OMAGH BOMBING JUDGE ACCUSED OF SPECULATION
Omagh bombing judge accused of 'speculation'
REPORTS BY IAN GRAHAM and STEPHEN DEMPSTER
s.dempster@newsletter.co.uk
A SENIOR judge, who was highly critical of the police handling of the Omagh bomb investigation, has been accused of basing part of this judgment on "speculation".
In a highly unusual move, two top UK police officers produced a report criticising Mr Justice Weir.
Sir Dan Crompton and David Blakey, both former chief constables and ex-HM Inspectors of Constabulary, were hired by the Northern Ireland Policing Board to mount an independent review of the Omagh case.
Specifically they examined the judge's damning verdict on a number of police officers' handling of the investigation.
Mr Justice Weir delivered his judgment acquitting Sean Hoey of all charges connected to the bomb atrocity and a series of other bombings claimed by the Real IRA in December last year.
But he was highly critical of the police and accused a detective sergeant and a PSNI scene of crime officer of a "deliberate and calculated deception".
Mr Justice Weir also said others involved in the investigation and preparation of the case may have been involved in the deliberate and calculated deception - based on comments made in court and the evidence of the two officers, named in court.
He then referred the evidence and concerns to the Police Ombudsman and a report of his investigation is still awaited.
In the meantime, however, the Policing Board launched its own inquiry.
In their report, which the board has seen and adopted by a majority, Sir Dan and Mr Blakey questioned the judge.
They said it had been a very difficult and long-running trial for Mr Justice Weir with a requirement to handle huge volumes of information - some of it highly contentious.
It went on: "Nevertheless, we were left wondering why this passage was included in the 'Judgment'. In such a high profile case every single word, finding, or suggestion is likely to be rigorously examined by interested parties.
"We conclude that the 'Judgment' in this respect amounted to speculation by Mr Justice Weir, but we (and others) are left uninformed as to what triggered that speculation."
The two police officers were accused in the trial by defence council of having "beefed up" statements.
The review said it was later taken up by the judge but, it said, such a term could have more than one interpretation.
"At its worst, the term can describe an attempt to wrongfully bolster a statement to the point of including untruths, or manufacturing, manipulating and embellishing evidence to cover gaps in the prosecution case," the review said.
But they said there could be a far different meaning where a review of evidence could reveal gaps in evidence and omissions.
"It is neither bad practice nor professional 'slight of hand' to rectify such omissions provided additions to statements represent fact, with honesty being an underlying feature," they said.
The review also upheld a decision by a PSNI deputy chief constable not to suspend the two officers - Philip Marshall, who has since risen to the rank of detective chief inspector and scenes of crime officer Fiona Cooper, who is now a PSNI constable - from duty after the judge's criticism of them and referral of the case to the Police Ombudsman.
The report concluded that in the absence of further good scientific evidence, a confession or reliable witnesses, the two former police chiefs concluded, as had PSNI Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde, that it was unlikely that a new prosecution could be launched at present.
But it said a visit to the incident room at Omagh showed there were still 70 "actions" still not complete.
A number of them had been with the An Garda Siochana for some time and related to the interviewing of people who are of interest to the inquiry team or obtaining DNA samples.
The Police Ombudsman's report into the action of the two police officers will be completed before the end of the month.
- Last December, Omagh bombing trial judge Mr Justice Weir acquitted south Armagh man Sean Hoey of charges relating to the atrocity.
- His Judgment said two officers on the case had beefed up" statements in the bid to convict Hoey.
- He also said there was reason to believe other more senior officers could have been involved in this practice and passed his concerns to the Police Ombudsman to investigate (an inquiry which continues).
- But the Policing Board also commissioned a report on this aspect of the judgment.
- The report, published yesterday, poured scepticism on how the judge had come to some of his conclusions about the police.
REPORTS BY IAN GRAHAM and STEPHEN DEMPSTER
s.dempster@newsletter.co.uk
A SENIOR judge, who was highly critical of the police handling of the Omagh bomb investigation, has been accused of basing part of this judgment on "speculation".
In a highly unusual move, two top UK police officers produced a report criticising Mr Justice Weir.
Sir Dan Crompton and David Blakey, both former chief constables and ex-HM Inspectors of Constabulary, were hired by the Northern Ireland Policing Board to mount an independent review of the Omagh case.
Specifically they examined the judge's damning verdict on a number of police officers' handling of the investigation.
Mr Justice Weir delivered his judgment acquitting Sean Hoey of all charges connected to the bomb atrocity and a series of other bombings claimed by the Real IRA in December last year.
But he was highly critical of the police and accused a detective sergeant and a PSNI scene of crime officer of a "deliberate and calculated deception".
Mr Justice Weir also said others involved in the investigation and preparation of the case may have been involved in the deliberate and calculated deception - based on comments made in court and the evidence of the two officers, named in court.
He then referred the evidence and concerns to the Police Ombudsman and a report of his investigation is still awaited.
In the meantime, however, the Policing Board launched its own inquiry.
In their report, which the board has seen and adopted by a majority, Sir Dan and Mr Blakey questioned the judge.
They said it had been a very difficult and long-running trial for Mr Justice Weir with a requirement to handle huge volumes of information - some of it highly contentious.
It went on: "Nevertheless, we were left wondering why this passage was included in the 'Judgment'. In such a high profile case every single word, finding, or suggestion is likely to be rigorously examined by interested parties.
"We conclude that the 'Judgment' in this respect amounted to speculation by Mr Justice Weir, but we (and others) are left uninformed as to what triggered that speculation."
The two police officers were accused in the trial by defence council of having "beefed up" statements.
The review said it was later taken up by the judge but, it said, such a term could have more than one interpretation.
"At its worst, the term can describe an attempt to wrongfully bolster a statement to the point of including untruths, or manufacturing, manipulating and embellishing evidence to cover gaps in the prosecution case," the review said.
But they said there could be a far different meaning where a review of evidence could reveal gaps in evidence and omissions.
"It is neither bad practice nor professional 'slight of hand' to rectify such omissions provided additions to statements represent fact, with honesty being an underlying feature," they said.
The review also upheld a decision by a PSNI deputy chief constable not to suspend the two officers - Philip Marshall, who has since risen to the rank of detective chief inspector and scenes of crime officer Fiona Cooper, who is now a PSNI constable - from duty after the judge's criticism of them and referral of the case to the Police Ombudsman.
The report concluded that in the absence of further good scientific evidence, a confession or reliable witnesses, the two former police chiefs concluded, as had PSNI Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde, that it was unlikely that a new prosecution could be launched at present.
But it said a visit to the incident room at Omagh showed there were still 70 "actions" still not complete.
A number of them had been with the An Garda Siochana for some time and related to the interviewing of people who are of interest to the inquiry team or obtaining DNA samples.
The Police Ombudsman's report into the action of the two police officers will be completed before the end of the month.
- Last December, Omagh bombing trial judge Mr Justice Weir acquitted south Armagh man Sean Hoey of charges relating to the atrocity.
- His Judgment said two officers on the case had beefed up" statements in the bid to convict Hoey.
- He also said there was reason to believe other more senior officers could have been involved in this practice and passed his concerns to the Police Ombudsman to investigate (an inquiry which continues).
- But the Policing Board also commissioned a report on this aspect of the judgment.
- The report, published yesterday, poured scepticism on how the judge had come to some of his conclusions about the police.
Further Information
Publisher: NEWS LETTER
Ref: NL/765
Published Date: 10-Jul-08
Related Images
