OFFICERS CO-OPERATED WITH OMBUDSMAN
Officers 'co-operated with Ombudsman'
ALLEGATIONS that police were uncooperative towards the Ombudsman's inquiry into the Omagh bomb investigation are untrue, Sir Ronnie Flanagan insisted yesterday.
In a robust defence of all his officers, the Chief Constable denied that Special Branch tried to conceal from the inquiry team the existence of an internal review which raised questions about the handling of the Omagh investigation.
He also challenged the Ombudsman's claims that her investigators discovered additional computer records on Special Branch intelligence, claiming they already had access to them and declined training on the database.
During the Ombudsman's probe, Sir Ronnie said his officers took part in at least 45 separate planned meetings with her investigators as well as a large number of ad hoc meetings.
Assistant Chief Constable Crime (Raymond White), serving and retired Special Branch and CID officers as well as uniformed officers met with her staff, as well as the senior detective who carried out the internal review.
In some cases, a number of officers "came in from sick leave to see the investigators. Several of the interviews were lengthy (four hours or more)".
More than 2,600 sensitive intelligence documents were accessed within the headquarters of Special Branch and additional information was obtained from local Special Branch records, the internal review and contact sheets and information relating to the informer, Kevin Fulton.
Relatives of the 29 people killed in Omagh were notified of the internal review in 2000 and a press release announcing it was issued.
A member of the ombudsman's team was also told of its existence and given the contact details of the reviewing officer to "enable him to follow this up".
There was confusion over the internal report when a letter from the Ombudsman last August asked whether a review had been conducted into the "intelligence available on the Omagh bomb or any other device that could have been planted at the time".
The head of Special Branch responded to several questions; drawing attention to a review of intelligence conducted by Special Branch in October 2000 and giving the ombudsman's office access to it.
"The letter dealt only with Special Branch interests and was never intended as a comprehensive reply to all the points raised by the Ombudsman's office," he explained.
When the Ombudsman requested a copy of the internal report, Sir Ronnie personally sanctioned on September 7 the release of its chapter on intelligence to her director of investigations, giving them the full report four days later.
It was "regrettable that this confusion arose. Perhaps the letter of August 21, if phrased slightly differently, might have removed any chance of misinterpretation about what was being covered".
On receipt of a critical letter from the ombudsman's office, he and the ACC Crime arranged a meeting at the end of which they thought any misunderstandings were cleared up.
In September, the Chief Constable said he unconditionally gave the Ombudsman's team access to the PSNI's intelligence files on computer, contacting senior officers in the Metropolitan Police personally to get speedy security clearance for members of the Ombudsman's staff.
Despite their claims they stumbled upon the existence of another database, he insisted the investigators were given access to both Special Branch systems.
"The Ombudsman's investigating officer and his deputy received a full briefing and demonstration on each and were offered training which was declined," he said.
"Full technical support was also offered and a computer liaison officer appointed.
"The further database allegedly 'discovered' by the Ombudsman's investigators - an issue which was not raised with the PSNI, which only became aware of the accusation on receipt of ombudsman's draft report -appears in fact to have been one of the standard features of the system to which they already had access."
ALLEGATIONS that police were uncooperative towards the Ombudsman's inquiry into the Omagh bomb investigation are untrue, Sir Ronnie Flanagan insisted yesterday.
In a robust defence of all his officers, the Chief Constable denied that Special Branch tried to conceal from the inquiry team the existence of an internal review which raised questions about the handling of the Omagh investigation.
He also challenged the Ombudsman's claims that her investigators discovered additional computer records on Special Branch intelligence, claiming they already had access to them and declined training on the database.
During the Ombudsman's probe, Sir Ronnie said his officers took part in at least 45 separate planned meetings with her investigators as well as a large number of ad hoc meetings.
Assistant Chief Constable Crime (Raymond White), serving and retired Special Branch and CID officers as well as uniformed officers met with her staff, as well as the senior detective who carried out the internal review.
In some cases, a number of officers "came in from sick leave to see the investigators. Several of the interviews were lengthy (four hours or more)".
More than 2,600 sensitive intelligence documents were accessed within the headquarters of Special Branch and additional information was obtained from local Special Branch records, the internal review and contact sheets and information relating to the informer, Kevin Fulton.
Relatives of the 29 people killed in Omagh were notified of the internal review in 2000 and a press release announcing it was issued.
A member of the ombudsman's team was also told of its existence and given the contact details of the reviewing officer to "enable him to follow this up".
There was confusion over the internal report when a letter from the Ombudsman last August asked whether a review had been conducted into the "intelligence available on the Omagh bomb or any other device that could have been planted at the time".
The head of Special Branch responded to several questions; drawing attention to a review of intelligence conducted by Special Branch in October 2000 and giving the ombudsman's office access to it.
"The letter dealt only with Special Branch interests and was never intended as a comprehensive reply to all the points raised by the Ombudsman's office," he explained.
When the Ombudsman requested a copy of the internal report, Sir Ronnie personally sanctioned on September 7 the release of its chapter on intelligence to her director of investigations, giving them the full report four days later.
It was "regrettable that this confusion arose. Perhaps the letter of August 21, if phrased slightly differently, might have removed any chance of misinterpretation about what was being covered".
On receipt of a critical letter from the ombudsman's office, he and the ACC Crime arranged a meeting at the end of which they thought any misunderstandings were cleared up.
In September, the Chief Constable said he unconditionally gave the Ombudsman's team access to the PSNI's intelligence files on computer, contacting senior officers in the Metropolitan Police personally to get speedy security clearance for members of the Ombudsman's staff.
Despite their claims they stumbled upon the existence of another database, he insisted the investigators were given access to both Special Branch systems.
"The Ombudsman's investigating officer and his deputy received a full briefing and demonstration on each and were offered training which was declined," he said.
"Full technical support was also offered and a computer liaison officer appointed.
"The further database allegedly 'discovered' by the Ombudsman's investigators - an issue which was not raised with the PSNI, which only became aware of the accusation on receipt of ombudsman's draft report -appears in fact to have been one of the standard features of the system to which they already had access."
Further Information
Publisher: NEWS LETTER
Ref: NL/425
Published Date: 25-Jan-02
Related Images
There have been no images archived for this article.