WHO DOES SPECIAL BRANCH ANSWER TO?
Who does Special Branch answer to?
David Adams, a former loyalist politician who now works as a community advisor on policing, questions the accountability of Special Branch
LAST Wednesday, December 10, local media outlets carried three items related to policing. Dominating was the police ombudsman's report on the RUC investigation into the Omagh bombing (complete with the unedifying spectacle of the chief constable and the police ombudsman slugging it out on our television screens).
Second billing, as it were, was given over to the murder by loyalists of Special Branch informer William Stobie who was shot dead that morning as he left his home in north Belfast.
Consequently, little more than a passing nod was given to the third item, the newly created Policing Board having reached agreement, unanimously would you believe, on a new badge for the PSNI.
With claim and counter claim continuing to fly between the ombudsman and the chief constable regarding the report, I feel it would be premature to make any comment of a specific nature on its contents. ombudsman expressed deep concern about the highly secretive and unaccountable nature of Special Branch brings again into sharp focus the perceived role that Special Branch plays - both within the police service itself and within society at large.
That a unit like Special Branch is essential within any police service is I believe, indisputable. There isn't a police service in the world without such a specialist arm operating within its organisation. A dedicated counter terrorism unit is a vital part of any society's defences and since September 11 that is probably truer now than ever before.
The problems arise, in our case, from the lack of accountability of Special Branch. It's seeming willingness to turn a blind eye to serious acts of criminality committed by informants. And, most serious of all, the widespread belief that the lives of innocent people and lesser informants have sometimes been deliberately sacrificed to protect the identity of highly placed informers. It has to be said that some of the most scathing criticism of Special Branch, aired privately of course, has come from district police commanders.
Some of these officers talk of years spent trying to build relationships with local communities only to see them destroyed in a relatively short space of time by the activities of Special Branch within their areas. Activities about which they had no prior knowledge but that impacted negatively upon the local relationships they and their junior officers had been trying to build. Human nature alone dictates that lack of proper accountability will lead, inevitably, to guidelines being stretched to the limit and beyond.
An unaccountable group within any organisation fosters resentment and encourages elitism. Hardly the most favourable set of circumstances for building community confidence in a police service.
The extent to which criminal activity by informers is indulged by Special Branch is not, for obvious reasons, quantifiable. But, that it does happen is, again, indisputable. Invariably, former Special Branch agents point to the setting aside of serious criminal charges as the initial inducement for them to turn informer.
And presumably for such an informer to be useful they must continue their previous activities in order to gather information and allay any possible suspicion amongst associates. But, critically, is there a benchmark of criminal activity beyond which an informant, irrespective of their usefulness to Special Branch, is not allowed to stray?
I seriously doubt it.
And, as this society continues to be plagued by drug dealers, joy riders, blackmarketeers and worse, who decides, 'in the interests of the greater good', that some of these people can operate with impunity -and who monitors those decisions? How frustrating must it be for other specialist officers, such as those involved in drugs enforcement, to be told by Special Branch they cannot pursue certain individuals because of their perceived value as informants?
That relatively minor informers and innocent people have been sacrificed to protect the identity of highly placed individuals has long been a widely held belief in Northern Ireland. Rumours to this effect have abounded for many years. If true, then an awesome responsibility, the power to decide on matters of life or death, has been taken on by people unaccountable to anyone.
I have no idea if William Stobie's life was deliberately sacrificed. I never met the man and know no more than what is already in the public domain. But watching the media coverage of his various court appearances, I was always struck by the feeling that here was a man who had wandered into a game that had gotten far out of his control and only way too late had he begun to realise that. A mere pawn sacrificed 'for the greater good'? A pawn maybe, but still a human being for all of that.
Like others, I too have given little more than a passing nod to the Policing Board's, not inconsequential success in agreeing on a new badge for the PSNI.
I apologise for that and congratulate them on their achievement. They have done well, but of course, equally difficult tasks lie ahead. It is they, ultimately, who must settle the dispute now raging between the ombudsman and the chief constable over the Omagh Report and it is they who must ensure that the process of full integration of Special Branch into the CID, thereby bringing full accountability, is accelerated.
In the interests of us all, not least the police service itself, I wish them well.
David Adams, a former loyalist politician who now works as a community advisor on policing, questions the accountability of Special Branch
LAST Wednesday, December 10, local media outlets carried three items related to policing. Dominating was the police ombudsman's report on the RUC investigation into the Omagh bombing (complete with the unedifying spectacle of the chief constable and the police ombudsman slugging it out on our television screens).
Second billing, as it were, was given over to the murder by loyalists of Special Branch informer William Stobie who was shot dead that morning as he left his home in north Belfast.
Consequently, little more than a passing nod was given to the third item, the newly created Policing Board having reached agreement, unanimously would you believe, on a new badge for the PSNI.
With claim and counter claim continuing to fly between the ombudsman and the chief constable regarding the report, I feel it would be premature to make any comment of a specific nature on its contents. ombudsman expressed deep concern about the highly secretive and unaccountable nature of Special Branch brings again into sharp focus the perceived role that Special Branch plays - both within the police service itself and within society at large.
That a unit like Special Branch is essential within any police service is I believe, indisputable. There isn't a police service in the world without such a specialist arm operating within its organisation. A dedicated counter terrorism unit is a vital part of any society's defences and since September 11 that is probably truer now than ever before.
The problems arise, in our case, from the lack of accountability of Special Branch. It's seeming willingness to turn a blind eye to serious acts of criminality committed by informants. And, most serious of all, the widespread belief that the lives of innocent people and lesser informants have sometimes been deliberately sacrificed to protect the identity of highly placed informers. It has to be said that some of the most scathing criticism of Special Branch, aired privately of course, has come from district police commanders.
Some of these officers talk of years spent trying to build relationships with local communities only to see them destroyed in a relatively short space of time by the activities of Special Branch within their areas. Activities about which they had no prior knowledge but that impacted negatively upon the local relationships they and their junior officers had been trying to build. Human nature alone dictates that lack of proper accountability will lead, inevitably, to guidelines being stretched to the limit and beyond.
An unaccountable group within any organisation fosters resentment and encourages elitism. Hardly the most favourable set of circumstances for building community confidence in a police service.
The extent to which criminal activity by informers is indulged by Special Branch is not, for obvious reasons, quantifiable. But, that it does happen is, again, indisputable. Invariably, former Special Branch agents point to the setting aside of serious criminal charges as the initial inducement for them to turn informer.
And presumably for such an informer to be useful they must continue their previous activities in order to gather information and allay any possible suspicion amongst associates. But, critically, is there a benchmark of criminal activity beyond which an informant, irrespective of their usefulness to Special Branch, is not allowed to stray?
I seriously doubt it.
And, as this society continues to be plagued by drug dealers, joy riders, blackmarketeers and worse, who decides, 'in the interests of the greater good', that some of these people can operate with impunity -and who monitors those decisions? How frustrating must it be for other specialist officers, such as those involved in drugs enforcement, to be told by Special Branch they cannot pursue certain individuals because of their perceived value as informants?
That relatively minor informers and innocent people have been sacrificed to protect the identity of highly placed individuals has long been a widely held belief in Northern Ireland. Rumours to this effect have abounded for many years. If true, then an awesome responsibility, the power to decide on matters of life or death, has been taken on by people unaccountable to anyone.
I have no idea if William Stobie's life was deliberately sacrificed. I never met the man and know no more than what is already in the public domain. But watching the media coverage of his various court appearances, I was always struck by the feeling that here was a man who had wandered into a game that had gotten far out of his control and only way too late had he begun to realise that. A mere pawn sacrificed 'for the greater good'? A pawn maybe, but still a human being for all of that.
Like others, I too have given little more than a passing nod to the Policing Board's, not inconsequential success in agreeing on a new badge for the PSNI.
I apologise for that and congratulate them on their achievement. They have done well, but of course, equally difficult tasks lie ahead. It is they, ultimately, who must settle the dispute now raging between the ombudsman and the chief constable over the Omagh Report and it is they who must ensure that the process of full integration of Special Branch into the CID, thereby bringing full accountability, is accelerated.
In the interests of us all, not least the police service itself, I wish them well.
Further Information
Publisher: THE IRISH NEWS
Ref: IN/0513
Published Date: 17-Dec-01
Related Images
