, going back to your witness statement at
9 [81504], paragraph 15:
10 "According to Form 29, the search commenced at
11 7.21 am and terminated at 7.45 am. Generally speaking,
12 this would be a reasonable time for searching a small
13 dwelling with specific information about what to look
14 for."
15 That's what I want to ask you about. The suggestion
16 we have had from the other constables or other officers
17 involved in the search is that that's precisely what was
18 going on here, that you arrowed in on -- that's my
19 words, not theirs -- bedroom 3 and specific clothing and
20 stopped the search once you got that clothing.
21 Does that seem to you to be consistent with the way
22 you have noted the matters?
23 A. Yes, that would be reasonable.
24 Q. The question for the Panel is how it came to be that
25 from a warrant which gave you this broad power, clothing
81
1 and trainers --
2 A. Uh-huh.
3 Q. -- you were in possession of information which caused
4 you to stop the search at that point.
5 Now, can you help us with that at all?
6 A. I can't honestly recall other than to say we were very
7 much guided by the detective that was with me.
8 Q. That was DC McAteer, I think.
9 A. Uh-huh.
10 Q. We have had him giving evidence and he says that that
11 wasn't the case, that he was just there to arrest Hanvey
12 at the end of it.
13 A. Uh-huh.
14 Q. He had no briefing about what to look for and no part in
15 stopping the search.
16 Would you like to comment on that?
17 A. I can't comment further than that, simply to say, you
18 know, they would be privy to more information than
19 I would have had.
20 Q. Let me put to you three possibilities.
21 One is you were briefed to look for specific
22 clothing and once that had been recovered, you stopped
23 the search?
24 A. Uh-huh.
25 Q. The second alternative is that the detective was guiding
82
1 the search and, as it were, brought it to an end.
2 The third is this was a completely hopeless search.
3 Now, which of those alternatives, would you think,
4 in the light of your experience, in the light of the way
5 you logged this, is the real one?
6 A. From memory, I would consider it to be reason number 2,
7 the detective, I would've said.
8 Q. If the Panel were to find that the detective didn't, in
9 fact, have information, would it follow then your
10 preference would be for number 1: namely, that you had
11 been briefed, although you can't now remember it, to
12 look for specific clothing?
13 A. Yes. Uh-huh.
14 Q. You see, I won't not bother taking you to it, but in the
15 crime file that was eventually compiled in November 1997
16 relating to this --
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 Q. -- what Mr McBurney wrote was in essence that Hanvey had
19 said on 7th May 1997 what he was wearing on the night
20 and that the search recovered that clothing.
21 Now, on 7th May 1997, he had only been interviewed
22 as a witness, not as a suspect. The inference that
23 could be drawn is that whoever briefed you told you to
24 look for the clothing that Hanvey had said on 7th May
25 that he had been wearing.
83
1 Can you comment on that as a possibility?
2 A. It could well have been a possibility, but, as I have
3 said, I can't recall the specifics of it.
4 Q. Is that the sort of thing which could have happened or
5 was likely to happen in the normal run of things, where
6 when somebody is interviewed, they said, "I was wearing
7 X, Y and Z"?
8 How likely would it have been that police, when
9 searching a home, would just have looked for X, Y and Z?
10 A. It could well happen, yes.
11 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much, Mr Bingham. It may be
12 that other people have some questions for you.
13 MR WOLFE: No questions.
14 MR McGRORY: No questions.
15 MR ADAIR: I have no questions.
16 MR UNDERWOOD: Nothing arising.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Bingham.
18 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much for coming.
19 A. Thank you.
20 (The witness withdrew)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: That concludes the present sittings.
22 MR UNDERWOOD: It does.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: We shall assemble later in the year.
24 MR UNDERWOOD: Thank you very much.
25 (12.15 pm)
84
1 (The hearing adjourned)
2 --ooOoo--
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
85
1 I N D E X
2
3
MR ALBERT NOEL McINTOSH (sworn) .................. 4
4 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD ............... 4
Questions from MR McGRORY ................. 10
5 Questions from MR O'CONNOR ................ 13
Questions from MR ATCHISON ................ 15
6
MR DANIEL BLAIR WALLACE (sworn) .................. 18
7 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD ............... 18
Questions from MR McGRORY ................. 33
8 Further questions from MR UNDERWOOD ....... 56
Questions from MR McGRORY (continued) ..... 62
9
Submissions by MR McGRORY ........................ 76
10
MR MICHAEL ANDREW BINGHAM (sworn) ................ 78
11 Questions from MR UNDERWOOD ............... 78
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
86
