BOMB TRIAL JUDGE'S REMARK SPECULATION - REVIEW
Bomb trial judge's remark 'speculation' - Review
Report 'cold comfort' to bereaved families
by Emma Stewart
An independent review into the Omagh bomb investigation has concluded that trial judge, Mr Justice Weir's, inference that others involved in the investigation and preparation of the case may have been involved in the "deliberate and calculated deception" attributed to two officers was mere 'speculation'.
Mr Justice Weir's December 2007 verdict into the 1998 atrocity found that a Detective Sergeant and a PSNI Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO) were guilty of "mendacious attempts to retrospectively alter" police statements, and also highlighted a 'cavalier disregard' for the integrity of material evidence throughout police processes. Agreeing that it is a matter of 'profound concern' Mr Justice Weir found it necessary to 'throw out' all charges against the accused, Sean Hoey, 'partly on what he saw as discreditable police scientific evidence', the review - commissioned by the Northern Ireland Policing Board - has nonetheless taken issue with this particular caveat.
The report states: "This was a very difficult long running trial for Mr Justice Weir with a requirement to handle huge volumes of information - some of it highly contentious.
Nevertheless, we are 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.
On the issue of "beefed up" statements having been made by the officers in question, the report continues: "The term described, however, is capable of a far different meaning. A review of evidence in any case (serious or otherwise) particularly where exhibits are concerned, can reveal to the SIO or Prosecuting Authorities gaps in evidence in proving continuity. Often this is the product of an inexperienced officer not including detail in his/her statement which links one set of actions to another or fails to show seamless transmission of exhibits.
"In other instances, it is simply an omission from a statement, which should not occur, but occasionally does. 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. Amendments and additions of this type have historically been made in other parts of the UK, either at the behest of the SIO or lead prosecuting lawyer.
"But there is one important caveat here. To demonstrate honesty of purpose, any addition or amendment to a statement should be in the form of a separate statement which commences with the words... 'Further to my statement of... (date)... ' Such a separate statement has the effect of making clear that the content is an addition to the original, which crucially leaves that original un-amended or unaltered."
Recognising that 'significant public comment' has surrounded the trial debacle, the report agrees: "The public have a right to expect certain standards in public life, particularly from the police, and the result of this case will have shaken public confidence."
On the matter of the Deputy Chief Constable's decision not to suspend the officers in question at any stage during, or since, the trial, the review team found: "The arguments for the police officers not being suspended are as compelling as those 'for'", and that the decision to re-position those officers - as suggested by the Police Ombudsman and actioned by the Deputy Chief Constable - was 'appropriate'.
The deliberations of the review panel addressed the Human Rights implications of suspending officers 'in the absence of any evidence (other than the Judge's commentary) that under oath they had engaged in "calculated and deliberate deception"', and indeed the pressure on the Deputy Chief Constable to take on 'public perception' in making a decision on the officers' future, concluding that the decision was 'marginal' between suspension and not.
A final verdict from the Police Ombudsman and the Public Prosecution Service, the report states, will 'shed much light around the evidence both PSNI members gave in the Sean Hoey case, [but that] this has no bearing on the original decision to re-position earlier in the year'.
The review panel emphasised that the Deputy Chief Constable decided "(rightly in our view) not to suspend or re-position the officers [during the trial when 'concern' was initially expressed] since this could have had an adverse effect on the trial, with the officers having no opportunity to respond to the serious matters 'attaching' to their sworn evidence."
The report found that "In the absence of good scientific evidence, a confession, or reliable witnesses, we conclude, as did the Chief Constable, that it is unlikely that a new prosecution can be launched at present."
The review panel was also tasked with considering the various reports and recommendations arising from the deficiencies of the initial investigation, the status of the recommendations, and the progress made by PSNI in developing best practice in homicide investigation and forensic evidence gathering and handling.
It found that that PSNI has "shown good and energetic improvement" and added that: "We are satisfied that these problems largely lie in the past, and would have been seen in a number of other UK Police Forces had they been subject to the same level of scrutiny about their forensic evidence gathering practices up to 10 years ago."
A statement from Policing Board chairman, Sir Desmond Rea, said: "In commissioning this independent review, the Board sought assurance that areas of concern arising from the Judgment of Mr Justice Weir were properly addressed.
"The Board is responsible for holding the police to account. Given the significant public confidence issues for policing arising from the judgment, the Board believes this report was necessary to provide assurance" around the issues raised in the trial verdict.
Sir Desmond concluded by expressing his regret that a prosecution would not be secured without new evidence or witnesses.
He said: "In all of their discussions, the Board has been mindful of the views that have been expressed to them by those who have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the Omagh bombing atrocity.
"In respect of Terms of Reference No 1 of the Review, the Board accepts the finding of the review, a view shared by the Chief Constable, that unless further witnesses or evidence is made available, there is no prospect of securing a prosecution.
"The Board would once again ask anyone in the community who may be able help provide any evidence to bring it forward to the PSNI."
West Tyrone MLA, and member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, Tom Buchanan, recognises that the review will be cold comfort to bereaved Omagh families.
He said: "The Policing Board did say that they would carry out a review - they've done that - but the reality is this, for the people in Omagh to get to the bottom of what happened and who carried this out, that has to come from people in the area and beyond who know something." He continued: "All the reviews and public inquiries in the world won't change this outcome unless the people who have information come forward.
"I recognise that the review may not be satisfactory to the victims - they may feel that it didn't go far enough or get the right answers, but it was never going to. The only way to get justice is if those people with information come forward."
He concluded: "These people are suffering 10 years on - this is my plea - give them a result, give them justice. Any information, no matter how irrelevant it may seem, must be brought to the attention of the PSNI."
West Tyrone MP, Pat Doherty, has expressed grave dissatisfaction at a report that he says is 'inadequate' and 'incomplete'.
Speaking on Wednesday, he said: "We find that the report is incomplete - in particular it does not take into account reports that are due from the Police Ombudsman and the PPS. As it stands it doesn't satisfy the statutory requirements of the Policing Board, and will not assist in re-building public confidence in the aftermath of the trial judgment."
He continued: "We share the frustrations of many of the families. This was a limited inquiry to begin with and highlights the need for a full, open and transparent public inquiry, with cross-border and international input. In the context of these concerns, we originally made the decision not to support this review, as we have always considered it wholly inadequate."
Report 'cold comfort' to bereaved families
by Emma Stewart
An independent review into the Omagh bomb investigation has concluded that trial judge, Mr Justice Weir's, inference that others involved in the investigation and preparation of the case may have been involved in the "deliberate and calculated deception" attributed to two officers was mere 'speculation'.
Mr Justice Weir's December 2007 verdict into the 1998 atrocity found that a Detective Sergeant and a PSNI Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO) were guilty of "mendacious attempts to retrospectively alter" police statements, and also highlighted a 'cavalier disregard' for the integrity of material evidence throughout police processes. Agreeing that it is a matter of 'profound concern' Mr Justice Weir found it necessary to 'throw out' all charges against the accused, Sean Hoey, 'partly on what he saw as discreditable police scientific evidence', the review - commissioned by the Northern Ireland Policing Board - has nonetheless taken issue with this particular caveat.
The report states: "This was a very difficult long running trial for Mr Justice Weir with a requirement to handle huge volumes of information - some of it highly contentious.
Nevertheless, we are 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.
On the issue of "beefed up" statements having been made by the officers in question, the report continues: "The term described, however, is capable of a far different meaning. A review of evidence in any case (serious or otherwise) particularly where exhibits are concerned, can reveal to the SIO or Prosecuting Authorities gaps in evidence in proving continuity. Often this is the product of an inexperienced officer not including detail in his/her statement which links one set of actions to another or fails to show seamless transmission of exhibits.
"In other instances, it is simply an omission from a statement, which should not occur, but occasionally does. 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. Amendments and additions of this type have historically been made in other parts of the UK, either at the behest of the SIO or lead prosecuting lawyer.
"But there is one important caveat here. To demonstrate honesty of purpose, any addition or amendment to a statement should be in the form of a separate statement which commences with the words... 'Further to my statement of... (date)... ' Such a separate statement has the effect of making clear that the content is an addition to the original, which crucially leaves that original un-amended or unaltered."
Recognising that 'significant public comment' has surrounded the trial debacle, the report agrees: "The public have a right to expect certain standards in public life, particularly from the police, and the result of this case will have shaken public confidence."
On the matter of the Deputy Chief Constable's decision not to suspend the officers in question at any stage during, or since, the trial, the review team found: "The arguments for the police officers not being suspended are as compelling as those 'for'", and that the decision to re-position those officers - as suggested by the Police Ombudsman and actioned by the Deputy Chief Constable - was 'appropriate'.
The deliberations of the review panel addressed the Human Rights implications of suspending officers 'in the absence of any evidence (other than the Judge's commentary) that under oath they had engaged in "calculated and deliberate deception"', and indeed the pressure on the Deputy Chief Constable to take on 'public perception' in making a decision on the officers' future, concluding that the decision was 'marginal' between suspension and not.
A final verdict from the Police Ombudsman and the Public Prosecution Service, the report states, will 'shed much light around the evidence both PSNI members gave in the Sean Hoey case, [but that] this has no bearing on the original decision to re-position earlier in the year'.
The review panel emphasised that the Deputy Chief Constable decided "(rightly in our view) not to suspend or re-position the officers [during the trial when 'concern' was initially expressed] since this could have had an adverse effect on the trial, with the officers having no opportunity to respond to the serious matters 'attaching' to their sworn evidence."
The report found that "In the absence of good scientific evidence, a confession, or reliable witnesses, we conclude, as did the Chief Constable, that it is unlikely that a new prosecution can be launched at present."
The review panel was also tasked with considering the various reports and recommendations arising from the deficiencies of the initial investigation, the status of the recommendations, and the progress made by PSNI in developing best practice in homicide investigation and forensic evidence gathering and handling.
It found that that PSNI has "shown good and energetic improvement" and added that: "We are satisfied that these problems largely lie in the past, and would have been seen in a number of other UK Police Forces had they been subject to the same level of scrutiny about their forensic evidence gathering practices up to 10 years ago."
A statement from Policing Board chairman, Sir Desmond Rea, said: "In commissioning this independent review, the Board sought assurance that areas of concern arising from the Judgment of Mr Justice Weir were properly addressed.
"The Board is responsible for holding the police to account. Given the significant public confidence issues for policing arising from the judgment, the Board believes this report was necessary to provide assurance" around the issues raised in the trial verdict.
Sir Desmond concluded by expressing his regret that a prosecution would not be secured without new evidence or witnesses.
He said: "In all of their discussions, the Board has been mindful of the views that have been expressed to them by those who have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the Omagh bombing atrocity.
"In respect of Terms of Reference No 1 of the Review, the Board accepts the finding of the review, a view shared by the Chief Constable, that unless further witnesses or evidence is made available, there is no prospect of securing a prosecution.
"The Board would once again ask anyone in the community who may be able help provide any evidence to bring it forward to the PSNI."
West Tyrone MLA, and member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, Tom Buchanan, recognises that the review will be cold comfort to bereaved Omagh families.
He said: "The Policing Board did say that they would carry out a review - they've done that - but the reality is this, for the people in Omagh to get to the bottom of what happened and who carried this out, that has to come from people in the area and beyond who know something." He continued: "All the reviews and public inquiries in the world won't change this outcome unless the people who have information come forward.
"I recognise that the review may not be satisfactory to the victims - they may feel that it didn't go far enough or get the right answers, but it was never going to. The only way to get justice is if those people with information come forward."
He concluded: "These people are suffering 10 years on - this is my plea - give them a result, give them justice. Any information, no matter how irrelevant it may seem, must be brought to the attention of the PSNI."
West Tyrone MP, Pat Doherty, has expressed grave dissatisfaction at a report that he says is 'inadequate' and 'incomplete'.
Speaking on Wednesday, he said: "We find that the report is incomplete - in particular it does not take into account reports that are due from the Police Ombudsman and the PPS. As it stands it doesn't satisfy the statutory requirements of the Policing Board, and will not assist in re-building public confidence in the aftermath of the trial judgment."
He continued: "We share the frustrations of many of the families. This was a limited inquiry to begin with and highlights the need for a full, open and transparent public inquiry, with cross-border and international input. In the context of these concerns, we originally made the decision not to support this review, as we have always considered it wholly inadequate."
Further Information
Publisher: TYRONE CONSTITUTION
Ref: TC/1955
Published Date: 10-Jul-08
Related Images
