OMAGH WAS A WATERSHED IN POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY
Omagh was a watershed in police accountability
NUALA O'Loan believes her 2001 report on the Omagh bombing investigation ended a taboo on official criticism of police in Northern Ireland - and that made policing better.
And she insists that the hard-fought dispute over the report did not become a personal battle between her and the then Chief Constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan.
The report unleashed a huge wave of controversy by criticising "defective leadership, poor judgement and a lack of urgency" in the police investigation of the Real IRA bomb that killed 29 and two unborn children in August 1998. It also highlighted concerns about intelligence being withheld from investigators.
The report came at a particularly sensitive time for policing - weeks after the RUC had been renamed the PSNI.
But it was also a crucial early stage for the Ombudsman: one year into her seven-year term, and the first major report she had released.
Her conclusions were bitterly contested by Sir Ronnie and other senior officers, who claimed the conclusion were "distorted". But ultimately the families of many Omagh victims and the Policing Board accepted her conclusions.
"I think Omagh was a watershed generally," she said. "I think because it would have seemed to me that prior to Omagh we were acutely aware of the sacrifice made by many, many officers.
"And we were acutely conscious of the injuries, the level of injuries, and the trauma that police officers had suffered.
"The assumption therefore was that, because of all this, it was not legitimate ever to criticise the RUC. And of course any organisation that is composed of human beings is fallible, and the only way that we learn is by examining mistakes and seeing where things have gone wrong.
"When it came to it, the former Chief Constable was not prepared to concede that there had been any failings and to initiate a new investigation. And when he said to me that there were no other investigative opportunities, I had no choice but to say what the evidence was showing - that there were further investigative opportunities, and also that the RUC as it was then was deficient in policy and that leadership and management had been poor.
"I had no option because that was where the evidence took me.
"The recommendations which we made were complied with. The investigation which I suggested was initiated. A man has been charged and is awaiting judgement.
"Now, you wouldn't have had several years of investigation followed by a trial had there been no investigative opportunities."
Mrs O'Loan says the aftermath of the report "wasn't a battle" between her and Sir Ronnie.
"If you actually go back and look, I said what I had to say and never said anything else," she said. "The battle that took place in the media following what I had said was this kind of articulation by various groups of their views. But I said nothing more.
"I mean there were times I was sorely tempted to come out and put the record straight when I heard things said which I felt were just so silly."
She believes the report freed up internal concerns about failures to produce intelligence that would have helped investigations.
"Even when you look back on it, after Omagh, officers would have said to me 'you were right, we knew about it, but nobody was allowed to talk about it.'
"And it seemed to free up detectives and people like that who would then come out and say we didn't get intelligence - we guessed there was intelligence there, but we didn't get it'."
NUALA O'Loan believes her 2001 report on the Omagh bombing investigation ended a taboo on official criticism of police in Northern Ireland - and that made policing better.
And she insists that the hard-fought dispute over the report did not become a personal battle between her and the then Chief Constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan.
The report unleashed a huge wave of controversy by criticising "defective leadership, poor judgement and a lack of urgency" in the police investigation of the Real IRA bomb that killed 29 and two unborn children in August 1998. It also highlighted concerns about intelligence being withheld from investigators.
The report came at a particularly sensitive time for policing - weeks after the RUC had been renamed the PSNI.
But it was also a crucial early stage for the Ombudsman: one year into her seven-year term, and the first major report she had released.
Her conclusions were bitterly contested by Sir Ronnie and other senior officers, who claimed the conclusion were "distorted". But ultimately the families of many Omagh victims and the Policing Board accepted her conclusions.
"I think Omagh was a watershed generally," she said. "I think because it would have seemed to me that prior to Omagh we were acutely aware of the sacrifice made by many, many officers.
"And we were acutely conscious of the injuries, the level of injuries, and the trauma that police officers had suffered.
"The assumption therefore was that, because of all this, it was not legitimate ever to criticise the RUC. And of course any organisation that is composed of human beings is fallible, and the only way that we learn is by examining mistakes and seeing where things have gone wrong.
"When it came to it, the former Chief Constable was not prepared to concede that there had been any failings and to initiate a new investigation. And when he said to me that there were no other investigative opportunities, I had no choice but to say what the evidence was showing - that there were further investigative opportunities, and also that the RUC as it was then was deficient in policy and that leadership and management had been poor.
"I had no option because that was where the evidence took me.
"The recommendations which we made were complied with. The investigation which I suggested was initiated. A man has been charged and is awaiting judgement.
"Now, you wouldn't have had several years of investigation followed by a trial had there been no investigative opportunities."
Mrs O'Loan says the aftermath of the report "wasn't a battle" between her and Sir Ronnie.
"If you actually go back and look, I said what I had to say and never said anything else," she said. "The battle that took place in the media following what I had said was this kind of articulation by various groups of their views. But I said nothing more.
"I mean there were times I was sorely tempted to come out and put the record straight when I heard things said which I felt were just so silly."
She believes the report freed up internal concerns about failures to produce intelligence that would have helped investigations.
"Even when you look back on it, after Omagh, officers would have said to me 'you were right, we knew about it, but nobody was allowed to talk about it.'
"And it seemed to free up detectives and people like that who would then come out and say we didn't get intelligence - we guessed there was intelligence there, but we didn't get it'."
Further Information
Publisher: BELFAST TELEGRAPH
Ref: BT/1045
Published Date: 05-Nov-07
Related Images
