The Functions of the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland

House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee

Fifth Report of Session 2004–05

Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence

Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 9 February 2005

HC 344 Published on 23 February 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £17.50

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Office of the Northern Ireland Office (but excluding individual cases and advice given by the Crown Solicitor); and other matters within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (but excluding the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Northern Ireland and the drafting of legislation by the Office of the Legislative Council).

Current membership Mr Michael Mates MP (Conservative, East Hampshire) (Chairman) Mr Adrian Bailey MP (Labour / Co-operative, West Bromwich West) Mr Roy Beggs MP (Ulster Unionist Party, East Antrim) Mr Tony Clarke MP (Labour, Northampton South) Ms Iain Luke MP (Labour, Dundee East) Mr Eddy McGrady MP (Socialist Democratic Labour Party, South Down) Mr Stephen Pound MP (Labour, Ealing North) Mr Gregory Campbell MP (Democratic Unionist Party, East Londonderry) Mr Martin Smyth MP (Ulster Unionist Party, Belfast South)) Mr Hugo Swire MP (Conservative, East Devon) Mr Mark Tami MP (Labour, Alyn & Deeside) Mr Bill Tynan MP (Labour, Hamilton South)

Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/northern_ireland_affairs.cfm. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Dr John Patterson (Clerk), Hugh Farren (Attached Clerk), Dr Aileen O’Neill (Committee Specialist), Tony Catinella (Committee Assistant) and Chryssa Poupard (Secretary).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerks of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 2172; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

Contents

Report Page

Summary 3

1 Introduction 5

2 The Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland 5 Review of the police complaints system 5 Statutory framework 7 Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 7 The Police (Northern Ireland) Acts 2000 and 2003 9

3 Progress by the Office of the Police Ombudsman 10 Establishing the Office 10 Progress of the Office 11 Case management system 13 Performance against targets 14

4 Public and police confidence 15 Police confidence 16 Independent oversight of the Office 18

5 Other Issues 20 Informal resolution 20 Mediation 21 Ombudsman’s remit 22 Police Ombudsman and young people 24

6 Conclusions 24

Conclusions and recommendations 26

Formal minutes 29

Witnesses 30

List of written evidence 31

Summary

This is the first occasion on which the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland has been the subject of scrutiny by this committee. The task of establishing the Office has been considerable, and we have been impressed by the dedication and leadership demonstrated by Mrs Nuala O’Loan, the Police Ombudsman, and her staff, in constructing from scratch a credible police complaints service in Northern Ireland.

The difficulty of this task was not eased by the failure of the government to provide Mrs O’Loan with formal guidance until May 2001, several months after the Office became operational. We are seeking an explanation from the government for this lapse.

Despite the progress made in its first four years, the operations of the Office are not yet fully satisfactory. Improvements can and must be made:

x The Office is proceeding with a replacement IT system because the existing system has proved inadequate after only four years. The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) must ensure that the Office has the resources and skills to procure and install a cost effective and fully efficient system with a reasonable life span.

x The Ombudsman’s powers of mediation require to be streamlined to provide extra flexibility when dealing with complaints. This is likely to require legislation which we hope the government will consider and facilitate quickly.

x While the Office’s standing with the general public now appears good, its standing with police officers of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) is less so. We recognise that the relationship between the police and those ‘policing the police’ will always present very considerable management challenges. There is no ‘quick fix’ here, and progress is likely to be incremental. The managements of the Office and PSNI have taken steps to ensure sound communication. The Office must persevere in these efforts and, by punctilious regard to transparent investigative procedures of the highest professional quality, gain the respect and confidence of growing numbers of rank and file officers.

x The effectiveness of the new policing arrangements in Northern Ireland depends, in very large measure, upon the main players maintaining excellent mutual co- operation. The relationship between the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Office could be improved. These bodies need to take steps to ensure that their working relationship is fully satisfactory at all levels.

x The present arrangements for investigating complaints of maladministration against the Ombudsman should be given the opportunity to ‘bed down’. Ministers, as well as officials should invariably see such complaints. They have not done so in the past. We are pleased that Mr Ian Pearson, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, and the Minister responsible for security and policing, has given us a firm commitment that this will now happen. The Department should publish the number and outcome of such complaints in its Annual

Departmental Report as a matter of routine.

A heavy responsibility rests on those concerned directly with policing in Northern Ireland to sustain and build up the confidence of the general public in the new policing arrangements. This will be achieved where all those involved in policing matters apply exemplary professional standards consistently to their work. Where standards slip, public confidence will erode.

Nowhere does the responsibility rest more heavily for ensuring that the public have confidence in their police service than on the Ombudsman and her staff. We do not underestimate the difficulties of her task. This report highlights how much has been achieved since the Office was established in 2000; and how much remains to be done. We trust that when we next examine the Office, the achievements to date will have provided a secure and sustainable basis for further development.

1 Introduction

1. The Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland was formally set up on 6 November 2000 under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (‘the 1998 Act’).1 Its principal function is to secure an efficient, effective and independent police complaints system in Northern Ireland, and to secure the confidence of both the public and the police in that system. The Office forms a key part of the new accountability arrangements for policing in Northern Ireland, which include the Northern Ireland Policing Board, District Policing Partnerships, and the Office of the Oversight Commissioner.2

2. Over three years have passed since the foundation of the Office, and the purpose of our inquiry was to examine progress made in this crucial initial phase. On 10 February 2004, the committee announced the inquiry’s terms of reference: x Progress towards developing a role for the Police Ombudsman since the Office was established in November 2000 x The performance of the Office in respect of its principal activities, and x The efficiency and effectiveness of the administration and expenditure of the Office, including its performance against key indicators and targets

3. We took oral evidence on two occasions and are grateful to all those who provided evidence to us. We paid an informal visit to the Office of the Police Ombudsman in April 2004, and we are grateful to Mrs O’Loan and her staff for the informative briefing we received. We wish to thank Dr Keith Bryett , Specialist Advisor, for his assistance 2 The Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland

Review of the police complaints system 4. Public complaints against the police in Northern Ireland were recorded and investigated by police officers of the Complaints and Discipline Department of the Royal Ulster

1 The Northern Ireland Office stated in evidence that it appointed Mrs Nuala O’Loan as Police Ombudsman in October 1999 (PONI 27). She took up her full-time designate responsibilities in April 2000. The Office of the Police Ombudsman was formally set up in November 2000 when Part VII of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 came into force 2 These bodies were set up following the report of the Independent Commission on Policing (‘The Patten report’), A New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland, The Report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, September 1999. The Northern Ireland Policing Board was established in November 2001, replacing the Police Authority for Northern Ireland which had been responsible for police accountability since 1970. The Board’s principal function is to hold the Chief Constable and the police publicly accountable for the performance of their functions and to ensure that the police service is efficient and effective. During 2003/04, District Policing Partnerships (DPPs) were set up in the 26 district council areas of Northern Ireland. Their role is to consult with local communities, establish policing priorities in conjunction with the district command units of the police, and to act as forums for discussion and consultation on matters affecting the policing of a district. The Office of the Oversight Commissioner was set up in May 2000 to oversee the implementation of recommendations of the Patten report

Constabulary (RUC) until 2000.3 Unless the complaint was resolved informally by the police, it was referred to the Independent Commission for Police Complaints (ICPC) for investigation.4 Where the possibility of criminal activity arose, the complaint was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). After any conviction, or where the DPP directed “no prosecution”, the case was referred back to the police to consider whether disciplinary charges should be brought against the police officer. The ICPC then considered the police recommendation on discipline and could recommend or direct that charges be brought against the officer. If an officer was found guilty of disciplinary offences, the Chief Constable determined the punishment.5

5. In November 1995, Dr Maurice Hayes undertook a review of the police complaints system in Northern Ireland, at the request of the government. Dr Hayes was charged with reviewing the arrangements for dealing with public complaints against the police.6 He published a report in January 1997, and the principal recommendation that there should be a full-time police ombudsman in Northern Ireland to investigate complaints against the police was accepted by government and implemented in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.

6. The decision to create a Police Ombudsman was endorsed in the report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland (1999) (‘The Patten Report’) which emphasised the importance of the Ombudsman in the “future policing arrangements” of Northern Ireland, and stated that it was “critical to the question of police accountability to the law, to public trust in the police and to the protection of human rights.”7

The Office of the Police Ombudsman 7. In October 1999, the Department appointed Mrs Nuala O’Loan as Police Ombudsman designate,8 with appointment as Police Ombudsman taking effect on 6 November 2000 when Part VII of the 1998 Act came into force.9

8. The Office of the Police Ombudsman is an executive non-departmental public body funded by grant in aid from the Northern Ireland Office and is accountable to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. However, the investigative work of the Ombudsman is statutorily independent of government. The Ombudsman’s budget

3 The Royal Ulster Constabulary was renamed the Police Service of Northern Ireland under Section 1 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Complaints against senior officers were dealt with by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland 4 The ICPC was set up in 1988, replacing the Police Complaints Board. The Board’s role had been to consider the results of a police investigation into a police complaint and to consider whether an officer should be charged with disciplinary offences. The ICPC acquired additional powers, including the power to investigate any complaint against a police officer 5 A Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland? A review of the police complaints system in Northern Ireland, Dr Maurice Hayes, January 1997, p 17 6 Ibid, p 1 7 Report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, A New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland, 1999, para 6.42 8 PONI 27 9 Part VII of the 1998 Act establishes the Office of the Police Ombudsman and sets out its powers, functions and responsibilities . The appointment of Police Ombudsman is for a period of seven years

for 2003/04 was £7.4 million and the Office has a staff of 123. Its remit extends to five police constabularies, including, the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI); the Ministry of Defence Police; Belfast International Airport Police; Larne Harbour Police and Belfast Harbour Police.10

The Principal Activities of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland x Establishing an efficient, effective and independent police complaints system x Receiving complaints and other referred matters and deciding how to deal with them x Investigating complaints and keeping complainants and police officers informed as to progress x Seeking, when appropriate, to have complaints resolved through informal resolution x Notifying the Secretary of State, the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Chief Constable of the outcome of complaints x Making recommendations, where appropriate, to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for criminal action x Making recommendations, where appropriate, to the Chief Constable or the Policing Board for disciplinary action x Reporting annually to the Secretary of State x Carrying out inquiries as directed by the Secretary of State or as requested by the Policing Board. x Reporting on priorities and policy matters to be drawn to the attention of the Chief Constable and the Policing Board x Providing statistical information to the Policing Board and to the Police Service x Carrying out research to inform and improve policing policy and practice.11

Statutory framework

Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 9. Part VII of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 establishes the Office of the Police Ombudsman and sets out its statutory duties, powers and responsibilities. The Ombudsman’s principal duty is to secure the efficiency, effectiveness and independence of the police complaints system in Northern Ireland, and to secure the confidence of the public and the police in that system.12 The 1998 Act requires that complaints be made to

10 PONI 6 para 1 11 Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland Annual Report April 2003-March 2004, p 52 12 Section 51 (4)

the Ombudsman or, if made to a member of the police, or to the Secretary of State, should be referred to the Ombudsman for consideration.13 Complaints must originate from the public and concern the conduct of a member of the police.14

Informal resolution 10. Once the Ombudsman receives a complaint, she must consider whether it can be resolved informally and, if so, refer the complaint to the appropriate disciplinary authority.15 The Northern Ireland Policing Board is the disciplinary authority for senior officers of the PSNI, and the Chief Constable is the disciplinary authority for all other members of the police.16 A complaint is not suitable for informal resolution unless the complainant gives his consent to participate and the complaint is not deemed serious.17 Where the Policing Board or the Chief Constable attempt to resolve a complaint informally and this proves impossible, or where the complaint is unsuitable for informal resolution, they must notify the Ombudsman and refer the complaint to her.18 If informal resolution fails, and the complaint is deemed serious, the Ombudsman must conduct a formal investigation.19

Formal investigation 11. The Ombudsman will appoint an investigating officer to conduct the formal investigation.20 When the investigation is completed, the officer will submit a report to the Ombudsman.21 The Ombudsman is able to refer a complaint to the Chief Constable for formal investigation by a police officer and can supervise that investigation if she believes it is in the public interest to do so.22 She can also impose conditions about how the investigation should be carried out.23

Criminal or disciplinary proceedings 12. After the Ombudsman considers an investigating officer’s report, she must decide whether a criminal offence may have been committed by a member of the police.24 Where

13 Section 52 14 Section 52(4) 15 Section 53(1) and (3) 16 Section 50(1). ‘Senior officers’ are Assistant Chief Constables, Deputy Chief Constables, and Chief Constables 17 Section 53(2) 18 Section 53(6). The Northern Ireland Policing Board or the Secretary of State also have power to refer to the Ombudsman any matter which indicates that a police officer may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in such a way that justifies disciplinary proceedings. The matter referred must not be the subject of an existing complaint. The Chief Constable has an identical power: see Section 55(1) 19 Section 54 (1) and (2) 20 Section 56(1). A person employed by the Ombudsman for the purpose of conducting or assisting in an investigation has the power and privileges of a constable throughout Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom: see Section 56(3) 21 Section 56(6) 22 Sections 57(1); 57(4). If the Ombudsman decides to supervise the investigation, she must notify the Chief Constable to that effect: see Section 57(5) 23 Section 57 (7) 24 Section 58(1)

this is the case, she must send a copy of the report to the DPP, making appropriate recommendations.25 The DPP then decides whether to prosecute the police officer under investigation.26 If the Ombudsman decides that no criminal offence may have been committed, she is required to consider the question of disciplinary proceedings and to send a memorandum to the relevant disciplinary authority, recommending whether such proceedings should be brought and stating the reasons for her decision.27

13. The Northern Ireland Policing Board is required to inform the Ombudsman of the action it has taken in response to a recommendation.28 If the Ombudsman recommends to the Chief Constable that disciplinary proceedings should be brought in relation to a particular investigation and the Chief Constable is unwilling to bring disciplinary proceedings, the Ombudsman can direct him to bring such proceedings.29

Oversight of the Office 14. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has powers to require the Ombudsman to report to him on matters relating to her functions, and she may for that purpose carry out research into any such matters.30 The Ombudsman is able to report to the Secretary of State on matters which she believes should be drawn to his attention in the public interest.31 She must also provide the Secretary of State with an annual report which he must lay before Parliament, and provide any copies of reports to the Policing Board and the Chief Constable.32

The Police (Northern Ireland) Acts 2000 and 2003 15. The Police (Northern Ireland) Acts 2000 and 2003 amend the 1998 Act and extend the powers of the Ombudsman in important respects. The 2000 Act provides the Ombudsman with the power to resolve complaints through mediation where she decides, after formal investigation, that an investigating officer’s report does not indicate that a criminal offence may have been committed by a police officer and that the complaint is not serious.33 If she does so, she must inform the complainant and the police officer concerned.34 If the complainant and the police officer agree to resolve the complaint through mediation, the Ombudsman must act as mediator.35 Where a complaint is resolved through mediation, no further proceedings can be taken against the police officer under investigation.36

25 Section 58(2) 26 Between April 2003- March 2004 the DPP directed that 10 officers be prosecuted for 10 offences: Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland Annual Report April 2003 – March 2004, p 11 27 Sections 59(1) and 59(2) 28 Section 59(4) 29 Section 59(5) 30 Section 61(1) 31 Section 61(2) 32 Sections 61(3) and (4) 33 Section 58A of the 1998 Act (as amended by Section 62 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000) 34 Section 58A (2) (as amended by Section 62 2000 Act) 35 Section 58A (3) (as amended by Section 62 2000 Act) 36 Section 58A (6) of the 1998 Act (as amended by Section 62 2000 Act)

16. The 2000 Act also requires the Ombudsman to prepare statistical and other general information for the Policing Board so that it can keep itself informed about trends and patterns in complaints.37 The Chief Constable and the Policing Board are also required to provide the Ombudsman with information and documents that she might need for exercising her functions.38

17. The 2000 Act also gave the Ombudsman power to report to the Chief Constable and the Policing Board on matters concerning police practices and policies, which the Ombudsman identified from investigations. This power was extended under the 2003 Act to allow the Ombudsman to conduct investigations into current police practices and policies that have come to her attention, if she believes that it is in the public interest to do so.39 3 Progress by the Office of the Police Ombudsman

Establishing the Office 18. Mrs O’Loan told us of the “significant pressure” to establish the Office and that a project implementation team had been convened to oversee its establishment.40 She explained that the Office established its working processes in its first months of operation, but that government guidance to the Office, the Chief Constable and the Northern Ireland Policing Board was not received until May 2001, six months after the Office was established. When we asked Mr Ian Pearson MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for security and policing, why the government had failed to provide guidance in time, he said that “it would have been preferable if guidance had been available in a more timely manner”, but that he was not aware of any difficulties that arose because of the “administrative delay”.41

19. For six months after the establishment of the Office, the Ombudsman had to operate without formal guidance from the government. Mr Ian Pearson, the Minister, said that he was not aware of difficulties which had arisen as a result, but the Ombudsman noted the absence of the guidance in her evidence to us. At the point at which maximum support was required to ensure the successful launch of a key part of the new policing framework for Northern Ireland, the government should have had

37 Section 61AA of the 1998 Act (as amended by Section 64 2000 Act) 38 Section 66 of the 2000 Act 39 Section 60 A(1) (as amended by Section 13 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003. The Ombudsman is not, however, authorised to conduct such an investigation if the practice or policy is concerned with conduct that falls within the jurisdiction of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, set up under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The Committee commented upon this aspect of the Ombudsman’s function in its Third Report of Session 2002- 03, The Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, HC233, paras 20-23. The Committee endorsed the Government’s decision to amend the Bill to substitute a test of public interest for public concern as the grounds for the Ombudsman investigating police practice or policy. 40 Mrs O’Loan chaired the project implementation team, which was made up of representatives from the then RUC (now PSNI), the Independent Commission for Police Complaints, the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, the Superintendents’ Association of Northern Ireland, Senior Police Officers’ Staff Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the then Police Authority for Northern Ireland (now the Northern Ireland Policing Board) 41 Q 201

formal guidance in place. In its response to this report we would like the government to explain why the guidance was not available to the Ombudsman on time

Progress of the Office 20. The evidence we received indicates that the Office has made significant progress in establishing its role since it was set up in November 2000. Mrs O’Loan identified a number of positive trends that had emerged. She told us that the number of complaints received by the Office had dropped from 3590 in 2001 to 2954 in 2003.42 She acknowledged that this was in part due to a fall in the numbers of serving police officers, from 13,000 in 2000 to 9,200 in 2004.43 Mr Sam Pollock, Chief Executive of the Office of the Police Ombudsman, told us that the seriousness of allegations made about police conduct had changed and that between 2001 and 2004 there had been a decline in so-called “oppressive behaviour” complaints.44 Mrs O’Loan explained that this represented “a major shift in the pattern and nature of complaints” and that it had been achieved through the Office’s work with the PSNI and by “identifying problems during investigations, and making specific recommendations for improvement”.45

21. However, Mrs O’ Loan accepted that the volume of allegations contained in complaints had shown a 5% decline only. She argued that the slower rate of decline in allegations about police conduct reflected a trend in which “single complaints were increasingly containing more than one allegation”.46 Although the PSNI considered that the decline in the level of complaints since 2001 was a “tremendous achievement”,47 they felt that the difference in the rates of decline of complaints and allegations was a matter “of some concern”.48 Nonetheless they emphasised that the Ombudsman had developed an “independent and robust investigation system” and that it was having an effect on police officers’ behaviour.49 They also pointed to the fact that their training system for officers was improving because it was being informed directly about the nature of the complaints being made.50

22. While Mrs O’Loan did not argue that the decline in complaints was the result of the Ombudsman’s establishment, she believed that the Office had contributed to improvements in policing policy and practice.51 For example, she told us that there had been a decline in the number of instances where police officers have misused batons which had dropped from 419 in 2001 to 148 in 2003.52 She also pointed to a decline in the number

42 PONI 6 para 29. However, the Ombudsman’s recent annual report shows that there were 2,976 complaints in 2004, a small increase of 22 complaints from 2003: Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland Annual Report April 2003-March 2004, p 5 43 PONI 6B p 19 44 Q 35 45 PONI 6 para 32 46 PONI 6B p 19 47 Qq 72, 89 48 PONI 29A 49 PONI 29 p 1 50 Q 89 51 Q 36 PONI 6 p 19 52 Q 36

of occasions on which police officers have used live fire.53 In her view, these developments represented “progress towards normalisation of policing” in Northern Ireland.54

23. While the number of complaints against the police and recorded by the Ombudsman has decreased markedly, by 17% since 2001/2002, the number of separate allegations within these complaints has fallen much more slowly over the same period by 5%.55 When seeking an accurate picture of the quality of policing over time it is important to look at both sets of figures for complaints and allegations.

24. The view of the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) was that “the establishment and operation to date of PONI has contributed positively to the new beginning in policing”.56 The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) for England and Wales told us that it had seen at “first hand” the Office’s handling of casework and investigations, and was “impressed” with the efficiency of its case handling, the professionalism of its staff and its “customer service ethos”.57

25. According to Mrs O’Loan, the Office had developed a constructive working relationship with the PSNI. She argued that there had been a need to “articulate clearly the independence of the Office”, but that “close working relationships have been, and remain, vital to the effective functioning of both organisations”.58 The Ombudsman has also held meetings, and maintained communications with, the Police Federation, the Superintendents Association and Chief Officer Associations. Mr Paul Leighton, Deputy Chief Constable of the PSNI, said that in March 2003 he would have described PSNI’s relationship with the Ombudsman as “adequate”, but since then, the PSNI “has sought to build that relationship, develop protocols and work on a more personal basis, both formal and informal to improve the way that we learn from complaints”.59

26. The Northern Ireland Policing Board welcomed the positive relationship that has evolved between the Ombudsman and the PSNI.60 The Board also felt that its engagement with the Ombudsman “at all levels, formal and informal” had led to an improvement in their relationship.61 However, Mrs O’Loan told us that she had asked the Policing Board for more regular contact on “issues of mutual interest in relation to complaints, conduct and policy and practice issues in order to improve the effectiveness of both organisations”.62 She explained that there is a “six monthly sharing of information, but that this could be improved”.

53 Q 36. The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland Annual Report April 2003-March 2004 notes that the use of live fire declined from 21 occasions in the period from February 2001 –March 2002, to 11 occasions in 2003 and 5 in 2004, p 5. ‘Live fire’ refers to the discharge of a firearm 54 PONI 6 p 19 55 PONI 6B, p 19 56 PONI 28 57 PONI 17 58 PONI 6 para 17 59 Q 72 60 Q 70 61 Q 70 62 PONI 6 para 19

27. The Office of the Police Ombudsman has made significant progress in consolidating its role, and its contribution to developing policing policy and practice has been positive. We were told about improvements in the PSNI’s working practices, including reductions in police use of batons, and live fire. This has been achieved within a relatively short period of time and in difficult political circumstances. We welcome the constructive working relationship that has developed between the top managements of the PSNI and the Ombudsman.

28. The Ombudsman and the Northern Ireland Policing Board must ensure that they are taking all steps necessary to maintain full cooperation at all levels. There is clearly a difference of opinion between the Board and the Ombudsman over what constitutes appropriate frequency of contact. The Board said that the present frequency of meetings appears sufficient, although it made clear that this would be kept under review. However, such fundamental differences ought never to occur. We expect to see a structure of communication put in place quickly which is fully acceptable to both the Ombudsman and the Board.

Case management system 29. In the course of setting up the Office, the project implementation team procured a case management IT system at a cost of £90,000.63 The system records complaints electronically and provides “progress and correspondence logs” for each complaint as it progresses through the Office’s complaints and investigation processes. Advice and support on the implementation of the Office’s IT systems was provided by Deloitte & Touche at a cost of £72,000.64

30. Mrs O’Loan told us that the case management system has since proved “inadequate” and “lacks many forms of functionality”.65 For example, the system is unable to track external interaction with the DPP on criminal case referrals, or with the PSNI on discipline referrals. Nor has it any integrated investigatory processes, no modules for informal resolution, mediation, discipline and misconduct matters.66 Mrs O’Loan explained that as her remit has grown, increased pressure has been put on the case management system to the point where it is “not capable of doing the job any more”.67 The Office recently requested funding for a ‘case handling system’ and a business case has been submitted to the NIO. Mr Sam Pollock told us that that the total capital and revenue costs for the new system over seven years is likely to be in the region of £2.4 million. Mrs O’Loan has told us that the Department had recently given its approval for the Office to enter into procurement for a new case handling system.68

31. The NIO was emphatic that the Ombudsman had done everything possible to procure and install an adequate system when the Office was set up. It told us that the project

63 PONI 33 p 2 64 PONI 6B, p 9; HL Deb, 13 February 2002, Col155WA 65 Q 1, PONI 6 para 26 66 PONI 6 para 26, PONI 6B p 10 67 Q 5 68 PONI 6B

implementation team had examined a “wide range of issues affecting the running of the new Office”, and that an “IT strand Team”, with experience of recording complaints, worked with Deloitte Touche to identify the most appropriate system at that time.69 The NIO’s view was that “in the four years since the Office opened, experience of operating the investigation system, and changing demands…mean that the current system needs replaced”

32. We are surprised that the Office’s present “case management system” has failed completely and is having to be scrapped so soon after its installation at the considerable replacement cost of over £2.4 million over seven years. While we appreciate the difficulties involved in anticipating how such systems will operate in practice, we note that, despite expenditure of £72,000 on consultancy advice and the experience of the “IT strand team”, the project implementation team failed to identify an IT system capable of functioning satisfactorily. The new “case handling system” must be made to operate effectively over a much longer period.

Performance against targets 33. The Ombudsman’s 2002-03 Annual Report contained 22 key performance indicators with clear targets and progress columns.70 However, the 2003-04 Annual Report contains no indicators, but has a list of over thirty targets to measure progress on 11 ‘objectives’.71 When we asked the Ombudsman about the reason for the inconsistency in its presentation of performance data, we were told that the 2002-03 indicators focused on “administrative and efficiency” targets because they were important as the Office was putting in place systems and procedures, but that targets were now having to relate to “core performance issues and outcomes”.72

34. We also asked the Ombudsman why the targets in the 2003-04 Annual Report described activities and processes rather than stating outcomes. Mrs O’ Loan reassured us that the Office had regard to SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time Bound) criteria when developing its performance targets. She explained that the Office’s remit had changed as a consequence of legislative changes and, as it entered into a period of stability, it would be “possible to achieve greater continuity and consistency in the objectives, targets and performance indicators set”.73

35. It is crucial to the credibility of the Office that the Ombudsman’s formal presentation of her performance in the Annual Report should be of the very highest quality. It must be comprehensive, fully transparent, easily comprehensible, and should track progress on key targets year on year in a consistent format. There is some way to go before this standard of rigour is achieved. We expect to see an improvement in the presentation of the Annual Report in future years.

69 PONI 33 p 1 The IT strand team included representatives from the then RUC, Police Authority for Northern Ireland and Independent Commission for Police Complaints 70 Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland Annual Report April 2002-March 2003 and Corporate Business Plan 2003- 2004, p 42-43

71 Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland Annual Report April 2003-March 2004, p 46-49 72 PONI 6B p 13 73 PONI 6B p 14

4 Public and police confidence

36. Our inquiry received strong evidence that the Police Ombudsman has succeeded in gaining significant public confidence. Mrs O’Loan told us that five years ago it would have seemed unlikely that a police complaints system in Northern Ireland could have secured public confidence, but in her view, “that is what has happened”.74 The Office has developed a number of initiatives to raise public awareness of the Office, including preparing and distributing information pamphlets, issuing regular press releases about its work, and making important information available on the Office’s website.75

37. In order to measure levels of public confidence, the Office has undertaken a number of surveys. The most recent (January 2004) indicates that 85% of the public had heard of the Ombudsman, 82% thought that they would be fairly treated if they were to make a complaint against a police officer to the Ombudsman, and 84% of Catholics and 70% of Protestants were confident that the Ombudsman deals with complaints impartially; the latter figure had increased from 51% in 2002.76 Mrs O’ Loan told us that she was confident that the Office is “commanding very widespread confidence of the communities” in Northern Ireland.77 Professor Maurice Punch believed that the Ombudsman had “established and displayed its independence and impartiality with broad public satisfaction”.78 The Citizens Advice Bureau considered that the Office had “successfully established itself as an approachable, impartial and independent Agency in Northern Ireland.”79

38. The view of the IPCC was that the Office, led by Mrs O’Loan, had won the respect of both communities by actively visiting the communities, explaining the role of the Office to them, and making itself accessible. It acknowledged that in some instances, the respect was “grudging”, but that given the Ombudsman had been operating for only four years, “it would be very satisfied with grudging respect after a similar period of time”.80 The Falls Community Council thought that the Ombudsman had been open to “discussing and exploring difficulties” which may be perceived by communities and had done so “in an engaging, tactful and transparent manner”.81

39. Many respondents stressed to us that the Ombudsman had also helped improve public confidence in the PSNI. The CAJ explained that because the Ombudsman “guards her independence and strives to protect the rights of both officers and complainants”, she had

74 Q 1 75 PONI 6 Para 10 76 Q1, Report 2: Public awareness of the system for complaints against the police in Northern Ireland, January 2004, The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland PP 13 - 17 http://www.policeombudsman.org/Publication.cfm?catID=6&action=archive&level=page&year=2004 77 PONI 6 p 1 78 PONI12 79 PONI 8 P 3 80 PONI 17 81 PONI 13

“increased public confidence in the PSNI”.82 The Superintendents Association told us that the Ombudsman was having a “very positive effect on public confidence in policing”. 83

Police confidence 40. The police staff associations were deeply concerned about the low level of confidence which police officers have in the Ombudsman. Between January-March 2003, the Northern Ireland Statistics Research Agency carried out a survey for the Ombudsman which examined police officers’ attitudes to the Police Ombudsman and the new complaints system. The results illustrated a serious lack of confidence among officers in the Ombudsman. While 58% of officers thought that complaints against them should be independently investigated, 44% felt that the Ombudsman was not doing a good job in dealing with complaints against the police; 42% thought that the Office is ‘out to get them’, and 70% thought that the Office did not approach both the person making a complaint and the officer complained about with an open mind.

41. Mrs O’Loan acknowledged that the results of the 2003 survey indicated that “more needs to be done to strengthen police officers’ awareness and confidence in the Office”.84 She also accepted that the level of knowledge and understanding of the role of the Ombudsman among junior ranks of the PSNI was still not as extensive as it should be, but that the PSNI is “committed to enhancing officers’ understanding of the complaints system”.85 The Ombudsman, the PSNI and the police staff associations have agreed to form a joint committee to work to address the problems raised by the results of the survey.86 The joint committee is currently looking at ways to improve communication between police officers and the Ombudsman and a series of activities have been agreed. The Ombudsman told us that she had been invited by the Police Federation for Northern Ireland to attend their annual general meeting in September 2004.87

42. The evidence we received indicates that police officers’ lack of confidence is, in part, rooted in their perception that the Ombudsman is not impartial. The Superintendents Association told us that police officers “feel that the Ombudsman’s staff are blinded by a search for evidence of collusion and corruption” rather than “investigating a complaint holistically and finding those things that prove whether the officer has done anything wrong or not”.88 The view of the Police Federation was that the new complaints system weighed in favour of the complainant and that this affected police officers’ confidence:

“…officers believe that the Ombudsman’s Office is not even-handed and impartial in the way in which they deal with complaints against the police. Officers believe that

82 PONI 28 p 1 83 Q 166 84 PONI 6 para 18 85 PONI 6 para 18 86 PONI 6 para 18 87 PONI 6B 88 Q 116

investigators from that Office are more likely to believe the complainant every time than they are to believe what the police officer has to say.”89

43. Mrs O’Loan recognised that her Office still had “a lot of work to do” to improve police officers’ perceptions of her impartiality.90 We welcome the Police Ombudsman’s acceptance that more needs to be done by her Office to gain the confidence of rank and file PSNI officers. Mr Pollock argued that because the Office oversees the conduct of members of the police, it was difficult to convince police officers of the Office’s fairness.91 The Northern Ireland Office considered that the relationship between the police and the Police Ombudsman would have inevitable tension:

“Inevitably in any relationship between a complaints investigation agency and the organisation it investigates (and the representative bodies of its members) there will be a healthy tension at times. However, it is important that everyone is aware of their responsibilities and obligations, and that the relationship remains such that it benefits the policing arrangements provided to the community in Northern Ireland”.92

The Citizens Advice Bureau felt that, given the divided nature of Northern Ireland society, “the Police Ombudsman has had a very difficult brief in seeking to establish the independence and impartiality of her office.”93

44. Securing the confidence of both the public and police is crucial to the credibility of the new police complaints system. We were told that the Ombudsman has actively engaged with the public, securing a high level of confidence in both communities in Northern Ireland.

45. Developing trust on the part of the police in Northern Ireland in the Office of the Police Ombudsman depends on a positive and proactive approach by the top managements of the police and the Office, and we are satisfied that substantial efforts are being made by both in this direction. While we acknowledge the particular difficulty of the Ombudsman’s task in securing the trust of rank and file police officers, we are concerned about the low level of confidence which police officers appear to have in the Ombudsman and, in particular, their perception that the system is neither impartial nor fair. Everything possible must be done to improve officers’ confidence in the present system of complaints. We warmly welcome the agreement between the PSNI, police staff associations, and Ombudsman to work jointly to improve confidence. This is a solid start on which we expect all parties to build.

46. We received a small number of representations from former police officers and others who had been the subject of, or involved in, the Ombudsman’s investigations and who expressed dissatisfaction with aspects of their treatment by her Office. We wish to make it clear that the remit of this committee does not extend to the consideration of individual

89 Q 156 90 Q 28 91 Q 29 92 PONI 27 para 11 93 PONI 8 p 2

cases, and we can make no comment on the merit of those which have been raised with us, or the treatment of individuals by the Office in the course of its investigations. However, a number of points of practice arise from these cases which are of great importance in furthering the work of establishing the Office on a secure foundation.

47. First, the Office must ensure that those who are under investigation, or who have standing in an investigation even if not formally its subject, are kept fully and regularly informed of progress. Second, the Office’s investigations must be conducted to the highest standards. Third, investigations must be completed in a timely fashion. The Office has a target of updating “ both complainants and officers every six weeks”; and has committed itself to conduct investigations “thoroughly in accordance with the law to ensure an effective ‘search for the truth’”.94

48. We are pleased that the Ombudsman has committed the Office to proceeding with its work on the basis of high standards, though we note that she describes the target of six- weekly updates as “challenging”, and points to the modest size of the Office when faced with complex and time consuming investigations.95 The importance of a fully efficient IT system as an essential support in achieving the highest standards of performance is a point Mrs O’Loan also stresses.96 While the outcome of investigations conducted by the Ombudsman are a matter for her Office, it is vital that in all respects the manner in which these investigations are conducted represent the highest professional standards, and it appears that she is seeking to achieve this goal. We warmly support such an approach and, in particular, commend the Office for seeking to keep complainants and officers fully informed as work progresses. We have heard complaints in other inquiries that this is not done sufficiently in police investigations, and a punctilious adherence to this practice will enable the Ombudsman to set a ‘gold standard’ for procedure in this area.

Independent oversight of the Office 49. The police staff associations were greatly concerned about the absence, in their view, of an independent dedicated body to which they could make a complaint of maladministration against the Ombudsman. However, the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) explained that “ad hoc arrangements” had been put in place which allow members of the public or police officers to write to the NIO where they have made a maladministration complaint to the Ombudsman, but remain dissatisfied with the response.97 In such cases, the Department will seek clarification from the Ombudsman. If there is prima facie evidence of maladministration, the Department can choose to refer the complaint to an independent person for investigation. To date, the Northern Ireland Office has not considered it necessary to invoke this arrangement for independent investigation.98

94 PONI 6 , paras 43 and 44 95 PONI 6 , paras 40 and 44 96 PONI 6 , para 44 97 PONI 27 para 25 98 PONI 27 para 25

50. We were surprised to learn from the Department that complaints referred to it for examination, are considered not at Ministerial level, but by officials only.99 Mr Ian Pearson, the Minister, appeared not to have been fully briefed on how such complaints were handled, but said that the present arrangements were not satisfactory.100After we finished taking the evidence for this inquiry, Mr Pearson confirmed that the Department had put in place arrangements to ensure that complaints of maladministration made against the Ombudsman will be seen invariably, and in detail, by a Minister.101

51. It is most important that charges against the Ombudsman of maladministration and decisions over possible referrals to an independent person, should be taken at Ministerial level. We were alarmed that the Minister had not been briefed on the relevant procedures until the point at which we questioned him, and welcome the assurance that we have been given that in future all such papers will be seen at Ministerial level. We also recommend that the Department should record the number of such complaints it receives, and indicate the outcome in general terms, in the Departmental Annual Report as a matter of routine. We consider that this would aid transparency and improve confidence in the present arrangements.

52. The Superintendents Association felt that there should be “an independent person to investigate” and “to have oversight” of the Ombudsman.102 The Association thought that appointing someone on an ad hoc basis to conduct investigations was not “rigorous enough for police officers to have confidence in the Police Ombudsman”.103 They told us that only a small number of complaints had been made by police officers to the Northern Ireland Office because of a lack of faith in the system and a belief that the complaint “will simply bounce from the Secretary of State back to the Ombudsman’s Office so there is no point in complaining in the first place.”104 The Police Federation told us that they did not wish for “every action” of the Ombudsman to be subject to oversight, but they were seeking a mechanism that would allow an officer, who was unhappy about the way he was dealt with, to refer the complaint.105

53. Sir Desmond Rea, Chairman of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, told us that some Board members felt that there is a need for “a further accountability mechanism” for the Ombudsman.106 He said that the Board had discussed with the Ombudsman the possibility of creating “an appeal process outside the current judicial review process” which would allow matters of process to be appealed to the Northern Ireland Ombudsman.107 However,

99 Q 194 100 Q 194 101 Q 118, HC 108-ii 102 Qq 117, 129 103 Qq 117, 129 104 Q 141 105 Q 129 106 Q 83 107 Q 82

the PSNI were not convinced that one Ombudsman should have oversight of another.108 The Northern Ireland Office appeared equally sceptical. 109

54. Mrs O’Loan was satisfied that the Office was subject to adequate checks and balances. She pointed to the wide range of accountability mechanisms which her Office is subject to, including:, Parliament; complaint to the Secretary of State (maladministration); the Criminal Justice Inspector; the Comptroller and Auditor General; and the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland.110 She was concerned that the facility for independent investigation of maladministration complaints was not completely understood by the police, and that the Office “was trying to engage with the police” to ensure that they understood the process.111 She did not express a view on whether the Office should be under further accountability, stating that it would be “a matter for Parliament to decide”.112

55. If there is prima facie evidence of maladministration, the Northern Ireland Office can refer the complaint to an independent person for investigation. This system is largely untried as no referrals have yet been made by the Department to any independent person. We think that the present arrangements should be given the chance to ‘bed down’, subject to the government accepting our recommendations above.

56. We were told that the Ombudsman is currently engaging with the police to ensure that they understand the process for independent investigation.113 We welcome this, and we also consider that there is a role here for the government to ensure that all those who may use the system are fully aware of it, and its operation. However, if it becomes clear that, after a reasonable time, the present arrangements are continuing to cause unease and are failing to gain general respect and acceptance, then the government must consider what alternative procedures may be put in place to provide assurance that complaints of maladministration against the Ombudsman will be investigated fully and fairly. 5 Other Issues

Informal resolution 57. We were told that development of the Office’s informal resolution process was initially “slow and difficult”, but that it was beginning to improve.114 Initial difficulties were rooted in the concerns of complainants and police officers about the independence of a process

108 Q 83 109 PONI 27 110 Q 59 111 Q 61 112 Q 59 113 Q 61 114 PONI 6 para 45

involving senior police officers.115 Mrs O’ Loan told us that following the appointment of a member of staff with responsibility for the informal process, the process has “speeded up” and the ability to resolve complaints informally has begun to improve.116 Between September-March 2002, 40% of complaints referred for informal resolution were resolved and between April 2002-March 2003, this increased to 72%. We were told about the various positive settlements that have resulted from informal resolution, including apologies from the officer involved, explanations or expressions of regret, and apologies on behalf of PSNI.117

58. The Superintendents Association considered that informal resolution was a “very positive way” of resolving a complaint rather than “going to formal, lengthy investigations”.118 The Police Federation supported this view, arguing that it was preferable for a complaint to be resolved at an early stage because it avoided “the grief that is caused by going ahead, carrying it [the investigation] on for months and months and months, with people feeling distraught.”119

59. We welcome the improvements in the Ombudsman’s informal resolution process and the increasing number of complaints that are being resolved without formal investigation. Informal resolution offers constructive settlement in a shorter period of time for both complainants and police officers. The continuing full commitment of the Ombudsman to the process will be important to ensure further progress.

Mediation 60. Mrs O’Loan told us that under the 1998 Act, if a complaint is not suitable for informal resolution or it has proved impossible to resolve informally, she is required to conduct a formal investigation.120 She believes that the law is “unworkable” because it does not allow her to mediate before a formal investigation is carried out.121 Mrs O’ Loan told us that she is currently in consultation with the NIO to secure legislative change that would give her power to determine that a complaint is suitable for mediation rather than investigation. She told us that this would reduce stress on police officers, provide efficiencies because mediation would be conducted more quickly than formal investigations, and secure “greater complainant and police officer confidence in the system”.122

61. The PSNI told us that initially it had reservations about changing the law in relation to mediation because of fears that police officers could potentially have to proceed though “consecutive processes”, including informal resolution, mediation and investigation.123 Although they have now “agreed a way forward” with the Ombudsman, the PSNI

115 Informal resolution involves a senior officer of PSNI meeting the complainant and the police officer separately in an attempt to reach an informal settlement 116 PONI 6 para 45 117 PONI 6 p 11 118 Q 167 119 Q 168 120 PONI 6B p 6. See para 11 121 Q 50, PONI 6 para 26 122 PONI 6 para 26, PONI 6B P 8 123 Q 109, PONI 29A

remained concerned that officers could be subjected to three separate procedures.124 In correspondence, Mrs O’Loan told us that agreement had been reached with the PSNI and police staff associations that there should be four distinct processes for dealing with complaints: informal resolution (conducted by the police with the agreement of the complainant and under the supervision of the Office, as at present); mediation (conducted by the Ombudsman); conciliation (where it has been established that a complainant was the subject of a “serious wrongful action but it has proved impossible to identify the officer responsible for that wrongful action”); and investigation (conducted by the Ombudsman).125 Mrs O’Loan explained that that they had also agreed that there may be complaints which would be particularly suitable for informal resolution, rather than mediation, and that complainants should have the right to refuse informal resolution conducted by the police.126

62. Mr Ian Pearson, the Minister, emphasised the importance of “all parties” agreeing to the proposed alternative mediation and conciliation arrangements. He said that if there was broad support for the arrangements, the government would facilitate the legislative changes, parliamentary time permitting.127

63. We believe there is a strong case for amending the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 in order to give the Ombudsman power to determine that a complaint is suitable for mediation rather than formal investigation. We consider that this is likely to facilitate greater flexibility in the complaints process, improve its efficiency, and secure greater confidence in the system. The evidence we received indicates that the proposed changes have the support of the PSNI and police staff associations and we urge the government to introduce the necessary legislation speedily.

Ombudsman’s remit 64. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) argued that the powers of the Ombudsman should be enhanced in “three vital respects”. First, the Office cannot investigate complaints made against police officers who have retired from the police.128 Second, the Ombudsman is not under a duty to investigate allegations of criminal conduct raised against police officers by persons other than complainants who are members of the public, for example, other police officers.129 Third, the Ombudsman cannot investigate allegations of improper conduct made against members of the British Army in Northern Ireland.130

124 Q 109, PONI 29A 125 PONI 6B p 6 126 PONI 6B p 7 127 Qq 198, 204 128 PONI 25 p 1 129 PONI 25 130 Section 60 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 made provision for the Secretary of State to appoint an Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland. The Assessor’s role is to review the procedures adopted by the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland for investigating and responding to complaints about the Army and to investigate any representations made to him about those procedures. The Secretary of State appointed Mr David Hewitt as Assessor in 1992; and his successor, Mr Jim McDonald, in 1997; PONI 25

65. The PSNI told us that allegations of criminal conduct made against retired police officers are currently investigated by the police service and the facts placed before the DPP and questioned the need for the Ombudsman’s involvement.131 They explained that the Ombudsman has the “powers of a constable” and can choose to investigate allegations of criminal conduct against retired members. However, the Ombudsman only has power to report serving members of the police service, or retired members where criminal offences may have been committed during their police service, to the DPP for prosecution. The PSNI stated its willingness in the case of investigations about retired officers “to develop a protocol for forwarding reports to the prosecuting authority on the Ombudsman’s behalf” to avoid further legislative change.132 The PSNI were equally sceptical about extending the Ombudsman’s remit to encompass the British Army because they were hopeful that the security situation would permit the withdrawal of military personnel in Northern Ireland and that extending the Ombudsman’s remit might send out the “wrong message”.133 The police argued that independent oversight of the army is already exercised by the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures.134

66. The Minister appeared not to consider that retired officers should fall within the Ombudsman’s remit.135 He was not persuaded that the Ombudsman should have oversight of the British Army.136 He took the view that the police should investigate allegations of criminal conduct raised against police officers by another police officer. He told us that this is the “sensible, logical thing to do”.137

67. We have not taken evidence from the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures, or the British Army, but it appears that the powers of the Independent Assessor are confined to reviewing the complaints procedures of the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland and do not extend to conducting his own investigations. These powers are not, therefore, comparable in scope to those of the Police Ombudsman. It is plain that the Ombudsman is concerned about investigations into police actions which involve non police personnel, including joint police and military operations, because she considers that the present arrangements might hinder her investigations and give rise to potential waste of resources. 138

68. While it is not presently clear that the extensions to the Ombudsman’s remit sought by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission are justified, we do believe that these proposals have illuminated potential weaknesses in the present complaints arrangements which have been identified by the Ombudsman herself. We think that these deserve further, thorough consideration by the government.

131 PONI 29A 132 PONI 29A 133 PONI 27A 134 PONI 27A 135 Q 210 136 Q 206 137 Q 208 138 PONI 6B

Police Ombudsman and young people 69. In order to measure levels of public confidence and awareness of the Office, the Ombudsman has undertaken a number of surveys. In the most recent survey (January 2004) over a third (37%) of the younger respondents (those aged 25 or younger) were unaware of the Office. In 2003, the Ombudsman commissioned the Institute of Conflict Research to carry out research into the experiences of young people and their attitudes towards policing in Northern Ireland, particularly the process of making complaints against police officers.139 The research report concluded that there “was still clearly a need to promote greater awareness of the organisation and its work among young people”.140 The report made a number of recommendations, including that the Ombudsman should organise an “outreach programme” involving presentations in schools and youth organisations and that a team should be set up within the Office to deal specifically with complaints by young people and to produce information especially for them.141

70. When we asked Mrs O’Loan about the measures the Office was taking to reach out to young people, she told us that the Office had participated in “a series of youth conferences” which had been jointly organised by her Office, the PSNI, the Policing Board. She said that the Office had also made a number of school visits and had written to every school in Northern Ireland, asking whether they would like to hear about the work of the Office.142 She explained that increasing awareness of the Office among young people was “a constant priority”.143 Mr Ian Pearson, the Minister, told us that he was satisfied that the Ombudsman had “an active level of engagement” with young people.144

71. The importance of the Office actively engaging with young people and increasing their awareness of the Office cannot be overestimated. We welcome the joint initiatives undertaken by the Ombudsman and the PSNI to improve young people’s understanding of the Office and the new complaints system. We expect these efforts to continue to develop. We urge the Ombudsman to reconsider the recommendations of the report by the Institute for Conflict Research, in particular, whether a separate team should be set up within the Office to deal specifically with complaints by young people. 6 Conclusions

72. The Office of the Police Ombudsman was established to provide an independent and impartial complaints system for members of the public into the conduct of police officers in Northern Ireland. Our inquiry has demonstrated that significant progress has been made by the Office in establishing an effective complaints system. We received strong evidence that the Ombudsman is contributing to positive changes in policing policies and practices and, despite the difficult political context, has made good

139 PONI 2 p 2 140 PONI 2 p 14 141 PONI 2 p 14 142 Q 16 143 PONI 6 p 3 144 Q 188

progress in gaining the confidence of many in the main communities in Northern Ireland.

73. The difficulty of the Ombudsman’s task in attempting to secure the confidence of police officers is considerable. Managing the relationship is unlikely ever to be straightforward. We are concerned by the very low level of confidence which police officers and their representative bodies presently have in the Ombudsman. However, we were pleased to note an appetite for constructive discussion and debate on police practice and complaints procedures on the part of the PSNI, the police staff associations, and the Office. The parties must build further on this co-operative basis. The Ombudsman should arrange for regular monitoring of levels of police confidence in her Office, and publish the full results straightaway.

74. The Ombudsman’s relationship with the Northern Ireland Policing Board is a critical one for the success of the new policing arrangements. Without full mutual cooperation these arrangements will be damaged, and the people of Northern Ireland will not receive the excellent policing service to which they are entitled. It is our view that more regular communication between the Ombudsman and the Policing Board will improve their effectiveness and assist in achieving the increase in police accountability envisaged by the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland. We also urge the Ombudsman to continue her existing commendable efforts to improve young people’s awareness and understanding of the Office and the new complaints system.

75. We do not consider that the time is right to create an independent body to deal with maladministration complaints against the Ombudsman. A process for independent investigation of maladministration complaints exists and, with the improvements we have recommended, should be given the opportunity to work. However, we shall keep these arrangements under review.

76. The Ombudsman’s remit should be extended so that she has power to determine that a complaint is suitable for mediation rather than formal investigation. We believe that this is a sensible way forward and will improve the efficiency of the complaints system and facilitate greater flexibility. We urge the government to make the necessary legislative changes as soon as possible.

Conclusions and recommendations

1. For six months after the establishment of the Office, the Ombudsman had to operate without formal guidance from the government. Mr Ian Pearson, the Minister, said that he was not aware of difficulties which had arisen as a result, but the Ombudsman noted the absence of the guidance in her evidence to us. At the point at which maximum support was required to ensure the successful launch of a key part of the new policing framework for Northern Ireland, the government should have had formal guidance in place. In its response to this report we would like the government to explain why the guidance was not available to the Ombudsman on time. (Paragraph 19)

2. The Office of the Police Ombudsman has made significant progress in consolidating its role, and its contribution to developing policing policy and practice has been positive. We were told about improvements in the PSNI’s working practices, including reductions in police use of batons, and live fire. This has been achieved within a relatively short period of time and in difficult political circumstances. We welcome the constructive working relationship that has developed between the top managements of the PSNI and the Ombudsman. (Paragraph 27)

3. The Ombudsman and the Northern Ireland Policing Board must ensure that they are taking all steps necessary to maintain full cooperation at all levels. There is clearly a difference of opinion between the Board and the Ombudsman over what constitutes appropriate frequency of contact. The Board said that the present frequency of meetings appears sufficient, although it made clear that this would be kept under review. However, such fundamental differences ought never to occur. We expect to see a structure of communication put in place quickly which is fully acceptable to both the Ombudsman and the Board. (Paragraph 28)

4. We are surprised that the Office’s present “case management system” has failed completely and is having to be scrapped so soon after its installation at the considerable replacement cost of over £2.4 million over seven years. While we appreciate the difficulties involved in anticipating how such systems will operate in practice, we note that, despite expenditure of £72,000 on consultancy advice and the experience of the “IT strand team”, the project implementation team failed to identify an IT system capable of functioning satisfactorily. The new “ case handling system” must be made to operate effectively over a much longer period. (Paragraph 32)

5. It is crucial to the credibility of the Office that the Ombudsman’s formal presentation of her performance in the Annual Report should be of the very highest quality. It must be comprehensive, fully transparent, easily comprehensible, and should track progress on key targets year on year in a consistent format. There is some way to go before this standard of rigour is achieved. We expect to see an improvement in the presentation of the Annual Report in future years. (Paragraph 35)

6. Securing the confidence of both the public and police is crucial to the credibility of the new police complaints system. We were told that the Ombudsman has actively

engaged with the public, securing a high level of confidence in both communities in Northern Ireland. (Paragraph 44)

7. Developing trust on the part of the police in Northern Ireland in the Office of the Police Ombudsman depends on a positive and proactive approach by the top managements of the police and the Office, and we are satisfied that substantial efforts are being made by both in this direction. While we acknowledge the particular difficulty of the Ombudsman’s task in securing the trust of rank and file police officers, we are concerned about the low level of confidence which police officers appear to have in the Ombudsman and, in particular, their perception that the system is neither impartial nor fair. Everything possible must be done to improve officers’ confidence in the present system of complaints. We warmly welcome the agreement between the PSNI, police staff associations, and Ombudsman to work jointly to improve confidence. This is a solid start on which we expect all parties to build. (Paragraph 45)

8. While the outcome of investigations conducted by the Ombudsman are a matter for her Office, it is vital that in all respects the manner in which these investigations are conducted represent the highest professional standards, and it appears that she is seeking to achieve this goal. We warmly support such an approach and, in particular, commend the Office for seeking to keep complainants and officers fully informed as work progresses. We have heard complaints in other inquiries that this is not done sufficiently in police investigations, and a punctilious adherence to this practice will enable the Ombudsman to set a ‘gold standard’ for procedure in this area. (Paragraph 48)

9. We were surprised to learn from the Department that complaints referred to it for examination, are considered not at Ministerial level, but by officials only. Mr Ian Pearson, the Minister, appeared not to have been fully briefed on how such complaints were handled, but said that the present arrangements were not satisfactory. After we finished taking the evidence for this inquiry, Mr Pearson confirmed that the Department had put in place arrangements to ensure that complaints of maladministration made against the Ombudsman will be seen invariably, and in detail, by a Minister. (Paragraph 50)

10. It is most important that charges against the Ombudsman of maladministration and decisions over possible referrals to an independent person, should be taken at Ministerial level. We were alarmed that the Minister had not been briefed on the relevant procedures until the point at which we questioned him, and welcome the assurance that we have been given that in future all such papers will be seen at Ministerial level. We also recommend that the Department should record the number of such complaints it receives, and indicate the outcome in general terms, in the Departmental Annual Report as a matter of routine. We consider that this would aid transparency and improve confidence in the present arrangements. (Paragraph 51)

11. If there is prima facie evidence of maladministration, the Northern Ireland Office can refer the complaint to an independent person for investigation. This system is largely untried as no referrals have yet been made by the Department to any

independent person. We think that the present arrangements should be given the chance to ‘bed down’ subject to the government accepting our recommendations above. (Paragraph 55)

12. We were told that the Ombudsman is currently engaging with the police to ensure that they understand the process for independent investigation. We welcome this, and we also consider that there is a role here for the government to ensure that all those who may use the system are fully aware of it, and its operation. However, if it becomes clear that, after a reasonable time, the present arrangements are continuing to cause unease and are failing to gain general respect and acceptance, then the government must consider what alternative procedures may be put in place to provide assurance that complaints of maladministration against the Ombudsman will be investigated fully and fairly. (Paragraph 56)

13. We believe there is a strong case for amending the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 in order to give the Ombudsman power to determine that a complaint is suitable for mediation rather than formal investigation. We consider that this is likely to facilitate greater flexibility in the complaints process, improve its efficiency, and secure greater confidence in the system. The evidence we received indicates that the proposed changes have the support of the PSNI and police staff associations and we urge the government to introduce the necessary legislation speedily. (Paragraph 63)

14. While it is not presently clear that the extensions to the Ombudsman’s remit sought by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission are justified, we do believe that these proposals have illuminated potential weaknesses in the present complaints arrangements which have been identified by the Ombudsman herself. We think that these deserve further, thorough consideration by the government. (Paragraph 68)

15. The importance of the Office actively engaging with young people and increasing their awareness of the Office cannot be overestimated. We welcome the joint initiatives undertaken by the Ombudsman and the PSNI to improve young people’s understanding of the Office and the new complaints system. We expect these efforts to continue to develop. We urge the Ombudsman to reconsider the recommendations of the report by the Institute for Conflict Research, in particular, whether a separate team should be set up within the Office to deal specifically with complaints by young people. (Paragraph 71)

Formal minutes

Wednesday 9 February 2005

Members present:

Mr Michael Mates, in the Chair

Mr Roy Beggs Mr Iain Luke Mr Tony Clarke Mr Stephen Pound Mr Stephen Hepburn Reverend Martin Smyth

The Committee deliberated.

Draft Report (The Functions of the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the Chairman’s draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 76 read and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Fifth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That the provisions of Standing Order No. 134 (Select Committees (reports)) be applied to the Report.—(The Chairman.)

Ordered, That the Appendices to the Report be reported to the House.—(The Chairman.)

[Adjourned till Monday 21 February at 2.30 pm.

Witnesses

Wednesday 21 July 2004 Page

Mrs Nuala O’Loan, Ombudsman, Mr Sam Pollock, Mr David Wood, and Mrs Olwen Laird, Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland Ev 25

Deputy Chief Constable Paul Leighton, Police Service of Northern Ireland, Professor Sir Desmond Rea, Mr Trevor Reaney, and Ms Sinead Simpson, Northern Ireland Policing Board Ev 52

Wednesday 20 October 2004 Page

Mr Irwin Montgomery and Mr Terry Spence, Police Federation for Northern Ireland, Chief Superintendent Wesley Wilson and Mr Raymond Phillips, Superintendents’ Association of Northern Ireland Ev 64

Mr Ian Pearson MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr Nick Perry, Mr Ken Lindsay and Mr David Kyle, Northern Ireland Office Ev 80

List of written evidence

1 Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland Ev 1 2 Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Supplementary memorandum Ev 12 3 Police Service of Northern Ireland Ev 38 4 Police Service of Northern Ireland, Supplementary memorandum Ev 42 5 Northern Ireland Policing Board Ev 42 6 Northern Ireland Policing Board, Supplementary memorandum Ev 50 7 Northern Ireland Policing Board, Further supplementary memorandum Ev 51 8 Police Federation for Northern Ireland Ev 60 9 Superintendents’ Association of Northern Ireland Ev 62 10 Northern Ireland Office Ev 74 11 Northern Ireland Office, Supplementary memorandum Ev 79 12 Office of the Oversight Commissioner Ev 87 13 Independent Police Complaints Commission Ev 87 14 Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers’ Association Ev 88 15 Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission Ev 89 16 Committee on the Administration of Justice Ev 89 17 Institute for Conflict Research Ev 92 18 Citizens Advice in Northern Ireland Ev 101 19 Mediation Northern Ireland Ev 102 20 Omagh Support and Self Help Group Ev 103 21 Falls Community Council Ev 104 22 Sinn Fein Ev 106 23 Ulster Unionists Ev 108 24 Mr S L Morrow Ev 109 25 Mr Edmund E Lynch Ev 111 26 Professor Maurice Punch Ev 112 27 Justice Patrick Henry Ev 114 28 Sir Dan Crompton CBE QPM Ev 115 29 Sir John Stevens QPM DL, Commissioner, Metropolitan Police Ev 116 30 Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland Ev 116

Reports from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee since 2001

The following reports have been produced by the Committee since the start of the 2001 Parliament.

Session 2004–05 First Report Electoral Registration in Northern Ireland HC 131 Second Report The Parades Commission and Public Processions HC 172-I (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 Third Report Northern Ireland Department’s 2002-03 Resource HC 173 Accounts Fourth Report The work of the Committee in 2004 HC 262

Session 2003–04 First Report The Committee’s work in 2003 HC 146 Second Report The separation of paramilitary prisoners at HC 302 HMP Maghaberry Third Report Introduction of the Aggregates Levy in Northern HC 395 Ireland: one year on Fourth Report The Compensation Agency HC 271 Fifth Report ‘Hate Crime’: The Draft Criminal Justice Northern HC 615 Ireland Order 2004 Sixth Report Social Housing Provision in Northern Ireland HC 493-I First Special Report Government Response to the Committee’s Eighth HC 180 Report on The Illegal Drugs Trade and Drug Culture in Northern Ireland, Session 2002–2003 Second Special Report Government Response to the Committee’s First HC 510 Report on the Work of the Committee in 2003 Third Special Report The Separation of Paramilitary Prisoners at HMP HC 583 Maghaberry: Government’s Response to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2003–04 Fourth Special Report Introduction of the Aggregates Levy in Northern HC 666 Ireland: one year on The Government’s Response Fifth Special Report ‘Hate Crime’ the Draft Criminal Justice Northern HC 954 Ireland Order 2004 Government Response Sixth Special Report The Compensation Agency Government Response HC 955

Session 2002–03 First Report The Impact in Northern Ireland of Cross–Border Road HC 105–I Fuel Price Differentials: Three years on Second Report Annual Report 2002 HC 271 Third Report The Police (Northern Ireland) Bill HC 233 Fourth Report The Control of Firearms in Northern Ireland and the HC 67–I draft Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 Fifth Report Forensic Science Northern Ireland HC 204

Sixth Report The Illegal Drugs Trade and Drug Culture in Northern HC 353–I Ireland: Interim Report on Cannabis Seventh Report Peace II HC 653–I Eighth Report The Illegal Drugs Trade and Drug Culture in Northern HC 1217–I Ireland First Special Report Government Response to the Committee’s First HC 412 Report: The Impact in Northern Ireland of Cross– Border Road Fuel Price Differentials: Three Years On Second Special Report Government Response to the Committee’s Third HC 555 Report: The Police (Northern Ireland) Bill Third Special Report Government Response to the Committee’s Second HC 583 Report: Annual Report 2002 Fourth Special Report Government Response to the Committee’s Fourth HC 677 Report on the Control of Firearms in Northern Ireland and the Proposed Draft Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, HC 67–I, Session 2002–03 Fifth Special Report Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth HC 722 Report on Forensic Science Northern Ireland Sixth Special Report Government Response to the Committee’s Sixth HC 935 Report on the Illegal Drugs Trade and Drug Culture in Northern Ireland: Interim Report on Cannabis Seventh Special Report Government Response to the Committee’s Seventh HC 1077 Report on Peace II

Session 2001–02 First Report Introduction of the Aggregates Levy in Northern HC 333 Ireland Second Report The Financing of Terrorism in Northern Ireland: HC 628 Interim Report on the Proceeds of Crime Bill Third Report Introduction of the Aggregates Levy in Northern HC 713 Ireland: The Government’s Response Fourth Report The Financing of Terrorism in Northern Ireland. HC 978–I Volume II of this Report (HC 987–II) includes the Government Response to the Second Report, Session 2001–02, The Financing of Terrorism in Northern Ireland: Interim Report on the Proceeds of Crime Bill, HC 628 First Special Report Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth HC 332 Report, Miscellaneous Financial Matters, Session 2000–01, and the Government Response to the Committee’s Third Report, The Northern Ireland Office 2000 Departmental Report, Session 1999–2000 Second Special Report Government Response to the Committee’s Fourth HC 400 Report, Legal Aid In Northern Ireland, Session 2000– 01 Third Special Report Government Response to the Committee’s Second HC 401 Report, The Parades Commission, Session 2000–01 Fourth Special Report Government Response to the Committee’s Third HC 461 Report, Relocation Following Paramilitary Intimidation, Session 2000–01

Fifth Special Report Government Response to the Committee’s Third HC 1118 Report, Introduction of the Aggregates Levy in Northern Ireland, Session 2001–02

Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 1 Oral evidence

Taken before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee

on Wednesday 21 July 2004

Members present:

Mr Michael Mates, in the Chair

Mr Adrian Bailey Mr Iain Luke Mr Roy Beggs Mr Eddie McGrady Mr Gregory Campbell The Reverend Martin Smyth Mr Tony Clarke Mark Tami Mr Stephen Hepburn Mr Bill Tynan

Memorandum submitted by the OYce of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland

PROGRESS TOWARDS DEVELOPING A ROLE FOR THE POLICE OMBUDSMAN, SINCE THE OFFICE WAS ESTABLISHED IN NOVEMBER 2000

Introduction 1. The OYce of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (the OYce) was established on 6 November 2000 by Part VII of the Police (NI) Act 1998. The primary statutory duty of the Police Ombudsman is to secure an eYcient, eVective and independent complaints system, and in so doing attempt to secure the confidence of the public and of the police in that system. 2. In October 1999, the Northern Ireland OYce (NIO) announced the appointment of Mrs Nuala O’Loan as the first Police Ombudsman. The remit of the Police Ombudsman extends to five Police Constabularies: the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI); the MoD Police; Belfast International Airport Police; Lame Harbour Police and Belfast Harbour Police. The Police Ombudsman took up full time designate responsibilities in April 2000 and chaired a Project Implementation Team constituted by the NIO involving the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), Independent Commission for Police Complaints (ICPC), Police Federation, Superintendents’ Association, Senior Police OYcers’ StaV Association, Association of Chief Police OYcers and the Northern Ireland Police Authority. In the short period of time from April to November 2000, its priorities were to acquire and equip suitable premises; procure an IT system and all necessary equipment; recruit and train staV; consider transitional issues; inform the public as to the new powers, responsibilities and functions of the OYce; consult as to the best mechanisms to meet the needs of the public and the police, and agree financial structure. 3. Prior to the establishment of the OYce, public complaints had been investigated by police, supervised in some 10% of cases by the ICPC. The ICPC ceased to exist on 6 November 2000. Commissioners were released from OYce and 14 staV were transferred to the OYce, along with liabilities, assets and a caseload of 2124 cases.

Establishing the Office 4. There was significant pressure to establish the OYce and, on 6 November 2000, the legislation creating the OYce came into eVect creating consequential duties and responsibilities. The OYce’s initial structure was agreed and there was wide-spread advertising for staV recruitment. There was a significant response but, with high standards of specification, it was only possible to appoint 59 staV. 5. The Police Ombudsman considered that it was essential to have policing experience within the OYce from the commencement of its operations, and seven oYcers were seconded to the OYce from the Metropolitan Police Service, including a Commander who was seconded to establish and run the Investigations Directorate. The complement of staV has reached 123 as at 31 December 2003, against an agreed complement of 126. 6. The initial training of staV was developed in conjunction with Mediation Northern Ireland and the Metropolitan Police Service (Hendon), assisted by the RUC and other trainers. Training for staV continues to be regarded as of the utmost importance. The OYce has addressed staV training needs identified in Personal Development Plans, extensive training and development opportunities have been provided. Most recently, in partnership with the University of Portsmouth, the OYce has introduced an Accredited Training Programme for its investigative staV. Ev 2 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

7. The OYce established its working processes over the first months. Processes for financial rectitude were a priority as the integrity of the OYce is of key importance. The Secretary of State’s Guidance to the Police Ombudsman, the Chief Constable and the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB) was not received until May 2001. The OYce prepared a Complaints Manual and an Investigation Manual has also been created. Both documents are subject to regular review to reflect legislative and other developments. During the three years of its existence, the OYce has been the subject of some 15 legislative changes. Best practice guides have been issued to ensure compliance with, and standardisation of, policies and procedures. The Police Ombudsman observes all relevant international principles and standards on policing and human rights. Recently a draft Code of Ethics for the OYce, to augment the existing Code of Conduct has been made available for consultation.

Meeting Public Needs

8. The OYce is situated in Belfast. For security, eYciency and financial reasons it was decided to have only one base. The OYce provides a 24 hour, 365 days a year “on call” investigation and public information facility. The OYce is open during normal working hours and complainants are seen with or without appointment. To facilitate maximum outreach, arrangements were made with a number of organisations, such as the Citizens Advice Bureau, the Chinese Welfare Association and Northern Ireland Women’s Aid Federation for the use of rooms in their premises across Northern Ireland. This meant that staV could meet complainants through a network of locations. These arrangements also provided for the needs of particular vulnerable complainants in places in which they felt safe and in which their special needs could be accommodated. 9. As part of a general programme to raise public awareness and to meet the public need for information, in November 2000 the OYce produced a step-by-step guide to the new police complaints process which was approved by the Plain English Campaign and 50,000 copies were distributed to advice giving agencies across Northern Ireland. Details of the process were also made available for people with disabilities through the web site www.poiliceombudsman.org (which conforms with the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) and were made available on audio tape for people with sight diYculties. The site also carried translations of the complaints process in Mandrin, Irish and Ulster Scots. 10. In an eVort to increase public understanding of the work of the OYce, a synopsis of information entitled “Early Days” was published and distributed widely. In November 2003, a summary of the Second Annual Report was produced in a similar magazine format and distributed as a supplement in Northern Ireland’s evening newspaper, which has a circulation of 110,000. There are also reports available on the web site, of major investigations (pursuant to Section 62 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act), including those into circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Samuel Devenney and of Mr Sean Brown and reports of many Regulation 20 investigations. A total of 67 press releases have been issued since November 2000 as a means of informing the public in an open and transparent manner about various aspects of the role of the OYce. Information about the police complaints process as it relates to local District Council areas, has now been made available on the web site: this initiative attracted more than 5,000 visitors to the site following its launch in January 2004. During 2003, staV gave presentations to 15 of the newly formed District Policing Partnerships. 11. A commitment to dialogue with the community had been informed by key findings from research into public attitudes to the OYce. Between 2002–04 staV have visited more than 70 community groups and organisations. This has involved visits to areas which may be perceived by those living in them as marginalized and on diVerent sides of the political divide, including “Short Strand” and “Tigers Bay” in Belfast and the Creggan and Waterside areas of Londonderry/Derry. Good working relationships have been formed with Governmental and Non-Governmental Organisations, including the Human Rights Commission, NIO Community Safety Unit, Committee for the Administration of Justice and the Pat Finucane Centre. Increasing awareness and understanding among young people is a constant priority. StaV visited 29 schools across the state, maintained and integrated sectors during this period. The OYce has also joined with PSNI in several youth-related projects, including the provision of information about the police complaints process for the “Citizenship and Safety Key Stage Four” textbook. In conjunction with the Children’s Law Centre, a leaflet on “Young People and The Police” has been developed. 12. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) has carried out independent research, measuring the awareness and confidence of the public in this new institution over the three years. Awareness levels are now recorded as being at 86%. Belief in the independence of the OYce is also at 86%. The most recent research demonstrates that 88% of Protestants and 82% of Catholics felt the Police Ombudsman was independent of police. 79% of Catholics and 70% of Protestants were either confident or fairly confident about the impartial nature of the OYce when investigating complaints against police. 85% of Catholics and 73% of Protestants thought that the Police Ombudsman would “help the police do a good job”. 65% of Catholics and 63% of Protestants thought that the complainant and the police oYcer would be treated equally. These figures have continued to rise over the three years from 2000–03. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 3

Complying with Northern Ireland Act 1998 13. The Police Ombudsman’s Equality Scheme under s.75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 received the formal approval of the Equality Commission on 12 February 2003. The ﬁrst progress report was submitted to the Commission in May 2003 and received a very favourable response. An impact assessment on equal opportunity and fairness was carried out under the Act in 2003, and an extremely encouraging response was received from staV. The assessment results indicated that 42% of staV were Protestant, 34% were Catholic, 16% were of no religion and 8% other. The proﬁle of complainants also represents the demographic features of the community in Northern Ireland.

Working with the Police 14. Significant eVort has gone into developing constructive operational arrangements with the PSNI. Over the three years, processes have evolved covering a wide range of issues, all of which have been designed to allow operational eYciency for the PSNI and eVective investigation by the OYce. Special arrangements have been made with the Chief Constable with regard to mandatory referral of deaths which may have resulted from the conduct of a police oYcer, and of other serious matters, in particular the firing of baton rounds, or live fire, and any situation involving a serious allegation of a serious oVence by a police oYcer. 15. The decision of the Chief Constable in April 2001 to introduce the new structure of District Command Units contributed to more focussed working arrangements with police managers at District level. In April 2002 a conference was held by the OYce for Senior OYcers and District Commanders designed to review relationships and identify areas in which further development was required. This was followed by a second event in December 2002, planned and managed jointly with PSNI, at which further issues were addressed in a constructive and productive manner. Over the three years senior staV from the OYce have visited all District Command Units and many stations throughout Northern Ireland. 16. Initial secondary legislation under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 was not passed by Parliament until 23 October 2000. As a consequence of this, when the OYce commenced work on 6 November 2000, the 13,000 oYcers of the RUC had not been informed about the role of the OYce. The RUC instructions for police oYcers about the complaints system were circulated to oYcers seven months after the OYce had begun operations. This created significant diYculties for the operation of the OYce. In the absence of legislation, it had not been possible for the Police Ombudsman to address this issue, although it was seen from a very early date as a source of diYculty. The Police Ombudsman tried to address the problem in a number of ways. In particular, since the Police StaV Associations had all played their part in establishing of the OYce, the Police Ombudsman sought regular meetings with those Associations, to enhance communication and understanding. A guide to the complaints process from the perspective of a police oYcer who may be subject to complaint has also been produced and distributed to more than 9,000 police oYcers. 17. The OYce recognised, from the earliest days, the need to communicate eVectively with PSNI and in particular with Internal Investigations Branch (IIB) of PSNI. To enable better understanding, staV of the OYce have made over 80 presentations to PSNI oYcers, recruits and to other training courses. On the one hand the Police Ombudsman needed to articulate clearly the independence of the OYce; yet on the other hand, close working relationships have been, and remain, vital to the eVective functioning of both organisations. Recently senior police oYcers from England, at the request of the Police Ombudsman and in agreement with the Chief Constable, reviewed lines and structures of communication between PSNI and OYce. 14 recommendations for improvement have been considered, agreed and implemented. 18. The Police Ombudsman has maintained meetings and communication with the Police Federation, Superintendents and Chief OYcer Associations. Among junior ranks however, the level of knowledge and understanding of the role of the Police Ombudsman is still not as extensive as it should be. The Police Ombudsman decided one year ago to commission a survey of all 9,000 police oYcers, ascertaining their views and attitudes to the new complaints system. The results have now been discussed with the various Associations and a summary made public. These indicated that more needs to be done to strengthen police oYcers’ awareness and confidence in the OYce. The StaV Associations and the OYce have agreed to work together to address the issues raised by the results of the survey. The PSNI is also committed to enhancing oYcers’ understanding of the complaints system.

Working with the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB) 19. The NIPB was established on 4 November 2002. The OYce has had infrequent contact with the NIPB, but has asked for a regular and frequent dialogue on issues of mutual interest in relation to complaints, conduct and policy and practice issues in order to improve the eVectiveness of both organisations. On two occasions the Police Ombudsman has been permitted to address the full Board. There is a six monthly sharing of information and reports but this could be improved. Documents 8 and 9 illustrate the range of information shared with NIPB. Ev 4 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

Working within the Criminal Justice System 20. The OYce has forged working relationships with the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Forensic Science Agency, Her Majesty’s Coroners, the Criminal Justice Inspector, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary, the Health and Safety Executive, the Surveillance Commissioner, the Justice Oversight Commissioner, the Social Services Boards and Trusts and more recently with the Commissioner for Children and Young People. This has ensured that obligations are complied with whilst preserving the independence of the OYce in its interactions with these agencies. In addition, the OYce has provided training for a number of these bodies. The OYce has worked in close co-operation with the Patten Oversight Commissioner in ensuring that operational, accountability and governance mechanisms for policing in Northern Ireland were strengthened, as required by Patten. The Reports of the Commissioner acknowledged and commended the OYce for the contribution made in this central area of policing oversight.

Accountability 21. The OYce is subject to a wide range of reporting, review and accountability mechanisms. These include accountability through the following mechanisms: the OYce has responded to 47 Parliamentary Questions in two years; inspection by the Criminal Justice Inspector and the Surveillance Commissioner; audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General; Judicial Review; and investigation by the Commissioner for Children and Young People. Appendix 11 contains a summary of the various mechanisms. The OYce has adopted a Satisfaction Policy, Procedure and Register for acknowledging and responding to complaints and criticisms of staV. The Information Commissioner has approved the OYce’s Publication Scheme and oversees the OYce’s adherence to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. 22. The OYce published a 12-month Corporate Statement and Business Plan for its activity in 2001–02. An Annual Business Plan, 2002–03, and Corporate Plan for 2002–05 was also produced. The NIO stipulated that the ﬁrst Annual Report should cover the 17-month period to the end of March 2002. This Report indicated the OYce had been established and had managed to deal with the initial volume of new complaints. The Report outlines signiﬁcant achievement with objectives and targets being met despite the staV resource not being up to full complement. The most recent Annual Report, 2002–03 outlined that most of the 2,142 residual cases from the ICPC had been dealt with, the initial backlog in new cases was beginning to reduce and the pattern of closures in complaints and investigations was consolidating.

Litigation 23. In the ﬁrst three years the Police Ombudsman has been subject to 20 Judicial Reviews. These have involved the public, the police and interest groups testing the new law and have covered a wide spectrum of issues: to date the Police Ombudsman has not been found by the Court to have made an unlawful decision. There has also been one set of civil actions heard in which the Court found in favour of the Police Ombudsman with costs awarded. Two further sets of civil actions have yet to be adjudicated upon by Court. There have been 13 industrial tribunal applications to date. Nine were dismissed, one was settled without admission of liability and three are ongoing. Appendix 13

Recent Developments 24. The Project Implementation Team which established the OYce, procured a Case Management System which has since proved inadequate. The system has no integrated investigatory process and it cannot track external interaction with the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to criminal case referrals, or with the PSNI in relation to conduct referrals. Work has been carried out to improve the system. However it provides no long term functionality; it is ineYcient because of the excessive administrative support required; it utilises valuable investigation time ineYciently and it does not provide eVective reporting or performance assessment mechanisms. The OYce prepared and has submitted a business case to the Nb, requesting funding for a new Case Handling System. 25. The new power to investigate Policy and Practice matters has now been used by the Police Ombudsman. A Director of Policy and Practice has been appointed and a realignment of the Research and Professional Standards functions will underpin the development of this key responsibility. A framework is being developed whereby policy and practice complaints against police can be identiﬁed and actioned. The OYce also needs to be resourced for this new power. In January 2004 the OYce was also included in Part 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and policies and processes have had to be developed to meet the requirements of that Act. 26. Further legislative change has conferred a duty to undertake the investigation of complaints in relation to police support staV and Garda Siochana seconded oYcers. A new duty is to be placed on the Director of Public Prosecutions to refer relevant matters to the Police Ombudsman for investigation. It is anticipated that these developments will have signiﬁcant resource implications. The Police Ombudsman is also in consultation with the NIO to secure changes in the law in respect of mediation powers. Mediation and Informal Resolution should be used, where appropriate, to resolve matters without the need for formal Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 5

investigation. The current law in relation to mediation powers are regarded as unworkable as they only permit mediation following full formal investigation. Such changes would then provide eYciencies, in terms of time taken to process; meet public expectations; reduce stress on oYcers; and in so doing, secure greater support for the complaints system. The PSNI and police staV associations support this change in legislation. 27. Increasingly over the past three years, the OYce has attracted international interest and attention. Between 2001–03 the OYce played host to 23 groups of international visitors and delegations, many of whom are seeking to improve their own system of police accountability. Members of staV have spoken at major international forums on police accountability including the “Second Global Forum against Corruption” in the Hague; the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight Law Enforcement; and America’s National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement. Most recently the Police Ombudsman addressed the African Police Accountability Conference in South Africa. The Governments of Brazil, Portugal, Macedonia and Argentina have also asked for advice and assistance on relevant matters through the Foreign OYce/British Council. 28. Within the United Kingdom, the OYce has been closely involved in assisting the development of the new Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) for England and Wales, which will become operational in April 2004. At the invitation of the Home OYce, the Police Ombudsman and her staV have made a signiﬁcant contribution to the IPCC. The OYce has been consulted in relation to possible changes to the police complaints system in Scotland. There have also been contacts from the Republic of Ireland, where it is proposed to introduce a similar system. In November 2003, more than 300 delegates from 20 countries visited Belfast to attend a conference on “Policing the Police” organised by the OYce and the event was regarded by those who attended as a huge success.

PERFORMANCE OF THE OFFICE IN RESPECT OF ITS PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES

Establishing an Efficient,Effective and Independent Complaints System The processes involved in establishing an eYcient, eVective and independent complaints system have been dealt with in Paragraphs 1 to 28. What follows includes detailed information of the activities of the OYce consistent with the terms of reference of the Committee. 29. On 6 November 2000 the Police Ombudsman took responsibility from the ICPC for 2,124 “active” case files. With the exception of 29 case files, these files have now been processed and closed. During 2001–03 the OYce recorded 9,885 complaints. The number of complaints recorded by the OYce, however, has shown a downward trend over the past three years: 3,590 in 2001; 3,340 in 2002; and 2,954 in 2003. In addition, during this period there has been one NIPB referral, 115 Chief Constable referrals, and 10 Police Ombudsman initiated investigations under Section 55 of the Act. 30. In addition to complaints received, during the first three years of operation, the Police Ombudsman opened a total of 2,425 files in respect of miscellaneous matters, including, discovery requests in civil claims, Compensation Agency cases and other queries. This service given by the OYce is a significant activity and is resource intensive. It is necessary to retain such information so that, where appropriate, there can be sharing or substantiation of information and evidence. There is also a significant demand placed on the OYce as a consequence of members of the public making general enquiries regarding issues related to policing, many of which do not come under the remit of the OYce. In all cases however, staV seek to be helpful and to refer the individual to the appropriate agency or source of information. 31. OYce internal performance indicators show that members of the public calling at the premises are, on average, interviewed by staV within four minutes of their arrival; 96% of complaints are acknowledged and actioned within three working days; 77% of complainants are contacted by an Investigating OYcer within three working days of complaints being referred for investigation. As a measure of eYciency and eVectiveness, the OYce points to the number of complaints processed; the reduction in the time taken to deal with complaints from 142 days in 2002–03 to the current figure of 99 days; the development of improved systems of investigation; and the recommendations made derived from the OYce’s investigations. Additionally, the inhouse capacity provided by the OYce’s internal Research Department, Legal Department and Library and Media Department have enhanced economy, eYciency and eVectiveness in service delivery. 32. There have been positive changes represented not only by the reduction in the volume of complaints, but also by a change in the seriousness of the nature of allegations made about policing conduct, for example, by the reduction from 50% to 37% of allegations relating to oppressive behaviour (assault, harassment and intimidation) and a reduction on the use of force allegations from 50%, to 34%. The reduction in allegations of misuse of batons is significant: 419 in 2001, 240 in 2002, 48 in 2003. There is a reduction in the number of occasions on which live fire has been used by police oYcers in Northern Ireland: 21 in 2001, 11 in 2002, 5 in 2003. The number of complaints about other use of firearms (such as assault by firearm) has reduced from 40 in 2001, to 25 in 2002, and to 12 in 2003. These reductions have been achieved through working with the PSNI on identifying problems during investigation and making specific recommendations for improvement. There has been no evidence of a corresponding increase in injuries Ev 6 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

caused to police oYcers and no corresponding increase in the use of ﬁrearms by criminals against the police during this period. Combined with the overall drop in the volume of complaints, this constitutes a major shift in the pattern and nature of complaints. 33. In general, investigations are conducted entirely independent of PSNI, however there are circumstances in which both organisations must work together or in parallel. By way of example, a recent police car pursuit of a vehicle resulted in a fatal accident between the vehicle being pursued, and another vehicle in which three innocent people were killed, the OYce had to investigate whether the police had contributed to the fatal road traYc accident, and the police had to investigate causing death by dangerous driving. A joint forensic strategy is formulated in such cases, and the results of the forensic recovery are shared as necessary. In a protocol with the PSNI it has been agreed that the agency investigating the most serious allegation takes investigative precedence. This protocol has been invoked regularly and has worked eVectively. Investigators of the OYce also work very closely with IIB, PSNI. Regular meetings at various levels are held and IIB support the OYce operationally where necessary. The working relationship is regarded by both organisations as excellent. 34. The independence of the OYce has been demonstrated consistently since its commencement. The OYce’s budget is not part of the PSNI budget. StaV are recruited, employed and managed solely by the OYce. Investigations are evidence-driven and the Police Ombudsman has reported the evidence which has emerged from each investigation, as appropriate. The Police Ombudsman is demonstrably apolitical. Public belief in the independence of the OYce has been recorded at 86% for the past two years. 35. The OYce has developed a programme of quality assurance in respect of the work of the Investigation Directorate. Quality assurance exercises undertaken include inspections of closure categories; appropriateness of Informal Resolution referrals; accuracy of data input; capture of relevant misconduct issues; and forwarding appropriate memoranda following investigations. There are 10 quality assurance exercises planned for 2004–05.

Receiving Complaints and Other Referred Matters and Deciding How to Deal with Them 36. Members of the public can make a complaint in writing, fax, email or by telephoning the OYce. They can call at the OYce with or without an appointment or they can make a complaint through their local police station. They may also contact the OYce through their solicitor or other representative. During 2001, 34% of complaints were made directly to the OYce. By 2003 this percentage had risen to 48%. 40% are made via the police and public representatives, and solicitors account for the remainder. 37. Once a complaint has been registered and the nature of the allegation has been established, it either becomes the subject of further enquiries by the complaints oYcers, or is referred for formal investigation. StaV seek more information, where necessary, about the complaint, and conﬁrm whether it is within the remit of the OYce. Following the initial registration of the complaint, there are on occasion non co-operation or lack of instruction given by the complainant. This is something which has always been a feature of police complaints systems. Eventually such complaints must be closed. In appropriate circumstances every eVort is made to informally resolve complaints without formal investigation. See paragraph 45. 38. Complaints indicating a speciﬁc allegation requiring investigation against a police oYcer, are referred to one of three investigation teams. Some complaints can be closed following initial investigation. The outcome will then be communicated to the complainant and any relevant police oYcer. Other complaints involving criminal or misconduct allegations are fully investigated with appropriate referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions for direction, and/or to the Chief Constable. 39. There is a process within the OYce to facilitate the investigation of complaints requiring immediate action. There is a dedicated phone number for emergency use by PSNI. In serious cases or in situations where the Chief Constable has “called in” the Police Ombudsman, including during the night, a Senior Investigating OYcer with necessary support will deal immediately with the incident. StaV may be called out to scenes of incidents 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Investigators attend scenes within 90 minutes for Greater Belfast and within 180 minutes for the rest of the province. There is also a system to prioritise and fast track other urgent complaints.

Investigating Complaints and Keeping Complainants and Police Officers Informed as to Progress 40. Allegations requiring investigation range from incivility to collusion or involvement in murder. This presents a signiﬁcant challenge to a relatively small oYce. Some of the investigations are extremely complex. A fatal shooting by the police last year illustrates the demands that can be placed on the OYce. The complexity of the situation led to 38 staV being recalled to duty that evening. Considerable resources were required for an extended period to investigate the incident. Another example is a current sensitive enquiry commenced by this OYce in June last year which is employing 19 full-time investigative and three support staV. It is likely that the investigation will not conclude for another 12 months. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 7

41. Whilst the legislation provides a general time limit of 12 months within which a complaint must normally be made, Regulation 6 of the RUC (Complaints etc) Regulations 2001) provides “exceptions for certain complaints”. This gives the Police Ombudsman wide “retrospective powers” in three categories of circumstances, two categories of which demand, by law, mandatory investigation. This means that in such cases, the Police Ombudsman must investigate, irrespective of when the incident occurred if the tests set out are satisfied. There are inherent evidential diYculties in investigating an incident years later. The OYce has received many of these “retrospective” allegations. The vast majority are deemed out of remit for a variety of reasons, or are resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction after preliminary enquiries. However, others, as required by law, do require investigation, and are retained and prioritised to be dealt with as resources permit. Currently 15 such cases are pending. These enquiries tend to be resource intensive and time consuming, made all the more diYcult by the passage of time. 42. All Investigators in the OYce have the powers of a Constable for carrying out investigations. Powers of arrest are used sparingly, with the overwhelming majority of investigations being completed with cooperation of police oYcers and others involved. Only on three occasions have arrests been executed without prior notice. On other occasions, a total of 13 further oYcers have been arrested “by appointment” as they had refused to cooperate by voluntarily attending a “criminal” (PACE) interview. Whilst the powers are infrequently used, they are essential to ensure confidence in eVectiveness of investigations. Provisions contained in the Police (NI) Act 2000 and Regulations ensure that Investigators can access material required for investigations, from PSNI. Some of the material required is extremely sensitive and secure arrangements have been made to ensure its safe handling within the OYce. The Security and Law Enforcement Community have expressed confidence in the way sensitive information has been handled by the OYce. Co-operation from PSNI is generally excellent, with it having been noted that oYcers are being more prepared, as time has gone by, to provide evidence against colleagues who have acted inappropriately. This is a healthy sign and an indication of confidence in the Police Ombudsman’s investigative processes. 43. Investigations are conducted thoroughly in accordance with the law to ensure an eVective “search for the truth”. The final recommendations for criminal or misconduct proceedings are also evidence-based. Investigation processes are based on best practice, and the use of relevant forensic, medical, technological and other expertise. Apart from the misconduct of oYcers, all investigations review whether any policy, practice or training issues were a factor in the incident. This has led to numerous recommendations to the PSNI, something welcomed by the Chief Constable. An example would be training, policy and practice deficiencies in the police use of force generally, and particularly firearms and batons. A series of recommendations have been instrumental in the reduction of complaints stemming from the use of force. Poor practice in compliance with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, was recently identified and is being corrected following recommendations to the Chief Constable. There are other examples of recommendations leading to improvements, including first aid training of Custody OYcers, safety features of custody suites and displaying of oYcer numerals on uniform. 44. Complainants and oYcers are kept updated regularly about the progress of the investigation. The OYce has established a challenging target, which requires it to update both complainants and oYcers every six weeks. When the OYce was first established, the decision was taken, based on the professional understanding of police oYcers, to update police oYcers on the occurrence of a significant event in the investigation. Following concerns articulated by oYcers, the OYce amended its policy to provide regular six week updates to oYcers. The procedure for updating complainants and police oYcers will be facilitated by the introduction of the new Case Handling System. Inevitably periods of time elapse when, for example, the OYce awaits documentation from PSNI; interviews with oYcers; forensic science or other expert report and directions from the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Seeking when Appropriate to have Complaints Resolved through Informal Resolution

45. Informal Resolution provides an opportunity, in those matters which are considered less serious, for police to arrange for a senior oYcer to speak to the complainant and to the police oYcer separately, in an eVort to resolve the matter informally. This process can only occur with the consent of the complainant. Initially it was found that the concept of Informal Resolution was a diYcult one to explain to complainants. It was understandable that a complainant, and indeed a police oYcer, considered that if the OYce was independent then the police should not be directly involved in trying to resolve the matter. The initial development of the Informal Resolution process was slow and diYcult. 46. A member of staV was appointed with speciﬁc responsibilities for the Informal Resolution process. This has proved to be a valuable initiative. The process has been speeded up considerably as a consequence of this appointment. Additionally, the ability to resolve complaints informally has begun to improve. Initially 40% of complaints referred for Informal Resolution were resolved. More recently the percentage of suitable complaints informally resolved has risen to 72%. Apologies from the oYcer; apologies on behalf of PSNI; advice given to police oYcers; explanations or expressions of regret oVered have all resulted from the Informal Resolution process. Ev 8 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

Notifying the Secretary of State,Policing Board and the Chief Constable of the Outcome of Complaints

47. Under Section 55 of the Police (NI) Act 1998 the Chief Constable, NIPB and Secretary of State can refer matters, believed by them to be in the public interest, for investigation. The Section also provides a provision for the Police Ombudsman to call matters in for investigation without complaint. At the conclusion of each Section 55 investigation, a report is sent, pursuant to Regulation 20 of the Police (Complaints)(RegulatiOns) 2000, to the Chief Constable, the Secretary of State, and NIPB. Such enquiries often involve the investigation of an incident (rather than an individual oYcer), although misconduct, criminal or disciplinary, of an oYcer can be identified and separately reported as a result of such an investigation. 48. The Police Ombudsman has received 126 such referrals. In those cases which have been concluded, a report under Regulation 20 has been submitted to the Secretary of State, NIPB and the Chief Constable. For example during the current year, of the 19 reports submitted, 52 recommendations for improvements in policing have been made. Some investigation reports are, of necessity, critical of individual police oYcers, whether retired or serving. In cases where public statements are being made about oYcers a protocol applies. That protocol between Police StaV Associations, PSNI and the Police Ombudsman defines the process by which such individuals may comment on the draft text. Those comments are taken into account in formulating a final report. Individuals have not been named in such reports.

Making Recommendations Where Appropriate to the DPP for Criminal Action

49. The law requires that when an investigation is concluded, and the Police Ombudsman believes that a criminal oVence may have been committed by a member of the police force, the investigation ﬁle must be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions with appropriate recommendations. The Director of Public Prosecutions then decides whether to prosecute the police oYcer. Statistics for the ﬁrst three years reveal that: — 374 cases of complaint have been referred to the DPP for direction. — In 346 cases the Police Ombudsman recommended no charges against oYcers. — 40 criminal charges have been recommended by the Police Ombudsman in respect of 28 investigations. — To date the DPP directed 19 criminal charges. Directions are awaited in other cases. — In three cases where Police Ombudsman did not recommend prosecution, DPP directed charges. —10oYcers have been found not guilty, one oYcer subject of a police caution and two oYcers subject of criminal conviction.

Making Recommendations where Appropriate to the Chief Constable or the Policing Board for Disciplinary Action

50. If an investigation by the OYce demonstrates that a police oYcer has acted improperly, the Police Ombudsman may recommend that the Chief Constable should bring disciplinary proceedings against the oYcer involved. If the Police Ombudsman believes there are mitigating circumstances, she may recommend informal proceedings. Formal disciplinary sanctions range from dismissal to a reprimand. Informal sanctions include “Advice and Guidance”. — In 21 cases of complaint, tribunal hearings of formal misconduct charges were recommended by the Police Ombudsman against 21 police oYcers. — In two of these cases, representing six charges against two oYcers, guilty pleas were entered. — In one case, the oYcer concerned was found guilty and in four cases the charges were not proceeded. — In ﬁve cases the charges were not proceeded with. — In 13 cases, disciplinary proceedings have been recommended and remain ongoing. — In 10 cases, the Superintendent warnings were given to police oYcers as a result of Police Ombudsman recommendations. — In 61 cases, the Police Ombudsman recommended Advice and Guidance in respect of 83 oYcers. — In 21 cases, the Police Ombudsman made recommendations in respect of police procedures or for oYcers to receive a management discussion. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 9

Reporting Annually to the Secretary of State (SOS) 51. The NIO stipulated that the first Annual Report for the OYce covered the period 6 November 2000 to 31 March 2002. The second Report covered the normal financial cycle, 2002–03. The next Report is due at the end of March 2004. Annual Reports are provided to the Secretary of State at the end of June or beginning of July in time for the close of Parliamentary Session in July. A Statement of Accounts, (unaudited), is included with the Annual Report and once it has been audited by the Northern Ireland Audit OYce, on behalf of the National Audit OYce, a final Statement is provided to Parliament through the OYce of the Secretary of State. The reporting mechanism to the Secretary of State is supported by a three monthly progress meeting with the Head of the Policing Division in the Nb, through which the Permanent Secretary as NIO Accounting OYcer is kept informed of the progress and achievement of the work of the OYce in line with stated objectives and business plans.

Carrying Out Inquiries as Directed by the Secretary of State or as Requested by the Policing Board 52. The Secretary of State has not exercised his power to request the Police Ombudsman to report under Section 61(1) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, nor have NIPB exercised their power to request the Police Ombudsman to conduct an enquiry under Section 60 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.

Reporting on Practice and Policy Matters to be Drawn to the Attention of the Chief Constable and the Policing Board 53. The Police Ombudsman is required to notify the SOS, Chief Constable and NIPB of any intention to conduct an investigation into any current practice or policy and to notify the outcome of such investigations to the NIPB and Chief Constable by virtue of Section 60A Police (NI) Act 1998 (as amended by Section 13 Police (NI) Act 2003). The legislation is quite recent and to date only one such investigation has been conducted. This is an investigation instigated after several complaints were received concerning oYcers not displaying numerals on uniform at public order incidents. Policies and procedures have been put in place to facilitate future investigations, although additional resources to meet this commitment have, to date, not been provided.

Providing Statistical Information to the Policing Board and to the Police Service 54. The OYce has a statutory obligation to compile statistical information on trends and patterns in complaints against the police, and to supply this to the PSNI and the NIPB. Protocols have been agreed with PSNI on the nature of the statistical information to be supplied and the frequency of its delivery. Similar arrangements have been concluded with the NIPB. Data on incoming complaints are now supplied, on disc, to the PSNI on a monthly basis so that District Commanders can access this information at a local level and this information enables them to carry out their own analysis of the data. A report summarising this information is also supplied in hard copy form to: PSNI Senior OYcer ranks; bIB; Central Statistics Unit; and NIPB Statistics and Research Branch. The report includes summary information on volume of complaints, trends and patterns in complaints and on complaint outcomes. 55. Signiﬁcantly, a protocol has been agreed with the PSNI for the supply to the PSNI of information on multiple complaints recorded against individual oYcers as recommended by the Patten Commission. District Commanders and IIB are able to use this information to identify potential matters of concern and help them identify how to deal with them. The agreements with PSNI and NIPB are kept under continual review to monitor the eVectiveness, relevancy and adequacy of the data supplied. At the moment all parties are broadly content with the systems currently in place.

Carrying Out Research to Inform and Improve Policing Policy and Practice 56. The OYce is committed to carrying out research and consultation in order to improve the quality and eVectiveness of the police complaints system; to inform the public about its powers of independent investigation; and to contribute to the improvement of policing in Northern Ireland. The following research reports have been produced: 57. Public and Police Attitude Surveys—The OYce has commissioned a series of questions in the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) Omnibus Survey on ﬁve occasions since October 2000. Findings from all these surveys are published, and have shown a considerable growth in public awareness of, and conﬁdence in, the OYce. The information obtained helps target outreach activities towards groups within the community in which awareness levels are lowest. In a project designed to assess police attitudes towards the OYce, survey questionnaires were distributed to all members (9,900) of PSNI in January 2003. The responses recorded on the completed questionnaires were collated and the data analysed Ev 10 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

independently by NISRA. A summary report of the findings has been produced whilst some issues have already been addressed. A Joint Working Committee of PSNI, the Police StaV Associations and the Police Ombudsman is to be set up in order to address other issues coming from the study. 58. Study of Attitudes of Young People to the Police—This project was carried out by the Institute for Conflict Research, jointly funded by the OYce and the NIPB. Over 1,100 young people were interviewed and 31 focus groups of young people were convened during the course of the study—making it the most extensive and authoritative study of its kind—as well as the first to explore the attitudes of young people to the reformed policing arrangements in Northern Ireland. A full report of the work was published independently by the Institute for Conflict Research in April 2003. 59. Study of the treatment of solicitors and barristers by the police—Following reports of intimidation, harassment and/or threats made towards solicitors and barristers by police oYcers, the Police Ombudsman initiated a research study of the treatment of solicitors and barristers by the police. This project was supported by both the Law Society for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Bar Council. The research found that 55 solicitors and barristers had experienced intimidation, harassment or threats from the police. A full Report was published in March 2003 detailing the findings of this research. 60. Use of batons by the PSNI—A study of complaints involving baton use by the police was conducted. It looked at the number and nature of these complaints and the circumstances in which they arose, and then compared the frequency of these complaints in Northern Ireland with figures for other police forces in England and Wales. Multiple recommendations for change in policy and practice emerged from this Report. 61. Baton Round use by the PSNI—A Report published in May 2002 summarised the Regulation 20 Reports provided to the Secretary of State, the PBNI and the Chief Constable concerning the discharge of baton rounds by police oYcers during 2001 and 2002. In all the incidents examined, the Police Ombudsman concluded that the discharge of the baton rounds was fully justified and proportionate, as were the authorisation and directions given. However, a number of recommendations were made about police policy and practice. 62. Research Branch is currently engaged in a number of other research projects. For example, staV are carrying out a study of the eVectiveness of the Informal Resolution system as a means of dealing with complaints against the police, from the viewpoints of both the complainant and of the police oYcers involved.

The Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Administration and Expenditure of the Office,Including its Performance Against Key Indicators and Targets 63. A Management Statement was established between NIO and the OYce setting out the relationship between the NIO and the OYce of the Police Ombudsman. It includes details of the responsibility and accountability of: — The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. — The Departmental Accounting OYcer. — The Department (NIO). — The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. — The Chief Executive of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. — The Director of Finance/Administration. 64. Within the context of the Management Statement, quarterly reports are provided to the Permanent Under Secretary of the Northern Ireland OYce by the Chief Executive through the Head of Police Division for the N10. The progress report covers financial review against budget, complaints statistics, levels of staYng and appointment processes, and a report on the performance of the OYce. These meetings are the main mechanism which exists for communicating the ongoing activities of the OYce to the NIO and for advising on financial pressures and easements. There have been a number of meetings with the Secretary of State and Minister of State for Policing and Security. 65. The complement of staYng at RUC Complaints and Discipline Dept in 2000 was 110 complaints and investigative staV (including administrative support), compared with the current complement of 89 complaints and investigation staV (including administrative support) here in the OYce. During 2000 the combined budget of RUC Complaints and Discipline Dept and the ICPC was approx £6.0 million. However this did not include the use of RUC Legal Services, statisticians and other resources, nor the costs of the investigation of serious cases which were referred to CID oYcers for investigation. Outside forces were also occasionally brought in where independence was necessary. Cash expenditure of this OYce in this current cycle, will be £6.5 million. Allowing for three years inflation, the cost of the old system would exceed current costs of this OYce per annum. 66. Since the OYce was established in November 2000, it has been working towards establishing a full complement of staV. At the date on which the OYce was established there were 59 staV in post. The staV complement has been built up over the past three years to 123 staV in post at 31 December 2003 against a total complement of 126. At this stage the establishment of staYng within the OYce has reached a stable Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 11

basis and it is unlikely that there will be any further significant recruitment needed. The OYce is committed to providing a positive environment both for staV and visitors. Regular health and safety and risk assessments are carried out. Arrangements have been put in place with an occupational health services provider and with a welfare services provider in order to provide support to staV.TheOYce has absence rates which compare very favourably with other public sector organisations. 3.9% to 31 March 2003 as compared to 7.0% for the Northern Ireland Civil Service. 67. Since the establishment of the OYce it has been accepted that there was a requirement to ensure that there was a suYcient level of investigative expertise: experienced police oYcers were seconded initially from the Metropolitan Police Service and later also from other forces in England and Wales. The total number of seconded oYcers has now begun to fall as the skills and experience of directly recruited staV have increased. This has resulted in a decline in numbers of seconded oYcers from 21 in March 2002 to 17 in December 2003. The expertise of seconded police oYcers will be required for a considerable time. It is, nevertheless, a stated aim of the OYce that the number of seconded oYcers will continue to decrease over time. 68. The 2003–04 cash budget for the OYce is £7,370k. The budget for 2002–03 was £6,838k and for 2001–02 was £5,815k. The 2003–04 budget includes £6,925 from the original 5R2002 baseline figure and additional amounts of £195k carried forwards through end year flexibility and £250k which was allocated as an additional resource subsequent to a bid for additional resource by the OYce in relation to a number of resource intensive investigations. To date the OYce has remained within its Grant in Aid allocation and it is anticipated that the cash expenditure to March 2004 will be within the original budget baseline. Salaries constitute the largest portion of the costs of the OYce. Salaries and wages expenditure as a proportion of expenditure on non-capital items has continued to increase from 60.3% 2000–02, to 62.9% 2002–03, to 64.8% in the period to 31 December 2003. 69. In the first 17 month period of account of the OYce, an amount of £1,839,369 was received as Grant in Aid to fund capital assets including setting up the OYce and acquiring equipment, fittings, IT and security infrastructure. Reference was made in paragraph 24 to the lack of functionality of the current Case Management System. The OYce has identified a need for a new Case Handling System. The cost of such a CHS are likely to be in the order of £1m with annual recurrent costs in excess of £l00k. It is anticipated that the CHS should produce long-term eYciencies. The ability to implement this CHS is contingent upon resources being identified by N10. 70. The OYce has within its statutory remit, the requirement to investigate historic matters. These investigations by their nature tend to be resource intensive. The obligation to comply with the requirements of Article 2 of the ECHR (promptness, eVectiveness and independent investigation) prompted a request to the Secretary of State for additional funding. The Police Ombudsman was advised that additional funding was to be made available in December 2003. However as this was towards the end of the financial cycle it was impracticable to ensure the proper expenditure of these resources within this financial year. In this context, the OYce has asked NIO to consider a request to carry over the £250k additional funding in addition to £195k which was carried over within the management statement allowance at the end of 2002–03. 71. An Audit Committee has been established which comprises representatives from the OYce, N10, internal auditor, and external auditor. It is planned that a nonexecutive independent member of the Audit Committee will be appointed by the start of the new financial year. The terms of reference of the Audit Committee are drawn from the “Guidance of the Codes of Practice for Board members of Public Bodies” which was issued by the Cabinet OYce. The Audit Committee meets not less than three times per year. In the financial year 2003–04 the Audit Committee has met four times. The Audit Committee receives the audit plan and considers the adequacy of the coverage of such plans and also receives all audit reports and recommendations from both internal and external auditors. The Comptroller and Auditor General is responsible for the external audit of the OYce. There have been two external audits since the OYce was established, the first covering the 17-month period to 31 March 2002, and the second the year to 31 March 2003. Both audits provided an unqualified report from the Comptroller and Auditor General. 72. The internal audit function of the OYce is provided by the Southern Internal Audit Services. The work of the internal auditor is planned on a three-year basis to cover the key functions of the work of the OYce. The planning of the audit programme is informed by risk assessment of the OYce, and is approved through the Audit Committee. Internal Audit reports received have been positive and no matters were raised which were unduly critical. All matters raised have been addressed. As part of the evidence to support the Statement on Internal Control and in line with best practice, the OYce has established a process of Risk Management which is based on the assessment of the probability and impact of identified risk across all functions of the OYce. This process aims to identify the critical risks to the OYce; the controls which are already in place to mitigate these risks; and to identify residual risks which in turn inform the necessary actions which require to be addressed. The Corporate Risk Register is also used in the Corporate Planning process to ensure that appropriate objectives and targets are established to address all key risks. 73. The OYce has adopted the performance management process used by N10, which links individual objectives to those of the organisation. An integral part of this process is personal development planning (PDP) which ensures that staV are trained and developed to enable them to achieve their agreed objectives. The OYce provides training through the compilation of a training need assessment which is drawn primarily from the PDPs. Emerging training needs, as a result of changes in legislation etc, are addressed on a Ev 12 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

continual basis. With the introduction of the Accredited Training Programme the OYce has demonstrated a signiﬁcant investment in the development of directly recruited investigative staV to a nationally recognised standard.

Summary 74. It has been a diYcult challenge establishing such a new system in the ﬁeld of police complaints particularly here in Northern Ireland. The information in this submission argues that the challenge is being met and the role of the Police Ombudsman is well established, and operating independently, impartially and eVectively as intended in legislation. 75. The Police Ombudsman has attempted to establish a body of staV with experience and competence which strives for excellence, meeting the needs and expectations of the public, but at all times sensitive to the needs and expectations of police oYcers. 76. The level of activity of the OYce has been intense, the output in completed complaints very high and the performance of staV now being consolidated and improving continuously. 77. The impact of the new system and the outcomes of investigations are contributing to the improvement of policing policy and practice. This submission argues that the OYce has contributed to the strengthening of policing performance, accountability and governance within Northern Ireland. 78. Government, through the NIO, has supported the establishment of the OYce in resources and in capital investment. The OYce has maintained its business within the agreed revenue and grant aid. The operating costs of the OYce stand comparison to the previous system and to internal complaints systems in other Police Services. 79. With a stable pattern in the volume of complaints, managers have been able to prioritise and redirect resource to the complex and serious investigations being handled by the OYce. The nature of some allegations, however, are so resource intensive, it is not possible for the OYce to progress all such matters awaiting attention. Currently 15 “historic” matters are awaiting attention and this is a concern. 80. The OYce must also now meet new challenges and duties brought to it through legislation in terms of developing a capacity to investigate policy and practice, to take on complaints which may be made against support staV and to develop a mediation mechanism which would add value to eVective resolution of complaints. 81. One disappointing aspect in the initial planning and development of the OYce was the commissioning of a Case Management System which has proved to be inadequate and blocks eYciency being achieved in the use of valuable investigation and support time. The investment in a new system would be considerable, yet in the long term would provide for a better function and eYciency. 82. The extensive powers, duties and responsibilities of police oYcers are unique within the public service: the system and powers which are required to handle complaints and investigate allegations about police conduct must be equally extensive. The OYce has attempted to exercise these powers with rigor and fairness in all cases. 17 March 2004

Supplementary memorandum submitted by the OYce of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Survey

Has the OYce plans to conduct a follow-up survey of police oYcers’ attitudes to the OYce of the Police Ombudsman and the new complaints system conducted in 2003 (Annual Report April 2003–March 2004, page 38)? If so, to what timescale? As you are aware a Joint Working Committee consisting of PSNI, the Police StaV Associations and the Police Ombudsman has been established for the purpose of addressing issues arising from the Police Attitudes Survey. There will be consultation by the Police Ombudsman through the Joint Committee in relation to the timing of a second Police Attitudes Survey. The expectation is that a second survey will be conducted but no date has been ﬁxed yet. The Committee is also actively looking at how communication between police oYcers and the OYce of the Police Ombudsman can be improved and already a series of activities has been agreed. To update the Committee a note of those activities follows: Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 13

Special Events The Police Ombudsman will speak, by invitation, to the Police Federation AGM on September 16. A “Lets Talk”/“Question Time” format for police oYcers with an independent chairman is being planned for the Autumn.

Training — The Police Ombudsman participates in Probationer Training and will continue to do so, meeting each intake of student oYcers. — Police Ombudsman involvement in in-service training continues such as Use of Force Training, Senior Investigating OYcer Training, Firearms Training, CS Spray Trainer Training. — Police Ombudsman staV also participate in Police Federation Northern Ireland “Friends” training. — Occasional inputs are made to District Command Training Days. — PSNI in-service training is organised by regional groupings of District Command Units. The Police Ombudsman is currently committed to provide each regional grouping with 25 one hour sessions. — The Police Ombudsman belongs to the PSNI Learning and Advisory Council with the aim of becoming involved in a wider range of PSNI training events. The Police Ombudsman is also represented on the Implementation Board for the new PSNI Training College.

Media Contact has been made with PSNI with a view to putting specimen Police Ombudsman case closures reports on the PSNI Intranet site. These reports would have a format similar to those on the OPONI web site but would be written to include matters which are of particular interest to police oYcers. The OYce has been working with PSNI in an attempt to provide its staV with an electronic version of Force Orders. We are costing the process of extracting Force Orders in the form they appear on Policenet and providing them to OYce staV.

Media: Press releases The OYce is arranging for Press Releases to be sent to District Commanders in the same way in which they are currently sent to PSNI, Internal Investigations Branch and the PSNI Press OYce.

Prosecutions

Your submission (para 49, page 12) shows that in the past three years, of the 40 recommendations for criminal charges you have made to the DPP, to date 19 were the subject of a criminal direction. Is it of concern to you that in the majority of cases the DPP did not proceed as you recommended? Do you discuss with the DPP about why approximately 50% of recommendations are not accepted, and the reasons for his decision not to proceed? In all cases where allegations of a criminal nature are investigated by the Ombudsman’s OYce, and investigation establishes that an oVence may have been committed, a report is compiled and forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who decides whether there should be a prosecution. The Police Ombudsman makes recommendations to the DPP, based on the evidence within the reports. Regardless of the outcome of the investigations or the recommendations that follow, the DPP who is independent of the Police Ombudsman, looks at the available evidence and makes directions. In most cases the Police Ombudsman recommends “No Prosecution”. Appendix 211 of the documents submitted to the Committee informs the Committee that a total of 374 cases were referred to the DPP in the period from 2000–03. Of those in 346 cases the Police Ombudsman recommended “No Prosecution”. In 28 cases the Police Ombudsman recommended “Prosecution”. In 10 cases the DPP directed no further action. Charges have been directed in 13 cases and in three other cases, the DPP recommended prosecution where the Police Ombudsman had not recommended such action. Inevitably there is a delay between submission of cases to the DPP and receipt of directions from the DPP and ﬁve cases are still awaiting direction.

1 Not printed. Ev 14 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

Within the cases referred to above, the DPP recommended prosecution of 23 oYcers on 19 charges (some oYcers were directed with more than one oVence). It is not, therefore, the case that 50% of Police Ombudsman recommendations are not accepted by the DPP. Investigators attached to the OYce are in constant consultation with representatives of the DPP OYce discussing cases which are currently pending decisions by the DPP OYce. In most cases these discussions are vital in assessing the available evidence and discussing any sensitive issues that may exist with each particular case. In all matters, the Police Ombudsman respects the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Discipline

In the last year 76 disciplinary recommendations in respect of 98 oYcers were made by you to the Chief Constable (Annual Report 2003–04, page 12). Can you please clarify the process. Is there a system of routine “Report back” from him to you on these cases to inform you of what action has been taken? If so, are you aware of what action he has taken in response to these recommendations? There is a clearly defined process in respect of all discipline recommendations made to the Chief Constable. In all cases of alleged disciplinary matters, the investigating oYcer compiles a report for the attention of the Police Ombudsman who makes recommendations to the Chief Constable through the Internal Investigations Branch. The Internal Investigation Branch upon receipt of the report confirms receipt of the recommendations and then advises the Police Ombudsman in writing of the PSNI response to the recommendations by the Police Ombudsman. The recommendations may be in respect of formal or informal misconduct proceedings. The OYce is constantly updated on the progress of these proceedings and upon completion, the result of any formal hearing or informal action is communicated to this OYce. These results are recorded on the investigation file, and kept for analytical purposes. Obviously the process of disciplinary action, particularly formal action within the PSNI is a slow process and we can identify that seven formal charges have been progressed to date, but the vast majority of informal action such as Superintendent’s Warnings and Advice and Guidance are actioned quite promptly by Internal Investigations Branch and District Commanders in PSNI. Other recommendations made to the Chief Constable are also process mapped. The PSNI has an internal committee, led by an ACC, which considers any recommendations made in respect of training and other issues of policy. The Deputy Chief Constable writes to the Police Ombudsman to inform her of the PSNI response to each recommendation.

Policy and Practice

The phrase “Policy and practice investigation resources not yet approved” appears on page 47 of the Annual Report 2003–04. The oral evidence we had suggested that no additional resources were being requested for these purposes (Q 52), and perhaps the note in the Annual Report refers to an internal (re)allocation. It would be helpful to have your clariﬁcation of the reference to resources referred to in the Annual Report; and on whether any additional resources are in fact being sought and, if so, how much. The OYce is funded by Grant in Aid from the NIO. It is a matter for the OYce to decide how to allocate the resources which are granted to it to address the competing priorities which are faced. It is important to emphasise that in the early years of the OYce, there has been a small, but vibrant Research Branch, researching core issues and trends and patterns in complaints as required under the legislation. Likewise a Professional Standards Department has been developing an infrastructure of guidance supporting investigations. It is envisaged that, as the Policy and Practice function develops, it will embody the existing resources and structures within these two Branches and so minimise the need for additional or new resources. There has therefore been no need or request for additional resources at this point though this important function will be kept under review.

Principal Activities and Resources

You made clear your position in respect of Parliament’s requirements of your OYce (Q 64). However, the Committee would ﬁnd it instructive to know whether, in the light of your unique experience, the “principle activities” of your OYce as presently set out are, in your view, comprehensive, coherent and otherwise complete, or is there—excepting “mediation” for the moment—scope for improvement in any way; and, if so, in what areas? Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 15

Are you content that you are equipped currently with all the powers and human and financial resources to enable you to carry out your present remit as set out in legislation? The duties imposed on the OYce are consistent with the statutory role of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, subject to the issue of mediation which has already been discussed with the Committee. However there are some issues which cause diYculty or detract from the perception of the independence of the OYce. They are as follows: The Police Ombudsman’s powers relate only to police oYcers. There are occasions in which an allegation is received that a police oYcer has committed a criminal oVence together with a non police oYcer. In those circumstances the OYce of the Police Ombudsman must conduct an investigation of the police oYcer, whilst the PSNI simultaneously conducts an investigation of the non-police oYcer. This is wasteful of resources, has the potential to give rise to problems and detracts from the ability of the Police Ombudsman to investigate the police oYcer independently of the police. An example of such an issue would arise in the case of a complaint in respect of a joint police/military operation. In these cases police have primacy, but investigation is limited to police actions. When, following a Police Ombudsman investigation, a formal misconduct tribunal takes place, the Police Ombudsman and her staV are only permitted to attend the tribunal if the presiding oYcer allows her to do so. The Police Ombudsman is of the view that she should have the right to attend any hearing in a case in which her staV have conducted the investigation leading to the hearing. This would better enable the Police Ombudsman to reassure the public and ensure that the investigator is able to be present throughout the hearing to assist all parties. The current process for the conduct of a disciplinary investigation is modelled on the criminal investigation process. For disciplinary investigation, the process is bureaucratic and unnecessarily legalistic; the consequence of this is unavoidable delay which is to the disadvantage of both complainant and oYcers, and which requires significant resources. A review of the system in England and Wales is currently being undertaken by the Home OYce. We would hope that any changes introduced in England and Wales will be rapidly reviewed by the NIO with a view to the amendment of the Northern Ireland regulations. It is my intention to contribute to the Home OYce review of the matter, and that review presents a significant opportunity for Northern Ireland. As part of the Patten reforms, there is a process of civilianisation of posts, such as station enquiry oYce receptionists. Such staV do not have police powers and are not, therefore, subject to the independent police complaints system operated by this OYce. Complaints against them are dealt with internally by the PSNI. In England and Wales the newly established IPCC has jurisdiction over all civilian employees of the police service. Given that police station receptionists and other front line civilian staV will be the point of contact for many of those who come into contact with the police, the Police Ombudsman is of the view that it would be sensible and coherent to amend the legislation to bring such staV under the remit of the Police Ombudsman.

Mediation

As precise and detailed a brief on what legislative changes you wish to see to your mediation powers and role; the policy justiﬁcation; and any positive anticipated implications for other areas of your work, would be extremely helpful (Q 55)

The processes It has now been agreed that the PSNI, the police staV associations and this OYce wish to have four processes for dealing with complaints. Those are informal resolution (conducted by the police), mediation (conducted by this OYce, conciliation (conducted by this OYce) and Investigation (conducted by this OYce). We are also agreed that no complaint should be the subject of all four processes. We have agreed that there may be complaints which would be particularly suitable for informal resolution. Under the current legislation the complainant can opt for either investigation or informal resolution. All parties are agreed that the principle of consumer choice should continue to apply and that complainants should have the right to refuse informal resolution conducted by the police. It would be appropriate to allow the complainant to choose the process which the complainant would be happier, whether it be mediation or informal resolution. At present the legislation requires that if informal resolution is declined by the complainant, or is unsuccessful, then the Police Ombudsman “shall investigate”. Legislative change would be required to give the Police Ombudsman the right to decide that a complaint is suitable for mediation rather than investigation. Mediation would be appropriate in less serious cases and in cases in which the complainant states that he/she is willing to co-operate with the process but will not give evidence in a hearing. Currently such cases must be investigated, but will be closed either for complainant non-cooperation or complaint withdrawn depending on the circumstances. It is the case that some complainants become satisﬁed once the Ev 16 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

facts have been established and feel that the police must be now cognisant of the situation. They do not wish to pursue the individual oYcers, as they seek to prevent what happened to them happening again, rather than the punishment of the individual oYcer(s). If mediation is not appropriate then the Police Ombudsman should investigate as required by law. If the mediation is unsuccessful the Police Ombudsman should be given a discretionary power, rather than an obligation, to investigate. The PSNI, staV associations and this OYce have agreed that we will work together to produce a mediation leaflet (there already being an Informal Resolution leaflet). We have also agreed that it would be desirable that legislation would include, as we have requested, provision that nothing said in the course of a mediation could be used for the purposes of any criminal or disciplinary action or civil proceedings. In relation to conciliation we have agreed that this power would be used in circumstances in which investigation has demonstrated clearly that the person was a victim of serious wrongful police action but it has proved impossible to identify the oYcer responsible for that wrongful action. For example we recently had a case in which a police landrover was filmed from above, being driven in a very dangerous way at a group of people standing oV the road. There was no marking on the roof of the landrover and it proved impossible to identify which landrover was involved. Had the driver been identified the Police Ombudsman would have recommended prosecution for dangerous driving. We have agreed that we would provide the Chief Constable with a full report of the particular investigation before a conciliation process is initiated. Again it should be provided in the legislation that nothing which was said in any conciliation could be used in any legal proceedings. In agreeing that we are now all ready to move forward on the amendment of the mediation provision and conciliation process, we have agreed that we will also work with the police staV associations, who have indicated their support to ensure their members fully understand and engage in the process.

The policy justiﬁcation Goal 1 of the Police Ombudsman’s Business Plan 2004–05 is to strive for excellence in the delivery of an eYcient and eVective police complaints system (see Document). Within that Goal is the statement that the OYce will “introduce eVective mediation processes”. The business planning processes over the years have identiﬁed the fact that the current system has the eVect of requiring formal investigation in circumstances in which such formal investigation is either unnecessary (because of the relative simplicity of the complaint) unnecessarily complex (because of the legislative requirements for the process of investigation) or likely to be inappropriate (because whilst the complainant wants the complaint investigated, and either wants management action taken to address any systemic defects or an apology for what has happened, they either do not wish to be involved in disciplinary action, or they themselves consider that disciplinary action is no longer required if the matter has been investigated and appropriate management action taken).

Implications for other areas of work It is anticipated that if it were possible to mediate or conciliate in appropriate circumstances the following benefits would accrue (benefits to policing generally are included for the sake of completeness): — A better range of options would be available which would allow greater flexibility. — Both complainants and police oYcers would have access to more appropriate systems for resolving problems. — Mediation could be conducted by specially trained staV who would not require the full range of investigative skills and competences with which investigators must be equipped. — The cost of and training for mediation would be less than the cost of and training for investigation. — Mediation would be conducted more quickly than investigation because it would not require all the complex processes required for investigation. — Investigators would be able to concentrate on the investigation of more serious issues for which investigation is necessary (currently if there is no informal resolution or if a matter remains unresolved after an attempted informal resolution the matter must be investigated). — Resources within the OYce could therefore be more eVectively deployed, thus reducing the possible requirement to apply to government for further grant in aid. — There would be more timely handling of matters than is currently possible and this should lead to greater complainant and police oYcer confidence in the process. — There would be very clear advantages to oYcers in cases being mediated as they would not be under investigation, with all the attendant pressures which that situation involves. — There would be savings for the PSNI who would not have to release oYcers to meet the needs of formal investigation. — There would be advantage to the staV associations who would not have to act as “friend” to oYcers under investigation in as many cases. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 17

Case Management System On 13 February 2002, in response to Lord Laird [Hansard Column WA 155], the government indicated that Deloitte & Touche had received £71,965.23 for “advice and support in the implementation of IT systems”. What was the firm’s involvement, if any, in the Case Management System? If there was none, can you provide some detail on what work Deloitte & Touche did for the OYce please. The Northern Ireland OYce Implementation Team, which represented key stakeholders, NIO, ICPC, RUC, Police Authority, Police StaV Association and others, was charged with the responsibility of setting up the OYce and its systems. The Case Management System and all associated packages were procured at that time, and at the same time a consultancy contract with Deloitte & Touche was entered into to ensure that there was external advice and monitoring of the implementation of the information technology throughout the organisation and also to ensure compliance with the contract by the supplier of the IT (Compaq). The amount itemised in the PQ also covered advice on a significant number of modifications to the system which had to be improved in the course of the implementation. GPA approved this contract and as with other contracts at the outset of establishing the OYce, the contracts transferred legally to the OYce on 6 November 2000. No current contract exists with Deloitte & Touche.

Case Handling System The Committee heard evidence that the OYce has a submission currently before the Northern Ireland OYce for a new IT Case handling system (Q8). Further details of justiﬁcation (both as against the inadequacies of the present system and the functionality of the preferred replacement over alternatives), scope and functionality of the proposed new system, implementation timescale, capital and current costs would be most helpful. Are you able to quantify in staV administrative and investigative hours the savings that will arise from the new system over the present arrangements? For the record, in setting out your case for the Case Handling System with the NIO have the terms of HM Treasury’s Green Book and the OYce of Government Commerce Guidance been followed as appropriate?

Inadequacies of the current Case Management System The current Case Management System records a complaint and provides a word-processed progress log and correspondence log for each complaint as it progresses through the OYces complaints and investigations business processes. The major inadequacies of the current system are: — No investigation-processing module. — No electronic record management module. — No evidence/property handling module. — No modules for: Informal Resolution, Mediation, discipline and misconduct matters. — No module to assist the resource intensive preparation of outcome files and report preparation for the DPP and PSNI. — No trending/tracking/profiling; no management information module; no module to enable compliance with legislative requirements in relation to freedom of information or data protection notifications. — No module to report comprehensively on a case or cases or provide statistical information or perform other analysis of information. At this time the OYce has been informed that approval has been given by the NIO to enter into procurement for a new Case Handling System. The OYce has no “preferred” replacement for the Case Management System in mind, which would in any case, contravene Governments “value for money” guidance. The OYce will embark on a full procurement process to purchase the best solution for the OYce that will meet the requirements identified in its Requirement Specification and will represent “value for money” and will be “fit for purpose”.

Benefits A new Case Handling System would address the major deficiencies outlined above but also provide the following major benefits: — A comprehensive and seamless complaint handling and investigations system that will process approximately 3,000 cases per year. — A facility to transfer and/or share information with other agencies (eg DPP, PSNI, or the Causeway Programme). —EVective and accurate data collection and analysis. —EVective management controls. Ev 18 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

—EVective, accurate and comprehensive reporting by the Police Ombudsman. —EVective and eYcient record management; enhanced eYciency and eVectiveness for complaints and investigation staV and supporting staV; quality assurance. — Standardisation. — A system more responsive to the needs of major stakeholders eg in its ability to report comprehensively; increased public and police conﬁdence in the OYce. — Reduced legal challenges.

StaV Savings StaV eYciencies were calculated and amounted to approximately £140,000 for the financial year 2003–04 (based on the average salary for each grade of staV within each functional area of the organisation). It is diYcult to assess staV eYciency benefits until new systems are implemented. However, these benefits will be used to assist in meeting statutory requirements (such as the investigation of police policy and practice, monitoring, the investigation of police support staV), to provide for more timely and comprehensive investigations, to reduce overall investigation time, to provide for more eYcient quality assurance auditing.

Scope and Functionality of New System The scope of the Case Handling System is a complaint processing and investigation system that will, provide comprehensive management information, statistics and reporting, trending and tracking to meet the requirements of all stakeholders in the OYce, the requirements of the Patten Report and to meet statutory requirements. The new system will be used by all complaints and investigations staV and by senior management for the processing of approximately 3,000 cases per year.

Implementation Timescale This Case Handling System is project managed under the PRINCE project management methodology. The project has been broken down into ﬁve stages: Stage 1—a project establishment phase, lasting approximately one month and now complete. Stage 2—an investigations phase (which includes preparation of the requirement speciﬁcation and a business case) is complete; the business case has been submitted to the Northern Ireland OYce who have sanctioned progress to Stage 3. Stage 3—a procurement phase planned to last up to six months. Stage 4—an implementation phase (for the new Case Handling System) to last up to three months and which should end in July 2005. Stage 5—project closure (which includes post project review).

Anticipated Case Handling System Capital and Recurring Costs The table below gives the costs for a seven-year period.

Total Total Total Amended Discounted Capital Revenue Total Optimism Costs/Net Cash Costs Costs Costs Bias Cash Flow Flow ££££ £ £ 1,339,302 1,065,253 2,404,555 216,410 2,620,965 2,472,989

HM Treasury Green Book In preparing the business case for a Case Handling System the OYce has followed the HM Treasury Guidance contained in the “The Green Book” (Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government).

OYce of Government Commerce Guidance The Case Handling System project was subject to the government’s Gateway Review process. It was subject to Gateway Review 1 (business justiﬁcation) by a trained and external Gateway Reviewer and passed. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 19

Performance Methodology Tables 9.1 and 9.2 of the Annual Report 2002–03 (pages 42–43) contained 22 named Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) with targets and progress columns. It would be extremely helpful to have background on the decision not to name any KPIs in the Annual Report 2003–04, or to roll the previous year’s KPIs forward; also for the reason for the decision to replace the KPIs with what appears to be an updated version of the “Objectives” table from last year’s Corporate Business Plan (pages 104–106). Are there plans to stabilise the presentation of data as between the various publications to ensure the clearest year on year presentation? Could the results of some of the objectives and targets set out in the Annual Report 2003–04 have been quantified? For example, on page 46 of the Annual Report 2003–04 a target is set out of carrying out 10 quality assurance audits on investigations by March 2004. The comment provided on page 47 does not tell the reader how many audits were actually carried out in that period. Again, the objective of reducing the “average completion time for investigation to 90 working days . . .” (page 46) receives the comment “Average completion time for investigation reducing” (page 47) which does not identify quantitatively the OYce’s actual level of success. Does the OYce have the intention of refining its performance indicators to make them more transparent and conform to SMART criteria? It is correct that the current Annual Report 2003–04 did not provide a summary of performance as presented in the two previous reports, but the report on pages 46–49 provides a detailed summary of progress and achievement in relation to all identified targets or indicators as set out in the Corporate Plan for 2003–04. The key performance indicators as listed in the previous reports related in the main to administrative and eYciency targets. For example, answering calls to the OYce promptly, seeing complainants promptly, quick allocation of work, making initial contact with complainants, supplying statistical reports on time etc. These indicators were particularly important as the OYce was setting up its systems and procedures and continue to be monitored on a six monthly basis. However, the targets and indicators in relation to objectives, more and more, must relate to core performance issues and outcomes. The Directors have developed a quarterly performance management report within which there is a summary of the key performance indicators which are now central to the eVectiveness of the OYce. A summary of these is attached for information. One of the major indicators for the OYce from the outset has been to register and quantify the level of complaints being made by the public against the police and this has been clearly done in all the Annual Reports with comparisons for the previous years prior to the OYce coming into existence. This, however, is now summarised as a Key Performance Indicator in its own right. Again, in line with the statutory requirement on the OYce to secure confidence of the public in the working of the OYce, independent measurement through public survey has been carried out each year since the opening of the OYce. A summary of the published results of those surveys has been included in the Annual Reports. Yet again this is now identified as a Key Performance Indicator in its own right. With regard to the average time taken to investigate a complaint, in the first two years of the life of the OYce we were measuring an average performance of 144 days. With developments and training within the OYce the average time by the end of 2003 had reduced to an average of 99 days. The average time is continuing to fall but over the past year we have also established that some of the waiting time involved in investigations, for example where a file is with the DPP, is outwith the control of the OYce and in fairness to the investigators involved, such time should be extracted from the figures. The new case handling system envisaged for the OYce would be able to track and identify such performance issues more accurately. It was only for this reason that we felt it was unfair to staV to put a figure in a current report. The target set by the Professional Standards to undertake 10 quality assurance audits during 2003–04 was achieved and these are listed below. Ten quality assurance audits were carried out during the year in question. They related to: — Thematic inspections (3 in total) on quality of closure letters following investigations. — Inspection on consistency of format and content of memoranda (S59(2)). — Thematic inspection on closure categories used in investigations. — Thematic inspection on frequency of updates to members. — Thematic inspection on frequency of updates to complainants. — Audit of recording of Chief Constable referrals. — Thematic inspection on correctness of issues identified in investigations. — Inspection of accuracy of data put on CMS by Complaints OYce. — Inspection of suitability of informal resolution referrals. The oYce has refined its performance indicators as demonstrated in its Annual Business Plans for 2000–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04. On all occasions SMART criteria were used. The business processes of the OYce have changed as a consequence of legislative change and also as a result of research and consultation with stakeholders. It is hoped that now that the OYce has been well established and is moving into a period of stability, it will be possible to achieve greater continuity and consistency in the objectives, targets and by performance indicators set. Ev 20 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

Does the OYce have plans to monitor the eYciency of its operations using standard methodology, for example, by cost per inquiry received, ratio of administrative to investigative staV, cost per investigation? The OYce has the capacity within its financial monitoring to detail all costs and expenditure across 22 cost centres. On a monthly and quarterly basis, managers review costs within Directorates, within teams, within functions, and can extract detailed information in relation to every member of staV. It is possible, for example, to isolate the average cost connected with the receipt and administration of all complaints. It is possible to determine the total costs of an investigation team and give an average cost for each closed or each new complaint handled within a period of time. It is possible to highlight central or corporate costs, for example, Legal Services, staV training and development etc. In your question you ask, for example, the ratio of administrative to investigation staV. We can identify such figures exactly. For example, in one investigation team the percentage of resources in relation to administrative staYng is 5.9% and 94.1% investigation. In another team it is 7.2% against 92.8%. What is not possible, with the existing Case Management System, is the ability to link or track specific costs for each individual investigation or complaint handled or to attribute related core or corporate costs.

Can you please identify what “direct case investigations costs” are, and the reasons for their increase from £54,697 in 2002–03 to £90,084 in 2003–04 (Annual Report 2003–04, page 67)? Direct Investigation costs include items such as forensic examination costs, the costs of medical referrals and doctors’ reports etc. The costs in 2003–04 relate mainly to forensic costs amounting to £67,000. However, the forensic costs in 2003–04 include signiﬁcant payments for forensic work carried out in the previous ﬁnancial year (approximately £34,000) for which invoices had not been issued within that period. The costs in 2002–03 also relate mainly to forensic reports £34k.

One of the OYce’s targets is to “increase percentages of resources speciﬁed as intensive by July 2003”; and the Annual Report contains the comment that “31% of resources” are “going into complex and intensive investigations” (Annual Report 2003–04, pages 46, 47). It would be useful if you could deﬁne what is meant by “intensive” investigations; clarify and quantify the 31% of resources, and say why it is desirable to resource such investigations at this particular level?

We were rather uncertain about the funding of “retrospective cases”. It seems that the OYce is “not funded” to deal with “some of our retrospective cases” (Q 65; also Q 68), and we would be grateful for an expansion of this point. What was the basis for not asking for additional funding, particularly where there seems still to be a delay in such cases (Q 65), despite there apparently being “some” budget “flexibility” (Q 68)? Approximately 30% of our investigation resources are currently being used in respect of historic and special investigations, which are very resource-intensive. Resource intensive investigations are those investigations which are more complex in nature, often involving a death and often relating to an incident or incidents in the past. The 31% of resources which were allocated to these investigations in 2003–04 represented the proportion of investigative staV resource which was directed at these investigations. In relation to the overall expenditure 20% of total resources were allocated to these investigations. By the very nature of the complaints and allegations made, historic investigations are of a serious nature. A small percentage of our current resources also involve serious matters requiring intensive resources. The OYce has developed a Major Incident Room (MIR) to conduct and facilitate these complex investigations. The staYng of the MIR room and all current investigations follow best practice recommendations. The OYce is funded by Grant in Aid from the NIO. It is a matter for this OYce how to allocate the resources which are granted to it to address the competing priorities which are faced. The OYce must do this in the context of long term planning. While additional resources have not been requested to deal with retrospective cases specifically, in 2003–04 a bid for additional resources was approved by the NIO and an amount of £250,000 was approved. Approval was granted to carry this resource forward into the current financial period.

Can you please say what the current positioning relation to Investors in People accreditation is? Has there been some slippage in the timetable which the OYce has set itself and, if so, why has this happened (Annual Report 2003–04, pages 48, 49)? The OYce underwent an initial assessment by an IIP assessor in February 2004. There are 12 indicators to the IIP National Standard. At the date of the assessment nine were assessed as having adequate or strong evidence. In three areas the evidence needs to be stronger to achieve formal recognition to the standard. In response to the interim report the OYce has consulted with staV in relation to the areas in which the assessor had not been able to identify adequate evidence in support of the standard. It is now planned to undertake the complete assessment within the current ﬁnancial year. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 21

When will you be appointing the independent element on the Audit Committee? What is the process of that appointment? How is independence to be assured? (Annual Report 2003–04, page 57) The OYce has recently completed the appointment of the two independent non-executive members to its audit committee. These appointments were made in conjunction with the Public Appointments Unit within the Northern Ireland OYce, which holds a register of those interested in public service. The Unit identiﬁed from its register a list of individuals who were deemed to be suitably qualiﬁed. These individuals were contacted and asked if they wished to indicate an interest in the role of independent non-executive audit committee member. Background to the OYce, its functions and the Audit Committee were provided. Those individuals who expressed an interest were interviewed by a panel constituted of Audit Committee members, who sought to ensure that the individuals concerned were competent and knowledgeable in relation to matters of corporate governance. The members have now taken up their position, one has already attended the recent Committee and the next Committee will be chaired by one of the independent members.

It would be most helpful to have more details of the OYce’s actions to address “risk management” in particular “Business Continuity Plans” (Annual Report 2003–04, page 57) The OYce completed the development of its risk management process during the 2003–04 financial year. A risk register has been established which details the key strategic risks in the OYce and is underpinned by a detailed operational risk register. The risk register was presented to the Audit Committee on 21 October 2003. This register is subject to a continual review process. The risk management process in place in the OYce was subject of an internal audit report during 2003–04, which confirmed that the processes used for developing the risk strategy and registers are sound. This report, however, indicated that whilst there has been some business continuity planning, the issue had not yet been fully addressed by the OYce. A business continuity plan for the OYce is to be developed within the current financial cycle which will document the appropriate actions in the event of a major unforeseen problem. The Risk Management Register can be shared with your Committee (in confidence) if you require.

Employment

The staV comprises 59% male and 41% female. Is this balance reflected in the grades of male and female staV across the OYce? In overall terms the breakdown of staV employed in the OYce on the basis of gender is 41% female to 59% male. Further analysis by grade indicates that there are variations in the proportions of male to female staV employed, however it is important to consider the impact on statistical analysis when completed on a small population. There are however acknowledged variations. Female staV are least well represented at B1 and B2 grade which is directly related to the fact that such grades are constituted significantly by investigative staV. The pool of candidates for investigative posts has been consistently been constituted of a high proportion of males. The OYce has sought to address this imbalance as far as is possible by stating when advertising such posts that applications are particularly welcome from women. The statistical profile of the staV in the OYce is kept under review and indeed as an employer in Northern Ireland information on the profile of staV in the OYce is provided on an annual basis to Equality Commission for Northern Ireland by way of a Fair Employment Monitoring Return as at 31 January 2004.

Actual Numbers Percentage Male Female Totals Male Female Grade A and above 6 3 9 67% 33% B1 7 1 8 87.5% 12.5% B2 30 8 38 79% 21% C 25 18 43 58% 42% D1 2 17 19 11% 89% D2 3 3 6 50% 50% Totals 73 50 123 59% 41%

“Whistle Blowing”

Does your OYce have any policy in respect of “whistle blowing” by police oYcers? The Police Service of Northern Ireland also has a deﬁned policy on “Whistle blowing”. This enables staV of the PSNI to report wrongdoing.The PSNI are currently contracted to a private sector ﬁrm known as Safecall. Safecall has a 24/7 responsibility for issues such as reporting wrongdoing, grievances and other issues that aVect staV of the PSNI. Information reported via Safecall with regards to any potential or alleged wrongdoing by oYcers of the PSNI is passed on to the Police Ombudsman. This information is normally passed through the bronze group meetings held between the intelligences oYcers of the Police Ombudsman and IIB. It is welcomed and used in appropriate ways and may lead to investigation. Ev 22 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

The OYce of the Police Ombudsman also has a stated commitment within its Fraud Policy, that “whistleblowing” is a legitimate procedure which enables employees to raise concerns in relation to any unlawful conduct, ﬁnancial malpractice or danger to the public or the environment. There is guidance in relation to how any such matter will be handled and the necessary and appropriate protection to employees who act in good faith even if they are mistaken.

Complaints/Allegations

Since 2001–02 complaints and allegations have fallen. What in your view is the significance of the diVerence in the rates of decline of complaints and allegations; what weight is given to allegations and what to complaints in taking a view of the changes in the quality of policing which may be reflected in these figures; is there a statistical, or otherwise demonstrable, direct relationship being claimed by the OYce between these figures and the impact of the OYce on policing in Northern Ireland? Have you found any confusion arising from keeping statistics in the form of both complaints and allegations?

This OYce keeps statistics in the form of both complaints and allegations. This is the format required by the Home OYce and facilitates comparison between forces in the United Kingdom. A complaint about the conduct of a member of the Police Service which is made by or on behalf of a member of the public may contain one or more allegations. The terminology does however give rise to some confusion on occasion. It might be preferable to count complainants and their allegations. This would give a set of data which would be more comprehensible to the public.

The decline in complaints/allegations recorded in conjunction with a 12% decrease in the number of oppressive behaviour allegations and an 8% increase in allegations relating to failures in duty, constitutes a major shift in the pattern and nature of complaints. The decline in complaints must in part reflect the fact that when the OYce opened on 6 November 2000 there were some 13,000 oYcers serving in the RUC. There are currently some 9,200 oYcers serving in the PSNI. In addition, the reduction in allegations of baton misuse is significant (419 in the period November 2000 to March 2002, 240 in 2003 and 148 in 2004). Combined with a demonstrable reduction in firearm discharges, and the fact that baton rounds have not been used for two years, the figures represent, in the view of this OYce, progress towards normalisation of policing.

It is the case that whilst the volume of complaints has reduced by 17% from 2001–02, the volume of allegations has shown only a 5% decrease. This would seem to reﬂect a situation in which single complaints increasingly containing more than one allegation. To some extent this may be accounted for by the fact that over the years Police Ombudsman staV have become more proﬁcient in identifying and recording allegations. It could also in part be explained by the increase (11%) between 2001 and 2004 in complaints being made directly to the Police Ombudsman’s OYce either in person or by telephone (with associated decrease in complaints being made at police stations 46% in 2001 as against 30% in 2004). On such occasions Police Ombudsman staV record comprehensive details of all allegations.

The overall changes in the level of complaints and other trends and patterns identified above are significant but it is not possible to argue with any authority that the changes are as a consequence only of the establishment and the actions of the OYce of the Police Ombudsman, nor would we wish to do so. We are sure and there is supporting evidence that we have contributed to improvements and changes illustrated but it must be acknowledged that the changing situation in Northern Ireland, the change in focus and commitment of PSNI, the work of the Oversight Commission, the better governance arrangements under the Police Acts are all working together to create a better policing environment and confidence for the public and the police in Northern Ireland.

CS Spray

Was the OYce consulted on the decision to purchase CS spray for the PSNI? If so, what locus does the OYce have for taking a view, and on what research was any view by the OYce given? Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 23

When the OYce opened staV very quickly became aware that the level of allegations of misuse of batons by police oYcers was forty times the national average. Police oYcers in Northern Ireland were six times more likely to be injured than their counterparts in England and Wales. A Research Project was conducted which identiﬁed a number of causes for this high level of use of force complaints. The Research Report was provided to the Committee and is Document No 4. We considered the options available to police in conﬂict situations. Following consideration of the options available, I have expressed the view that CS spray, which is widely used in England and Wales, should be made available to the PSNI. My locus derives from my functions under the Police (NI) Act 1998.

Complaints to the Secretary of State

The Committee heard evidence that complaints had been made to the Secretary of State (Q 59). It would be helpful if this comment could be expanded upon. For example, presumably you receive routine notification by the NIO where the Secretary of State has received a complaint about the OYce. Where a complainant remains unsatisfied by the OYce and complains subsequently to the Secretary of State, are you aware of what processes are undertaken in arriving at a decision by the Secretary of State about whether or not to call in an independent person to investigate? The Secretary of State will, of course, receive correspondence or representations regarding the OYce. His oYce may deal with the matter without reference to this OYce, for example, where it is a general complaint about the powers of the OYce. If, however, the matter relates to a complaint, for example, regarding the conduct of an investigation, the oYcials will seek clarification or information either through the Police Ombudsman or the Chief Executive, before responding to the person. Often the nature of a complaint to the Secretary of State relates to an issue of policing and again the oYcials will seek clarification as to whether the Police Ombudsman is investigating the particular matter and, if so, the Secretary of State will not cut across that process. To date the Police Ombudsman believes that she has been able to satisfy any matter referred to her from the Secretary of State’s oYce and to our knowledge, there is no outstanding complaint to the Secretary of State on which a response is being required from the Police Ombudsman. Obviously within the general power of the Secretary of State to enquire into any matter under his ministerial jurisdiction, he could call in an independent person. Thus far this has not happened.

“Dismissed”

Reference was made in evidence to “dealing with the complaints that we have dismissed a member of staV on the foot of a police oYcer’s complaint” (Q 60). It would be helpful to have elaboration. The Police Ombudsman takes all complaints made by members of PSNI very seriously—the integrity of the staV of the OYce must be beyond reproach and all complaints are investigated thoroughly and transparently. A complaint was received from a member of PSNI in respect of the conduct of a member of investigations staV of this OYce. Following a disciplinary investigation the member of staV was dismissed in March 2003 for gross misconduct. The dismissal of this individual has been referred to the OYce of Industrial Tribunals and the matter cannot therefore be further discussed.

Information and Media

Costs under these heads increased from £64,549 to £107,323 (Annual Report 2003–04, page 67). What were the reasons for the increase? The increase in costs of information and media relate to two speciﬁc areas of expenditure. In 2003–04 the OYce prepared a publication marking the 3rd anniversary of the life of the OYce which was widely circulated as a source of information. 110,000 documents were provided free with the Belfast Telegraph and a further 10,000 documents made available to the OYce for general distribution. This expenditure was £24,675. In addition to this the OYce re-designed and re-launched its website at a cost of approximately £11,000. The value of this investment has subsequently been demonstrated by a 450% increase in the number of “hits” since the website was re-launched. 20 December 2004

SUMMARY OF KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 2004–05

KPI 1 Work with the police in decreasing the number of situations which give rise to members of the public making complaints. Benchmarks 2003—3,193; 2004—2,976 Last two quarters show only minimal decrease Ev 24 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

KPI 2 Work with the police in decreasing the number of situations giving rise to serious allegations against the police. Benchmarks 2002—50%; 2003—40%; 2004—37% Current quarter oppressive complaints down to 35% KPI 3 Maximise the level of informal resolution of suitable complaints. Current 2004 target 72% KPI 4 Contribute to overall improvement in policing policy and practice. Continuing progress, recommendations for improvement as listed in appendix KPI 5 Monitor and report on multiple complaints against oYcers to PSNI and District Command Units. Monthly reports to Commanders Currently 95–100 oYcers with three or more complaints in last 12 months KPI 6 Improve timeliness in the administration and investigation of complaints improving. Current average investigation time 99 days KPI 7 Improve timeliness of updating complainants and police oYcers in progress of complaints or investigations. Current target not less than six weekly intervals KPI 8 Maintain public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the OYce as measured against the results in the public survey published in April 2004. Awareness—85% Impartiality—76% Independence—85% KPI 9 Improve awareness, understanding and confidence of Police OYcers in the independence and impartiality of the OYce as measured against survey results released in March 2004. Impartiality—13% Independence—55% KPI 10 Contribute to the Government Public Service Agreement target of improving public confidence in Policing by 3%. Public confidence in helping police do a better job Current target—79% KPI 11 Comply with Patten Recommendations and report accordingly to the OOC. Report to Oversight Commissioner in April 2004 and again in September 2004 KPI 12 Prioritise and maximise the ability of the OYce to address complex investigations within available resources. Already progressed Realignment of resources to complex investigations achieved, additional staV in place KPI 13 Develop a comprehensive framework and programme for the investigation of policy and practice matters. On target First investigation being processed KPI 14 Introduction of eVective mediation processes. Not yet achieved Requiring primary legislation, but other plans and agreements being progressed with PSNI. KPI 15 Consult about, approve and implement a new Code of Ethics for staV of the Police Ombudsman. On target Code subject of final consultations KPI 16 Plan, manage and monitor expenditure within 2% of financial approvals and baselines. On target Refer to budget reports KPI 17 Over three years, train and externally accredit at least 75% of investigators through the programme agreed. 20% of investigators through first year of programme Further 23% of investigators enrolled for year two KPI 18 Review internal policies in compliance with Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act Impact Assessment Survey on Public Awareness Survey completed and results made available to Commission KPI 19 Analyse and improve risk management controls On target Risk Register being reviewed and presented to Audit Committee October 2004 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 25

KPI 20 Conduct review of Security Policy and Procedures in compliance with Manual of Protective Security. Already progressed Review undertaken and report submitted to Protective Security Service, June 2004 KPI 21 Procure new Case Handling System by end of March 2005. On target Business Case now agreed in principle by Department KPI 22 Establish a Working Committee in conjunction with Police and police staV associations and strengthen working arrangements. Committee established and initial work agreed KPI 23 Publish Corporate Plan, Annual Report and Statement of Accounts by agreed deadlines. Corporate Plan May 2004, target achieved Annual Report and Accounts July 2004, achieved

Witnesses: Mrs Nuala O’Loan, Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Mr Samuel Pollock, Chief Executive, Mr David Wood, Executive Director of Investigations and Mrs Olwen Laird, Director of Corporate Services, examined.

Chairman: Good afternoon to Mrs O’Loan and to Similarly, the commitment of Government in terms your team. You are very welcome and the of funding has enabled us to do what we have been Committee appreciates very much the fact that we established to do. Dr Hayes’ vision in creating this had to change the date because of what was going on OYce was courageous, and we have worked hard to last week. I understand you have had to break into try to achieve that vision. We do work in a very your holiday, for which many apologies, and you are diYcult political climate; the views of our politicians doubly welcome. We will try and let you go as soon in relation to policing are known to be diverse. We as we can. Before we start these proceedings Mr have sought to work constructively throughout the Eddie McGrady would like to make a declaration. community, and it is a fact that politicians from Mr McGrady: Mr Chairman, members of the every political party represented in this House, Committee and those giving evidence today, I have under the Northern Ireland Assembly, bring us to record in the minutes that I am a member of the constituents who are complainants against the Police Board of Northern Ireland, and also the police. We seek to establish the evidence in relation Chairman of the sub-committee of the Police Board, to each case in the search for truth. Five years ago it which deals with human rights and monitoring, and would have seemed quite unlikely that a police as such that sub-committee has a primary link with complaints system in Northern Ireland could have the OYce of the Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. won public confidence, but I think that that is what Those are remunerated positions and therefore I has happened. Last January the public confidence would like to declare that interest and will act figure in our Protestant community stood at 70% circumspectly in the participation with the police believing we were impartial and 76% of our deliberations in that respect. Protestant community believing that the police do a good job. In the Catholic community the figures are Q1 Chairman: Thank you very much. Obviously Mr even higher. And 85% of our population believe we McGrady’s knowledge and experience is of great are independent and they are aware of what we do. help to us. He thinks it is right that he does not put I think it is very, very important that we actually do questions in this session today and we entirely serve the whole community. 48% of our complaints respect his wishes in that regard. Mrs O’Loan, would come from Protestants, 37% from Catholics and you like to start, briefly, and tell us about the key 15% from other groups. Our staV too is problems you have in carrying out your principle representative of the community; 47% of our staV activities? are Protestant, 37% are Catholic and 16% are from Mrs O’Loan: Thank you, Chairman, and thank you other communities. Our workload is changing but for the opportunity to say something to you. Can not diminishing. We have redirected some resources. I just introduce Mr Pollock, my Chief Executive, We have made structural change because Parliament Mr David Wood, my Executive Director of has given us new duties. We face further changes. We Investigations and Olwen Laird, our Director of will have responsibility for complaints against the Corporate Services? Tim Gracey is the Director new Police Support OYcers, who will assist sworn of Information. I would like to say a word about oYcers in the fight against crime. We do hope that policing because I think it is one of the most eventually we will have a workable power to mediate important and contentious issues in Northern complaints, which will reduce the number of Ireland today. The establishment of my OYce by complaints we have to put into investigation. We Parliament under the Police Act was part of a wider have other challenges, not least the complexity of strategy to ensure a level of accountability and our workload, which range from allegations of transparency, which was hitherto unknown incivility to collusion and murder. It also involves anywhere in the world. The commitment of fatal accidents involving the police. We must Parliament to that level of accountability, in terms of respond 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days the duties and functions conferred on my OYce by a year. That is a significant burden for an oYce of Parliament, has been recognised across the world. 128 people. We do respond; we report with Ev 26 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

21 July 2004 Mrs Nuala O’Loan, Mr Samuel Pollock, Mr David Wood and Mrs Olwen Laird recommendations on policy and practice, so that the Consultancy Services—to do a review of all pay and police can make necessary amendments to their graded levels, to make sure that that was right. We policy and practice, and I think it is true that some are at that stage at the present time; we have carried improvements in policing can clearly be attributable out the Equality Commission’s requirements in to our work. Our IT infrastructure is now terms of impact assessment for equal opportunities inadequate. We have extensive and demanding for our staV in the OYce, and the results of that have reporting obligations and these are largely been very good. dependent on analysis of material contained in our case management system. The system lacks many forms of functionality; it does not readily yield up Q5 Chairman: If I can pick up one thing you said in information. It is vital to our ability to meet our your opening statement: that your IT systems were statutory needs, and we do hope that Government now inadequate. Is that because there is not enough will be able to resource the procurement of an of them or because they are out of date? appropriate system. Finally, may I say that we are Mrs O’Loan: They are out of date. Our remit has determined that we will do all we can to grow police changed. Some of those changes are very small but confidence in our work. We have participated in when you have to feed them into an IT system and many joint activities to assist oYcers to know our they knock through everything else it becomes very processes, and to appreciate that we conduct only a expensive to try to make the IT system work, and it search for evidence as required by the law. We pay begins to creak more and more as you make more tribute to them for the diYcult job which they do and amendments. So I think it is just not capable of have done over the years and for the sacrifices which doing the job any more. they have made. I think our vision is a shared vision, that all our people and all our police oYcers enjoy the best possible policing and police complaints Q6 Chairman: And you do not have the funds to service. Northern Ireland is moving forward in replace it? many ways and my staV and I seek to make a Mrs O’Loan: No, I do not. contribution to that process. Thank you for listening to me. Q7 Chairman: Have you asked for them? Mrs O’Loan: We have put a case to the Northern Q2 Chairman: Thank you very much for that. Those Ireland OYce. figures are interesting and I think you score high marks for having achieved that in a relatively short time. However, do you think the awareness figures Q8 Chairman: Did it come out favourably in the are going to get any better? Dr Ostermeyer of your recent spending round or has that not filtered down OYce said, “This levelling oV would seem to indicate to you yet? that a maximum level of public awareness has been Mrs O’Loan: We have not had a reply, as far as I achieved.” know. Mrs O’Loan: Chairman, if I may say that we always Mr Pollock: The case has only been submitted strive to increase awareness, going into the within the last month, and they would not have had communities that we have not been able to access time to consider it. before. I bow to the statisticians and those who are expert in that matter, and I accept that we may not get much beyond 85%. I am not so concerned about Q9 Chairman: So that the first the NIO would know the figure when I go out and I meet people because I of your IT problems was a month ago? am trying more and more, with all my staV, to get Mrs O’Loan: No, Chairman. We have been keeping into areas of our community where we have not been them informed as we went along because my Chief able to meet yet. Executive under our Management Statement Arrangements has quarterly meetings with the NIO, Q3 Chairman: Can I just get two small things out of and there are discussions of the problems that we are the way? You gave us the breakdown between having at that point. Nationalists and Protestant Unionists; what is the V breakdown by sex of your sta ? Q10 Chairman: So how long ago were the INO Mrs O’Loan: It is 41% female and 59% male as at warned about this? January 2004. Mr Pollock: We identified it a year ago in our progress reports because at that stage we were Q4 Chairman: As far as equal pay is concerned, do looking at the feasibility in relation to our systems you plan to undertake a review of pay equality in line and we then had to develop the specifications and we with the recent Equality Commission guidance? had that tested out through the gateway process. We Mrs O’Loan: We have followed all the guidance. managed then to submit the full business case about V When I was appointed we appointed our sta using five weeks ago to the Northern Ireland Policing the Northern Ireland Civil Service Standard Terms Division. and Conditions. Gradings were developed in the light of what it was anticipated the jobs might be. Once we had moved forward and established Q11 Chairman: Have you, as it were, put in a bid for ourselves we then brought in BCS—the Business the cost of that? Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 27

21 July 2004 Mrs Nuala O’Loan, Mr Samuel Pollock, Mr David Wood and Mrs Olwen Laird

Mr Pollock: Yes. Q17 Mr Luke: In regard to the actual level of the respondents in the survey in public awareness, only Q12 Chairman: What is the cost? 16% of those respondents who had experienced Mr Pollock: In capital terms it would be £1.2 million unacceptable behaviour by the police said they had over seven years and there are also revenue costs that complained. Of the remainder, 55% have said that follow the development of the system, which are they did not think it worth complaining, or if they again in the region of £1 million. did complain that very little would happen. Why do you believe that so few people complain? Mrs O’Loan: I think that the Policing Board did Q13 Chairman: So how much in this current surveys initially before my OYce started on why spending round of that £1.2 million? people did and did not complain, and one of the Mr Pollock: £1.2 million. major reasons was that people felt that there was no point. We know that that figure is reducing. We are Q14 Chairman: No, that is over seven years. How still meeting people; people will approach me in the much of that? street and tell me a story and I say, “You have to Mr Pollock: To acquire the system, which we would come to me, you have to let me deal with this,” and want to do, within the first year, obviously, that is they will say, “No, no, we are afraid, the police have where the main capital investment would be. ways of taking it out on us.” Those are the kind of things that are said to us. That exists. We can show Q15 Chairman: So the main amount of that £1.2 that in fact—and I stand to be corrected—only 17% million is needed upfront? of our complainants are the subjects of related Mr Pollock: Yes. criminal proceedings, the rest are not engaged in any sort of criminal process with the police. So when we tell people that kind of thing it can give them the Q16 Mr Luke: On the point of public awareness, reassurance that, (a) there is a point; (b) for the especially amongst the young. Obviously there police it is important that if people have a grievance seems to be a very low awareness amongst young they come to us. Very often the grievances that people and almost 40% of 16–24 year olds were people have against the police, on occasion they can unaware of your OYce. That indicates that you may be the result of a lack of understanding or of an be failing to reach this group in the community. expectation that is actually unreal. A particular issue What extra measures are you taking to reach young may be terribly important to me as an individual, but people? How are you able to measure the results of put in the context of a limited number of oYcers on these measures? the ground, a fatal road traYc accident, a fire and Mrs O’Loan: We became aware, within a year, on something else happening, it may be that my priority our research base, that young people were unaware is not the highest priority for the police, and people of the OYce. Interestingly enough, the age group will come to accept that. So there are a lot of reasons 16–24 make the biggest sub-group of our behind that, but I think that is changing slightly. complainants. So we have had a number of initiatives, some with the police, some with other Q18 Reverend Smyth: We have heard that there has groups, with voluntary organisations, aimed at Y taking us out to young people, where we can find been an awareness of the O ce and the role of the them and engage with them. So we have, for Ombudsman, and yet we have seen research and example, participated in a series of youth evidence which suggests that some 44% of people conferences, jointly organised by the PSNI, Policing who have a complaint go to their local police station Board and my oYce, in which we gather together a and 18% make a complaint to a solicitor. Only 11% couple of hundred young people from diVerent actually come to the Ombudsman. backgrounds; they all come into one central venue Mrs O’Loan: I do not think that is quite right. I and we all make five to 10 minute presentations, and hesitate to correct Reverend Smyth, and I will ask then they can engage with us. We also had a youth Mr Pollock to deal with this. The figures initially of conference which we conducted with one of our people coming to us were very low because we were just established, but my understanding now is that youth organisations in Northern Ireland. We go out Y to schools and we make a lot of school visits; we are 34% of complaints were made directly to the O ce available and we have written to every school in in 2001 and by 2003 that percentage had risen to Northern Ireland, asking them if they want to hear 48%. About 40% are made via the police, a small from the OYce. At any opportunity that any of us percentage by public representatives, and you get we are trying to say to people that we would love obviously have made complaints to us, and about to come along. The proportion of young people who 12% comes through solicitors. So 48% come directly are aware of us has risen over the three years and the to us now. It is an incremental thing and it is bound percentage of young people as a proportion of our to be incremental. complainants is now at 27%—it was at 23%. I do not think you can draw very much from that because Q19 Reverend Smyth: That is an interesting response there are many factors which impact upon who because the information that we have been given is makes a complaint, but those are the figures. So we that only 11% said that they would first go to the are working hard at it. We do recognise them and we Ombudsman, and that they may later on put their recognise the elderly too as another sub-group who minds in a diVerent direction. Are you satisfied then we need to look after. with those who are coming to you as a place of first Ev 28 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

21 July 2004 Mrs Nuala O’Loan, Mr Samuel Pollock, Mr David Wood and Mrs Olwen Laird call? In other words, if they have a complaint against the problem that they have has been communicated the police and your role is to investigate, do you not to the police; that we are aware of it, the police are expect a higher number of people coming to you? aware of it and that something will happen, and they Mrs O’Loan: I think it is about changing behaviour, no longer wish to engage with the process and they Chairman. I think that in the past really the only withdraw. What I cannot give you are percentages place you could make a complaint against the police for each category. Then there are people to whom we was to go into your local police station and to make would say, “We need a medical examination of a complaint there, therefore that is what people have you,” and perhaps they are not willing to go through learned to do. There is a section of the population with a medical examination, for a variety of reasons who would never have gone into their police station and so they will withdraw. There are people to whom to make a complaint because they were not places we will say, “Yes, we will investigate your where they felt comfortable. But there is a section complaint,” and then they realise that the which did go into police stations happily to make investigation of the complaint means that we have to their complaints. You are quite right, that when we go to people as witnesses, to whom they may not started more complaints came through the police wish us to go. It will not be that they withdraw the than through us. It is a figure which is changing quite complaint; they will simply cease to correspond with dramatically; we expect it to continue to change. I us. So there are a variety of reasons why people do think it is the consequence of the work which we not co-operate and, you are quite right, we do regard have been able to do in terms of raising awareness, it as very important. The way that we are dealing in terms of letting people know how to complain. We with it is that we are carrying out post-closure have to draw the balance, we cannot go out touting surveys of complainants to find out what their for complaints, that would be wrong, but we must experience of using the OYce was; not just why they make ourselves available and accessible and I think have withdrawn, but how did they find the staV and that is what we have tried to do. all that sort of thing, because we also want to identify the weaknesses in our own systems— Q20 Reverend Smyth: Is it your policy that you because I am sure that there are weaknesses—so that would like to think that they would come to you as we can remedy them. a place of first call? Mrs O’Loan: Yes. I think the majority of complaints that come from police stations actually come from arrests, people who have been arrested and placed in police cells. They will be asked if they have any complaints, and they may reiterate that, yes, they do Q22 Mr Tynan: Has there been any indication that Y have complaints. Or on meeting a Force Medical the potential of your O ce to disclose information Examiner they may say to him that they have a in legal proceedings contributes to complainants complaint. So that is the reason why a number of withdrawing their co-operation? complaints come automatically through the police. Mrs O’Loan: What I would say to that is that we Mr Pollock: It is interesting, Mr Chairman, that in only disclose information which we have under the three and a half years we have never had a Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern situation where someone has said, “I made a Ireland), which has a legal obligation where a serious complaint to the police,” and that complaint was not oVence has been committed, et cetera. So we must, passed on to us. That is reassuring because clearly under Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act. The other the making of a complaint directly to the police is situations are where we have information which may given priority by them. assist the defence or aVect the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision-making process on whether to prosecute, and then we will hand that to the Q21 Mr Tynan: I understand that a number of Director of Public Prosecutions and to the defence complaints are closed because of lack of co- operation and obviously your OYce does a lot of because it will assist the defence, and that really is work in order to make sure that any complaints are under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations taken seriously. In your Report 2002–03 you Act. We tend not to disclose because we have very, very strict legislation under Section 63 of the Police indicated some research was going to be done as V regard the causes of that. Could you indicate how (Northern Ireland) Act 1968, which in e ect says that research is being done and what is the result of that we will not disclose. It was quite interesting the research at the present time? when we looked at the new English Independent Mrs O’Loan: We actually restructured our research Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) legislation. plan. This is one thing that we are working on but we The presumption is that they will disclose, it is are not through to results. We have an initial completely diVerent federal law. So there are a lot of awareness, and if I could share with you some of our issues there. We have been judicially reviewed on understanding as to why people end up in this several occasions when we have refused to disclose classification of non co-operation? It would not be things, and we have not been found by the court to the classification which I would choose if the choice have made the wrong decision, thus far. We have, for of classifications were open to me, but the Rules say example, a very significant judicial review in relation that I must classify things in certain ways. We can to that from the Committee for the Administration investigate for people and they come to a point of Justice about the situation in Nelson, and we do where they feel that the story which they have to tell, not have judgment yet—we are waiting. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 29

21 July 2004 Mrs Nuala O’Loan, Mr Samuel Pollock, Mr David Wood and Mrs Olwen Laird

Q23 Mr Tynan: On the basis of your research, are time. We had Green v PCA and all those cases there any changes, operational developments that coming through very recently, so it is a challenge for have occurred because of the research you have us to get it right. undertaken? Mrs O’Loan: In relation to non co-operation? Q25 Mr Campbell: Mrs O’Loan, securing the confidence of the police has to be fairly crucial to the success of your work. Q24 Mr Tynan: In relation to withdrawal of the Mrs O’Loan: Yes. complaint? Mrs O’Loan: I think the thing that we would be most aware of is that we still need to help people to Q26 Mr Campbell: Last year there was a survey of police attitudes that you reported in your annual understand the system, to understand what we do, to report. What is your view of those findings? understand what investigation means, to understand Mrs O’Loan: I suppose they caused me concern, that that we cannot just use common sense, as they might is the first thing I want to say. There was good in that say to us, or we cannot just make assumptions. The and bad in that survey for us and for the police. 58% process of police complaints investigation is actually of them supported independent investigation, 56% a very technical process and sometimes people will of them thought there is less misconduct in PSNI withdraw because it just takes too long; that is than there is in other Forces. 43% thought their another problem we have. We have tried to speed it members should be able to complain to me. So there up but there are limitations on our ability to speed it is a range of issues coming out of them. 74% were up. So I suppose what we have done is to identify satisfied with the time that we had taken to deal with what we see as the main issues and we are attempting the complaint, 64% satisfied with the outcome, and to address those. David, you have a responsibility yet—and yet—67% want more knowledge about us. for investigations, do you want to add anything? That was the first thing that we addressed, the Mr Wood: No, but getting back to your original question of knowledge: what are we going to do question, I do not think there is strong evidence to about how much police oYcers know? We had done suggest that people do not come to us because of what we could. Police oYcers have a Code of who we might disclose things to. It was a problem Conduct and the Code of Conduct is published by with the police investigating the police in Northern the Police Service. It contains in the back of it an Ireland because they were the prosecutors perhaps account of how complaints against the police are against the complainant as well as investigating the dealt with, but this is our account of how police complainant’s complaint, and the files were then put complaints are dealt with, and you actually have a together to the Director of Public Prosecutions. copy of this. Very rapidly after the survey results That does not happen with our OYce, the files do not came in we distributed that to each police oYcer, go together. Unless there is a requirement for them and we then worked on a series of measures which to go to the Director of Public Prosecutions they do were designed to ensure communication. I suppose not go there because it is dealt with independently we looked at the other issues around where we need and separately. The closure rate is of concern to us. the police, that sort of thing, but for me the key issue As Mrs O’Loan has said, there is research being is confidence, you are quite right about that, and I conducted now and we will obviously await the said that in my opening remarks to you. We have to outcome of that to see whether we can identify get the confidence of police and the only way we can further improvements. We do respond very fast and do that is to engage with them, because we found that we spend a lot of our time, particularly the three we have always responded within two days of a letter Y coming to us back to the complainant. We do of us, moving around engaging with police o cers. everything we can to secure support but at the end We have five police forces, but mainly we are dealing with the PSNI, and with three Police StaV of the day it often comes down to people making a Associations. So we have to deal with them. We have complaint after immediately being released from met all the District Command Units, we have had police custody, sometimes in drink, and reflection regular meetings with police at all levels across takes place the next day or the day after. Those sort Northern Ireland. David and I have a six-weekly of complaints maybe will never change. meeting with the Police Federation of Northern Mrs O’Loan: May I add one final thing, Chairman? Ireland—I think it is called Litigation Discipline There are many people who seek disclosure from us, Committee now, but it is the Committee that deals including our magistrates, and we have had to with our OYce. We have had extensive involvement explore what the law means with a lot of legal advice, in police training; we have had 25 sessions this year and on one occasion I had to refuse a magistrate and alone in police training to try to help them to was judicially reviewed, because she demanded my understand us; in new probationers, in Phase 4 complaints file, that she would have my whole probationers, in firearms training, in senior complaints file. That went to the court and the court investigating oYcer training and in the new CS spray found that the way she had done this, the training. We very quickly became aware that one of understanding was wrong, and it went again, and the the problems was that oYcers said they did not know end result was that the interpretation which we had what was happening in their case, where a complaint put on it was correct. It may change, Parliament may had been made against them. I think we have made choose to change the law, but the law is not a finely a mistake, because we came to the conclusion earlier tuned animal in that respect, it is developing all the on that we needed to notify complainants every six Ev 30 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

21 July 2004 Mrs Nuala O’Loan, Mr Samuel Pollock, Mr David Wood and Mrs Olwen Laird weeks where their complaint was, and our you must deal with people. For example, the law assumption was that oYcers were given a named does not permit us—nor would I wish it—to person to write to, they were given information interview my complainants under caution, but the about the process and they would understand that if law requires that if we are investigating a police you are waiting for the forensic science lab to come oYcer for a criminal oVence we must interview him back that takes a little time, if you are waiting for a under criminal caution, or for a disciplinary we must pathology report that takes time, and that therefore interview him under a disciplinary process, with a they would expect these delays. Also, we have to wait caution. That in itself engages a whole diVerent set for information from the Police Service itself and of dynamics. It is diYcult. I think there are many that takes time. I think that was the wrong decision. things we can say about that. All I can say to you is I have made inquiries since of Police Services and I that 18 months ago that figure stood at 13%; it is our am told that the RUC did not update police oYcers intention to revisit it, but we have so much work at all, unless they went to see them on a particular going on we will probably come to that later in the issue; there was not a regular update process in the policy practice investigation research, but I am not RUC. And there is no regular update process in sure when we will be able to, although I would hope most of British Forces. So we have introduced six- in the near future. We are working across a range of weekly updates to oYcers and each oYcer has a initiatives to improve that. named contact who is the investigator of the case, Mr Pollock: We have no benchmark in terms of and we hope that will improve the situation. I think what percentage of police oYcers would feel that it is going to be slow. I do not think it is a one-way their own complaints and discipline departments are thing though, if I may say so, Chairman; I think that impartial. I suspect that any regulatory body, the police and the Police StaV Associations have a inspectorate or investigation agency, the role to play here too, and we obviously seek their professionals here that are subject to investigation, it support and their co-operation in playing that role. will be diYcult to persuade them that we are fair. I have to say we were disappointed, we would like it to Q27 Mr Campbell: At the start of that reply, Mrs be much higher and we will work very hard to ensure O’Loan, you alluded to a number of the statistics in that it is much higher. The key thing is that police the survey, and you said that they caused you oYcers fully understand that the process does concern. provide massive protection to them as individuals Mrs O’Loan: Yes. and as professionals, and that we will seek to respect their rights as also with complainants. Q28 Mr Campbell: One of the statistics that you did Mrs O’Loan: Can I add one thing, Chairman? This Y not quote was that only 13% of oYcers agreed that survey disclosed other things about police o cer the Police Ombudsman’s investigators investigated attitudes. The two findings it disclosed, that I am complaints impartially. Does that cause you about to tell you about, are indicative of the reasons concern? That is 13%, not 30. why police may not regard us as impartial. The first Mrs O’Loan: Yes. May I just correct you—and I one is that 79% of police oYcers believe that the could be wrong again, Chairman—that I think the public do not have genuine reasons to complain; the question was, “Do you think the Police Ombudsman second is that 66% of police oYcers who responded is impartial?” Whichever it was, it was 13%, yes, and to our survey thought that complainants were out to that is why I started oV by saying that one of the make mischief. I lay those before you and ask you to most important things we have to deal with is consider the other figures in the light of those two, gaining the confidence of the police, because to me which I know were of huge concern to the police and that 13% is a typical issue, it is the one thing that probably to the Police StaV Associations. I said it appeared in the Press early on when we were still had good news and bad news for all of us. We must talking to the Federation about this. That 13% is a all work; we start in a place and we must move very important figure. 44% did not know whether we forward, and that is what we are trying to do. were impartial or not and 44% thought we were not impartial. We were impartial. So we have a lot of Q30 Mr Campbell: A couple more questions if you work to do, I have no doubt about that. would bear with me, Chairman? I am sure you would accept—and nearly everyone accepts—that in both Q29 Mr Campbell: But you do not think the fact that communities in Northern Ireland there is an only one oYcer in eight agreed in relation to your acceptance of the principle of some sort of impartiality is a significant figure? independent assessment of complaints against police Mrs O’Loan: Chairman, I think I answered you by oYcers, but at the very outset in your remarks you saying that I was very concerned about this. I did not mentioned the fairly high acceptance level in both use the word “significant” but I am quite happy to communities. use the word significant. I would say to you that Mrs O’Loan: Yes. there is a diVerence between the way that we must deal with police oYcers and with our complainants, and that is a diVerence which is imposed on us by the Q31 Mr Campbell: Again, you alluded to, but did system, because the police oYcers with whom we not say, that there was a distinction in the have to engage are either suspects because an percentages between the two communities. Why is it allegation has been made against them or they are that Protestants are less likely to think that you are witnesses. The law prescribes certain ways in which doing a fair and good job than Catholics? Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 31

21 July 2004 Mrs Nuala O’Loan, Mr Samuel Pollock, Mr David Wood and Mrs Olwen Laird

Mrs O’Loan: I am not going to second-guess what I believe they must have them because I do not think individuals think, I can only share the figures with that police oYcers should be exposed to a degree of you, Chairman. risk, and I think the baton round is necessary. On Special Branch I have consistently said that Special Q32 Mr Campbell: I was not talking about Branch has done a very necessary and very individuals, this presumably is a survey of a large important job in policing in Northern Ireland, and number of people? we need a Special Branch. We need reform Mrs O’Loan: Yes. Impartiality, 70% of Protestants throughout our Police Service because everything think I am impartial, 84% of Catholics think I am needs reform, my OYce, all Police Services and even impartial, on the latest figures; help the police to do Parliament. Reform is part of life because if you do a good job, 86% of Catholics, 75% of Protestants; not change you die. I think it is right that we should and on fair treatment, 76%, so it is equal on both have a Special Branch and I know that there are communities. I suppose that the reasons why parts of the Nationalist community, probably both Catholics are more likely to feel confidence is that parties would want Special Branch away. On simple there has never before been an independent system things, like CS spray, I made a statement saying that and an independent process through which they our police oYcers had nothing between their batons could make complaint, and there is a certain and their firearms to protect themselves and I evidence that Catholics were reluctant to complain wanted them to have CS spray. I think I am right in in the past. I think the situation with the Protestant saying that both the political parties and the community was a stronger relationship with policing Nationalist side do not want CS spray. I can only say so that if things went wrong they felt that they could to you, Mr Campbell, without wishing to be in any engage with the police. We are a totally new body. way disrespectful, through you, Chairman, that I am The Police Service of Northern Ireland is moving not a puppet or a tool of any political party, I am an through a period of change which I think is independent body. unparalleled across the world, and in that process Chairman: Mr Campbell, I do not think we want to the perception—and I am really trying to work out get into personalities and I want to say at this stage, what is going on here because you asked me to do I hope on behalf of the entire Committee, that those so—is that Protestants wonder what is happening to of us who have known Mrs O’Loan over the years the Police Service, when they have independent doing this job have no doubt about her integrity or investigation. They have moved, for example, from her impartiality. Whatever else we might criticise 51% believing in my impartiality three years ago to about her work, that is not one of the things. I do not 70% now. So we are working at it, Chairman, I think think we should get into personal matters. that is all I can say. What comment I have made Mr Campbell: I wanted to be clear, Chairman, that about the reasons people may have voted the way Mrs O’Loan agrees—hopefully she will agree—in a they did in this independent survey, you just have to deeply politicised society, if there are political take it that that is my guesswork and nothing more. Chairman: Yes, and I think that those figures which connections by extension of anyone in a position as show improvement amongst both communities you hold, that it is imperative that that person speak for themselves, and you are to be demonstrates their impartiality clearly and congratulated. unequivocally to everyone with whom you come into contact, in order to try and ensure that event that political aYliation by extension is precluded Q33 Mr Campbell: One final question, Chairman. from the equation. Really progressing that on to a logical conclusion, Chairman: Mr Campbell, I did just say that we on the religious breakdown. Most people accept— would not go any further into personalities. All I and in fact it seems to be a self-evident truth—that would say, from my years of experience in Northern Northern Ireland is a very divided society and also a Ireland, that to find someone without some political very politicised one. Would you accept—and there is extension somewhere, by family, by friends or no delicate way of putting this—that if we have a anything else, you will be finding a very rare person Policing Ombudsman in Northern Ireland, whose spouse is a DUP councillor, that there would be who lives in Northern Ireland. We will not proceed some diYculty in the Nationalist community about down those lines. Mr Adrian Bailey. having confidence in the OYce of that person? Mrs O’Loan: I do not think that the DUP have a particular disenfranchisement from holding any Q34 Mr Bailey: Over the last four years your own position, Chairman. I would say that I think what surveys indicate that there has been no decline in the you are probably alluding to—and I will be even less proportion of people subjected to unacceptable delicate than you were—that my husband is, yes, an behaviour by the police—about 70%. Earlier you SDLP councillor, but I am not and I never have been said that some of your findings had been taken up to a member of any political party. I would also say to improve police processes, but would you not agree you that if we took the three major issues on which that this consistent level of dissatisfaction indicates your party and I think the Nationalist parties would that your OYce is having a negligible impact on be divided, on plastic baton rounds, I have raising standards of police behaviour? consistently said that the police must have these and Mrs O’Loan: I am sorry, Chairman, I understood I believe that both the National parties do not the latter part of the question but I did not believe that is the right position for me to hold, but understand the first few words. Ev 32 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

21 July 2004 Mrs Nuala O’Loan, Mr Samuel Pollock, Mr David Wood and Mrs Olwen Laird

Q35 Mr Bailey: I will just amplify. Your own Public which a gun was fired at somebody you can have the Attitudes Report indicates that from October 2000 possibility of a fatality. It is about enabling police to March 2001 and the recent one, that there has oYcers in their training to understand the been no significant variation in the proportion of consequences of using live fire, and I think that has respondents reporting that they had experienced happened and that is why it is trained. Perhaps even unacceptable behaviour from police oYcers. more importantly, the baton rounds: I have said that Mr Pollock: That is correct but the factor that we police oYcers should be able to use baton rounds look at more closely is the overall level of complaints when they are necessary, but they have not been used that we are receiving and registering. There has been in the past 20 months possibly, since 11 September a significant decline in the volume of complaints 2002. That is a very significant change in policing from 2001 through to our most recent annual report. policy and practice. Our situation has changed too: More significantly, there has been a decline in the we do not have as much interface violence, but we level of oppressive behaviour complaints—that is still do have interface violence. The bulk of our more of the serious matters that have been registered complaints come in in respect of Friday night, by us—and, significantly, the use of force. We see Saturday morning 9 o’clock to 3 o’clock, like any that as a very important trend and pattern that is other Police Force in the United Kingdom. That is developing. So, whilst the public survey result around police behaviour, the interaction between cannot be ignored, it is very much a general police oYcers, the way in which people are handled perception by members of the public, and it is one when they are brought into police stations and all that is quite often referred to, that the public have that sort of thing. I am not saying that we have made had a much greater fear of crime than might actually the diVerence, but I am saying that we have made a be the reality. We cannot ignore the public contribution. perception but I think the level of complaints and the nature of the complaints that we are registering is showing a very, very positive trend, and there are Q37 Mr Bailey: Can I pick up this issue of training other more specific things in terms of what Mrs because I believe Mr Wood in the past has made a O’Loan has been able to do with the Police Service remark that, “PSNI are years in training and having to change behaviour and to work towards to catch up fast”. You have given what would improvements that we feel are pretty significant, and appear to be a very good example of the way that certainly to have achieved it within three and a half they are catching up; could you elaborate on that? years is important. Mrs O’Loan: I will elaborate and then I will let David speak because I suspect you are taking what he said very slightly out of context, with the greatest Q36 Mr Bailey: There is an issue about complaints respect. Training issues in the Police Service of and allegations, but I will leave that for further Northern Ireland, as the Federation themselves consideration. You wanted to come back, Mrs acknowledge, fell into second place to the need to O’Loan? survive. Our police oYcers are provided with Mrs O’Loan: I wanted to come back on the nature personal protection weapons and those personal of the change in policing policy and practice. protection weapons are literally that. So they were Complaints are reducing; as Tom said, oppressive trained to use those weapons to shoot at targets for behaviour is down. We have made significant their own survival. They were not trained around change, we know that, because if you take something things like crossfire, ricochet and the eVects of other as simple as the use of batons by police oYcers in things, and that was a very serious problem. That Northern Ireland, when we started police oYcers has all changed since we started investigating these were 40 times more likely to be the subject of a things. There is no doubt that if you have to retrain complaint about their use of baton than police 13,000 oYcers every six months—and in England it oYcers in the UK; they were six times more likely to might even be every three months, but in Northern suVer injury than police oYcers here. So we began to Ireland it is every six months—that is a huge training look at the reasons why because it is not enough to burden. But there was other training and we are very say that they hit people more often or they are pleased to see a much higher commitment and an perceived to hit people more often. So then we ability to process people through training now. I looked at how often they were trained, and issues believe that David Wood was misreported to a like that. We discovered, for example, that a degree and certainly was the subject of unfair significant number of police oYcers, unless they do criticism, and I would like to give David the special training, were only trained once in their opportunity to talk about the issue that you raised. policing careers. In England and Wales police Mr Wood: It was in the RUC area in years gone by oYcers in most Forces have to re-qualify every year really but because of the pressures and challenges to or they are not allowed to carry a baton. Once you police in Northern Ireland training, probably by put into place training the numbers drop, so the necessity, took second place. I would not suggest for numbers are down from 419 in 2001 to 148 in 2003. one moment that the PSNI are today or for the last I think that is about training; I think it is about few years behind in training, they are now catching management; I think it is about supervision; I think up fast. But I think it has been catching up rather it is about expectations. One of the problems we had than anything else and, as Mrs O’Loan has stated, was the use of live fire by police oYcers and that is there was certainly a paucity of training in lots of down from 21 to five in the last year. That is very, areas in policing. I think in detective training and very important because on each of the occasions on senior investigators a course was started about two Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 33

21 July 2004 Mrs Nuala O’Loan, Mr Samuel Pollock, Mr David Wood and Mrs Olwen Laird years ago in PSNI, but I suspect now—and the Mrs O’Loan: I find it slightly diYcult to answer, Deputy Chief Constable will be able to tell you Chairman. I suppose my view is that sometimes it is later—that all senior investigators in Northern very important that you can say sorry, and Ireland have the appropriate training, but that was traditionally policing across the world did not not the case two years ago. Detective training too explain and did not say sorry. Policing in Northern was patchy around Northern Ireland, and it was all Ireland has moved into a new era; the Chief areas of policing policy in fact that were behind in Constable has apologised on occasions when his training. They have had an enormous challenge to oYcers have got it wrong. I think if it is possible to catch up. They have a new Academy, in terms of say, “Yes, we can get it wrong,” then it is possible to building, they have the new leadership there and believe that we do get it wrong. But if it is not training has moved on dramatically and they are possible to say, “We may get it wrong,” then you will catching up. As Mrs O’Loan said, firearms training not be able to say, “We do get it wrong.” I think it is is now done in a very thorough and productive way as simple as that; it is all around the culture and the and we take part in all firearms training courses with expectation, and I think that is changing. their oYcers, and that is done every six months, Chairman: We have a lot of questions left, so we need although in the rest of the UK it is every three to keep moving. Could I ask the Committee months. There is a slightly diVerent context of members to make their questions brief and perhaps firearms of course in Northern Ireland but it is still we could have some briefer answers. I know these necessary to have that training. So that is the context are very complex questions and I am in no way being and, as I say, I think now it has been caught up with, critical, but we have a long way to go and another set but in the past there was a gap in the training without of witnesses. Mr Tony Clarke. any doubt. Q40 Mr Clarke: Thank you, Chairman. That was a very careful answer, if I may say so, in terms of Mr Q38 Mr Bailey: To what extent do you think that Bailey’s last question, but would it be fair to say that past gap in training was instrumental in the level of 100% of Police Forces, if asked, would say that there complaints that you received? is less misconduct in their Force than in anybody Mrs O’Loan: We get a lot of complaints about else’s? retrospective cases and Parliament has given me a Mrs O’Loan: Maybe. duty, where the allegation is grave or exceptional, to investigate; it did not give me a discretion. In those cases what we find very often is that the people who Q41 Mr Clarke: I want to return to the use of batons. were doing the investigations very often did what I am highly supportive of the work of the they could in terms of the resources available to Ombudsman, but it has almost been claimed that the them, their other workload, the situation which they Ombudsman’s work has resulted in less use of were operating and their training. What they did batons, whereas the reality, I suppose, is the reason that there is less use of batons is that there has been would not measure up against today’s standards but Y we do not measure them against today’s standards, an introduction of CS spray, and that o cers would we measure them against the standards at the time at rather spray somebody from 10 feet than hit them which they conducted the operation. So, for with a baton from three; is that fair? example, we will not make any recommendations for Mrs O’Loan: It is a simple answer, Chairman. The disciplinary procedure because if an oYcer has not CS spray came in on 1 July of this year, so we do not been trained you cannot hold him culpable for that, have figures that we can compare with the CS spray but what we will do (and do) is to say to the Chief and the batons. Mr Pollock: It is about the complaint that arises Constable, “In this investigation we believe there are from the use of batons and not the total use of unexplored evidential opportunities”—we are batons that might exist. talking in 99% of these cases of murder cases—“and therefore we believe that you would wish to revisit these opportunities and to see whether you can bring Q42 Mr Clarke: I accept that but I think that most this case to closure for people.” Conversely, we can other UK Forces that have introduced CS spray go back to people and say, “Actually the case in and/or PAVA, there have been huge drops in the use which you were involved, the death of your loved of batons which would obviously lead to a drop in one, is one in which the police did as thorough a job the number of complaints because it is a better Y as possible.” We have done that and we have gone option for police o cers’ safety. So would it be fair back to people and we have had the response, which to say that the real reason that there has been a drop was, “For the first time in 15, 20 years I am able to in complaints in respect of the use of batons is not sleep at night.” I think that is enormously important necessarily because of any investigative work, it is because we are a very wounded community in because the use of CS spray has meant that there is Northern Ireland, as well as a very divided less use of batons and therefore less complaints? community. Mrs O’Loan: Chairman, no, that is not correct, with respect. It is now 21 July and they started using CS spray three weeks ago. So until three weeks ago they Q39 Mr Bailey: Finally, in your survey of police had no opportunity to use CS spray, the only thing oYcers 56% thought that there was less misconduct they had was the batons, yet the baton use has in the PSNI than in most other Police Forces. What reduced. As I said in answer to one of your would be your view of that? colleagues earlier, I felt it was attributable to a Ev 34 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

21 July 2004 Mrs Nuala O’Loan, Mr Samuel Pollock, Mr David Wood and Mrs Olwen Laird number of things: one was better training, one was Mrs O’Loan: No, we are not going to stray into the fact that we had fewer interface situations and, operational matters but we are certainly going to finally, a lot of the baton complaints come on Friday stray into areas like Article 1 of the Police Code of night/ Saturday morning, et cetera, and I think that Conduct, which refers to the need to police police oYcers are being trained in what we might call impartially, or Article 10 which refers to the need for “conflict resolution”—find another way out of management and supervision to take place in a this—and I think that is extraordinarily beneficial to proper manner. Those are conduct issues, and in the police and to us. each situation with which we are faced we have to examine the conduct of the oYcers. If we have a Q43 Mr Clarke: That would be the same for live suYcient body of concern from the general public rounds because you note there have been reductions about a particular issue then I think it would be in the use of live rounds? appropriate for us to initiate a policy and practice Mrs O’Loan: Yes. investigation. We have actually initiated one policy and practice investigation since we got the power, Chairman. It started oV as an investigation into the Q44 Chairman: Are they required to report the use identification of police oYcers because there are of CS spray to you, as a matter of routine? ongoing problems with people being able to identify Mrs O’Loan: No. the oYcer with whom they are in conflict, but then we realised that there were further problems and we Q45 Chairman: Do you know if it has been used in have now set about a major consultation with the last three weeks? community groups, political parties, et cetera, about Mrs O’Loan: It has been used in the northwest in the identification of police generally, vehicles and past week and we have had four complaints—three everything else, and whether this meets public needs, about the use of it and one associated with the use of taking into account policing needs. We certainly do it—this week. not seek to interfere with the Chief Constable’s operational decision-making. Q46 Mr Clarke: It is probably a fairer question to ask the PSNI, but do oYcers have to complete the use of force forms after every withdrawal of baton or Q49 Mr Beggs: Is the distinction between practice CS spray? and policy on the one hand and operations on the Mrs O’Loan: They do. other unclear? Mr Wood: They have a very comprehensive policy Mrs O’Loan: I think there are situations in which and procedure of what takes place immediately policy and practice influence operations, clearly. after. It has to be properly reported, yes, and we were What we have to look at are the conduct issues. That properly consulted on the use and we think it is a is one set of questions. Are they conducting issues to good and substantial policy to compare with any conduct an investigation? Are they policy and other policing service. practice issues? Policy is what the PSNI tells the Mrs O’Loan: I think you can pursue it with the force it should do and how it should do it; in practice Deputy Constable, but the actual canisters are it is how they actually do things and, if there are no weighed and they can tell whether they have been instructions, then what do they do. Those are the used or not. issues that we look at under the policy and practice, Chairman: Those will be questions for later. Mr Chairman, if that helps. Roy Beggs.

Q47 Mr Beggs: I would like to put some questions Q50 Mr Beggs: Are you seeking any further with regard to the future role of the Police legislative change to extend your powers in this area? Ombudsman in respect of investigations and police Mrs O’Loan: I have not sought any legislative policies. Did you proactively seek additional powers change to extend my powers in that area. I have to investigate this practice and policy contained in sought legislative change to enable me to mediate the 2000 and 2003 Acts, and why were these without investigating first. The legislation that I additional powers necessary? have under the 2000 Act says that I can mediate Mrs O’Loan: May I say, Chairman, that when the where a person is in conflict with the policy but I can OYce was established in the 2000 Act we were given only do so after investigation. The process of the power to research police policy and practice. At investigating police complaints is lengthy; it is no stage did I seek a power to investigate police adversarial. By the time you have investigated to the policy and practice. My belief is that it came out of point at which you think that really this is for talks in which political parties were engaged, and I mediation, the parties are distanced far more than do not think I need to say any more about that, they would be if you had come to the mediation first. because I was not involved in that process. There are many complaints where I can see mediation as the answer to the problem, but the Q48 Mr Beggs: Can you assure the Committee that legislation says I cannot do that; I must investigate with those powers that are available to you that first. I am seeking that one change to the legislation, there is no danger of your OYce straying into PSNI which is the removal of the requirement to operational matters? investigate before mediation. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 35

21 July 2004 Mrs Nuala O’Loan, Mr Samuel Pollock, Mr David Wood and Mrs Olwen Laird

Q51 Mr Beggs: To date, we understand that only real investigation. We were scheduled under the one investigation into policies and procedures has Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and that been conducted with reference to oYcers not required us to set up particular procedures for displaying numerals on uniform in public order investigatory powers, which we use; those are special incidents. What other investigations into policies investigatory powers. We were inspected by the and procedures are planned Surveillance Commissioner in March and he Mrs O’Loan: No, what I said to you was that we reported back to me that he had no requirements of have widened the scope of the identification, police me, but he would have expected nothing less of me. and practice and we are conducting that one. We We have new duties coming, as I said, to investigate have adopted a particularly theoretical framework complaints against non-sworn oYcers. The DPP within which to do that. We want to be able to stand now will have a duty to refer complaints to us. I over the methodology. We have not planned any guess all those are building our workload. I think further ones beyond that at the present time. There our hope is that because the level of complaints is are a number of policy and practice issues which diminishing, we can redirect resources and try and come to me, such as arrest processes; people will manage the thing. We recognise the limitations on bring to me repeatedly complaints about the number the public purse. That is what I am trying to say to of Land Rovers which arrive at their house when the you. police want to arrest and the times at which they arrive. That is an issue which I think is cause for concern, but I have not made a determination with Q54 Reverend Smyth: As I understand it, your my senior management team that will do that. Secretary of State is about to have contact with you and you are in contact with him about long-term policing objectives, and likewise the Chief Constable Q52 Mr Beggs: What level of additional resources in the formulation of codes of ethics. How often do would be required for your oYce to pursue further you have such contact or have you had on those investigations of the police procedures and policies? issues? Mrs O’Loan: We have not sought any further Mrs O’Loan: Is that on objective or code of ethics? resources to do this, Chairman. We have attempted The Code of Ethics was passed in 2003 and we were to do what we can with the resources available to us. consulted I think for about two and half years before The structure of our process is that if we identify a that after the legislation was passed until it was need for further resources, we should make a adopted. I made lengthy representations on that business case to the NIO, and that is what we would one. There is a new booklet which the police have do. At the present time, we have not done that. produced for staV on the Code of Ethics on which I was not consulted, but that is there. The second Q53 Reverend Smyth: You have made reference to thing you asked was about the Secretary of State. I the fact that you have been asking for some changes meet the Secretary of State and I met him most but there have been some legislative changes since recently three weeks ago. I meet the Northern the oYce has been set up. What has the overall eVect Ireland OYce Permanent Under Secretary and I been upon you and how has it aVected you in meet the Senior Director of Policing and Security, stabilising the work of the Ombudsman with such the number two to the Permanent Under-Secretary, changes? and also the Director of Policing. We have various Mrs O’Loan: We have had a lot of changes in three meetings across various levels. and a half years. Briefly, we started oV having to investigate police conduct against three sets of V Q55 Chairman: You have slightly anticipated some di erent regulations. We have now moved in to of the questions we were going to ask you in your post-March 2003 conduct. We have one code of answer to Mr Beggs about mediation. Let me try and ethics. When we get to conduct, that is it. We have get us back on track there and then other colleagues two standards of proof in discipline cases we are must feel free to come in. You believe that it is wrong currently investigating. One is beyond a reasonable that mediation should come after you have got doubt the other is on a balance of probabilities. All underway a formal investigation and found that those create process needs for us, and so that is one there is nothing terribly serious and you could thing. We have a retrospective duty to investigate; perhaps solve it informally. You actually need a that came in 2001. Initially, complaints could be basic change in the law to achieve that, do you? made within two years of the incident, then it Mrs O’Loan: Yes, we do because the Police Act says became one year, and now it is one year unless it is that I can mediate after investigation. Those words grave or exceptional without limit. That has Y are in at law, and I have to get those words removed imposed a burden on the o ce, and it is a resources to enable us to mediate—to decide at some point burden, but I think those complaints come from Y perhaps even in the investigation that this is more police families, prison o cer families, UDR suitable to mediation. families, all sorts of families right across the community. There clearly is a need for something to be done there. We have the new power to investigate Q56 Chairman: This may well be something we policy and practice, which Mr Beggs referred to. would want to recommend as a result of your What we have done there is restructure the oYce to experience. It is simply a question of taking some enable the function to be exercised and find a words out to allow you to start the process by saying, methodology and things like that to start the first “Is there any way we can do this informally?” Ev 36 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

21 July 2004 Mrs Nuala O’Loan, Mr Samuel Pollock, Mr David Wood and Mrs Olwen Laird

Mrs O’Loan: Chairman, we have had lengthy talks against my staV. If the people are not satisfied, they with the Police Service and with the Police unions, can go to the Secretary of State, and they do. A the staV associations. They have all agreed. Most number of those 20 and those eight have come recently we had a final meeting to fine-tune our through the Secretary of State. The Secretary of understanding and the Police Service understanding State has the power to operate on a call-in basis an of how this would work, and we are in the process of independent investigation of my oYce. He has not communicating our joint position to enable the used that power but it does exist. I suppose for me Northern Ireland OYce to bring to Parliament the the biggest form of accountability is something like necessary change. coming here today, but we also have a Criminal Justice Inspector and he has the right to inspect the Q57 Chairman: Have you made a formal processes of my oYce. He has a complete right of representation to the Northern Ireland OYce yet? access to information, et cetera, and to premises and Mrs O’Loan: We did make a formal representation, all that sort of thing. I think he is planning to inspect and it has been going on for about two years. They us next September. The Surveillance Commission, as have consulted the staV unions and the police and I have said, inspects us. The Comptroller and come back. Auditor General is enormously important because we are the repository of £7 million worth of public Q58 Chairman: I think that is a very satisfactory funds. We are audited in respect of the way in which moment for us to say that we hope we can help you we spend that money, and I am heartily glad of that. o this subject. We are required to report to the Secretary of State. Mrs O’Loan: Thank you, Chairman. We are required to account to the Policing Board, as Mr McGrady alluded to, in terms of the Q59 Mr Tynan: Could you explain how the various recommendations which we make and the reporting oversight mechanisms you highlight in your structures there. The core of this to me is that we Y submission provide an eVective and focused review have had these 28 complaints. Police o cers are not mechanism for those individuals who wish to shy when it comes to making complaints and they complain about the activity of your oYce? have had judicial review on a number of occasions. Mrs O’Loan: Yes. Can we take diVerent groups of We have not lost the judicial review. We have been individuals perhaps, and children first of all because judicially reviewed on a number of occasions. The I was asked about children and they are very fact that the independent mechanism exists in the important? Children in Northern Ireland can Secretary of State’s oYce to call in an independent complain to a Commissioner for Children and outsider I think is good. I suppose that I actually Young People. The Commissioner for Children and think that this is a good process, and this is probably Young People has the powers of a High Court judge, the wrong wording too, because it really compels us and he has the power where I have investigated to to scrutinise what we are doing. come and investigate my investigation. He can compel witnesses to give testimony. I cannot, for example, compel police oYcers to give me evidence, Q60 Mr Tynan: How do you respond to the but he has that power to compel, which I do not allegation of the Police Federation that states that have. That is the children. Anybody can make a several of their members have no confidence in the complaint against the oYce, and we are a very small present system of accountability? oYce. We have had 20 complaints from police Mrs O’Loan: As I have told you, we have received oYcers in respect of which 12 were about one from police oYcers 20 complaints, a total since we incident, and that one incident was the occasion on opened of about 40. We have dealt with each of which police oYcers walked up and down the steps them. They have all had the right to come back to us of Stormont, which is our parliament building. We or to go back to the Secretary of State. When we are received two allegations of minor assault but, dealing with complaints by police oYcers, we deal because we did not know which police oYcers might also with the Federation or the Superintendents’ have been responsible for these minor assaults, we Association, whichever, because they represent the had to serve notices on every single police oYcer that oYcer to us. We have satisfied them in our dealing they might be under investigation, to give them with the complaints that we have dismissed a notice so that they could prepare any defence that member of staV on the foot of a police oYcer’s might be necessary. We had complaints that we had complaint. We have disciplined; we have retrained served these notices. They did not think we should oYcers, and all that on the foot of 40 complaints. We have served these notices because they had done take complaints very seriously because I think, if we what they were told to do, go up and down the steps. seek to judge the integrity and the professionalism of That was one case. We had 20 complaints from others, we must do all we can to try and see that our police oYcers and we have had eight complaints this staV do their job professionally. year from members of the public. There have been 28 complaints against the oYce. The current mechanism is that these people complain to us. We Q61 Mr Tynan: Obviously it is vitally important for then will appoint an independent member of staV people to have confidence in your oYce. Does the who has not been previously involved to investigate. fact that the Police Federation state that some of Mr Pollock deals with all public complaints. Mr their members feel as they do concern you? How Wood deals with allegations by police oYcers would you rectify that? Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 37

21 July 2004 Mrs Nuala O’Loan, Mr Samuel Pollock, Mr David Wood and Mrs Olwen Laird

Mrs O’Loan: It does concern me. It always concerns and there are various other circumstances which me if police oYcers feel unhappy about the oYce in mean it is inappropriate to take action against the any respect. What we are attempting to do is to go oYcer at this time, so I have accepted those. round at the lowest level possible in groups and just to talk to people. That is hard to arrange. I asked the MSU Commander in a particular area, “Can I come Q63 Mr Tynan: Can I take it that your answer is and talk to your mobile support units?” Those are “no”, you would not welcome that? the operational support units and they go in Land Mrs O’Loan: I just think you have to look at the Rovers when there is a problem. “Yes of course you proportionality. You have to look at the function of can”, he replied. It was arranged and then I received an ombudsman and you have to see what you are a phone call to say, “Sorry, we have been called out”. dealing with. I do not make final decisions. I make We have been unable to arrange it since. I do not decisions which are referred to other people—the think that is any reflection on them; it is just the Chief Constable or the Director of Public pressures on policing. We are trying to engage with Prosecutions. Against each of those decisions, there the police because I think they should understand is then an appeal process. The Policing Board the process and understand that at the end of the day recently have agreed that, given that, they feel that is there is a mechanism for independent investigation an appropriate level. by the Secretary of State, by an independent person appointed by the Secretary of State, and there are all Q64 Mr Tynan: I understand the process. There has these other mechanisms; there are at least 12 been a recommendation. I was asking you if you Y mechanisms for scrutinising our o ce. would be happy with that under the Assembly Mr Wood: For the complaints that have been made Ombudsman. I understand that it is not devolved. by the police there is the single point of contact, the Obviously this suggestion has been made and the Police Federation, and they come through them to direct question was: would you be happy with that? us. I have actually spoken to their representative on Mrs O’Loan: Mr Tynan, I will do what Parliament many occasions on this subject. There is not one requires me to do. I do not think it is a matter of me complaint that has been made through the Police being happy or unhappy. I will do what Parliament Federation that they would not say has not been requires me to do, and I will do it graciously and satisfactorily resolved at the end of the day. There willingly. I do not want to be seen or to be perceived are not a lot of aggrieved complainants out there to be saying “yes” or saying “no” because I do not who have complained to your oYce about the think that is my role. My role is to carry out the behaviour of our staV and remain dissatisfied with function, to explain to you the issues, to explain the how it has been dealt with. numbers, and to leave you to make the decisions.

Q62 Mr Tynan: Would you welcome Dr Hayes’s Q65 Mr Hepburn: Legislation has meant that you suggestion that your oYce should be placed under have acquired new powers and duties. How has this the jurisdiction of the Assembly on this point? increased the financial and staYng problems and Mrs O’Loan: I think there are diYculties there pressures on your oYce? because police and justice are not matters which are Mrs O’Loan: The oYce was established in 2000. devolved to the Assembly in the first instance, so it When we were established in 2000, one of the things just could not be done at the present time. I think it is we did was go round looking at what policing costs. a matter for Parliament to decide. I do not honestly Dr Maurice Hayes did this too. We were established think it is a matter for me, but you then have to look with a budget of about £3.5 million. Hayes said that at what an ombudsman is and what the process is. the cost of running RUC complaints handling under All the decisions which I make are the old system was about £6 million in 1996 or 1997, recommendations, not decisions. I recommend to so we have a lower budget. It very rapidly became the Director of Public Prosecutions that a police clear that the budget which had been allocated to the oYcer should be prosecuted. The Director of Public oYce initially was totally inadequate for what the Prosecutions is a totally independent oYcer and he government was asking us to do. There was a re- decides. He has, if you like, a review; he sends papers evaluation of the functions of the oYce in 2002 and out to counsel; he determines whether what I have the budget went up then. Since then, it has simply presented to him is right, and he makes the decision. more or less kept pace with inflation; it has increased If you like, there is an appeal already in there. If a slightly. Although we have new powers and new police oYcer is prosecuted, then he appears in court. duties, the level of complaints has gone down, so we If he is convicted, he has a right of appeal all the have diverted people into quality assurance or way through the normal criminal process. On the research and things like that to try and make the best disciplinary side, I make recommendations to use of the resources we have and to meet our the Chief Constable for disciplining of oYcers. The statutory duties. We do have a delay in dealing with situation is that those are recommendations. some of our retrospective cases. We are not funded The Chief Constable can reject them, and there have to do that at the present time. I have not made a been a few occasions where he has rejected them. In further application. We will do them as best we can some of them, I have accepted that reaction; it may under the funding which we have. People be, for example, on the grounds that the oYcer is ill, understand that. Ev 38 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

21 July 2004 Mrs Nuala O’Loan, Mr Samuel Pollock, Mr David Wood and Mrs Olwen Laird

Q66 Mr Hepburn: We are informed that the key comes to me and tells me the story of a death, quite performance indicators are missing from the present what is going to come when we begin to investigate annual report. Does that not make it diYcult to it. Some of them we have been able to deal with compare year-on-year? within one month or two months; others are queuing Mr Pollock: We have established objectives and up, and we have 15 queuing up at the moment. There targets and we have addressed those from last year. are those concerns. I think it is part of a wider We have also produced a corporate plan for this problem that Northern Ireland has to resolve. I do incoming year and the goals for the next three years. not have the solutions to that. I am quite happy to Mrs O’Loan: I think the corporate plan contains the engage in the debate but I do not have the solutions. measurement against objectives that you are looking for. Q68 Mr Clarke: I think what you have just said in Mr Pollock: I refer you to pages 47 and 49 in terms respect of the complexities of army-police of the progress and achievement of objectives. relationships and receiving information is very helpful to us and it may be something we can put in our report, Chairman. Q67 Mr Clarke: I just wanted to give you the Mr Wood: We have not been resourced for opportunity to place on record the concerns that you retrospective inquiries. We have restructured, as we have expressed in your submission and in your get some flexibility within the budgets in any way, to annual report in respect of your ability to investigate direct resources to that. Indeed, a great deal of our historic matters. We do not know what those investigative resource is directed towards that type historic matters are but it would seem that they are of larger inquiry. We have to prioritise and deal with sensitive and that they will also be very time- matters as we get the resources with perhaps more consuming and resource-heavy. However, we have complaints coming through the door. It is a diYculty heard many times that we cannot move forward for us. We acknowledge, as Mrs O’Loan said, the until we deal adequately with the past. Would you diYculties on the public purse and we are getting comment on what your concerns are in respect of through them. As you have acknowledged, this is investigating those historic matters and when you resource-intensive, complicated by history and the feel the Ombudsman will be in a position to carry out time they go back, and they do take some time to those investigations and start to provide answers for resolve. members of the community that may be concerned? Mrs O’Loan: The really complicating factor is that Mrs O’Loan: We started to provide answers. The the forensic science lab was blown up, lots of police first retrospective investigation I did was into the stations were blown up, a lot of evidence has gone, death of Mr Sammy Devenny in 1969 and I people have died, memories have changed, locations published that in 2001, so we have been doing that have changed. Those investigations are diYcult. We from very early on. There are diYculties in doing always tell people at the beginning, “It may be that retrospective investigations. Very often, particularly we will be able to present you with an incomplete with the older ones, there were joint police and army picture of what happened and that may be all we can activities. I can investigate the police but I cannot do”. I want them to understand right from the very investigate the army. That is fine by me but it does beginning that we will do what we can within our mean that there are situations in which the army will powers and our remit but that there may be sometimes provide us with information but I have limitations on what we can find for them. no right to information as I have a right to Chairman: Mrs O’Loan, thank you to you and your information from the police. Some of the team very much indeed for being with us. You have retrospective investigations are actually dealt with been an enormous help and I hope that when we very quickly but I never know, when somebody report, we may be of some help to your oYce, too.

Memorandum submitted by The Police Service of Northern Ireland

PONI/PSNI Relationships

Within senior management of the PSNI, and most certainly with Internal Investigations Branch, there is a very professional working relationship with PONI and a genuine understanding of each other’s roles and matters arising. Senior oYcers have few issues regarding the Ombudsman’s functions. They are also of the opinion that the Nationalist community appear to be more content in dealing with police, knowing that PONI have oversight. Generally there is still some suspicion of the Ombudsman’s investigations in some parts of the organisation but eVorts are being made to educate oYcers, particularly in support groups (TSGs) and Detective ranks. In order to address problems, a system of Gold, Silver and Bronze groups have been set up between the DCC, PONI and IIB. The Gold group meets on a quarterly basis; Silver group on a monthly basis and Bronze group meet as required (normally monthly). All meetings have agreed agenda’s and rotate venues between PSNI & PONI. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 39

Strategic k Day-to-Day Gold Silver Bronze

Paul Leighton DCC Peter Kane IIB Sub branches Discipline, Peter Kane Head of IIB ! Any other members deemed Investigations, Intelligence, PONI appropriate given the agenda

Dave Wood Executive Director Justin Felice PONI Key staV dealing with the PONI ! Any other members deemed appropriate sections Justin Felice Head of appropriate given the agenda Investigations PONI

Of course there are diYculties to overcome. However I feel that the positive by far outweighs the negative. Complaints against the police have fallen very noticeably (10% per year since 2001–02 from 3,597—2,947 2003–04 this equates to an actual overall reduction of approx 18%). Whilst there may be many reasons for such a fall, I am sure that the fact that we now have an independent and robust investigation system overseeing the police has had an eVect on police oYcers’ behaviour.

Regulation 20 Reports The Police Ombudsman prepares Regulation 20 reports in relation to the discharge of firearms, discharge of PBRs, and deaths in custody. From these comprehensive Regulation 20 reports there have been significant policy changes and training improvements identified. As a result there is no doubt that the police are doing things better. To date PONI have completed 63 Regulation 20 reports, each of these reports being dealt with by a committee at Police Headquarters made up of senior stakeholders. Seventeen of the reports raised no issues at all whilst the remaining 39 reports identified matters in relation to equipment, training issues, procedures etc. All of the points raised by the Police Ombudsman were actioned by way of General or Weekly Orders and local instructions from Regional ACCs and Commanders.

FIREARM PBR DEATH RTA OTHER

20 28 9 5 1

Extract from Regulation 20 report relating to discharge of 29 baton rounds in the vicinity of Albertbridge Road, Belfast on 20 and 21 August 2002 “These were apparently spontaneous outbreaks of violence in mainly residential streets perpetrated by elements apparently determined to escalate a situation that had been rumbling in this community for some weeks. There is some evidence to suggest that there was a certain amount of preplanning and preparation by rioters. The Police reaction was both controlled and proportionate to the level of violence. The Police were subjected to a barrage of missiles and can be shown to exercise a high degree of restraint. There is overwhelming evidence to support the Police use of baton guns at this point. All the evidence suggests that the baton gunners acted entirely correctly within the guidelines set out in the ACPO manual of guidance, legislation and Human rights legislation. Warnings should and could have been given regarding the imminent use of baton guns on 21 August . . .”

Action The issues were covered in Weekly Order insert 37/03. Paragraph 2(3) which states that, whenever possible baton guns should be deployed in two-person teams, paragraph 6 which covers the composition and role of Baton Gun Teams, and paragraph 10(5) which states that where it is not possible to deploy baton gun teams the oYcer detailing the duty will make a speciﬁc note of the reasons, were all emphasised. The baton gun course, TSG/PSU supervisors course and the designated senior oYcer element in public order command training all emphasise the need to deliver warnings prior to the use of baton rounds, and to continue to issue warnings throughout the life of the authority to use baton rounds. The wording of general order 46/2000 states that warnings are to be given, “unless circumstances do not permit”. During learning events, trainers advocate that this qualiﬁcation needs to be set at a high threshold. In other words, it must be very much the exception that warnings are not delivered. Ev 40 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

Extract from Weekly Order 22/04

General Order Part I, No 46/2000, File Box D(a)—Service policy in relation to the issue, deployment and use of baton rounds in situations of serious public disorder Following a Regulation 20 report from the Police Ombudsman’s oYce, the following instructions should be brought to the attention of Baton Gun Commanders and those oYcers in charge of TSGs and PSUs. The above-mentioned General Order should be amended as follows: 1. At Appendix “A”, paragraph 5. Delete sub-paragraph (7) and replace with the following: 5. (a) A warning should precede any application of force. It is often claimed that warnings are not given, or that they are given but baton rounds are fired within a very short space of time, allowing little time for the message to spread to all involved. (b) Everything must be done to ensure those engaged in rioting are made aware of the potential use of baton rounds in order that they have the opportunity to desist or leave the area and that onlookers and innocent bystanders are also aware of the risk if they choose to remain in the vicinity. (c) (i) As an interim measure, pending the review of a number of General Orders, Police Service of Northern Ireland policy will be to ensure that several warnings are issued in advance of any use of force option being considered, unless impracticable in the circumstances. The wording of the warning will now be as follows: “Attention, attention this is a police message. Unless you stop rioting immediately, baton rounds will be fired.” (ii) At the appropriate time the final warning should be given as follows: “Attention, attention this is a police message. Unless you stop rioting immediately, baton rounds will (again) be fired. No further warning will be given.” (iii) The date, time, location, means of delivery and exact wording of warnings must be recorded by the oYcer(s) issuing the warnings. The oYcer issuing the warning must ensure that this is reported to the appropriate Control Room for recording on the Command and Control Serial. Where a warning is not given in the first instance the Baton Gun Commander should make a note in their notebook/journal of the circumstances leading to the firing of baton rounds without a warning being given and why a warning was not given. 2. At Appendix “A”, paragraph 6. Add a new sub-paragraph (6): (6) Removal of Injured Baton Gunners from Duty Baton gunners should be removed from baton gun duties if they are rendered unconscious, suVer a head injury or other injury that is more than trivial, unless wholly exceptional situations prevail (and retention on duty can be justified). The oYcer so removed should be examined by a qualified medical practitioner and passed fit to resume prior to returning to duty. Following a further Regulation 20 report a female intent on committing suicide fell from a radio mast whilst police were in attendance. As a result the PSNI trained and appointed additional Critical Incident Negotiators. Student oYcers now receive a lecture during their foundation training re first responder actions during suicide intervention. General order 55/00 was also issued to the service for those who did not attend the training.

Extract from Weekly Order 14/03

Death in police custody A recent investigation by the Police Ombudsman took place into a death in police custody. No criminal or misconduct matters were uncovered during the investigation. A number of recommendations were made by the Ombudsman and the following policies should be brought to the attention of staV responsible for, or performing duty in custody suites: 1. Custody Suites should not be left unattended whilst prisoners are detained. 2. The use of concertina doors in custody suites should cease. Estate Services Business Unit have been instructed to have these doors removed. Where there is an operational need to retain them, constant supervision of prisoners is required where they are used. 3. Consideration should be given to full time custody staV being detailed to assist the custody oYcer when prisoners are present. 4. District Commanders should ensure that existing Health and Safety Risk Assessments are reviewed in relation to the layout of individual custody suites. Where necessary, steps should be taken to reduce the risks to persons within the custody suite. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 41

5. There is a need to ensure that persons detailed, as custody staV are first aid trained. OYcers are reminded that they cannot absolve themselves from the personal responsibility of ensuring their training is up to date and adequate for the role performed. As a result of Regulation 20 reports by PONI in relation to the use of PBRs, the Ombudsman has commented that the firing was appropriate and justified, also that police have showed great restraint under considerable provocation of assault. Extract from Regulation 20 report:—It is clear however that on 12 July 2001, police oYcers on duty in the Ardoyne were subjected to a sustained and vigorous assault with all manner of missiles being used by rioters, including paint, acid and petrol bombs. The ferocity of this attack would indicate some degree of preparation on behalf of the rioters. Taking into account the level and extent of violence directed at the police and the large scale of disorder, there were many occasions where police would have been justified in discharging baton rounds, yet did not do so. There were also several occasions where police sighted gunmen and did not open fire, and may have been justified in having done so. OYcer G acted with great restraint and considerable courage. He should be congratulated for his professional response to a frightening and life-threatening situation when it appeared that his life, the life of his colleagues and the public were place in considerable danger. His colleagues are also deserving of similar praise for their restraint and professional behaviour on the evening. I would ask that my comments are brought to their attention. These type of comments contained in the Regulation 20 reports are valuable support for the actions of the PSNI in such circumstances.

Training The Police Ombudsman is always willing to assist in relation to requests to attend initial training to student oYcers, initial course for sergeants, ﬁrearms training, regional meetings, TSG meetings and federation meetings. I am aware that the Ombudsman’s input to ﬁrearms training is particularly well received and particularly useful. PONI have also attended and briefed oYcers about their role in the run up to major events (eg Drumcree). PONI Senior management, investigators and Complaint OYcers have also attended training provided to the PSNI by COT on the use of PBRs, the latest being in February and April of this 2004.

Tracking and Trending of Complaints

Trends IIB and PONI have developed a system to ensure that Commanders have details of complaints in their area. These details are statistical in nature and are readily available on SATURN via the common terminal. This allows Commanders to drill down into the complaints and identify trends, comparing previous/current ﬁnancial years and months by a number of factors, ie region, DCU, station, recorded date, allegation, weekday, time, location, factor, age of complainant.

Tracking IIB and PONI have established a tracking system to identify oYcers with three or more complaints in a 12-month period. Such oYcers are referred to Commanders for consideration as necessary. A Policy has been issued to all DCU commanders to develop actions regarding the members concerned. This is not an exhaustive list but outlines the main courses of action that are available: (a) Welfare must also be a consideration (family problems, sickness, debt, etc.) (b) No action required in relation to the oYcer. (c) Monitor. (d) Advice guidance. (e) Training. (f) Unsatisfactory performance procedure. (g) Superintendents’ written warning. (h) Return to IIB for discipline. Eight such reports have been forwarded to the PSNI with numbers of concerned members varying from 84 to 93 in this month’s report. Ev 42 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

Joint Investigations The Police Ombudsman and Internal Investigation Branch have worked together on joint investigations of oYcers of mutual interest and, indeed, have protocols and arrangements to share intelligence as necessary. 1. PONI were investigating a complaint from a member of the public of assault by a police oYcer. After their investigation PONI had to close the ﬁle due to lack of evidence. Internal Investigation Branch were covertly working on the same oYcer for much more serious crime but were only able to gain intelligence and not evidence. IIB during their enquiries became aware of the initial complaint of assault made by a member of the public and were able to identify police oYcers who were present at the time of the assault and were able to give evidence. In co-operation with PONI searches and arrests were made resulting in the oYcer being criminally convicted and dismissed from the Service as a result of the PONI investigation. 2. PONI received intelligence that a particular police oYcer was stealing audio equipment from recovered stolen cars that had been left outside the Police Station. In co-operation with IIB applications were made under RIPA and audio and visual equipment installed in a target car. Undercover oYcers were employed to report the vehicle stolen and an integrity test was established. The suspect oYcer did not respond to the test and after seven days the operation was closed. In any event the suspect oYcer subsequently left the Service.

Oversight of PONI I am aware that the Police Federation has concerns in relation to the systems and structures, which allow police oYcers to make complaints against the Ombudsman’s staV. The Federation are not happy with the present system, although I am aware that the Police Federation are making a representation to the NI AVairs Committee in their own right and are more than likely bound to raise this subject.

Historical Investigations PONI obviously investigate complaints which relate to incidents many years ago. It must be acknowledged that oYcers perform diVerent roles and therefore will already have undergone training and development (eg a current Detective Superintendent may have been a Detective Sergeant). Should amnesty or any other process of dealing with the past be agreed, it will be important for the Ombudsman’s remit to be considered.

Outcomes of PONI Investigations Over the period PONI have recommended misconduct/discipline charges in relation to 13 cases four have been heard with three oYcers being found guilty; one oYcer had his proceedings Stayed. The nine remaining cases have been arranged and are awaiting hearing.

Cases of Advice and Guidance 42 Cases with Superintendents’ Written Warning 10 Criminal Prosecutions Directed 19 Guilty 2 16 July 2004

Supplementary memorandum submitted by the Police Service of Northern Ireland

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE Thank you for your letter of 24 August 2004. The Committee asked for the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s response to a number of issues, and these are set out herewith.

What in your view is the signiﬁcance of the diVerence in the rates of decline of complaints and allegations? While we welcome the decline in both the numbers of complaints and allegation, the diVerence in the rates of decline is of some concern. The Police Ombudsman owns this information, and we would be interested in the results of any analysis her oYce were to carry out in this regard. Experience shows that the volume of both complaints and allegations is, to a considerable degree, dependent on the level of street disorder and the prevailing political atmosphere, and not only a reﬂection on the quality of the policing service. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 43

What weight is given to allegations and what to complaints in taking a view of the changes in the quality of policing which may be reﬂected in these ﬁgures? The PSNI’s trending and tracking policy takes cognisance of the number of complaints against any individual oYcer. Three or more complaints in a rolling 12-month period automatically highlights the oYcer to his or her management. The number of allegations may thereafter be considered when the oYcer has been so highlighted. Consequently, more weight is attached to complaints than allegations.

Have you found any confusion arising from statistics being kept in the form of both complaints and allegations? No: it is common practice in the policing environment to draw such distinctions.

Does the PSNI believe that the Ombudsman should be given a duty to investigate complaints against retired police oYcers? Allegations of criminal conduct made against retired police oYcers are investigated by the police service and the facts placed before the Director of Public Prosecutions (Public Prosecution Service). Section 56(3) Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 gives the Ombudsman’s oYcers the powers of a constable, and they are therefore empowered to investigate criminal allegations against retired members, should they choose to do so. However, their powers to report someone to the DPP(PPS) for prosecution are, by virtue Section 58(2) of Act, restricted to serving members only. The PSNI would be prepared to develop a protocol for forwarding reports to the prosecuting authority on the Ombudsman’s behalf without the requirement for further legislative change. Retirement from the police service does, of course, give protection from misconduct proceedings, as the legislation no longer applies to such individuals. The PSNI recognises that misconduct proceedings against retired oYcers may bring satisfaction to the complainant, however, as the Conduct Regulations are intended to maintain discipline in a uniformed organisation, it appears to be contrary to iriatural justice to subject an individual to such rules when he or she is no longer a member. Furthermore, the panel that normally sits for misconduct hearings would neither have jurisdiction over a retired member nor be able to impose any sanctions. Even if an entirely new judicial body with meaningful sanctions were to be constituted, any action taken would be unlikely to succeed given the robust argument under Human Rights legislation that retired members’ legal representatives would be likely to make. The position in respect of members who have resigned, been required to resign, or been dismissed is identical to that of those who have retired.

Does the PSNI believe that the Ombudsman should be given a duiy to investigate complaints against member of the British Army operating in aid of the civil power? Recommendation 58 of the Patten report, entitled “Army Support—Security Demands” states: “The role of the army should continue to be reduced, as quickly as the security situation will allow, so that the police can patrol all parts of Northern Ireland without military support.” The PSNI remains hopeful that the security situation will develop to allow the withdrawal of military personnel from the streets. There is a danger that the wrong message could be sent by extending the Ombudsman’s duty to investigate the British Army at this time. There have been occasions when the British Army has been present in riot situations that were subsequently investigated by the Ombudsman. Where relevant, she has had the freedom to make recommendations about military equipment and procedures, and these have been forwarded to the Army by the PSNI. The fact that, technically, she has no power to comment on the Army has not proved to be a barrier in such circumstances. There is already an independent oversight of the army, in the form of the Independent Assessor for Complaints Against the Military, Mr Jim McDonald. The Committee may wish to seek his views before reaching any conclusion on this issue.

Can you please provide the Committee with a brief summary on the facilities and training courses; information on the “benchmarking” undertaken in arriving at the physical, administrative and curricular structures chosen for the College; and whether the Police Ombudsman was involved in the plans for the College, and if so, what that involvement was? The new Police College of Northern Ireland will be constructed around a simulated learning environment supported by state-of-the-art learning and academic facilities. Practical work-based learning will support an action-centred activity based approach to skills development. The curricular activities are constructed through the expertise of a broad range of Learning Advisory Council members from all areas of the community. The “benchmarking” was undertaken by way of an international observation team, which examined many of the world-class facilities in Australia, the United States of America, Canada and Great Britain. They then worked with the college project team to develop overall plans for the new college. Ev 44 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

The Ombudsman’s oYce is a standing member of the Police College Learning Advisory Team and, additionally, regularly meets with Police College staV and has input to many of it courses. The Chairman asked for a comprehensive note from the PSNI on proposed changes to the Police Ombudsman’s mediation powers. Current arrangements allow for the mediation of complaints following a full investigation, and this remains an initiative we welcome: any aid to obtaining complainant satisfaction will attract the support of the PSNI; and it should increase public conﬁdence in the process. Current proposals move mediation to the beginning of the process, where it will be used as an alternative to informal resolution (IR). PSNI understands that, in suitable cases, complainants will be given the choice of mediation by the Ombudsman or IR by Police. The decision as to whether a matter is suitable for IR rests with the Ombudsman. According to the Ombudsman’s ﬁgures, about 30% of all recorded complaints are judged suitable for IR, and this is successfully undertaken in around 70% of such cases. With complainants being asked for their preference, the potential exisis for only those cases that have very little prospect of resolution being referred to the police. Adverse contrasts could then be drawn between the success of mediation arid the failure of resolution; and the police service will have lost an eVective management tool. Research into the IR indicates there to be a higher level of satisfaction among complainants using this process than those involved in a full investigation: they have the opportunity to have their say, the process is speedier, and they are actively involvement in the settlement. (Maguire and Corbett 1991 as reported in A Force For Change? The prospects of applying Restorative Justice to Citizen Complaints against the Police in England and Wales; The Centre for Criminal Justice Studies 2002). “A Force For Change?” also emphasises the importance of IR as a management tool; and The Hayes Report (1997) also described IR in this context. Hayes suggested that there should be appropriately trained, designated IR oYcers in stations. Nowhere in the report is there a sense that IR should be replaced by the Ombudsman. Under the new arrangements for England and Wales, the IR process has been renamed “local resolution” to indicate that it is a serious procedure. Although the Home OYce has established the Independent Police Complaints Commission, “Local resolution” remains a police and not an IPCC responsibility. Informal Resolution is about the management of people, of expectations, and of resources. Sector inspectors are familiar with local issues, police resources and their own staV. Our policy on trending and tracking makes it even more important that local managers are involved in resolving complaints. Complaints suitable for IR must not be of a serious nature or justify criminal proceedings. As the proposals currently stand, an oYcer may be the subject of IR, followed by mediation, followed by a full investigation. This contrasts with the arrangements in England and Wales, where it is explained to the complainant that consent to IR precludes a full investigation; and we would welcome similar arrangements here. An oYcer who has been through an IR process that has failed may be reluctant to consent to mediation, yet he or she will be disadvantaged if that consent is not forthcoming, as the Ombudsman will move to a full investigation. Although the conduct complained of must not be of a serious nature or justify criminal proceedings, oYcers could be subjected to three separate procedures. At a meeting with the Ombudsman on 7 July 2004 assurances were given that it would not normally be the intention to use all three methods of disposal, but the proposed legislalion would allow for that, and this is a cause for concern. 28 September 2004

Memorandum submitted by the Northern Ireland Policing Board

1. Introduction 1.1 The Northern Ireland Policing Board has a range of contacts with the OYce of the Police Ombudsman on routine and non-routine business. These contacts are set out in the following paragraphs. 1.2 However, particular to the Inquiry of the Northern Ireland AVairs Committee into the functions of the OYce of the Police Ombudsman is the Board’s statement on the Report by the Police Ombudsman into the Omagh Bomb Investigation. 1.3 The lessons that have been learnt from that Report and the handling of it are perhaps worthy of note by the NIAC. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 45

1.4 Some Members of the Board are satisﬁed with the progress that has been made to date. Others feel that more needs to be done and would suggest a review mechanism for the OYce of the Police Ombudsman. 1.5 The following comments are therefore oVered to help inform your Inquiry into the functions of the OYce of the Police Ombudsman.

2. Contact between NIPB and OPONI 2.1 The Policing Board has statutory duty to keep itself informed about the workings of the police complaints and disciplinary proceedings and about trends and patterns in complaints against police oYcers [section 3(3)(c)(i)of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 refers. 2.2 Statistical information supplied by OPONI every quarter assists the Board in fulfilling this statutory duty. 2.3 We have, since the Board’s inception, worked with OPONI to secure statistical information that focuses on outcomes of substantiated complaints. We are pleased to say that this has recently been received and will be supplied on a quarterly basis. 2.4 The Policing Board also has a statutory duty, as set out in section 3(3)(b)(ii) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 to monitor the performance of PSNI in complying with the Human Rights Act 1998. 2.5 We have developed a framework to assist us in fulfilling this statutory duty. [A number of copies are attached for your information at Appendix I]. However, the Reports completed by OPONI (Regulation 20 reports) into incidents involving the discharge of baton rounds, discharge of firearms, road traYc accidents involving police oYcers etc. form an important part of the information that we gather and which will be used/assist to help us measure the services’ compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998. 2.6 These reports, the recommendations contained within them and the PSNI response to the recommendations, are considered by the Human Rights and Professional Standards Committee of the Board. 2.7 The Board supports the current research into finding an alternative to baton rounds. In the interim the Regulation 20 Reports completed by OPONI, and indeed research reports into this aspect of policing, have proved helpful in reassuring the community that where baton rounds are used, their use is necessary, justified and proportionate. 2.8 The Board receives other non-routine reports/statements from OPONI, such as that statement recently received on the OPONI investigation into the police investigation of the murder of Sean Brown. 2.9 Individual Board Members also receive correspondence from police oYcers, and others, about the work of OPONI and some concern has been expressed at the lack of a redress mechanism for oYcers who are not content with the outcome of an OPONI investigation. This issue is further explored in section 3 below.

3. Omagh Bomb Report 3.1 Members of NIAC will no doubt be familiar with the Omagh bombing and the subsequent report by OPONI into the police investigation. This report was considered by the Board in early 2002 and following a number of days discussion a statement was issued by the Board. A full copy of this statement is attached for your ease of reference as an Annex. 3.2 Considerable sections of our statement are devoted to the actual police investigation and how conﬁdence in that investigation could be restored. 3.3 However, paragraph 6 of our statement focused on the relationships between OPONI and PSNI and on the need for a review mechanism for OPONI. As was noted in our statement, the Board was concerned at the public debate on this issue, the need to restore conﬁdence in two important elements of the policing architecture [PSNI and OPONI] and the need to ensure that natural justice would prevail in the future and that any lessons that could be learnt from the handling of the Omagh Reports were learnt for the future. 3.4 In terms of working relationships between PSNI and OPONI and issues such as ensuring that natural justice prevails, for example, where oYcers are to be named in public documents, both organisations have worked hard to develop protocols to cover a wide range of working situations. 3.5 In our “Omagh” statement, we referred to the need for a review mechanism for the work of the Police Ombudsman. Some Members of the Board consider that the mechanisms that existed then and now are suYcient to cover the need that existed at the time of our Omagh statement. 3.6 Other Members however, feel that there remains a gap in the review/redress mechanisms. At paragraph 2.9 above reference is made to oYcers who are not content with the outcome of OPONI investigation. Currently such oYcers, if their complaint is one relating to process or procedure, can take a judicial review. Some Members however feel that another form of redress is needed. They feel that taking cases to judicial review is not a course of action that many oYcers would choose to take and that a more user-friendly, accessible mechanism should be found. Ev 46 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

4. Conclusion 4.1 The Board welcomes inquiries by the NIAC and is pleased to oVer the above comments in the hope that these will inform your considerations. 4.2 It is important to note that the work of the Police Ombudsman is such that Members’ views diVer, on the work of OPONI in delivering its principal activities. It is impossible therefore to oVer a corporate submission. Rather we have identiﬁed, where possible, common ground and have highlighted issues on which Members’ opinions diVer. 30 March 2004

Annex

STATEMENT FROM NORTHERN IRELAND POLICING BOARD ON ITS RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE OMAGH REPORTS Chairman of the Policing Board,Professor Desmond Rea Said: “This has been a diYcult and testing time for everyone involved in the process. Notwithstanding these diYculties the Board has taken the time to listen to and hear all sides. We have taken the time to get all the relevant information and we believe that we have not shirked our responsibilities. “The Board acknowledges that lessons have been learned on all sides in relation to this process but believes that these recommendations will serve to enhance the true professionalism and service of all oYcers within the Police Service of Northern Ireland. They will also ensure wider community conﬁdence in the eVectiveness and eYciency of the Police Service. “Members of the Policing Board thank the Chief Constable and the Police Ombudsman for their co- operation during this process. The Board remain committed to ensuring that accountability and transparency are the foundations of our policing service. “The Board shares the view of both the Chief Constable and the Ombudsman that nothing should detract from the culpability of those who perpetrated the Omagh Bombing. “Following discussion between the Board, the Police Ombudsman and the Chief Constable it was agreed, on the basis of the information available that the Omagh Bombing could not have been prevented. “It remains the Board’s deep regret that there are those within our society who have the will to shatter ordinary people’s lives through such mindless acts of terrorism We should never forget the human loss and suVering that has been endured by so many as the result of such acts.”

Specially convened Meetings of the Policing Board to discuss the Omagh Reports—Tuesday 5 February 2002 and Thursday 7 February 2002 1. Introduction On Saturday 15 August 1998, at approximately 3.05 pm, a terrorist bomb exploded in the centre of Omagh. This atrocity killed 29 people and two unborn children. Some 250 people were injured, many seriously. In addition, untold others have been deeply aVected by the horror of what happened on that day. It is diYcult to begin to comprehend the immense suVering inﬂicted by that act of depravity. What is understandable is the pain, anger and frustrations of those who have had to cope, and try to come to terms with the aftermath. Members of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, along with the wider community in Northern Ireland, acknowledge this reality. The Board also acknowledges that the recently published report by the Police Ombudsman followed by the response from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and widespread media coverage and speculation, have undoubtedly exacerbated the feelings of all who have been aVected by what was one of the worst terrorist incidents since the start of the troubles in 1969. As the result of the discussions between the Board, the Police Ombudsman and the Chief Constable, it was recognised by all parties that, on the basis of the information available, the Omagh Bombing could not have been prevented. This, however, can be of little comfort to all those who have been aVected.

2. Background to Report of the Police Ombudsman On 29 July 2001, a Sunday newspaper carried, as its lead story, revelations and allegations from a man claiming to be a former British security force agent. Within this article it was purported that the Omagh bombing could have been prevented had the police acted upon information which he had allegedly provided to them. On 14 August 2001 the Police Ombudsman informed the Police Service of Northern Ireland that she had decided to carry out a formal investigation as to whether any information of relevance to the bombing was available to the RUC prior to the Omagh Bomb, and if such information did exist, whether it had been responded to appropriately by the RUC. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 47

On 19 September 2001, the scope of the investigation was extended to include whether intelligence held by the RUC was correctly revealed to, and exploited by, the Omagh Bomb Investigation Team and whether the evidential opportunities contained within the Omagh Bomb Review Report have been investigated. On Wednesday 12 December 2001,the Police Ombudsman presented to the Northern Ireland Policing Board, a Report under Regulation 20 of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Complaints) Regulations 2000. This Report contained matters of public interest relating to material issues preceding and following the Omagh Bomb on 15 August 1998. Copies of the Report were also sent to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

3. Police Service of Northern Ireland On Tuesday 22 January 2002, the Chief Constable delivered to the Northern Ireland Policing Board the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s response to the Police Ombudsman’s Report into the Omagh bombing.

4. The Northern Ireland Policing Board The Northern Ireland Policing Board was established on 4 November 2001 and draws its powers from the Police (NI) Act 2000. The Board has a responsibility to ensure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is eVective and eYcient. In carrying out its functions, the Board must also hold the Chief Constable to account for the exercise of his functions and in doing so ensure that the general duty of police oYcers is met. These are: (a) To protect life and property. (b) To prevent the commission of oVences. (c) When an oVence has been committed to take measures to bring the oVender to justice. The Policing Board also has a responsibility to the Northern Ireland community. The community has a right to know what their Police Service is doing and how it is performing. It is also important that the community has real inﬂuence over the way it is policed and that eVective systems are in place to make the police accountable for their actions. However, these rights must be balanced with the right of the Chief Constable to have operational responsibility—in other words he must be able to act independently without being controlled by Government. But he must answer for his actions. Creating this balance is what eVective police accountability is all about and this is the job of the Policing Board. It is within this remit that the Board has considered the Omagh reports.

5. Policing Board Response On Tuesday 5 February 2002 and Thursday 7 February 2002, Members of the Northern Ireland Policing Board met to discuss the Police Ombudsman’s Report into the Omagh bombing and the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s response to this Report. The Board met individually with the Police Ombudsman and the Chief Constable to discuss the reports and held full and frank discussions with both parties. The Board also aVorded both the opportunity to elaborate on and explain their reports. This was followed by a question and answer session during which Board Members discussed many issues in more detail.

6. Policing Board Considerations in Respect of Relationships Between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Police Ombudsman’s Office The Policing Board believes that arising from the Police Ombudsman’s report and the response of the Chief Constable there are a number of issues which require independent review and consideration. These issues centre around the relationships and protocols between all of the parties involved in the new policing arrangements. It is clear that the handling of certain aspects has caused hurt to others. The Board considers that lessons can be learned for the handling of such issues in the future and the Board will work to ensure these are addressed. Accordingly the Board will discuss with all parties including Government how to develop best working relationships and all measures and procedures so to do. Ev 48 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

These include arrangements for appropriate review of draft reports, as to factual accuracy, and for individuals to see and respond to content as necessary before circulation of the ﬁnal report. The Board also considers that, as with current policing arrangements, there should be a review mechanism for the work of the Police Ombudsman.

7. Policing Board Recommendations

The Omagh Bomb Investigation The Board commends the dedication and continued commitment of PSNI oYcers in seeking to secure evidence against those who planted the Omagh Bomb and believes that the full co-operation of the community and all public representatives is vital if convictions are to be secured. As this investigation is conducted in both jurisdictions and many of the perpetrators are believed to reside in the Republic of Ireland, we recognise that full co-operation with An Garda Siochana must continue. The Board believes that continuity in the investigation is essential. Nonetheless, in order to satisfy itself and wider opinion that all the lessons of the Omagh investigation have been learnt, and to maximise the opportunities for prosecutions, the Board has decided to appoint a Deputy Chief Constable or Assistant Chief Constable from another police service to fulﬁl the role described at paragraph A below. The Board believes the following model can achieve these aims.

Paragraph A A Board-appointed Deputy Chief Constable (DCC) or Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) who will have, without operational control, an overview of all matters and terms of reference that include the following: — To critically examine the resource and skill levels needed to satisfactorily conclude the investigation. — To undertake a quality assurance role, with particular reference to the content of the Omagh Bomb Review Report. — To monitor progress in the investigation including implementation of the Omagh Bomb Review Report. — To enhance further working practices with An Garda Siochana in relation to the Omagh Bomb investigation and linked inquiries. — To identify any obstacles standing in the way of progress. —TooVer strategic guidance to the Board in relation to its responsibilities. — To report to the Policing Board at agreed intervals. The appointee will require regular contact with the SIO and the other External Senior OYcer (ESO) whose role is described at paragraph C below. The Chief Constable should aVord the appointee full co-operation in the discharge of his/her function and permit access to both members of the PSNI and information (intelligence or otherwise) in order that this may be achieved.

Paragraph B A PSNI Senior Investigating OYcer (310) will have operational command of the investigation, with a direct reporting line to the relevant ACC and the Chief Constable, and a reporting line, on matters under his terms of reference, to the DCC or ACC appointed by the Policing Board.

Paragraph C The External Senior OYcer (ESO) appointed by the PSNI, from another UK police service, will have responsibility for: — Scrutinising the current enquiry and the Omagh Bomb Review report to ensure that all opportunities to gather evidence are maximised and that all recommendations relating to the Omagh investigation are fully addressed. — Exploring any outstanding lines of enquiry into potentially linked incidents identiﬁed in the Omagh Bomb Review Report. — Determining the relevance of the investigative opportunities presented in connection with similar oVences perpetrated in Northern Ireland in 1998. — Making decisions as to whether or not any such oVences should be investigated separately or absorbed into the ongoing investigation. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 49

— Determining whether or not the appointment of another oYcer to investigate these incidents is appropriate. — Identifying any obstacles to progress. This ESO will be given direct access to the Chief Constable in respect of any matter of concern and will have a direct reporting line to the relevant ACC but also the Chief Constable as identiﬁed above. Both the PSNI Senior Investigating OYcer and the External Senior OYcer will have equal status—ie neither one subordinate to the other. The ESO should have access to all investigation relevant intelligence. The Board believes that since unique circumstances demand unique solutions, these arrangements satisfy the joint requirements for continuity in the investigation whilst injecting crucial independent elements.

Review of Terrorist-linked Murder Inquiries The Policing Board believes that the Police Service of Northern Ireland should now request Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC) to conduct a full review of terrorist-linked murder inquiries with a view to reporting on structure, resources, strategies, policies, practices and processes HMIC has indicated a willingness to conduct this review.

Murder Review Procedures The Policing Board supports the adoption of the Association of Chief Police OYcers policy with regard to murder reviews. This requires an early review into undetected murders. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has accepted this in principle. The Board will monitor progress on the implementation of this policy.

Management and Dissemination of Intelligence The Policing Board fully accepts that there is a need for a Special Branch to enable the police to have the capability to counter terrorist threats. The Board acknowledges that there are important issues around the structures and procedures for the management and dissemination of intelligence between Special Branch and other parts of the service. The Policing Board is aware that the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Senior OYcers have already taken considerable action in relation to the reorganisation of Special Branch. In particular, the Policing Board notes that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has already agreed that Senior Investigating OYcers should be given appropriate access to all relevant intelligence. However, the Board believes that confidence in this process will be enhanced by a review into current structures and procedures for the management and dissemination of intelligence between Special Branch and other parts of the Police Service. The Board has therefore requested HMIC to carry out a focused review into Special Branch as outlined above. This review will provide an independent scrutiny to assist the Board in assessing progress on these significant issues. This review report shall be forwarded to the Policing Board and the Chief Constable. A Committee of the Board, assisted by a nominated Chief OYcer from within the PSNI, will consider how, in practical terms, intelligence is managed and disseminated between Special Branch and other parts of the Service to ensure confidence.

8. Monitoring Arrangements The Policing Board recognises that to ensure that these recommendations are managed eVectively, monitoring arrangements must be implemented. The Policing Board has agreed the following processes: — A Committee of the Policing Board will monitor all follow-up action arising from the recommendations made and the Committee shall include the Board appointed DCC or ACC. — This Committee will report regularly to the full Policing Board on progress against implementation of the recommendations and highlight any further action it deems to be necessary. — An ACC nominated by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the new Policing Board appointee will report directly to the above Committee. — The Board notes that this accountability process demands eVective working relationships between all parties involved. — The Board is conﬁdent that the mechanisms put in place will ensure an open and transparent process. — The Board undertakes to keep the Omagh victims and relatives appraised of progress. Ev 50 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

9. Final Comments The Omagh Bomb Review Report was commissioned by the Chief Constable and carried out by a team of Police Service of Northern Ireland oYcers under the command of Chief Superintendent McVicker. They are to be congratulated on an excellent piece of work. Members of the Policing Board thank the Chief Constable and the Police Ombudsman for their co- operation during this process. The Board also wishes to record its appreciation to Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary, Mr Dan Crompton, for his advice and support in dealing with these sensitive and diYcult issues. The Board acknowledges that lessons have been learned on all sides in relation to this process but believes that these will serve to enhance the true professionalism and service of all oYcers within the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Policing Board remains committed to ensuring that accountability and transparency are the foundations of our policing service. It remains the Board’s deep regret that there are those within our society who have the will to shatter ordinary people’s lives through such mindless acts of terrorism. We should never forget the human loss and suVering that has been endured by so many as the result of such acts.

Supplementary memorandum submitted by The Northern Ireland Policing Board

1. Introduction I write further to the evidence I gave on 21 July 2004 to the Select Committee Inquiry into the functions of the OYce of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (OPONI)

2. Human Rights Issues During that session Tony Clarke MP asked about the Board’s concern that human rights issues may be raised in complaints against the police which the Ombudsman has no power to investigate. This question relates to a statement made by the Board in our document “Monitoring PSNI Compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998” and at this stage the Board does not have, in the context of our duty to monitor the compliance of PSNI, with the Human Rights Act, any concems. Rather a potential gap has been identiﬁed and we intend, through our human rights advisors, Mr Keir Starmer, QC and Ms Jane Gordon, to explore whether it is a real gap and whether, if such exists, it poses a diYculty for the Board in fulﬁlling its statutory human rights monitoring duties. If I can explain further, OPONI has the power to investigate police policy and practice but not the direction and control of PSNI. The Board is required, under statute, to monitor the performance of PSNI in complying with the Human Rights Act—that is PSNI performance as a whole—policy, practice, direction, control. Our Human Rights advisors will be looking to see if there are any gaps between the Ombudsman’s power in respect of policy and practice and direction and control. Direction and control may in practice equate to policy and practice—it may not. I hope this addresses the question.

3. Meetings Between the Board and OPONI Also during that session Adrian Bailey MP asked about meetings between the Board and the Police Ombudsman’s OYce and I wish to explain, in case there was any confusion, the framework of meetings that has been agreed by the Board, in order that the Committee may take this into account in its deliberations. The Board has full meetings ten times each year and one of the ten is allocated to the Police Ombudsman. The Board’s Human Rights and Professional Standards Committee, which is the principal Board Committee for liaison with OPONI, meets once a quarter and of their four meetings per year, there is provision for two meetings with the Police Ombudsman (and more should either party deem it appropriate). In addition the Ombudsman’s statistician attends every committee meeting. At an informal level the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Board meet with the Ombudsman and her senior staV every quarter, and there is the facility for more frequent meetings should the need arise. Senior oYcials from both oYces also meet quarterly, or again more frequently, should the need arise. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 51

As indicated at the Select Committee this framework is subject to review. The last such review took place earlier this year when the Ombudsman asked the Board to consider inviting her to attend two full Board meetings each year. This issue was considered by Members but it was agreed that taken in the context of the overall framework of meetings, one meeting with the full Board each year is suYcient. The Board is aware that the Ombudsman is not content with this arrangement.

4. Mediation Finally, you asked for the Board’s views on the mediation process and as advised at the Committee the Board does not have a view. However, I will ensure that the issue is discussed at the September Board meeting and I will write shortly thereafter to advise you of Members views. 28 July 2004

Further supplementary memorandum submitted by the Northern Ireland Policing Board

VIEWS OF NIPB ON MEDIATION PROCESS At the NIAC Inquiry into the functions of the OYce of the Police Ombudsman on 21 July the Board’s views on changes to the PONI mediation process were sought. I indicated then that the Board had not considered the matter but that I would seek the views of Members at the September Board. More recently the Board was advised that the NIAC would be grateful for the Board’s views on whether the Ombudsman should have a duty to investigate other types of complaints. All of these issues were considered at our Board meeting on 2 September and I can advise as follows.

Mediation Members noted that the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 currently provides for a mediation process after an investigation has been completed. Members have also noted the cost of PONI investigations and would support the use of mediation (subject to the consent of the parties concerned) at any appropriate stage in the process, rather than only following an investigation. Members understand the concerns that parties may have in participating in such a process unless they had legal protection to the eVect that anything said was protected against disclosure in other proceedings—it is understood that this is the case in the Informal Resolution process—and Members consider that the same protection should be aVorded during the mediation process. Finally Members have noted the initial concerns expressed by PSNI in their desire to ensure that oYcers would not have to go through three consecutive processes but have noted the comments made by the Deputy Chief Constable at the Inquiry on 21 July that a way forward “that (it) is not a duplication of other processes” has been found.

Extended Investigative Role (a) Retired Police OYcers. (b) Members of the British Army. (c) Allegations of Police OYcer criminal conduct made by, for example, police oYcers. The Board did not have a corporate view on extending the investigative role of the Ombudsman in respect of the three categories detailed above. Individual Members of the Board and political parties may respond directly to you on these points. 7 September 2004 Ev 52 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

Witnesses: Mr Paul Leighton, Deputy Chief Constable, Police Service of Northern Ireland, Professor Desmond Rea, Chairman, Mr Trevor Reaney, Chief Executive, and Ms Sinead Simpson, Director of Policy, Northern Ireland Policing Board, examined.

Q69 Chairman: Thank you very much for coming. category. The Board would not be privy to the May I repeat the apology that I made to Mrs O’Loan details of the majority of individual cases; rather, it and her team for having put you oV.Last is our role to monitor the outcomes of these cases, Wednesday was a slightly unusual day, certainly in and we do this by analysing any trends and patterns my life, and I am afraid we just had to drop and statistical reports supplied to us by the everything in order to consider the Butler Report, Ombudsman. There are, however certain reports of which was being delivered. Would you please, Mr investigations that the Ombudsman is required to Leighton, pass on my apologies to Mr Orde. I know send to the Board and indeed to the Chief Constable he would have come last week and I know he cannot and the Secretary of State. These are called come this week. I am very sorry that we have had to regulation 20 reports. In respect of these regulation do without him. 20 reports into, for example, the discharge of baton Professor Rea: Mr Orde sends his apologies to the rounds in civil disturbance situations—and to date Committee. there have been some 59—Board members have welcomed these reports and describe them as balanced, well written, well analysed, with sound Q70 Chairman: Do either of you want to make a very recommendations flowing from them. Even in the brief introductory statement? I think, Professor Rea, few cases where the outcome has been less than you do. complimentary about the police, such as the Professor Rea: Thank you for the opportunity to Ombudsman’s report into the murder of Sean make representations to the Committee. I hope I can Brown, Board members have considered the reports assist you on behalf of the Board in your inquiry into to be well written and helpful in terms of pointing up the functions of the Ombudsman. I am here today areas of improvement for the PSNI. No doubt the representing the Board. I am accompanied by Deputy Chief Constable can speak in a more Trevor Reaney, the Chief Executive of the Board, informed manner about the improvements that have and Sinead Simpson. I know you have a lot of resulted. Where then is the problem? I have no doubt questions to ask and for that reason I will keep my comments brief. As some of you may be aware of the that we will explore in greater detail the positive and composition of the Board, I would like at the outset negative aspects of the work of the Police Ombudsman’s OYce but one example that causes to set this out as it is important to understand the Y diVerent political perspectives and how these impact the Board some di culty is the handling of the on our engagement with the Ombudsman. The Omagh Report. The personalised nature of some of Board has 19 members: 10 political and nine the commentary in the Ombudsman’s Omagh independent. Of the 10 political members, four are Report has left a residue of distrust that we continue UDP, three are DUP, and three are from the SDLP. to deal with to this day. I would suggest, Chairman The political make-up of the Board is, as you and members, that you seek and read a copy of that probably know, calculated using the d’Hondt report and that you judge it for yourselves. There is principle. The current representation is based on the also a feeling, most notably articulated by the police balance of the party representation at the Assembly; associations, that there should be a review Y that is, two elections ago. There are a number of mechanism which o cers, aggrieved by decisions of points highlighted in the Board’s written statement the Ombudsman’s OYce, can use rather than having to this Committee that I would like to emphasise and to resort to judicial review. I have no doubt we will briefly elaborate on. Firstly, the Ombudsman is a explore this in more detail. Before I conclude, I fundamental part of the policing architecture. would like to acknowledge that I am aware that the Independent and impartial investigations of Ombudsman has problems with the Board. She is complaints against the police are critical for public unhappy with the lack of confidentiality displayed confidence and the Ombudsman’s OYce plays an by the Board, by the apparent lack of visible support important role in providing this. That opinion is the from some members of the Board for the work of her unanimous opinion of the Board. In making this oYce, and, I understand, with the attitude of some statement and in answering your subsequent of our Board members toward her and the work of questions, I have no intention or desire to weaken her oYce. I very much regret that this is the case but that part of the policing architecture. It is essential. as the Chairman of the Board made up of 19 Secondly, I would like to say something about the members, the majority of them political members— work of the Ombudsman and about the engagement and I have already explained the make-up—it is very and interface between the two oYces. I am sure the diYcult to enforce confidentiality when members Committee, in taking evidence from the believe that it is their democratic duty to make Ombudsman, is well briefed on the nature of the certain issues public knowledge. One thing I would work undertaken by that oYce. From the Board’s like to conclude with, Chairman, is that, largely perspective, we see the primary work of that oYce speaking, the Board would not query the way in falling into two categories: first, that which leads to which the functions of the Ombudsman’s OYce are the investigation of complaints made by citizens of delivered. Indeed, we welcome the fact that around Northern Ireland against individual police oYcers; the issue of relationships with the PSNI much eVort secondly, that which relates to the wider issue of the has been devoted to developing protocols, protocols policies and practices adopted by PSNI in policing that will enhance and cement those working Northern Ireland. I will concentrate on the first relationships. I also feel that the level of engagement Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 53

21 July 2004 Mr Paul Leighton, Professor Desmond Rea, Mr Trevor Reaney and Ms Sinead Simpson between the Board and the Ombudsman at all levels, meetings and the occasions of the various meetings formal and informal, has led to an improvement in are suYcient at present, but I have no doubt that our working relationships. It is in the interests of all they will review that as appropriate. organisations within the policing and indeed criminal justice system to develop, maintain and Q74 Mr Bailey: The Board has taken a decision that enhance good working relationships. With that, in eVect only one formal meeting a year is adequate Chairman, I am in your hands. as far as they are concerned? Professor Rea: No, I am sorry, what I have said to Q71 Chairman: Thank you very much. I can you is that, with respect to the Board itself, it is one understand that there is a tension, which I hope is a meeting; with respect to the Human Rights and constructive tension, between the Ombudsman’s Professional Standards Committee of the Board, it OYce and yours. I imagine, as any other chairman is twice a year and as deemed necessary by either of a body that contains politicians, you have the odd party—plus the regular meetings between staV. problem from time to time with your members. There are also meetings, as I have said, between the Happily, that does not happen it his Committee! Mr Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board and the Leighton, do you want to say anything to us? Ombudsman. Mr Leighton: No, Mr Chairman. I submitted a paper in advance. I am quite happy to answer Q75 Mr Bailey: Is that a sub-committee? questions. Professor Rea: It is one of the principal committees of the Board. Q72 Chairman: Perhaps you would give us, in a nutshell, how you see PSNI’s relationship with the Q76 Mr Bailey: How many times has that met? Police Ombudsman? Professor Rea: It meets on a quarterly basis. Mr Leighton: The first thing I would like to say is that we unreservedly support the independent Q77 Mr Bailey: Does it meet with the Ombudsman? investigation of complaints. This has been a Professor Rea: No; one of her oYcials comes to tremendous boon in building confidence in the those meetings, each and every meeting, but I am province of Northern Ireland in policing. That may talking about the Ombudsman herself. not have been the position that many people started out with, but undoubtedly it has proved to be the Q78 Mr Bailey: How many meetings does that case in many controversial issues. I returned to the committee have per year with the Ombudsman? province in March 2003 and the relationship I would Professor Rea: We are talking about two a year at describe then as adequate, if I may use that word. the moment. Since then, we have sought to build that relationship, develop protocols and work on a more Q79 Mr Bailey: I find that astonishing. Can you say personal basis, both formal and informal, to what you think might be done to improve relations? improve the way that we learn from complaints, Professor Rea: I am a bit surprised that you do find because that has to be the ultimate, that we stop it astonishing at this moment. I have described complaints happening. I am absolutely delighted meetings at various levels, the meetings, for example, that complaints are down 18% since 2001. I think with the staV, the meetings between the Ombudsman that is a tremendous achievement, and there has and the Chairman and Vice Chairman. This is been a 10% reduction in the last year, which is to the subject to review; it is not written in stone. credit of the police oYcers and to the credit of all in Northern Ireland. Q80 Mr Bailey: What do you think can be done to improve this? You have quite openly said there have Q73 Mr Bailey: Professor Rea, you have mentioned been contentions between you. the diYculties very concisely of your relationship Professor Rea: I think we are going to have to learn with the Ombudsman. How often do the meetings from the history; we are going to have to learn in take place and on what basis? What do you think can terms of current relationships and build upon them. be done to improve relations? I am giving you my perspective on that, which is that Professor Rea: First of all, in terms of the meetings we wish to do so because it is a very important part that we have, we have regular meetings with the of the architecture of policing in Northern Ireland. Human Rights Committee about three or four times a year. We have one meeting a year formally with the Q81 Mr Bailey: With respect, that is a somewhat Board. Also, there are regular meetings between vague response. Have you any specific proposals oYcials and there are also informal meetings that you think might help? between the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Professor Rea: We have encouraged the meeting Board and the Ombudsman. These meetings provide between staV, her staV and our staV, and, as I have a forum to enable the future work of both oYces to said, in terms of the Chairman and the Vice be discussed as well as any contentious reports and Chairman and the Ombudsman, we are happy to to discuss opportunities for collaborative working, meet as often as is necessary. for example on joint research. The Board is aware that the Ombudsman would like two meetings a year Q82 Mr Tynan: Does the need exist for the with the Board, but the Board has made the decision development of an independent review mechanism as of this moment in time that the structure of for the work of the Ombudsman? Ev 54 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

21 July 2004 Mr Paul Leighton, Professor Desmond Rea, Mr Trevor Reaney and Ms Sinead Simpson

Professor Rea: There are two levels on this. With Q84 Mr Hepburn: In your view, have all the relevant respect to individual cases, and I listened to what the parties learnt the lessons from the handling of and Ombudsman had to say to you and I thought she the response to the Omagh bombing inquiry? I am gave a very succinct summary of that, there are asking both parties. matters that are to do with process and matters of Professor Rea: Let me attempt an answer and, if I substantive decision. With respect to process, she have not done so adequately, no doubt you will pointed out to you that should she make a come back to me. I think, first of all, there was a recommendation to the DPP, then there is an appeal series of recommendations that came out of the mechanism built in. If it is a discipline matter, it Ombudsman’s report. The Board embraced those would be referred to the Chief Constable and again, recommendations. The Board sought mechanisms in terms of disciplinary procedure, there would be an by which to pursue the recommendations and it appeal mechanism. There is one other area that asked for various investigations to be conducted. indeed we have explored with the Ombudsman, Those were pursued. Those reports were filed with which I did not hear covered, and that is the creation the Board and the Chief Constable. The of an appeal process outside the current judicial recommendations, in particular as they related to review process whereby matters of process could be Special Branch, have been assiduously pursued appealed to the Northern Ireland Ombudsman. This and the Chairman of the Board and the Vice was a suggestion made by Maurice Hayes in his 1997 Chairman of the Board were asked to monitor the report, A Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.In implementation of the recommendations. We have other words, the Police Ombudsman’s views were used HMIC to assist us in the monitoring of those sought by us on that suggestion. The argument, I recommendations. I think you will find that, in would have thought, would be from an individual terms of the implementation of those policeman that he or she might find it less onerous to recommendations, not only did we monitor them go that route than to go the route of judicial review. but we encouraged the PSNI to come and report to Her response to that, Mr Chairman, was that she the Board as a whole in terms of the thought that was worth considering. With respect to implementations of the recommendations and on the review mechanism in terms of the general regular occasions the relevant ACC has done so. working of the Board, that is a much more diYcult Incidentally, I made comments about breaches of area of an Ombudsman’s OYce, and you have confidentiality. There have been no breaches of already explored that. I think that is really for confidentiality from the Board in respect of any of politicians, either at Westminster or if and when we that. He will come in September, as will the have a devolved Parliament, to think about. HMIC, and he will be updating us. I also suspect you are getting at the terms of the learning from Omagh. I said to you as a Committee, Chairman, that there is a residue and that relates in particular to the personalisation. Protocols have assisted and have been developed in the wake of that, and I Q83 Mr Tynan: What is your view of the present think we are slowly but surely building up the accountability arrangements for the Ombudsman? relationships in respect of the negative residue that Professor Rea: I have referred to the accountability I have referred to. I have answered the question in arrangements in respect of the latter answer that I terms of the positive, and that is extremely gave you. I think certainly there would be members important. In fact, with the work that has been of my Board who feel that there needs to be a further done by the Board on the recommendations that accountability mechanism. For example, we came out of Omagh, I believe when history comes explored, long before you decided to look at this to be written it will endorse that work done by the area, whether your Committee could have a role in Board and the way in which it approached it as a this. Incidentally, let me say that if that were the case highlight of the life of this Board. Do not forget with respect to the Ombudsman’s OYce, as that we have only been in existence for two and a Chairman of the Policing Board, I do not see why bit years. that should not be also true in respect of the Board Mr Leighton: In answering the honourable itself, so let me not be partial in terms of arguing member’s question, the first thing I would state is that. I think I have answered your question. that undoubtedly the Omagh investigation and the Mr Leighton: As a member of one of the most surrounding publicity did a lot of damage to overseen police forces in the world, or, according to confidence in various quarters and confidence in Kathleen O’Toole, the Chief of the Boston Police, the police. My main concern now is that my the most overseen police force in the world, I have to members and my organisation deal with the real say that I sometimes wonder whether Northern issue of Omagh which is: who planted the bombs Ireland is obsessed with oversight. I know that this and who killed the people? I know that that is a serious issue for many of our members. I have investigation is being pursued assiduously. I heard the Federation make that point and I know believe the Ombudsman’s report did help us to the Federation is due to give evidence to this focus on that and to get on with that investigation. Committee and therefore I would leave it to them. It has been beneficial and we have learnt those All I would say is that I am not aware of any other lessons because that is what we are doing. I know Ombudsman that has oversight by another that in other investigations the Ombudsman has Ombudsman. I am not sure where it ends. been critical of past investigations. I, like the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 55

21 July 2004 Mr Paul Leighton, Professor Desmond Rea, Mr Trevor Reaney and Ms Sinead Simpson

Chairman, share a distaste for any personalisation relationship has a way to go yet, but I would say of this because I know that members did their best that it has improved dramatically in the past and tried their best in the circumstances couple of years. pertaining, but the focus now has to be on finding out who committed the murders and bringing them to justice and in bringing some form of Q86 Reverend Smyth: We are happy to hear that. We closure and some form of satisfaction to the many also understand that arrangements have been put in Y families in Northern Ireland who, as yet, have not place. Are police o cers able to make contact with got that closure. That is where our focus is. I the Ombudsman directly on issues without Y believe there was much debate around the Omagh permission from their senior o cers? Report. I was not in the province at the time but I Mr Leighton: Yes. There is no restriction on that. followed it quite closely. I am not sure all of that was helpful but I know many lessons have been Q87 Reverend Smyth: Does that in fact happen then? learnt from it. I do not think that within my Mr Leighton: I cannot speak for individual oYcers organisation that sort of situation could arise and obviously that would be a question for the again with the Ombudsman because of the Ombudsman. I am not privy to what contacts measures that both the Ombudsman and we have there are. taken to improve the relationships and to develop a more professional understanding of each other’s work. Q88 Chairman: I doubt she would tell us anyway Chairman: IamsureIcanspeakforallofthe because she keeps all her contacts confidential. You Committee, Mr Leighton, when I say that we wish do have a problem there. you and your Police Service well in bringing that Mr Leighton: I cannot answer that. investigation hopefully to a successful conclusion Reverend Smyth: The Special Branch and the and drawing a line under what, by any standards, Intelligence Service levels know what is happening. was a terrible atrocity. Q89 Mr Campbell: This is a question to Mr Q85 Reverend Smyth: I think the Ombudsman has Leighton. After the Communications Review, there made for greater co-operation between the PSNI was a target set of trying to reduce the complaints and its internal investigation branch. As a result, against the police by 25% over three years with an there was a decision between her and the Chief initial reduction of 10% in one year. Can you tell the Constable and two senior oYcers were appointed Committee what progress has been made in relation to lead that co-operation. Arising out of that, a to both of those? report was prepared; 14 recommendations were Mr Leighton: The figures are in my submission. We brought forward and I understand implemented. are down 18% since 2001–02 and we have reduced However, the CAJ, and you will not be surprised 10% in the last year. It is very hard to say exactly all to hear about that, do not believe that there is close the influences that cause a reduction in complaints. enough co-operation between the lower ranks of We can point to the fact that there is better training the PSNI and the Ombudsman. Would you have and that training is better informed by the anything to say about that? What are the complaints that are made. If I were to make a relationships and what is happening? Is that comment about our previous complaints and relayedtoyou? discipline system, it is that I am not sure that the link Mr Leighton: The report the member refers to is between a complaint that was made, Y one by two independent senior police o cers from unsubstantiated or partially substantiated, and our England. We and the Ombudsman agreed and set training system was sometimes as direct as it now is. Y terms of reference for those two o cers to come in When a regulation 20 notice comes from the and look at the relationships between PONI and Ombudsman’s OYce, there is a very eVective the PSNI. That produced 14 recommendations, committee that assigns actions that have to be signed which we have been pursuing and have oV. I sign oV personally every regulation 20 report implemented. Criticisms of the relationship with before it goes back to the Ombudsman to say what lower ranks will persist. It would be fair to say that has been done. An ACC has been through it before I am not going to try and speak on behalf of the I get it and so there is quite rigorous oversight over Federation because the Federation can speak for what exactly happens with regulation 20s. I think in itself very adequately. I know that we have that respect training has improved in its developed more meetings with the Federation and responsiveness to complaints. Apart from that, it is with the Superintendents’ Association and the quite diYcult because obviously there are other representative bodies. Those meetings are community influences at play. We had a quiet becoming more and more constructive and more marching season last year, as you are aware. and more regular. We have established protocols Obviously that has contributed to the reduction in which have been approved by the Federation and complaints now. the Superintendents’ Association, so that everything that we do now is referred to the StaV Associations for them to have oversight of the Q90 Mr Campbell: Is there a correlation between developing relationship that is ongoing and the community tensions and the lack of them and the protocols that are signed oV. I think the level of complaints? Ev 56 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

21 July 2004 Mr Paul Leighton, Professor Desmond Rea, Mr Trevor Reaney and Ms Sinead Simpson

Mr Leighton: My perception would be that there is, Q92 Mr Clarke: You did not pass or make comment but obviously the Ombudsman now receives in your submission about worries you have under complaints. We do not have an oversight of just the Human Rights Act in respect of complaints exactly what comes in immediately. about the Chief Constable’s direction and control of the PSNI. Could you expand on what your concerns are? Q91 Mr Clarke: I am sure you heard earlier on Mr Professor Rea: Could you elaborate on that? Beggs’s questions in respect of policies and procedures. Obviously the Police (Northern Ireland) Acts 2002 and 2003 extended somewhat the Q93 Mr Clarke: The Board has expressed concerns Ombudsman’s role in giving additional powers to that human rights issues may be raised through investigate current practice or policy. I wonder if, complaints about the Chief Constable’s direction from the point of view first of PSNI and then the and control of the PSNI. Now, we are unclear as a Board, you would indicate to us whether or not you committee as to what those human rights concerns find that an acceptable extension of powers or do are. We wondered if you could help us. you feel that a power to investigate policy and procedure could have a negative impact on the work Professor Rea: I cannot remember exactly but I will you do? try to help you. I think that we were concerned about Mr Leighton: Without experiencing the operation of aspects to do with—and I am going back in memory Y such an investigation, it is di cult to make comment now—the— about how much it might aVect us. Broadly, we are satisfied that the Ombudsman’s powers are correct and proper and we do not have any issue with that. Q94 Mr Clarke: If I can be helpful, it was Monitoring It will be for experience to tell us whether there are PSNI Compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 boundaries within operational matters on which we published in December 2003 and human rights will have discussions with the Ombudsman. The issues may be raised in complaints against the police relationship with the Ombudsman is such now that which the Ombudsman has no power to investigate I think we could have those conversations in a was one of the comments raised. constructive manner. That is important. Professor Rea: Can we reflect further on that and Professor Rea: You are quite correct that these write to the Select Committee? powers have been given to the Ombudsman. We have already discussed with our oYce the interface between these new powers and those of the Board, Q95 Mr Clarke: That would be helpful because you the calling for reports into public policing issues and are in the same position as us not knowing what the initiating inquires. This is in particular under human rights objections are. sections 59 and 60 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Professor Rea: We note that and will write back to Act 2000. We are satisfied that as a Board we can you. work collaboratively with the Ombudsman. The question is about whether this can be done without Q96 Mr Tami: What use has been made of section 55 the burden imposed on the PSNI. Already you have referrals and what has been your experience of the heard mention of the regulation 20 reports, which in conduct of the Ombudsman in respect of such actual fact, and I have already referred to this, fall, referrals? roughly speaking, into this area. There was one Mr Leighton: This is where we refer issues to the interesting one and that was a report into the Ombudsman? discharge of a firearm on the South Armagh border in June 2001, an incident which Garda oYcers may have witnessed. An issue arose about the Q97 Mr Tami: Yes. Ombudsman’s ability to secure information from Mr Leighton: I can refer to one which has just been Garda Siochana to enable the investigation to be completed as a good example. I referred to the fully completed by recognising that the remit of the Ombudsman a case where a forensic scientist in a Ombudsman does not extend through the Republic court case had made comments about the police of Ireland. The Board was keen to see good co- which caused our independence and professionalism operation with that oYce by Garda Siochana and we to be called into question by the judge; he referred it sought to support her in access to the information up his chain of command. I immediately referred that she had requested. Also, one further point that that to the Ombudsman because it was clear that, no has already been referred to, is the identification. matter what we said, the public would accept other Recently we received notification from her that she people’s views. The Ombudsman has since reported proposed to look at that area. The Board has not back and that has been extremely helpful because we had an opportunity to discuss that but I would have now have an independent assessment, which has to say to you that as Chairman of the Board I could called on independent forensic see no reason whatsoever why she should not; it is in advice etc, to the public saying that we acted entirely the best interests of the PSNI and the Board in corrected and what we forensic scientist was entirely holding the PSNI to account that every constable within our rights and was entirely correct. So, those should be identified by the number on his tunic. are very useful for us. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 57

21 July 2004 Mr Paul Leighton, Professor Desmond Rea, Mr Trevor Reaney and Ms Sinead Simpson

Q98 Mr Tami: You are happy with that process? process given to them was clear. So, there are a Mr Leighton: Yes, I am happy with that process. number of things in this survey and what we agreed was that we would look very closely at this survey Q99 Mr Tami: I ask Professor Rea the same and try and learn the lessons from it because it needs question. interpretation in the light of those diVerent Professor Rea: The ability of the Board and for that responses. matter the Chief Constable to refer issues to the Ombudsman for investigation is an important one Q102 Mr Beggs: Thirty-six% of your police oYcers and one that was used by the Board on what is now said that they had a good knowledge of the role, known as the Lowry case and I would like to give responsibilities and powers of the Police you that case very briefly. In this case, the Board Ombudsman and 36% said they had not. Are you referred a high-profile issue to the Ombudsman to concerned that over a third of police oYcers who investigate. We do not have the investigative responded to the survey indicated that they did not capacity to do this. The case was investigated and the have a good knowledge of the role, responsibilities Chief Constable was exonerated. In respect of the and powers of the Police Ombudsman and what are Chief Constable, it confirms again that it is a useful you doing about that? mechanism when someone is charged with the baton Mr Leighton: That was one of the clear lessons from rounds. Now protocol is such that all such cases will the survey. What we have done is that we have be investigated by the Ombudsman in other cases instigated a series of meetings in conjunction with where oYcers’ wrongdoing may be suspected and the Ombudsman’s OYce. The people who are most the Chief Constable can successfully use legislative likely to receive complaints are our first concern and arrangements that exist to ensure that an those are people who are in the frontline units or investigation is carried out in an impartial way by an detectives. So, we have focused on those as the first outside independent body. I think that is of benefit number of people who would need to receive to the PSNI and it certainly gives confidence to the training about the Ombudsman’s OYce and Board in holding the Police Service of Northern information about the Ombudsman’s OYce. Ireland to account through the Chief Constable. If Information is available to all police oYcers about you want me to go into further detail about Lowry, the Ombudsman’s OYce firstly and that is clear: I will do so. there are leaflets; there is information that they can find about the Ombudsman’s OYce very easily Q100 Mr Tami: The same point again, you are within our system; there is access to their website on happy with the way that that practice works? our system. There are a number of ways in which Professor Rea: We believe that, so far in terms of our they can find out the information. To proactively go experience, this is very beneficial; it demonstrates the to oYcers and give them information about the importance of the Ombudsman’s OYce as part of Ombudsman’s OYce, we targeted those groups that the architecture of policing in Northern Ireland. are mostly likely to be complained about: the TSGs, the Tactical Support Groups/Units who go into Q101 Mr Beggs: The Ombudsman’s survey of police frontline riot situations and who would be the first oYcers indicated that almost half, that is 48%, of line in any public order situations or who would do Y searches and arrests in diYcult circumstances and those police o cers who had been in contact with Y the OYce of the Police Ombudsman said that they CID o cers who may be the subject of investigation were dissatisfied with the way in which the OYce had because they are involved in major investigations dealt with them during the investigation. What do such as murders and other serious investigations. That is what we have done about that. The you understand to be the main reasons for this Y dissatisfaction and what steps have you taken to Ombudsman’s O ce have cooperated with us, they address it with oYcers and the Ombudsman? have attended various training sessions and they Mr Leighton: We met with the Ombudsman’s OYce attend every year the briefings before Dumcrie and along with the Federation, the Superintendents’ the briefings before other major events in order that they capture large numbers of police at one time and Association and the (inaudible) reps to discuss the Y outcome of the survey. It is fair to say that the survey explain the role of the Ombudsman’s O ce and results have lessons in them for both the what they will do if a complaint is made. So, we have Y proactively approached that along with the Ombudsman’s O ce and the Police Service of Y Northern Ireland and we agree that those lessons Ombudsman’s O ce. need to be picked up and learned. With regard to that particular result, 48% of police oYcers who had Q103 Mr Beggs: At present, we understand that been in contact with the Police Ombudsman’s OYce police oYcers cannot make a complaint to the said they were dissatisfied with the way the OYce Ombudsman about fellow police oYcers. Should had dealt with them during the investigation, it is members of the PSNI be able to complain to the somewhat at odds with other results in the survey Police Ombudsman about the conduct of other where 74% of police oYcers who had been in contact members rather than to their line manager? with the Police Ombudsman’s OYce said they were Mr Leighton: No, I do not think they should. I think satisfied with the overall time it had taken; 64% were that would create a rather complicated system. We satisfied with the outcome of the investigation; 61% already have a grievance procedure and we already were satisfied with the way they had been received; have managers and we are currently training our and 58% thought the explanation of the complaints managers to deal more eVectively with internal Ev 58 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

21 July 2004 Mr Paul Leighton, Professor Desmond Rea, Mr Trevor Reaney and Ms Sinead Simpson grievances and complaints and we feel that any receive firearms training. That is not the case in other external methodology might actually duplicate and police services. I think to say that we are behind in make it more complicated and actually make it training is an oversimplification of the issue. longer before the complaint gets resolved. I think Training is a huge issue for us. We are trying to that the time for complaints being resolved is crucial develop police training that is way in advance of within our organisation because, when it is not things that have been done in other parts of the resolved, there is a festering, there is a fermenting of world partly because we must. I had a meeting this dissatisfaction. So, we try to resolve things as morning with people from Central Training in the quickly as we possibly can. Home OYce, Centrex, about some of our leadership training. It is clear that the relationships we have Q104 Mr Beggs: Are complaints an inevitable part with academic institutions and the accreditation of policing? What do you consider a normal level of which we have achieved for some of our training in complaint to be? our leadership training and our foundation training Mr Leighton: There is a leading question! is way in advance—and I state that categorically— of much of the training that goes on in England and Q105 Chairman: When did you stop beating your Wales. That is not to say that all of our training is wife, Mr Leighton? in advance of England and Wales. You have already Mr Leighton: Are complaints a normal part of heard Mr Wood refer to our firearms training in policing? I have now been a police oYcer for 24 years which we do lag behind the ACPO standards. There and I have had several complaints made against me are mitigating circumstances in the sense that our Y during my 24 years, none of which has been o cers over the years have lived with their weapons. Y substantiated let me quickly add. I do not think that It is not the case of an English police o cer who complaints are an automatic function of policing but picks up a gun when he goes for training on the Y I think it is almost inevitable that some sections of various training events. Our o cers actually live the community, when we are dealing with a divided with their firearm and therefore their familiarity community, will feel aggrieved at the way the police with the firearm is actually much greater. You can act, deal or some decision that the police make. So, argue that that obviates the need for some training I think it is highly unlikely that for some time we will but it obviously increases the need for other types of get to a situation where there are no complaints in training and Mrs O’Loan herself did allude to that the policing, if it is ever possible. It does suit some in her evidence as I heard. So, I would say that it is people with allegations made against them when an oversimplification of the case. What we aim to they are facing serious charges of course to make be—and I know in designing the new police college complaints against the police as an avenue of which we are currently engaged in—is to have mitigation or even to have charges withdrawn before facilities that will be as good as anywhere in the a court. So, I do not think it is possible that we will world to train in all matters. ever get to a time where we do not have complaints. What was the second part of the question? Q109 Chairman: I have just been told that there is going to be a vote at 6.04, so I want to wrap this up Q106 Mr Beggs: What do you consider a normal because I do not think we are able to continue after level of complaints to be? we have been to vote. Can I ask two very quick Mr Leighton: A lot less than we have now. An questions. Can I take it that you both agreed with acceptable level of complaints would be a lot less what Mrs O’Loan said about the mediation than we have now. procedures? I gather you have been in discussion and you have both agreed that it would be better if you Q107 Mr Beggs: In the Belfast Newsletter of 6 July, a can mediate the less serious complaints before a senior member of the Police Ombudsman’s staV was formal investigation process starts. quoted as saying that the PSNI was “years behind in Mr Leighton: If I may make just a brief comment on training”. Do you think that that oYcer had a point that. I had a meeting with Mrs O’Loan recently on of view and, if so, is there a relationship between lack this and we have had some reservations about this, of training and the level of complaints? but we have now agreed a way forward and the Mr Leighton: I do not think we are years behind in premise on which we have agreed a way forward is terms of police training. I have had the advantage of that it is not a duplication of other processes. In working on secondment with HMIC looking at other words, our oYcers do not have to go through many English police forces including the consecutive processes. So, one fails, try another, try Metropolitan Police and I have also had the another, try another. Rather, it is a concurrent advantage of serving in Northumbria Police which is process and, on that basis, we are happy that Mrs widely regarded as one of the best police forces in the O’Loan proceeds and we await further information. UK and I know that one of the members around the table will support that. Q110 Chairman: I think the Committee would be very grateful if you would let us have a note of that Q108 Chairman: And 11 who will not! view which you have just expressed in order that we Mr Leighton: Looking at training in the PNSI, we can see it quite clearly. have suVered from perhaps having to train more in Professor Rea: Can I say that we have not debated it certain circumstances than others. All our oYcers but, in principle, we would be for it. The only receive public order training and all our oYcers question I personally would have is, could there be Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 59

21 July 2004 Mr Paul Leighton, Professor Desmond Rea, Mr Trevor Reaney and Ms Sinead Simpson use of independent outsiders who could assist in that Mr Leighton: It was a brief comment. Should process? In terms of the principle, I would imagine amnesty or any other judicial or non-judicial that our response would be “yes”. solution to a way of trying to move the past forward and this is a debate which has been ongoing in Q111 Chairman: Again, once your Board has Northern Ireland for some time, if that is the case, considered it, perhaps you would let us have a note then I would find it unacceptable if someone could because we want to make absolutely certain that we walk before a tribunal, hold their hands up and say reflect your views correctly. We had Mrs O’Loan they did something, get a technical conviction and obviously very fully give hers. Do either of you or walk away. I would find it unacceptable that my Y both of you think it would be desirable for o cers oYcers would then be subject to ongoing from PNSI to be seconded to the Police Y investigation about not filling in a form or not doing Ombudsman’s O ce? some particular act in the investigation that was Professor Rea: In principle, I think that is a leading to that several years previously. The proposition that is worth considering. I can see positive arguments and I can see negative arguments principle that I work to is that we need to learn. I am but it seems to me that it is something that is worth quite happy that we can learn from mistakes and, considering. where someone has done something wrong or done Mr Leighton: The only comment I would make is something by mistake, that we learn from that and Y that I need more detectives, I do not need to lose any! move on. What I do not want is those o cers jeopardised. Q112 Chairman: Everyone would say that, but in principle. Q114 Chairman: Do you have a view on that Mr Leighton: In principle, I do not object to the possibility. Professor Rea? Professor Rea: I have nothing to add. Q113 Chairman: It is just a question of manpower Chairman: Thank you all very much indeed for and I understand that. Mr Leighton, you said in coming and I am sorry that I have brought this to a your submission to us that, should amnesty be rather abrupt conclusion but I know that we are contemplated in these historic inquiries, that the wanted downstairs in two minutes. Thank you very Ombudsman’s remit should be considered. much indeed. Ev 60 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

Wednesday 20 October 2004

Members present:

Mr Michael Mates, in the Chair

Mr Adrian Bailey Mr Stephen Pound Mr Roy Beggs The Reverend Martin Smyth Mr Gregory Campbell Mr Hugo Swire Mr Tony Clarke Mark Tami

Memorandum submitted by the Police Federation for Northern Ireland This paper is prepared in response to the invitation from the House of Commons Northern Ireland AVairs Committee for their examination of the role and work of the OYce of the Police Ombudsman. We welcome such a review and note that following the Omagh Reports the Northern Ireland Policing Board issued a statement (dated 7 February 2002) which recommended that: “. . . there should be a review mechanism for the work of the Police Ombudsman.”

1. Introduction The Police Federation for Northern Ireland represents almost 10,000 oYcers from the rank of Constable which includes part time and full time Reserve, up to and including Chief Inspector.

2. Acceptance of the Concept of Independent Investigation The concept of independent investigation of complaints against the police was promoted by the Federation long before it became mainstream thinking by Government or among other statutory organisations or commentators on police matters. The Federation has always understood that public conﬁdence would be maximised if complaints were investigated (by a body outside the police) and if the process of dealing with a complaint was transparent. We fully endorse the independent investigation of police complaints.

3. Need for Public and Police Confidence in Independent Investigation However, it is a long step between general agreement on the principle of independent investigation of police complaints and the details of how the principle should be pursued in practice. It is the Federation’s view that the success of the new Ombudsman arrangements be judged on the degree to which the OYce commands the support of the public and similarly the police. Unfortunately it is our submission that the current OYce of Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland has failed to win over both the public and Police oYcers. Having examined the Annual Report of the Police Ombudsman (April 2002–March 2003) figures are given recording the outcome of closed complaints over the above period (Figure 15 on page 28 of the PONI report refers). 42% of complaints were closed due to non-cooperation with the OYce of Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. If this body commands such widespread support, why are non-cooperation figures so high? Indeed of all complaints made, only 18% led to full investigations. A body independent of police should be able to substantially reduce non-cooperation figures. Dr Hayes stated in 1997 during his review of the complaints system; “The police should also have confidence, including a genuine belief that misconduct . . . will be detected and appropriately dealt with . . .” (A review of the police complaints system in Northern Ireland by Dr Maurice Hayes—Executive Summary refers) We still have a long way to go to achieve full police confidence in the new complaints regime. A survey of police attitudes was conducted by the Police Ombudsman in early 2003. Given that the results were so damning against the Ombudsman these results have never been issued in full to the general public. Indeed extracts of the report were only released in the form of a press release on 17 March 2004. The raw data was supplied to the Police Federation and analysed on their behalf by Mr Malcolm Hibberd, an expert in police research. He concluded that, “Those interpretations that are made are facile and tendentious, are generally not supported by the data collected, and appear to reflect preconceptions in the approach taken by the author. I could find no instance of a result being interpreted in such a way to suggest any weaknesses in the operation of the Ombudsman’s OYce.” His full conclusions are attached at Appendix A. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 61

The OYce of Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland appears to have a distinct problem with the acceptance of criticism. Blame always appears to lie elsewhere, with the DPP, the quality of witnesses, police co-operation etc, but never with the OYce of Police Ombudsman itself.

4. Efficiency and Effectiveness Issues There is no dispute that the number of public complaints received by the Police Ombudsman is declining. This is no doubt due to a combination of factors, the major one being the lack of public disorder within Northern Ireland at the present time. The fall in complaints is to be welcomed. However, at the same time, resources being allocated to the investigation of complaints, appears to be rising. It would be a useful exercise if the committee could compare the operating costs of the old regime with the new. Before November 2000, complaints were investigated by the Royal Ulster Constabulary Complaints & Discipline Department (“G” Department) overseen by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints. Post November 2000 complaints are investigated by the OYce of Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, supported by the Police Service of Northern Ireland Internal Investigation Branch (who conduct disciplinary hearings, internal investigations and intelligence based integrity testing). It would be useful to ﬁnd out if costs have risen as complaints have reduced in number. To give an example; Schedule 3 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, allows the Ombudsman to enter into contractual arrangements with other police services to provide qualiﬁed staV to engage in temporary service. Paragraph 8 refers to arrangements made with chief oYcers in Great Britain whilst paragraph 5 refers to arrangements made with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. To temporarily employ staV from Great Britain has additional costs in terms of housing and transport (travelling home to see family and travelling around Northern Ireland on duty). Yet to date no oYcers have been employed on secondment from the Police Service of Northern Ireland. To give another example of ineYciency, it states in regulations that: “Where the Ombudsman has received a complaint against a member, or the Ombudsman is to investigate any other matter . . . he shall as soon as practicable, send a copy of, or a record of the complaint to the member, unless to do so would impede the investigation . . .” (Regulation 6(2) of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Complaints etc.) Regulations 2000 refer) These regulations came into force in November 2000, yet the Police Ombudsman will not be in a position to comply with them until the end of March 2004. To give another example; the committee have noted that Informal Resolution of Complaints is a key area which requires development. Before the introduction of the OYce of Police Ombudsman a system existed whereby small matters of complaint could be dealt with under desktop resolution procedures by the local Sergeant or Inspector, on the spot and immediately. Currently no such system is in place because all complaints, no matter how minor, must be passed to the Police Ombudsman. Even if this oYce decides that Informal Resolution is suitable, many days or weeks may pass before an attempt at settlement can occur. This is not what the public require or expect.

5. Effect of Investigation on Individual Members As a staV association, we have severe doubts that the OYce of Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland is an eYcient or eVective body to progress public complaints. The Ombudsman will draw attention to the fact that many cases are currently with the DPP (to progress criminal matters) or Chief Constable (to progress disciplinary matters); however to date very few cases heard in the courts or at internal misconduct hearings have actually resulted in a successful prosecution. There is a perception in the wider membership that the OYce of Police Ombudsman places pressure upon the DPP and Internal Investigation Branch (who prepare charges on behalf of the Chief Constable) to advance cases, even though there is little prospect of success. This fuels speculation, which is supported by Ombudsman survey, that Police Ombudsman Investigators are not independent, but take the side of complainants. In support of the above paragraph, please ﬁnd attached a copy of the judgement in the Greer & Dougan case (Appendix B); a copy of the judgement in the McLeer & Nicholl case (Appendix C); and two written reports from Constable D W Rothwell, 18422 (Appendix D), and Constable R A Hall, 17680 (Appendix E), who were suspended for many months following a Police Ombudsman investigation and have recently been returned to duty, without a stain on their character. If need be the Police Federation for Northern Ireland can name other oYcers who have suVered at the hands of the Police Ombudsman, been suspended and cleared by the courts. As a staV association, we are increasingly worried about the eVects of investigations and periods of suspension on members. It is not uncommon to be suspended for three years and during this period the physical and mental health of many members visibly deteriorates. We hope and pray that we do not end up Ev 62 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

with a Dr Kelly type case with much hand ringing and tearing of clothes after the event. The Police Ombudsman and the DPP need to work a lot harder to bring cases to completion as expeditiously as possible. As it states in guidance: “The investigation of complaints should be conducted expeditiously. The conduct of investigations should recognise the needs of the complainant, but also, the rights of the oYcer complained of . . . investigations should be completed as quickly as may be practicable.” (Paragraphs 2.10 and 2.13 of the Northern Ireland OYce Guidance on Police Unsatisfactory Performance, Complaints and Misconduct Procedures refers) It is noted in the Police Ombudsman Annual Report (2002–03) that only 56% of cases were completed within the generous timescales allowed by their oYce (Table 9.2, page 43 refers). In some cases it can take months for investigators to conduct interviews even in straightforward cases.

6. Lack of Oversight Mechanisms The creation of an independent complaints mechanism to investigate alleged malpractice by Ombudsman Investigators must be at the forefront of any parliamentary review. This more than any other factor would boost police confidence in the investigation of complaints against police. Where a complaint of maladministration is alleged against employees of the Police Ombudsman the complaint must be directed in the first instance to the Police Ombudsman. If a satisfactory outcome is not achieved then the matter may be submitted to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Northern Ireland OYce Guidance on Police Unsatisfactory Performance, Complaints and Misconduct Procedures— paragraphs 2.147—2.151 refer) Generally maladministration means, “. . . poor administration or the wrong application of rules. Some examples include: avoidable delay; faulty procedures or failing to follow correct procedures; unfairness, bias or prejudice; refusing to answer reasonable questions; discourtesy; and failure to apologise properly for errors.” (Northern Ireland OYce Guidance on Police Unsatisfactory Performance, Complaints and Misconduct Procedures—paragraph 2.147 refers) Several members have indicated that they have no confidence in a system which is not totally independent. This has led some members to abandon raising what they perceive as legitimate grievances over the conduct of investigators and application of procedures. It was originally envisaged that the Police Ombudsman would be a judge or a person of quality and experience of a senior judicial figure. We support such a figure as Police Ombudsman on a 3–4 year contract (the current seven year term is excessive). Why not have an “OYce of Police Complaints”, which deals with complaints from members of the public and have a Police Ombudsman, independent from both police and the complaints oYce. This independent figure of stature would then be in a position to receive complaints from both the police and members of the public (following investigation of the original complaint matter) and be a final arbiter. More that any other issue, the Police Federation for Northern Ireland believes that an eVective oversight mechanism for complaints against the OYce of Police Ombudsman must be a priority.

7. In Conclusion The Police Federation for Northern Ireland remains fully committed to the concept of the independent investigation of police complaints. In terms of issues related to eYciency and eVectiveness clearly there remains scope for improvement to the service provided to both the public and police oYcers. Reducing the time taken to complete investigations must be a priority. However, our overriding concern is to match the professional policing powers of Police Ombudsman Investigators with an eVective system of oversight. If this is provided, then conﬁdence in the system will improve. 21 March 2004

Memorandum submitted by the Superintendents’ Association of Northern Ireland The Superintendents’ Association of Northern Ireland fully support the need for independent investigation of complaints against the police, and acknowledges that where police oYcer’s conduct is not correct that the police oYcers concerned must be held to account. The reasons for this are well rehearsed, but are based on the need for Society to have conﬁdence in the police service. To that end Society felt that the police should not investigate themselves and that police wrongdoing was so important that there was a need for independent and impartial investigation. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 63

In Northern Ireland the OYce of the Police Ombudsman (PONI) was created in order to fulfil this role. The stated vision of PONI is: “To strive for excellence in providing an independent impartial police complaints service in which the public and the police have confidence.” and its mission is: — “To ensure maximum awareness of the Police Ombudsman complaints service and that it is fully accessible and responsive to the community. — To provide a robust and eVective investigation process leading to evidence based recommendations. — To analyse and research the outcomes of complaints so as to inform and improve the policy and practice of policing.” The Association fully acknowledges that PONI have carried out investigations which have shown police actions to be exemplary and thus may have helped increase the confidence of some of the community in policing. However, the Superintendents’ Association of Northern Ireland believe that PONI have not achieved an “excellent” service. But on occasions, PONI appears to be blinded by a search for evidence of collusion and corruption. Such an approach can occasionally result in an over zealous approach that is inappropriate and unprofessional. As a result of this, currently PONI do not have the confidence of superintending ranks within the PSNI. Quite simply, PONI is not currently held with the high regard that is expected and needed of such an independent body. Despite this, the Association must make it very clear that we are most prepared to do whatever we can to increase the confidence of police oYcers of the integrity and professionalism of PONI. We have already, for example; oVered to work with PONI, and the Police Federation of Northern Ireland, to research the results of a recent survey of police attitudes survey on PONI. The Association must draw the attention of the Committee to three areas that relate to the performance, eYciency and eVectiveness of PONI’s administration.

1. Lack of Oversight of PONI One of the main criticisms of the past was that police carried out their own investigations and therefore could not be seen as impartial or independent. The whole point of independent investigation is to ensure that the police do not investigate themselves and so the public maintain confidence in the police service. It is equally important that the public and the police service have confidence in the impartial and independent investigations of PONI. However when concerns are raised about the way PONI carries out their investigations, there does not appear to be any real or eVective oversight of PONI investigations. If someone does have a concern they are asked to bring those concerns to the attention of the Ombudsman. If they feel that PONI has not addressed these concerns then they can bring the matter to the attention of the Secretary of State. (Unfortunately if anyone does this, the Secretary of State then asks the Ombudsman to look into it.) Clearly this is wrong. There is a need for a clear and eVective complaint mechanism to ensure that any wrongdoing or unprofessional conduct by PONI is independently investigated in the same way as those complaints against PSNI oYcers are investigated. The Association has previously highlighted the need for some form of oversight of PONI to the Security Minister. The Parliamentary Ombudsman does not have oversight of PONI, and we must ask why? Lord Clyde, the Oversight Commissioner on Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland and the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice does not have oversight of PONI, again we ask why? It is known that the Chief Inspector for Criminal Justice is examining his role in actions taken by PONI but even this falls short of direct accountability. When a complaint is made to PONI there is often a refusal to accept any wrongdoing. If an appeal is made to the Secretary of State of Northern Ireland, he refers it back to PONI for investigation. Clearly there is need to hold PONI to account in order to ensure confidence of the public and of the police service. It appears that currently PONI is unaccountable.

2. Lack of Professionalism In the past protocols had to be created, between the PSNI and PONI, to ensure that PONI consulted with key individuals prior to publishing its reports. This was because on some occasions they did not do this, eg the Omagh Bomb Report. Protocols with PONI now exist to allow oYcers (and ex oYcers) to comment on ﬁnal drafts of PONI reports. Ev 64 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

Despite the agreement of such protocols, when oYcers (and ex oYcers) make detailed comments on factual inaccuracies in a draft PONI report, they find that their comments appear to be completely ignored in the final report or the report is edited to delete the factual inaccuracies with no acknowledgement of the failings of PONI investigators, (eg Sean Brown Report). Additionally, PONI fails to acknowledge that such reports have been received when they send their final draft to the Chief Constable and Policing Board of Northern Ireland. In the past if a retired member has refused to co-operate with such an investigation it appears that PONI can publish whatever they want and glibly state that the retired investigator refused to co-operate (normally phrased in such a way to imply that they had something to hide.) The Association must suggest that the Committee should compare the reports of PONI with other professional reports (for example the Cory Report) and consider the diVerence in style, tone and evidence.

3. Refusal to Accept any Wrongdoing The Association is aware of comments of the judiciary on PONI investigations, for example, in “Greer and Dougan v PONI” the magistrate commented that the PONI investigator’s evidence “was disingenuous and that he did not treat the oYcers with respect or dignity”. The Ombudsman has responded by complaining to the Lord Chancellor, that the magistrate should not have made such comments. However, if the magistrate had made similar comments about a PSNI investigation, the Association believes that the Ombudsman would not have any problem in taking such comments as the basis for an investigation. This is merely just one example; however the Association is aware of many other instances where, following the collapse of their case / investigation that PONI will attempt to blame the DPP, the Forensic Science Laboratory, or anyone else, rather than accept any wrongdoing. This is unacceptable and we believe most unprofessional. PONI should apply the same standards that all modern and accountable organisations follow—to admit that occasionally they get things wrong and are prepared to learn from mistakes—and most importantly, apologise. Clearly there is need to hold PONI to account, to make them accept that occasionally they get things wrong, in order to ensure conﬁdence of the public and of the police service. It appears that currently PONI are not prepared to do this. This then brings our submission back to our ﬁrst concern about lack of oversight. 21 March 2004

Witnesses: Mr Irwin Montgomery, Chairman PFNI, Mr Terry Spence, Secretary PFNI, Chief Superintendent Wesley Wilson, Treasurer SANI and Mr Raymond Phillips, Strategic Support SANI, examined.

Q115 Chairman: Gentlemen, welcome. I am sorry Chief Superintendent Wilson: I am Wesley Wilson, we are delayed and I am afraid we will most likely representing the Superintendents’ Association of be interrupted while democracy takes its course Northern Ireland. Mr Chairman, can I just endorse, in this rather strange way, but we will try and get as you said, that we do support the need for on. Thank you for coming to help us with our independent investigation of complaints against the inquiry into the functions of the OYce of the police because society needs to have confidence in Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Do not the workings of the police, and we do back that feel all of you have to answer every question, wholeheartedly. In this situation we see the stated otherwise we will be here all night; it is perfectly vision of the Police Ombudsman’s OYce is “To satisfactory to have one on behalf of you all or, if strive for excellence in providing an independent there is a diVerence of opinion—which I am sure impartial police complaints service in which the there would not be—between the two public and the police have confidence” and we feel associations, then perhaps one from each side. that has not yet been achieved, that that excellent Do not feel all four of you have to answer each service that is required is not yet there. There are time. You both support the system of some reasons for that. Sometimes the oYcers independent scrutiny of complaints against the involved in these investigations that are complained police,andthePoliceOmbudsmanwassetupto against feel that the Ombudsman’s staV are blinded fulfil that role. Perhaps one from each side would by a search for evidence of collusion and corruption, summarise briefly for us what, in your opinion, it is almost that they make that assumption and then you consider to be the deficiencies, if any, of the try to make the links to prove it rather than present arrangements. Shall we start with the investigating a complaint holistically and finding Y Superintendents’ Association? those things that prove whether the o cer has done Chief Superintendent Wilson: Thank you, chairman. anything wrong or not. So we think that at times that over-zealous approach has led to inappropriate and unprofessional conduct by some of the Ombudsman’s investigators, and that obviously has Q116 Chairman: The first time all of you speak an eVect on the confidence of police oYcers in the would you identify yourselves for the shorthand system. We believe that everything needs to be done writer and for the television. to increase that confidence that police oYcers will Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 65

20 October 2004 Mr Irwin Montgomery, Mr Terry Spence, Chief Superintendent Wesley Wilson and Mr Raymond Phillips have in impartial investigations, and it will be a satisfied they can complain to the Secretary of State. measure of the commitment of this striving for We feel that that is too ad hoc, there should be a excellence of the Ombudsman what measures are formal system where that is done. taken to gain that confidence from now on. I am sure that my colleagues in the Federation would say the same thing on where they stand really, to help in any Q119 Chairman: Have there been any complaints to way they can in building that confidence up for the the Secretary of State? oYcers concerned, but it is a thing that needs to be Chief Superintendent Wilson: There have been some addressed urgently. We feel that the survey on complaints to the Secretary of State, in fact I have attitudes on police complaints done by the here an extract from a question posed to Jane Ombudsman was flawed and we have doubts about Kennedy when she was the Minister of State for its methodology, which I hope you are aware of in Northern Ireland and the question was “To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he that way. What it does show is that there is a lack of Y confidence in my police oYcers in the Ombudsman’s has received complaints from police o cers Y regarding the actions by oYcers of the o ce. We feel there is a lack of oversight of the Y Ombudsman and the work of the Ombudsman and Ombudsman’s O ce and investigations carried out the investigators concerned. We feel that in the past by the Police Ombudsman.” Jane Kennedy’s reply was: “A number of oYcers have written to the we have brought these to the attention of both Y Government and other agencies and feel that that is Northern Ireland O ce regarding the Y Ombudsman’s OYce; however, the Police a vital point in making sure police o cers have Y confidence in the system. If police oYcers have Ombudsman’s O ce is operationally independent and the handling of investigations by the complaints about the way an investigation is done or V how it is dealt with in any way then there should be Ombudsman’s sta is a matter for the Police Y Ombudsman’s OYce.” Again, we feel that the an independent person or an o cer who can V investigate that. We did write in the past to the Ombudsman investigating her own sta is not Secretary of State back in 2000 about this— satisfactory, it is not independent or impartial. The second question in that same debate was “To ask the Secretary of State what powers he has to require Q117 Chairman: Sorry, can I be sure I have that explanations from the Ombudsman’s OYce on the clear: you want an independent investigator to actions of her investigators” and the reply was by investigate the independent investigator. Jane Kennedy: “The Secretary of State has no Chief Superintendent Wilson: If a police oYcer has a statutory powers to require explanations from the complaint about the way an investigation has been Police Ombudsman on the actions of her oYcers or dealt with, and they make a complaint about that, the investigations carried out by her OYce”. Again, there should be an independent person to investigate we feel that that is not satisfactory. So for a police that, to have oversight of what the Police oYcer to have confidence in this system, we feel there Ombudsman was doing. It could be argued that it is needs to be independent oversight. We are who shall guard the guards type of a situation, but somewhat gladdened by the fact that the Chief to have confidence in the investigations that the Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland Ombudsman is doing there must be an independent may now look at the processes in the Ombudsman’s person that the police oYcer can go to and say “This OYce as part of their inspectorate role, but they was not done right; I have not been done right by”. cannot look at individual cases and any There needs to be some sort of oversight. We did maladministration caused in individual cases. We write back in 2000 to the Minister of State for feel that that does not fully satisfy what we are Northern Ireland at that time, and the reply given to looking for in this case. We further think that in us was “We propose to arrange for the Secretary of these cases the Ombudsman refuses to accept any State to appoint someone to investigate complaints wrongdoing by staV; any organisation that carries against the Police Ombudsman on an ad hoc basis”. out the number of investigations that are involved At the time we accepted that, but it does not seem to here is bound to have some errors, and there needs have progressed in the four years since that reply was to be admission of that because if you admit that you given, and to appoint someone on an ad hoc basis we are fallible you show you are human in dealing with feel is not rigorous enough for police oYcers to have these things and everybody accepts that. We feel that confidence in the Police Ombudsman. that is very important, that where inaccuracies are found, factual inaccuracies are found, that these are acknowledged. Quite often some of our oYcers and Q118 Chairman: Have there been any formal ex-oYcers have been shown draft reports about complaints? investigations in which they were under Chief Superintendent Wilson: There have been investigation and they have shown factual formal complaints to the Ombudsman’s oYce. The inaccuracies. What happens subsequently is that system is—and there is a leaflet published by the that report is amended and published as the public Ombudsman and it is on the website—that police document, but there is no acknowledgement in that oYcers who are dissatisfied with the workings of the report that the police oYcer who was under Ombudsman’s OYce in any investigation complain investigation about the complaint has actually to her first as the Ombudsman and then if not pointed out factual inaccuracies or helped reduce Ev 66 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 October 2004 Mr Irwin Montgomery, Mr Terry Spence, Chief Superintendent Wesley Wilson and Mr Raymond Phillips those. Additionally, oYcers quite often who are ex- consequences for those oYcers is taken into account. oYcers are not required by law to help an If we go back to the Omagh report, which has been investigation and sometimes they feel that they do extremely controversial from her oYce, our belief is not want to do that. There are unhelpful comments that those oYcers who were criticised in that report in the report saying the guy who has now retired did were denied natural justice through the opportunity not help with the investigation, but that just paints a to comment, and police confidence, as revealed in sort of bland picture. What happens is that when ex- the survey done by her own oYce, was almost zero oYcers are dealt with in this way, the serving police at that time. We were alarmed about this failure. We oYcers do not feel that they have confidence in the hold the view that had those oYcers of course been system, it further damages that confidence from given the opportunity to comment she may well have them. So we feel that there should be more arrived at the same decision, but the fact that they acknowledgement in the Ombudsman’s reports were denied the natural justice of having an about the help given by police oYcers, whether opportunity to comment before the report came out, serving or ex-oYcers. There are some cases about the we felt was inappropriate. We have, as you know, a wrongdoing of Police Ombudsman’s investigations, working party formed between the Superintendents’ I know there is the Greer and Dougan v PONI case Association and ourselves, senior oYcers and the where the magistrate actually commented on the Ombudsman’s OYce, so we are moving forward in a disingenuous actions of the investigators, and the number of areas in that. Ombudsman’s response was to write to the Lord Chancellor to complain about the magistrate’s Q121 Chairman: This is to try and improve things comments. There was no formal view of that and no for the future. oversight available for that to be looked at, to see Mr Montgomery: Exactly. why it happened. Our main thing in this is we feel that the confidence of the police in the system is not Q122 Chairman: That was to be my next question. only a goal that the Ombudsman has admitted, it is Mr Montgomery: I have beaten you to it. an essential part of it. It is all very well saying public confidence is increased by the Ombudsman’s investigators, we are happy that that is so, but we feel Q123 Chairman: Which is fine, the proactive steps that there must be more confidence given to police you are all taking together to try and make the and that means action by the Ombudsman in that process work. We have an Ombudsman now and I way. think you will agree it is a uniquely diYcult task; what are you doing to try and work with her, to perhaps work out systems with her which will make Q120 Chairman: If you agree with all that, Mr it seem fairer in your eyes? Montgomery, do not bother to say it all again. If Mr Spence: If I could just come in here, my name is however you have any brief diVerences or other Terry Spence, I am the general secretary of the Police nuances, then please feel free to tell us. Federation for Northern Ireland. We have tried Mr Montgomery: No, there is nothing that he has immensely over the last number of years to try and said that I can disagree with, but I have to say that move the situation forward regarding our there are some points that I would like to add to it in relationship with the Ombudsman’s OYce. It goes relation to the manner in which the Ombudsman has without saying that it is at an all-time low; the survey dealt with some things. I have to say that on that was conducted going back last year certainly occasions she has shown public support for the indicated and highlighted just how bad morale is police and her reports into plastic baton rounds and insofar as the Ombudsman’s OYce is concerned and on specific occasions their justified use by us was the manner in which she conducts her business, so very much welcomed by our members. Her recent notwithstanding that that was the case it was at our comments as well about referring every use of CS instigation that a joint working party was set up Spray to her oYce, that she really did not think that between the staV associations and the Ombudsman’s was appropriate, that is what has happened every OYce. Subsequent to that because we felt things time that we use CS Spray. There are other incidents were still not moving at the speed at which they in which oYcers being investigated by her oYce have should be to improve that relationship we, back in either been exonerated by the investigators or July of this year, put forward proposals to the through the courts, and no doubt you have received Ombudsman’s OYce that there should be a liaison specific submissions from those oYcers. From their oYcer appointed within her department at senior perspective the investigations into oYcers’ conduct level so that there would be an instant point of are extremely lengthy and result in oYcers being contact by way of telephone communication or suspended for up to two years before the case is indeed by personal contact, so that if there were any ended and usually, I have to add, the case collapsing. problems arising, we could perhaps iron those This is a massive financial drain on the public purse problems out before they reached the media, or and there is obviously the human cost to the oYcer indeed politicians who on some occasions have in many cases in relation to his personal wanted to exploit our diVerences. So we have moved circumstances, it has sometimes permanently and we have tried our best to improve the situation. damaged those. I have to say I am not always At this stage I regret to say we have not actually met convinced that when the recommendation to with the appointed liaison oYcer from the prosecute is made, that in every instance the human Ombudsman’s OYce but certainly I understand Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 67

20 October 2004 Mr Irwin Montgomery, Mr Terry Spence, Chief Superintendent Wesley Wilson and Mr Raymond Phillips someone has been appointed and we want to do that the vital importance of the Ombudsman being seen as quickly as we can, we believe it will be fruitful and to be fully independent when investigating the useful. Obviously, as my colleague Irwin has said police? here, when it comes to us praising her for the reports Mr Montgomery: Very much so. If it is not seen to be that she has already provided regarding the use of independent then the OYce really is not functioning plastic baton rounds and in relation to CS Spray, we properly and is not going to have confidence from have not been behind the door in coming forward either the public or the police. publicly and saying so. That is a matter of public Chief Superintendent Wilson: The second point that record. Dr Hayes makes is that it is not just being independent, it is being seen to be independent; this is about people’s perceptions and when the Q124 Chairman: I am sure it is a good thing that Y both sides speak to each other frankly—it is Ombudsman’s o cers are over-zealous or do not appear to be acting impartially, or are perceived by probably better they speak to each other than do it Y through the media, but that is an aside. Are your two our o cers in that way, that immediately damages associations working as one in your representations the confidence in the relationship, so it is very, very and relationships with the Ombudsman’s OYce, or important that that is managed well. do you do it separately? Mr Spence: We have meetings. The working party Q129 Mr Beggs: How can such independence be that I alluded to earlier, the working party includes squared with your calls for an oversight of the representatives from the Superintendents’ Ombudsman’s investigations? Association, the Police Federation for Northern Chief Superintendent Wilson: I think the important Y Ireland and of course the Ombudsman’s O ce thing is that if there is an oversight body or an V senior sta as well. oversight Commissioner, or whatever the Government feels is appropriate, which can deal Q125 Chairman: How often do you formally meet as with any complaints by police oYcers about the a working party? Ombudsman’s actions, that is a big step forward, Mr Spence: The last meeting was three months ago that is the Government saying this is very, very and we try to meet on a quarterly basis as often as important, it is not dealt with as in these letters here, possible. on an ad hoc basis, someone will be appointed, it is Mr Montgomery: There is one other point I would something very formal and something very rigid that like to make and that is that one of our sub- people can have confidence in, that will actively look committees, Constitution, Legislation and at what the Ombudsman’s investigators have done. Discipline, the Ombudsman’s OYce would attend I think that is a big step forward and it will be a big that on a bi-monthly basis, so that is ongoing as well. statement if that is done by the Government. Very shortly her OYce is embarking on various Mr Montgomery: I have to say it is not our view that briefings around the country. One of our fulltime every action of the Ombudsman’s OYce should be Federation people will be attending all of those, so overseen by someone else; what we are looking for we are moving forward. here is a mechanism whereby if an oYcer is unhappy about the manner in which he has been dealt with he has someone to refer to. The diYculty exists at this Q126 Chairman: With her, rather than watching. moment in time in that he can refer it to the Secretary Mr Montgomery: Yes. of State, but inevitably he refers it back to the Ombudsman’s OYce again, and we just find that an Q127 Chairman: That is wholly admirable. So unsatisfactory method of organisation. although you are not always agreed, you do have mechanisms to meet and discuss and, if necessary, diVer. Q130 Chairman: I want to be sure I have understood Mr Montgomery: Yes, we have doors that are open this—sorry, Mr Beggs. The Secretary of State gave all the time and we will use them as best we can. an undertaking that he would on an ad hoc basis Chairman: That is encouraging to hear. Mr Roy appoint somebody; there have been complaints to Beggs. him and he has not appointed anybody on an ad hoc basis to review the Ombudsman’s decision, is that the case? Q128 Mr Beggs: Thank you, chairman. The first Chief Superintendent Wilson: It has been referred question will be to both representatives. Your back to the Ombudsman. organisations place criticism of the present arrangements for holding the Ombudsman to account at the forefront of your submission. Q131 Chairman: It may be referred back first for the Maurice Hayes’ 1997 report on police complaints, A facts or whatever, but if that complaint is still Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland? Stated that extant—and there are some that are still “the overwhelming message I got from all sides and outstanding? from all political parties was the need for the Mr Montgomery: Yes. investigation to be independent and to be seen to be Chief Superintendent Wilson: As far as we are independent”. Do you agree with Dr Hayes about aware, yes. Ev 68 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 October 2004 Mr Irwin Montgomery, Mr Terry Spence, Chief Superintendent Wesley Wilson and Mr Raymond Phillips

Q132 Chairman: And the Secretary of State has not Mr Montgomery: I am aware of one that has been appointed anybody to look at them. running for the best part of two years. Mr Spence: No, they are referred back to the Ombudsman. Q140 Chairman: Two years, that is what I want to know, and there has been nobody appointed by the Q133 Chairman: I understand why it gets referred Secretary of State to review it. back first, that if you like is a procedural matter, but Mr Montgomery: Certainly not that I am aware of. what you are actually saying to us is that the Secretary of State is in breach of that obligation. Chief Superintendent Wilson: The Secretary of State Q141 Chairman: And it clearly has been into the certainly has not as yet appointed anyone to review Ombudsman’s OYce and back out again. Thank it. you. Mr Spence: Can I say one other thing, chairman, if Q134 Chairman: How long have any such I may? One of the reasons why there is such a small complaints been outstanding? Can you give me an number of complaints ultimately to the Secretary of example—not a name—of a police oYcer who was State is because the members have no faith in that dissatisfied when the appeal went to the Secretary of system and they believe that it will simply bounce from the Secretary of State back to the State, and what has happened since? Are we talking Y weeks, are we talking months or are we talking Ombudsman’s O ce so there is no point in years? complaining in the first place. Mr Spence: We are referring to months, and what normally would happen is that inevitably that Q142 Chairman: The Committee has got that point, complaint will be returned to the Ombudsman’s I am just trying to diVerentiate between checking OYce for investigation, so in actual fact the back—which is a perfectly reasonable thing for the Northern Ireland OYce which should be the Northern Ireland OYce to do—and failing to ultimate overseer of that complaint against an appoint somebody, which you tell me the Secretary investigator from the Police Ombudsman’s OYce is of State undertook to do. passing that responsibility back to the Mr Spence: Yes. Ombudsman herself. Chairman: Thank you. Sorry, Mr Beggs.

Q135 Chairman: That is what I am trying to get at. Q143 Mr Beggs: The Ombudsman has explained to If the Secretary of State’s first reaction is to pass it us that there are various bodies which have a role in back to the Ombudsman, saying “I have had this holding her to account about aspects of her work, complaint, please check it and give me your views”, and the Northern Ireland OYce has indicated that that is totally reasonable, that is not passing it back, the Department could consider an investigation in that is filtering it through. If that complaint after any maladministration by the Ombudsman by an that is still outstanding, that is the moment when you independent person. Does this not all add up to tell me the Secretary of State should appoint suYcient accountability given the need to guard the somebody to review it. Ombudsman’s operational independence? Do you Mr Spence: Yes. accept that any person appointed by the Department to investigate potential maladministration would Q136 Chairman: How long have we been waiting for fulfil your requirement for reasonable independent that to happen in any specific case? oversight? Mr Spence: It has not happened to date in any of the Mr Montgomery: As long as that was considered as cases that we are aware of. part of their remit, that we would have a point to refer to, we do not have a particularly narrow view Q137 Chairman: How many cases are there roughly? of how this should be done. If they want to appoint Are we talking about four or five or 10 or 12? two people or three people who ultimately are Mr Montgomery: Somewhere in that region. responsible for the Ombudsman’s OYce that is fine Mr Spence: We are talking about a smaller number. by us, we are not stuck in any one particular position as to how this should be done. Q138 Six months? Mr Montgomery: About six cases are involved. Q144 Mr Beggs: Finally a question, chairman, to the Federation. Would you explain to the Committee Q139 Chairman: I am trying to do this as neutrally how your idea of an OYce of Police Complaints as I can, because if what you are saying is right, you would help strengthen accountability, or might the have got a point. What is the longest period that a addition of yet another body in a rather crowded complaint has been outstanding from a police oYcer field not simply complicate arrangements to deal to the Secretary of State in which, although it may eVectively with complaints about the police? have been referred to the OYce—and I think we Mr Montgomery: The manner in which we might have a diVerence of opinion but as a check- addressed this was we were told we could not have back that is fine—the Secretary of State has not an Ombudsman who was overseeing an appointed someone to oversee it or review it? Ombudsman, so it was our suggestion if you perhaps Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 69

20 October 2004 Mr Irwin Montgomery, Mr Terry Spence, Chief Superintendent Wesley Wilson and Mr Raymond Phillips gave it a diVerent name and it was no longer called both sides of the argument. I want to be clear that the Ombudsman, the Ombudsperson responsible for you are not asking for a referee to referee the Northern Ireland could then look at that position. referee’s decision. Mr Montgomery: No, we are not. Q145 Chairman: I am sorry to labour this point, but Chairman: Thank you. Reverend Martin Smith. I want to be quite clear. You acknowledge that any appeal to the Secretary of State by a dissatisfied Q153 Reverend Smyth: I think I have come to an oYcer would be about by maladministration by the understanding that both sets do not actually have Ombudsman’s department. great confidence in the survey carried out by the Chief Superintendent Wilson: That would be the only Ombudsman. Can I ask, particularly the grounds of complaint for an oversight body to look Federation, if you have supplied us with your at. If there was something else in that, if there was a expert’s view, how can we then rely on the results of criminal act or something . . . the survey which are flawed? Mr Montgomery: I think it is going to be very Y Q146 Chairman: There is a world of diVerence di cult to rely on those results. We asked for the between the Ombudsman not doing her job or the survey in the first place, we were to be consulted administration in her oYce not doing their job and before the actual questionnaire went out, you will somebody disagreeing with her opinion, honestly have read the comments that were made and the held. My understanding, having looked at the manner in which that survey was conducted, without memorandum from the Northern Ireland OYce, is us having sight of it at all. The manner in which the that this business of an appeal—if one wants to use first report was produced was completely that word—is about the question of any erroneous—maybe to a statistician it made a lot of maladministration, in other words the sense, but I have to say that to the rest of us Ombudsman’s OYce did not do what they should unfortunately it did not because it did not give a true reflection of those oYcers who had been in contact have done according to their own statutes and their Y own procedures, they failed to do something; not with the Ombudsman’s O ce at all. I think it is simply that the opinion of the Ombudsman about really time that there was a proper survey done; that blame was something that you disagreed with. one there—and it will remain so—is just totally Chief Superintendent Wilson: No, it is about unreliable. maladministration, it is not about disagreeing. Q154 Reverend Smyth: Would you say that your understanding is aVected by the fact, for example— Q147 Chairman: We must get this right. This and this is to both sets of witnesses—that 43% of complaint that is two years old is about police oYcers think that members of the PSNI maladministration in the Ombudsman’s OYce? should be able to complain to the Ombudsman Mr Montgomery: It concerns the manner in which a about the conduct of colleagues rather than their complaint was dealt with. own line manager. What are your views of this suggestion as has come out of the survey? Q148 Chairman: That does not answer the question. Mr Montgomery: We have a number of options Is it the conclusion the Ombudsman came to, or is it within the service for people who are unhappy, the fact that in carrying out her investigation she did perhaps, with some of the decisions that not do what the statute or her rules says she should management or indeed their supervisors have made, have done? and that is provided for within the service. I think the Mr Montgomery: That is right. Ombudsman’s OYce may consider she has enough work to do without having to refer to every internal Q149 Chairman: It is maladministration. dispute. As you know, within any large organisation Mr Montgomery: Yes, it is the manner in which the you are going to find that there will be personality investigation of this particular complaint was clashes or whatever and to open that door—it is a carried out. matter for the Ombudsman’s OYce but I can understand that it may well lead to a very heavy workload for her. Q150 Chairman: In that case the Northern Ireland OYce says that today, up to date, they have not considered it necessary to invoke this arrangement, Q155 Reverend Smyth: Some of us, of course, are a which means they do not consider it is little bit concerned about the whole concept of maladministration. Have they so informed you? whistleblowers and how, when they come out, they Mr Montgomery: No. then become the victims rather than people listening to what they say. Can I ask the Superintendents’ Association have you any view? Q151 Chairman: They have not? Chief Superintendent Wilson: I cannot remember the Mr Montgomery: No. actual question itself in the survey so there may be a question mark about the way it was phrased to get Q152 Chairman: Okay. I am just trying to get at the the result that came out, but there is a diYculty and facts, I am not coming to any view here, the in Northern Ireland there is a particularly litigious Committee will come to a view when it has heard culture where people are quick to go to the courts to Ev 70 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 October 2004 Mr Irwin Montgomery, Mr Terry Spence, Chief Superintendent Wesley Wilson and Mr Raymond Phillips have judicial reviews. The danger of this situation investigating a case? I am thinking of a citizen who would be that where there is a dispute with line quite often may be asked questions that nearly make management or whatever, that that becomes him believe that he is the guilty one. something referred to the Ombudsman which Mr Montgomery: That is fair enough. should not be, it should be dealt with as a Chairman: Deny it. Mr Stephen Pound. management issue within the organisation. So I can Mr Pound: I have an additional one to that, just see where it would be hijacked and therefore if there following up the point that Reverend Martin Smyth was anything like that introduced it would have to has made, particularly to you Mr Spence or Mr be very, very tightly framed. Montgomery; you very kindly sent us details of the Mr Montgomery: I would just make one point in case of Detective Constable Greer and Sergeant that, internally anyway within our IIB branch, you Dougan. can make complaints to them if you are not happy Chairman: Saved by the bell. I am sorry about this. Y with the manner in which any o cer has behaved, so We will adjourn for 15 minutes if there is one vote or internally that is more than well-provided for. a little longer if there are two; I am very sorry I cannot tell you which, but if you would stay Q156 Reverend Smyth: On the other hand, relatively close. something like 48% of police oYcers could be in The Committee suspended from 15.37 pm to 16.02 pm contact with the Ombudsman’s OYce to express for a division in the House. satisfaction with the way in which they have been Chairman: Gentleman, the possible good news is dealt with during an investigation. Can you share that there may be no more, but on the other hand with us, what are the main reasons for the there may be one at nine minutes past four. This is dissatisfaction and what is your organisation doing all very disturbing and I am sorry that the train of in conjunction with the Ombudsman and the PSNI thought is getting broken all the time. Mr Pound, management to address these problems? you were asking a question. Mr Spence: If I can answer that question, chairman, the main reason is that oYcers believe that the Y Ombudsman’s O ce is not even-handed and Q158 Mr Pound: Thank you very much indeed, impartial in the way in which they deal with Y Chairman. I was referring to the case of Detective complaints against the police. O cers believe that Constable Greer and Sergeant Dougan, a case which investigators from that OYce are more likely to is included in the bundle that you submitted earlier believe the complainant every time than they are to on. The question that I wanted to ask, particularly believe what the police oYcer has to say. That in view of Mr Spence’s comments earlier on, was do obviously has a detrimental eVect on policing in you feel that the actions of Inspector Middleditch, Northern Ireland. We are very concerned about the fact that some police oYcers have indicated to us who investigated the case—and I have to say that that they feel that one arm is tied behind their back during the course of which investigation any person and that they are overly concerned about making a reading the statement would conclude that Detective genuine procedural mistake, in which case the Constable Greer was humiliated and was treated, I Ombudsman’s OYce may wield the big stick. They think abominably would not be too strong a word— are genuinely worried, those are real concerns, it is a do you think that those actions arose because of the big concern to us. To address the problem we have presence of the Ombudsman, do you think there was raised this issue with the Chief Constable, we have any contributing factor? I think that in view of your raised this issue with the Ombudsman herself and we earlier comments it is very important that we have raised this issue on many, many occasions with actually get this on the record. the Northern Ireland OYce including the Secretary Mr Spence: Clearly, Inspector Middleditch had of State for Northern Ireland and the Security attempted to show compassion to the oYcer Minister. These are real problems for us. concerned on that particular evening. It was a Chief Superintendent Wilson: Indeed, Mr Chairman, horrendous set of circumstances: the police oYcer my colleague Irwin did outline the sort of things that concerned of course found the prisoner hanging in we have got involved in like working parties. The the cell and it was most regrettable the way the entire Ombudsman has come to the joint conference of the issue was handled. The senior investigating oYcer Superintendents’ Association and addressed them dealt with it in a very oppressive manner and I think and we have had the Ombudsman at our last it is clear that Inspector Middleditch did do her very executive meeting to talk about things, so there is best under the circumstances, but obviously felt that liaison and protocols have been drawn up to under some pressure, and I do subscribe to the fact address various situations. So we are trying to form that that pressure came to bear and she was some form of strategic alliance together to move conducting her business in the way in which she did things forward, but in all that it just takes one because she was under some pressure. particular instance where an oYcer feels that they are not dealt with right, and that wrecks conﬁdence. Q159 Mr Pound: Inspector Middleditch was either Q157 Reverend Smyth: One understands that, but on secondment from the MPS or was directly what I cannot fully understand is, is it not part of a transferred to investigate this particular case. Do police mentality even to probe like that when you are you know which one it was? Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 71

20 October 2004 Mr Irwin Montgomery, Mr Terry Spence, Chief Superintendent Wesley Wilson and Mr Raymond Phillips

Mr Spence: She was, I understand, transferred to the considerably and over the period the whole thing has Ombudsman’s OYce and had been previously improved to a great degree. Hopefully it will get dealing with similar incidents in London as a better as the time goes on. serving oYcer. Mr Montgomery: There is just one point that I would like to make. The manner in which we are engaging with the Ombudsman’s oYce, at our annual Q160 Mr Pound: You think that had this been an IIB V conference this year she had the opportunity to investigation it would have been handled di erently. address all of our Federation representatives and Mr Spence: I am in absolutely no doubt, and even take questions from the ﬂoor. So we have moved on when one looks at the concluding statements and in that respect as well, that would not have happened comments from the judge who dealt with this civil a number of years ago. action, the judge in the particular case said that the superintendent in charge made no attempt to treat either the sergeant concerned or Detective Q163 Mr Clarke: That is good to hear and it perhaps Constable Greer with dignity and respect. That goes answers one of my further questions, but another to the depths of what we are trying to point out, that outcome of that review is the recommendation that we have to try and resolve these problems, we have staV from both organisations, from the police and to try and ensure that the Ombudsman’s the Ombudsman’s OYce, spend time on short term investigators deal with our members in a very attachment to other organisations, yet we know to compassionate manner when it comes to issues such date there have only been a series of staV visits and as this and move forward from here. This was a not real attachments. Do you have any comment to particularly sad case because a prisoner had, make on the fact that that recommendation has not obviously, committed suicide and the oYcers really been implemented? Do you support such short concerned were treated as suspects, as if they had term attachments to other organisations and do you been engaged in murdering him. have any comments as to why, so far, we have been unsuccessful in making that recommendation become a reality? Q161 Mr Pound: I am sorry to reiterate the point, Mr Montgomery: From our perspective we would but do you feel that this was part of the culture Y Y consider it a good idea that serving o cers have an within the Ombudsman’s O ce? opportunity to work within the Ombudsman’s Mr Spence: Yes. OYce. I do not know why that has not been the case, Mr Pound: Thank you. but I am aware of some of our oYcers who have retired who now work there. Personally speaking, I Q162 Mr Clarke: Communication between PSNI think it would be good idea if people were to have the and the Ombudsman has not perhaps been at its opportunity, maybe to serve in IIB if you are from best, so much so that the Ombudsman requested the Ombudsman’s OYce or whatever, for a period of and, with the agreement of the Chief Constable, time, and vice versa. managed to undertake a review of communications Chief Superintendent Wilson: It is an important issue between the two bodies, and oYcers from the and it is good for the career development of the police’s strategic command structure discussed and oYcer, but it also means that the Ombudsman’s staV came up with a number of recommendations. What can learn more about our organisation through involvement did your organisations have with that those attachments, and also when our people come review of communications between the two bodies? back into PSNI they can then spread word about Were you involved? what is going on and get more understanding. So it Mr Spence: The Chief Constable at the time of would be a very positive thing. setting up that communication channel did not engage with us in participating in that Q164 Mr Clarke: We also noticed from the communication. The situation, as I pointed out V submission notes that, to date, there have been no earlier, is such that as a sta association we believed secondments from PSNI to the Ombudsman’s it was important to open up channels of OYce. Would you welcome secondments? communication, both with the Ombudsman herself Y V Mr Montgomery: We have no di culty. As I say, I and, indeed, senior members of her sta and, as has think it is a good idea. already been alluded to, the Ombudsman and her deputy would attend our Constitution, Legislation and Discipline meetings, which are bi-monthly, so Q165 Mr Clarke: Do you perceive any potential we ourselves have instigated a lot of moves. conﬂict of interest in that, or do you think that could Certainly, the Chief Constable did not engage us in be managed? those lines of communication in the early days. Mr Montgomery: Not really, I do not perceive any. Chief Superintendent Wilson: On behalf of the Chief Superintendent Wilson: The only negative side Superintendents’ Association, we became aware of may be a public perception that PSNI oYcers are in the review by members of strategic command when the Ombudsman’s OYce and therefore the it was really too late to contribute to it, so there was independence is compromised in that way, so it a hiccup in that way. I would like to make the point would need to be handled from a public expectation that the protocols and the liaisons we are now having and perception point of view, but other than that we with the Ombudsman’s OYce have improved things would have no reservations. Ev 72 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 October 2004 Mr Irwin Montgomery, Mr Terry Spence, Chief Superintendent Wesley Wilson and Mr Raymond Phillips

Q166 Chairman: Just a very short supplementary, do complaints. I do not know if that is true or not, but you think that the main lack of confidence is a lack those are the sorts of rumours that get about, they of confidence of the public or a lack of confidence of need to be addressed and there needs to be better the PSNI? communication so that everybody understands Chief Superintendent Wilson: The Ombudsman has those things. had a very positive eVect on public confidence in Mr Montgomery: Again, it is a matter that if we have policing and that is to the betterment of all people, proper protocols in place then all of this then can be including the police, but I think there is a big issue put in place as to how it is going to operate, and about the confidence of police oYcers in their every side has an input as to how they see it, so that dealings with the Ombudsman, and that needs to be somewhere in the middle we can arrive at some addressed by us all probably. conclusion that everybody can sign up to. Chairman: Thank you. Mr Mark Tami. Q170 Mark Tami: What do you think about the Q167 Mark Tami: I understand that your Ombudsman’s role in looking at police policies and organisations have been involved with the procedures? Ombudsman and the management of the PSNI to Chief Superintendent Wilson: This might be more of come up with a way of dealing with complaints that a personal view than the view of the will involve informal resolution, mediation. How is Superintendents’ Association, but the independence that going and are you really satisfied with that of the Chief Constable in doing policing, I think, is a process? paramount tenet of British policing and many police Chief Superintendent Wilson: Informal resolution is forces across the world. If the Ombudsman then something that has always happened with starts to look at policy and procedure that might complaints and we see it as a very positive way, it is start to water down that independence of the Chief far better if something can be resolved amicably to Constable in all operational matters. So I have some some degree by all the parties involved rather than concerns about it in that way. going to formal, lengthy investigations, so we would see that as a very positive thing. Mediation is slightly diVerent and we have some reservations about the Q171 Mark Tami: Is that the view of you all? mediation, but we feel it is a good way of resolving Mr Montgomery: You are looking at things through things and finding a better way forward. the rose-tinted glasses of hindsight, and perhaps the decisions that are made on the ground, when you have weeks and months to look at how that decision Q168 Mark Tami: Could you elaborate a bit? You was made, it may have to be made on the hoof so to said you have some reservations, what would they be speak, and it is very diYcult for the oYcer concerned and how would you see the role of the Ombudsman, who may have made that decision with the best of would you like a freer role within that or not? intentions to have this looked at for weeks. Chief Superintendent Wilson: I think it is something that needs to have a set of protocols agreed to it so that oYcers, when they are involved in these Q172 Chairman: That is not policies and procedures, investigations, feel that they have some protection if that is a specific event where someone has to make a they get into a mediation situation and that their decision. I think Mr Tami’s question is about the human rights will be protected and that. It is new role of the Ombudsman. certainly something that can be progressed. Mr Montgomery: It could be a question of how you Mr Montgomery: I would add our view to that. I interpret that particular procedure, that is the point would agree entirely with what Wesley has said and, I am trying to make. as well as that, obviously, if you can have the complaint resolved at a very early stage there is not Q173 Mark Tami: If I could narrow it down a bit, all the grief that is caused by going ahead, carrying it what type of procedures and policies do you think on for months and months and months, with people the Ombudsman should be looking at? feeling distraught about that and ending up oV sick Chief Superintendent Wilson: One of the things the maybe, with stress or whatever. So anything that can Ombudsman does is she can advise the Chief deal with a complaint in a short time, that is the way Constable after an investigation is concluded under to go. Regulation 20, as it is known. Regulation 20 will set out things that she has found which the police need Q169 Mark Tami: So you see that as a way of to address, so the Chief Constable will look at those improving relations between yourself and the items and some of those might be procedural or Ombudsman. policy matters that have come out of the Chief Superintendent Wilson: Yes, it is, but again investigation. So the chief oYcers will look at that there are a lot of things that are subject to rumour and, after a period of consultation, will decide and misrepresentation. We have heard that if you whether we need to change policies. So there is an have three complaints made against you and a indirect way that policies and procedures are looked fourth complaint comes in, then it cannot be at arising from complaints in that way, which is a informally resolved, it is like an unwritten rule in the good thing. The independence of the Chief Ombudsman’s OYce that that cannot go to informal Constable in making operational decisions and resolution because you have three previous deciding operational policies I think is paramount. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 73

20 October 2004 Mr Irwin Montgomery, Mr Terry Spence, Chief Superintendent Wesley Wilson and Mr Raymond Phillips

Q174 Mark Tami: So you see a rather narrow role. magistrate, but the Ombudsman whose whole raison Chief Superintendent Wilson: Very much so. d’etre is to be independent has placed pressure on the DPP. What evidence have you got for that? Q175 Chairman: The very good news is that there are Mr Spence: The evidence comes from the perceptions. no more votes today. Your Federation’s submission, Mr Montgomery, said that “to date very few cases Q179 Chairman: Perceptions are not evidence. I accept heard in the courts or at internal misconduct that you say that that is the perception of your hearings have actually resulted in a successful members. prosecution” and you said “There is a perception Mr Spence: Yes. that the . . . Ombudsman places pressure upon the DPP and IIB to advance cases, even though there is Q180 Chairman: What evidence have you got to back little prospect of success.” The evidence that we have that perception up? is that from 2000 to 2003 the Ombudsman referred Mr Spence: Of course, there will never be any specific, 374 cases to the DPP and 346 of those recommended detailed written evidence because we do not have sight no prosecution; it does not actually tie in with what of any documentation that goes from the you have alleged, does it? Ombudsman’s OYce to the Director of Public Mr Montgomery: We are going back again to the Prosecutions. These figures that you have quoted to us perceptions of people that have been before the today are news to me personally and I was not aware courts, we would have felt as an organisation that of those figures until today. We do not get sight of what most of those oYcers had no case to answer. Again, the DPP receives from the Ombudsman’s oYce, we are talking about perceptions within Northern whether by way of prosecution or recommendations Ireland. for no prosecution, we do not get sight of that. Mr Montgomery: Perhaps if these figures were more widely available the perception would not exist. Q176 Chairman: Are you doing something then to Chairman: Then perhaps one of the services we can persuade your members that their perception is provide to you all is to make them more widely wrong, if there are only 28 cases out of nearly 400 available. I did not know that they were not available that the Ombudsman has recommended for to you. Mr Adrian Bailey. prosecution? I am not taking one side or the other in this, but the figures do not actually bear out what you say. Q181 Mr Bailey: Thanks, Chairman. This is to the Mr Montgomery: Undoubtedly, the figures do not; Federation. You instance in section 3 of your as I say, we have gone through the various protocols submission that 42% of complaints were closed in and things that we are working through with the 2002–03 because of “non-co-operation” on the part of Ombudsman’s OYce and somewhere along the line complainants with the Ombudsman. You indicate that we will have reached the conclusion to all of those, this means the Ombudsman does not enjoy public but that is some way oV. support and say that “A body independent of police should be able to substantially reduce non-co- operation figures.” Do you accept that the figure of Q177 Chairman: What evidence do you have for the 42% was an improvement over the figure of 53% in perception that the Ombudsman places pressure on 2001–02 and that the improvement may indicate at the DPP? It would seem to be the other way round. least some increase in complainant confidence in the Mr Spence: If you look at the case of McLeer, which Ombudsman? has been alluded to in our report—that is the case of Mr Montgomery: Obviously, we have to accept the Norman McLeer and Stephen John Nicholl—in that statistics, we cannot argue with those, if there has been particular case the magistrate made certain a drop we cannot argue with that. comments which were a matter of public record, and he stated in their particular case that he came to the Q182 Mr Bailey: The Ombudsman is researching why conclusion that the investigators involved in that there should be a significant level of non-co-operation. case had a distinct animus towards the defendants, Her research is not yet finished but she shared some i.e. the two police oYcers. That is a matter of public reasons with us which might cause a complainant to record and that is the type of comment that causes fail to carry through with a complaint, including a grave concern to our members, that if they make a reluctance to take a medical examination, or to have genuine procedural mistake the Ombudsman will be third parties questioned as potential witnesses. Do you out to nail them. That is a perception on their part. accept that the causes of a complainant’s non-co- There are comments such as this and indeed in the operation are likely to be quite complex and may have other case that was alluded to earlier in relation to little directly to do with lack of confidence in the Dougan and Greer, where the judge made certain Ombudsman, and that the approach being adopted by comments as well. the Ombudsman to research these issues is sensible and constructive? Q178 Chairman: Excuse me, this is another matter Mr Montgomery: Iknowfrommyownexperience from your allegation—which is a serious one—that the there can be a myriad reasons why someone would Ombudsman places pressure on the DPP, not that withdrew a complaint; some people just do not want to investigations have been carried out in a way that may pursue it any more, think it is not going anywhere or not be entirely satisfactory, which is the view of the whatever. Ev 74 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 October 2004 Mr Irwin Montgomery, Mr Terry Spence, Chief Superintendent Wesley Wilson and Mr Raymond Phillips

Q183 Mr Bailey: If that is so, then using the argument experience of aVairs in that troubled part of the United that the fact that 42% of people close the complaint is Kingdom. We hear what you say about your therefore an indication of a lack of confidence, those legitimate worries; you have very fairly acknowledged two comments do not necessarily stack up. If there are that most of those are worries from the past and I all sorts of legitimate reasons or complex reasons why hope—and I have said exactly the same to the that is the case, which may have nothing to do with Ombudsman—that you will consider it part of your their confidence in the procedure, then that argument duty to try and allay unwarranted suspicions so that a surely is not valid? system, of which you approve in principle, which has Mr Montgomery: You need to see a breakdown of had quite a diYcult birth gets on and is able to serve those figures to know exactly why those complaints your oYcers, the police service, the Ombudsman and were withdrawn. the general public in increasing confidence, because it is confidence in your new service that everybody is seeking to achieve in their various ways. If we all work Q184 Mr Bailey: This comes back to doing the positively towards that, with less of a them and us— research, does it not, so would you accept that that is and I do not address this at you, I address it at all a reasonable way forward? concerned and I have no doubt my colleagues and I Mr Montgomery: To do the research? Yes, we would will be reporting on this aspect of this matter—then I accept that is a reasonable way forward. think Northern Ireland will be a better place and the people will be better served by their police force. Thank Q185 Chairman: Gentlemen, that comes to the end of you very much for your evidence. the evidence session. Thank you for being as frank as Chief Superintendent Wilson: Thank you, Mr you have. If I may just finish up with a thought or two, Chairman. it is said so many times that perception is everything in Chairman: A short pause, please, while we change the Northern Ireland and I have known that from long cast as quickly as possible.

Memorandum submitted by the Northern Ireland OYce Background 1. In 1995 Dr Maurice Hayes, who had held senior positions in local government and in the Civil Service in Northern Ireland, as well as being the Assembly Ombudsman for a time, was appointed by the then Secretary of State to conduct a review of the Police Complaints system in Northern Ireland; his terms of reference are at Annex A. 2. Dr Hayes produced his report in January 1997 and the main principles he identiﬁed as underpinning a police complaints system for Northern Ireland are detailed at Annex B. He reported that “the overwhelming message I got from all sides and from all political parties was the need for the investigation to be independent and seen to be independent”. He went on to comment that the existing arrangements were seen as the “police investigating police” and he believed that: “independence should be demonstrated by the person or body concerned having control of the process, the power to decide what is a complaint, the power to intervene in the public interest, the power to decide how and by whom the complaint should be investigated and the power to recommend action to the relevant authorities”. His main recommendation was that there should be a full-time post of Police Ombudsman with the duty to investigate complaints against the police in Northern Ireland. 3. At the time of Hayes report the complaints process involved both the Independent Commission for Police Complaints (ICPC) and the police (at that time the Royal Ulster Constabulary). After completion of an investigation the question of any related criminal prosecutions was a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions and disciplinary issues were for the Chief Constable.

Creation for the Office of the Police Ombudsman 4. The Government considered the recommendations of the Hayes report and as a result the oYce of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland was established under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. The legislation requires the Ombudsman to “exercise her powers in such manner and to such extent as appears to her to be best calculated to secure: (a) the eYciency, eVectiveness and independence of the Police Complaints system; and (b) the confidence of the public and of members of the police force in that system.” 5. Thus the independent nature of the new police complaints system, an independence that Maurice Hayes had identified as being vitally important from his consultations, was established. Alongside this independence was a recognition of the need to gain the confidence of both the public and members of the Police Service. The legislation also abolished the ICPC. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 75

6. The Government believed that it was important that the new oYce forged its own identity and thus the Ombudsman (designate), Mrs Nuala O’Loan, was appointed in October 1999, taking up full-time designate responsibilities in April 2000. In this way she was able to work closely with the project implementation team in identifying and equipping premises, recruiting suitable staV, developing practices, policies and procedures for the new oYce, procuring IT systems and consulting with the public and the police to ensure that the vision of an independent and eVective Ombudsman’s oYce was realised. The oYce opened for business in November 2000. 7. In helping to mark out the identity of a new, independent and professional service for handling complaints, members of staV and investigators were drawn from various disciplines and backgrounds, and from not only outside Northern Ireland, but beyond the UK as well.

“Patten”Report

8. The value of the Hayes review, and the decision to create the new oYce of the Police Ombudsman, was reinforced with the report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland (a New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland) which aligned itself ﬁrmly with the main recommendation of Maurice Hayes saying that “a fully independent Ombudsman operating as he envisaged in his report should be a most eVective mechanism for holding the police accountable to the law”. This report also recognised the value of the Ombudsman’s oYce in compiling data on trends and patterns in complaints against the police, and commented that it should work with the police to address issues emerging from such data. 9. The Commission added, “we cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of the oYce of the Police Ombudsman in the future policing arrangements proposed in this report. The Institution is critical to the question of police accountability to the law, to public trust in the police and to the protection of human rights”.

The Public

10. In making clear the Government’s support for a Police Ombudsman to provide an independent and impartial system to investigate police complaints it was recognised that the establishment, and settling down, of such an arrangement was itself a major challenge. However, the work of Mrs O’Loan and her staV in setting up the new oYce to provide a service to those with a complaint against the police has been impressive. The oYce got to work quickly and has gone to some lengths to ensure that the public is aware, not only of its existence, but also of its independence. Dr Hayes reported that the public should have conﬁdence that the oYce is independent of not only the police, but also Government. It is noteworthy that a recent survey indicated that 85% of respondents were aware of the Ombudsman’s oYce and that it was independent.

The Police

11. Inevitably in any relationship between a complaints investigation agency and the organisation it investigates (and the representative bodies of its members) there will be a healthy tension at times. However, it is important that everyone is aware of their responsibilities and obligations, and that the relationship remains such that it benefits the policing arrangements provided to the community in Northern Ireland. 12. There have been occasions of adverse comment about the work of the Ombudsman’s oYce, but any complaints investigation agency, such as the Ombudsman’s oYce, is there to help ensure that police oYcers maintain the highest levels of conduct and behaviour. It is also important, and the Ombudsman’s oYce recognises this, that members of the police service (as well as the public) have confidence in the complaints system. 13. Whilst the Ombudsman is there to help maintain the high standards expected of oYcers, the oYce’s investigations can, and often do, vindicate the actions of police oYcers. There are undoubtedly instances where the Ombudsman will investigate complaints where it is established that the conduct of oYcers was less than should have been expected. However, the oYce is also an asset to police oYcers in that it can correct misunderstandings, or find that a complaint is unsubstantiated. Thus, reassuring oYcers that they are maintaining the standards expected of them, disposing of unfounded allegations, and being able to explain to someone feeling aggrieved why the police were not at fault. All this is much more credible and convincing coming from an independent body, rather than from an internal police investigation. 14. Some police oYcers have concerns about the role of the Ombudsman, and how that is exercised. Therefore a very helpful and welcome development is that, following a recent survey of PSNI oYcers the Ombudsman’s oYce, the Police Federation and the Superintendent’s Association of Northern Ireland have now set up a joint Working Committee to address issues raised in that survey. Ev 76 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

The Police Board 15. In addition to working with the police and the public the Ombudsman also has an important working relationship with the Northern Ireland Policing Board, the other main part of the police accountability architecture recommended by Patten and accepted by the Government. Under Section 3(3)(c)(i) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 the Policing Board is required to keep itself informed as to the workings of the police complaints and disciplinary proceedings, as well as trends and patterns in complaints against police oYcers. The Ombudsman facilitates this important role by the provision of statistical information regarding complaints. In addition incidents where police oYcers are involved in discharge of baton rounds, ﬁrearms or where a death may have occurred during (or shortly after) contact with the police, are advised to the Policing Board. In situations where a conﬂict may arise between the Ombudsman and the Chief Constable the Policing Board would have an important role in considering the matter and determining the way forward (such as happened in relation to the Ombudsman’s report of December 2001 into the police investigation of the Omagh bombing of August 1998).

Accountability

16. As Maurice Hayes was at pains to point out in his report, and the report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland reinforced, a key factor in the expected success of a Police Ombudsman would be its independence from Government and the police. Independence was a critical factor highlighted in the consultation exercise; independence which would enable the Ombudsman to enjoy the confidence of the public and members of the police. Balancing such independence with accountability is not always easy in any system, and can lead to suggestions that independence should be controlled through more accountability 17. The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland is operationally independent and, under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, enjoys a fixed-period appointment for a maximum of seven years. In certain circumstances, as detailed in that legislation, the Secretary of State may call upon the Ombudsman to retire: (a) in the interests of eYciency or eVectiveness; or (b) if satisfied that the Ombudsman has: (i) been convicted of a criminal oVence; or (ii) become bankrupt or made a composition or arrangement with his creditors. 18. In recognising that the Ombudsman’s OYce is operationally independent of Government the Ombudsman is required to provide an Annual Report to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. This means that Parliament, and the public, have a picture of what the Ombudsman’s OYce has been doing and how it has been performing its tasks. As at present the Northern Ireland AVairs Committee, on behalf of Parliament, can require evidence from the Ombudsman’s OYce, thus reinforcing the strength of the parliamentary dimension. 19. The complaints system is such that the Police Ombudsman provides the investigative role in handling a complaint and makes recommendations to the Director of Public Prosecutions/Chief Constable regarding prosecution or disciplinary action respectively. It is then for the DPP to weigh that evidence and decide whether to take forward a prosecution of a criminal case, and for a court to decide on guilt and award any punishment if appropriate. 20. In relation to disciplinary oVences it is for the Chief Constable to decide if the evidence warrants disciplinary action, undertake the disciplinary proceedings and award the punishment (under the legislation the Ombudsman may, after consultation with the Chief Constable, direct him to bring disciplinary proceedings). Thus the DPP/courts and the Chief Constable review the evidence acquired by the Ombudsman in the investigation of a complaint, consider the recommendations made, and it is they who decide on court or disciplinary proceedings. Of course, any oYcer alleged to have been involved in criminal or disciplinary misconduct has the opportunity to defend him/herself against such allegations in the courts, or at the police disciplinary hearing. Thus the final judgement of evidence and any award of punishment is a very separate and distinct activity from the Police Ombudsman’s role of investigating a complaint. 21. It would not, therefore, be fair to assume that because the Ombudsman is operationally independent that there are no reporting mechanisms and controls. Like many public bodies in Northern Ireland, aspects of the OYce’s work are subject to a range of mechanisms which require standards in its services, eg: the Northern Ireland OYce in the provision of financial resources; inspection by the Criminal Justice Inspectorate; inspection by the Surveillance Commissioner; audit of expenditure by the Controller and Auditor General; systems in accordance with those required by the Equality Commission and the Information Commissioner; as well as the interest which the Oversight Commissioner(appointed to oversee the policing changes) has had in the OYce. The OYce is also open to judicial review of its procedures or decisions through the Courts. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 77

Redress for Complaints against the Police Ombudsman 22. The operational independence of the Police Ombudsman’s OYce means that it alone is responsible for the way it investigates complaints and the decisions it arrives at in relation to those investigations. Such independence is central to the work of the OYce. In considering the handling of complaints against the Ombudsman’s OYce itself Dr Hayes referred to the investigation of complaints of maladministration of the Police Ombudsman in the exercise of administrative functions. However, he made clear that this should not be seen as a court of appeal against her decisions on complaints or policies. Thus, Ombudsman decisions on investigations can not be second-guessed, helping to reinforce the independence of the OYce. 23. On the issue of maladministration complaints Dr Hayes suggested that the Police Ombudsman should be added to the schedule of bodies coming under the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Assembly Ombudsman. This raises the question of whether one Ombudsman should be able to investigate maladministration complaints against another Ombudsman. Ombudsmen are generally not only the final complaint mechanisms against the bodies they investigate, but also against themselves in relation to a complaint, apart from judicial proceedings. 24. In the absence of the devolved administration of policing in Northern Ireland it has not been possible to explore this idea of reference to the Assembly Ombudsman. Nevertheless, the Police Ombudsman has developed a robust internal complaints system under her “Satisfaction Policy Procedure and Register” for acknowledging and responding to complaints and criticisms of staV. The putting in place of a Code of Ethics for staV further enhances the professionalism of the OYce. The agreement entered into between the Ombudsman and the University of Portsmouth, to help train and externally accredit the Ombudsman’s investigators, is further evidence of the desire to provide a professional service. 25. Those who may have a complaint against the conduct of a member of the Ombudsman’s staV,orthe decisions arrived at, should raise those matters directly with her OYce. In the absence of a final decision about the use of the Assembly Ombudsman, an ad hoc arrangement has been put in place, whereby if a member of the public or a police oYcer has already raised their maladministration complaint with the Ombudsman’s OYce, and continues to remain dissatisfied with the Ombudsman’s response to that internal complaint, he can write to the NIO who will seek clarification from the Ombudsman’s OYce. If it becomes apparent that there was some prima facie evidence of maladministration on the part of the Police Ombudsman, then the NIO would consider a full investigation by an independent person. To date the NIO has not considered it necessary to invoke this arrangement for an independent investigation.

Resources 26. The NIO has sought to ensure that, within the demands on its overall budget, the Ombudsman’s OYce has been properly resourced to undertake its proper role. The agreement, in response to pressures on the oYce, to provide an additional £250,000 in 2003–04 which, as it was unused at that time, has been approved for carry forward to 2004–05 (giving a total provision of £7.8 million for this financial year), is a reflection of the importance that the NIO attaches to the work of the Ombudsman’s OYce. It is also important to recognise that, with the independence of the OYce, it is for the Ombudsman to decide how best to make use of those resources, whatever their level, provided by the NIO. Just as it would not be right for the NIO to seek to influence the prioritisation of the Ombudsman’s demands, so the OYce has to work within the available resources and balance any conflicting pressures.

Conclusion 27. The arrangements for the handling of complaints against police oYcers vary from country to country in order to take account of local circumstances; there is no standard template. In view of the sensitivities, which have on occasions arisen in relation to police complaints, the Government accepted Dr Hayes’ findings that independence was essential to the success of any new arrangements. The Government’s support for an independent police complaints system reflects its commitment to ensuring the highest standards of policing for the people of Northern Ireland. 28. In having an independent Police Ombudsman, Northern Ireland is at the forefront of police complaints systems in the world; reinforced by the fact that other countries are now looking to Northern Ireland for advice in developing their own police complaints system. This was manifest by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland hosting an international conference in November 2003 on “Policing the Police—The Challenges”. It is also interesting to note that in England and Wales there have been moves towards greater independence in police complaints through the creation of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and in the Republic of Ireland with the Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission. 29. In saying that others are now following where Northern Ireland has been leading, nothing stands still. Indeed the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003 has extended the powers of the Police Ombudsman by providing for investigations into current police practices and policies. The Ombudsman, in conjunction with other interested parties, keeps this system under review, looking for ways to improve and enhance not only processes and procedures but also confidence in the system. The first five-yearly major review, as called for Ev 78 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

in the legislation, is due next year, but ready access to an independent and transparent police complaints system will remain paramount, since it is a beneﬁt not only to the public, but also to the overall policing arrangements for Northern Ireland, the PSNI, and police oYcers themselves. 30. The Government ﬁrmly believes that the Police Ombudsman’s OYce is now an integral part of the new policing arrangements in Northern Ireland, along with the PSNI, the Policing Board and the District Policing Partnerships. June 2004

Annex A

Dr Maurice Hayes Review:Terms of Reference 1. On 28 November 1995 I was appointed by the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the police complaints system in Northern Ireland on the following terms of reference. 2. “Objective of the Review: To review the operation of the existing mechanisms for dealing with complaints against the police by members of the public and to recommend whatever changes would be sensible to: — secure greater public and police conﬁdence in the system for handling complaints about the conduct of individual police oYcers; — provide protection for police oYcers against malicious or vexatious complaints; — accommodate complaints about standards of service and policing policies; — ensure that the systems are accessible, well publicised, provide an eVective response and are easy to use; having full regard to: — the need to protect the operational independence of the police; and — the need to ensure aVordability and value for money in public spending.” I was also given guidance on methodology. “The Review should be carried out by an independent person and should consider and take into account: — submissions from the police service, the Police Authority for Northern Ireland (PANI) and the Independent Commission for Police Complaints (ICPC), interest groups, political parties and members of the public; — fact-ﬁnding studies into the operation of the current systems; — other relevant analysis of the eVectiveness of the existing system; and — best practice in the development and management of police and public sector complaints procedures world-wide.”

Annex B

Dr Maurice Hayes Review:Principles Underlying System The main principles which should underpin a police complaints system in Northern Ireland are: — The Chief Constable should be responsible for discipline in the force and should be accountable to the Police Authority for Northern Ireland (PANI) for it. — The public should have conﬁdence in the system. — The police should also have conﬁdence, “including a genuine belief that misconduct . . . will be detected and appropriately dealt with”2 and that the system will reinforce “ ...highstandards of ethical conduct and integrity, which are recognised as having strong leadership support.”2 — The system should be open, fair, easily understood and widely accessible. — It should not be burdened by an excess of paperwork. — It should be aVordable.

Additional comment from Hayes Report (Executive Summary Page v) “The main value which was impressed on me was independence, independence, independence.”

2 The Hon Justice Wood, paragraph 3.2 of the Interim Report of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 79

Supplementary memorandum submitted by the Northern Ireland OYce

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Thank you for your letter of 8 November requesting information about Information Technology in the Police Ombudsman’s oYce, an area the Committee was unable to cover during Ian Pearson’s evidence- giving session on 20 October. The Minister was pleased to be of help to the Committee during its inquiry; he has seen your follow up letter and approved this response, which addresses each of the points you mention.

1. Does the Department accept that the wrong system was procured and installed when the OYce was set up? No. The Implementation Team tasked with setting up the Ombudsman’s oYce carefully examined a wide range of issues aVecting the running of the new oYce. Mrs O’Loan was appointed as Ombudsman Designate a year before the oYce opened—thus ensuring that she had a central role in discussions aVecting all aspects of the new oYce. An IT Strand Team which included key stakeholders with valuable experience in the area of recording complaints, Royal Ulster Constabulary, Police Authority for Northern Ireland, Independent Commission for Police Complaints, worked with consultants Deloitte Touche to identify the most appropriate system at that time and then three potential suppliers. Each bid was evaluated and the IT Strand Team presented its recommendations to the Project Board (which included Mrs O’Loan). We believe that the requirements agreed in 2000 were met, but that in the four years since the oYce opened, experience of operating the investigation system, and changing demands (eg compatibility with the Causeway project which is aimed at providing a more integrated criminal justice system) mean that the current system needs replaced.

2. Cost of Original Case Management System? The Ombudsman’s OYce has conﬁrmed that the core software development costs of the original Case Management System were £99,070.

3. What involvement does the Department have in the procurement of the new Case Handling System and how will it keep abreast of developments? As an NDPB the Police Ombudsman has produced a business case for a new Case Handling System. As such the Ombudsman’s oYce has established a project team reporting to the Project Implementation Board and consulting with the Senior Management Team. This Project Implementation Board sets the objectives, approves required specifications and all stages to completion including business cases. The Ombudsman’s business case submitted to the NIO has been prepared in accordance with HMT guidance, the project has been given Gateway 1 Review (business justification) by an external reviewer and has been considered by the NIO’s Financial Services Division. The Department is also represented on the Audit Committee of the Ombudsman’s oYce, which will monitor all key elements in relation to a procurement of this size. Once the final business case is prepared (including firm costs arising from the tendering process) and a Gateway 2 Review (procurement strategy) approved, then the NIO will be consulted re final approval, budget, and likely timing of expenditure.

4. Will outside, private consultants be involvement in the procurement process? If so, who and what is the purpose of their involvement? NIO will not be engaging consultants. The Ombudsman’s oYce has informed the NIO that it is to set up a procurement team which will include representatives from the Department’s Procurement Unit and Financial Services Division, the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other stakeholders. This team will consider and, if necessary, obtain any external consultancy services to support the implementation.

5. What confidence can the Committee have that steps have been taken to ensure that mistakes which led to the installation of an inadequate system originally have been identified and lessons learned for the future? We believe that with the experience of nearly four years of operating the complaints and investigation systems, the Ombudsman’s oYce has a clearer perspective of its precise requirements and, as well as being able to take account of software and other developments and changes, it is better placed to address the needs of the oYce and external stakeholders. We are reassured that the correct Government procedures and practices are being followed by noting the Ombudsman’s successful use of the Gateway Review process (Gateway Review 2 is specifically about a procurement strategy), by the Department’s Financial Services Division reviews and by the research and work carried out by the Ombudsman’s oYce itself to ensure that the new case handling system is the most eVective and eYcient available. 22 November 2004 Ev 80 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

Witnesses: Mr Ian Pearson, a Member of the House, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr Nick Perry, Head of Security and Policing Directorate, Mr Ken Lindsay, Head of Policing Division, and Mr David Kyle, Police Division, Northern Ireland OYce, examined.

Q186 Chairman: Good afternoon. We have been Q188 Chairman: Again, according to the hearing evidence from all sides about the functions Ombudsman’s surveys, only 16% of respondents of the Ombudsman’s OYce. It will not surprise you who had experienced unacceptable behaviour by the to know there are various nuances of views about police said they had complained about it. 55% either how it is all working. How do you see it? The first thought nothing would be done if they did complain two aims the government has set out for the or they would not be taken seriously. Are you Ombudsman are that the public and the police concerned about these figures? should both have confidence in the complaints Mr Pearson: I understand the argument that some system. Do you think this has been achieved yet? people make when they say that it is not worthwhile What is your evidence which tells you either that it complaining because our complaints will not be has or that it has some way to go? taken seriously, but I want to assure people that Mr Pearson: Firstly, thanks very much for inviting complaints are taken seriously when they are made. me to meet with the Committee. Let me say, before The fact that some 3,000 complaints a year are made answering your question directly, something by way and investigated indicates the seriousness with Y of context which I am sure you are probably familiar which the Ombudsman’s O ce performs its duties. with anyway. I think it is important to recognise that, at the time of its establishment, the Police Q189 Chairman: If 84% think it is not worthwhile, is Ombudsman’s OYce was one of the first anywhere that not a matter for concern? to provide a completely independent civilian Mr Pearson: I do agree it is a matter for concern and arrangement for handling and investigating that is why I think it is important that we do more to complaints against the police. It was a new area of increase public perception of the Ombudsman’s work and we need to bear in mind all our comments OYce, the Ombudsman’s role, and give assurance to in that context. The fact that it was up and running the public that any complaints against the police will so quickly is a tribute to the staV there. With regard be fully and properly investigated. I am not aware directly to public confidence, you will probably be how that figure would compare with a figure for aware of some of the figures. Certainly the surveys England or Wales, for instance, but clearly if people that have been done indicate a high level of public have complaints about the police they should make recognition of the Ombudsman’s OYce. Something them through the appropriate complaints in the region of 85% of people, it is estimated in mechanisms. Northern Ireland, are aware of the OYce and there is growing public confidence in its impartiality going Q190 Chairman: We have just heard from the up from 61% to 76%. I do however recognise that Superintendents’ Association and the Police some police oYcers do have concerns about the role Federation of Northern Ireland and we were talking and operation of the Ombudsman’s OYce and no to them about the system whereby, if a police oYcer doubt they have been bringing those to your is dissatisfied with the way his or her complaint has attention in previous sessions. They have to get on been handled, there is an informal mechanism which with it and work together with the Ombudsman’s the Secretary of State has accepted whereby it is OYce. I am pleased that a working group has been referred to him and if there is any question of any established to look at issues of mutual concern and maladministration by the Ombudsman’s OYce I really think the way forward is for that working somebody will be appointed on an ad hoc basis to group to be allowed to do its work and for everyone look at that allegation. We have also heard in a to go into it with an open, positive frame of mind. Northern Ireland OYce memorandum that no such case has yet come up; whereas the police oYcers we spoke to representing those associations said that Q187 Chairman: The Institute of Conflict Research there were a number of cases where a police oYcer has concluded that there is a need to promote greater had expressed dissatisfaction and all that had awareness among young people of the happened within the NIO was that it was referred Ombudsman’s work. Do you think the Ombudsman back to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman then is doing enough in that regard, is there more you stood by what they did, which is what you would could do to help or is there more she should be expect, and nothing further has happened. One doing? allegation was that there was a case that was maybe Mr Pearson: I think the Ombudsman has been doing two years old. You may not know the answer to this quite a lot of work in this regard. The most recent question now but it is important, is it not, that if the annual report to March 2004 has a section on Secretary of State has given an undertaking it is kept working with young people. From memory, it says and it is a little surprising, in view of what those there have been visits with more than 70 community oYcers said, that this situation has not so far arisen? groups and organisations. StaV are visiting schools Mr Pearson: As far as I am aware, there are no across the province and I think there is an active level outstanding complaints from police oYcers with of engagement. Obviously, the Ombudsman’s OYce regard to maladministration that have been referred is independent and it is up to Nuala O’Loan to to the Secretary of State. Five complaints over the decide how much time and resource to devote to this total period of the Ombudsman’s OYce’s to date area but certainly from what I see they are doing relating to maladministration have been received by quite a lot to work with young people. the Secretary of State and all were indeed referred to Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 81

20 October 2004 Mr Ian Pearson MP, Mr Nick Perry, Mr Ken Lindsay and Mr David Kyle the Ombudsman for her comments and explanation. Mr Pearson: In that case, I do not think it is The explanations that we received from her seemed satisfactory. satisfactory to us. Those responses were then forwarded to the complainants and no further Q195 Chairman: I am very glad to hear you say that representations were received back to us. As far as because if the Secretary of State gave the we believe, those maladministration cases have been undertaking that he would look at things that means dealt with satisfactorily. he will or one of his ministers. Are you saying that within the Northern Ireland OYce none of these Q191 Chairman: I can see where there might be a cases has been referred to ministers? misunderstanding here as to the status of these Mr Kyle: On maladministration complaints, no. We things. If a police oYcer says, “I was not fairly get a reply from the Ombudsman to be considered at treated. My case was not properly handled” and oYcial level. appeals to the Secretary of State, I fully understand Mr Pearson: That is the first time this has been that the Secretary of State will want to refer that brought to my attention. I do not regard it as back to the Ombudsman in the first instance in order satisfactory and I do not think we are dealing with to make sure that there has not been a factual error asuYciently large number of complaints that these or a page missing from something or whatever. things cannot be looked at by ministers and a Having got it back again, is it enough for the submission and advice be received from oYcials by Secretary of State simply to say, “I have checked us and considered properly. I will certainly with the Ombudsman and it is okay”? Do you think undertake to do that while I am Security Minister. that that carries out the undertaking? This is the Chairman: I am pleased and gratified that you have Ombudsman repeating what the Ombudsman has said this and I think so too will be the police oYcers already said to the police oYcer. In what way does concerned, because if they simply feel—this is no the Secretary of State’s oYce or maybe you on his discredit to oYcials, but sometimes someone has to behalf look at this and assure yourselves that you are take a policy decision about these matters—it is in full agreement with the Ombudsman before so being batted back to the Ombudsman and it comes informing the police oYcer? Otherwise, I can see back again the same as it was before, I agree with them saying, “There is no point in doing this because you. I will not flog the point. We have made the it just goes back and of course she will say what she point. said before.” Mr Pearson: I fully understand the point you are Q196 Reverend Smyth: I would just make the point making and I do not think it is the case that that the Minister did honestly answer the question something simply gets copied to the complainant in but it was repeated that no minister came back. Can the end. It is right in any complaints procedure that I ask the oYcials: did they go back to the police you refer the matter to the organisation that is being oYcers concerned and respond accordingly? complained about and ask for an explanation. After Mr Kyle: Yes. There are no outstanding replies due that, you have to take a view. It is the role of the to any police oYcer. Secretary of State or the responsible minister at the time to take a view on whether the explanation you Y Q197 Reverend Smyth: The gestation period for the have received from the Ombudsman is su cient or Y whether it requires future questions and comments. O ce was from October 1999. The Ombudsman was I have not had any of these maladministration cases put in place at that time but the responsibilities were referred to me but that is pretty much the way that designated to her in April 2000 and then it was I would do it and it is my understanding of how the November 2000 before the legislation was passed. procedure works. Since that time, there seem to have been changes. Evidence to us suggests that there have been some 15 or so changes in the legislation. Does this suggest Q192 Chairman: You say you have had none that the original legislation was deeply flawed, referred to you. Is this because the Secretary of State Y especially in the light of questions and requests from takes them himself? Do allow one of your o cials to the Ombudsman herself that there might be changes answer if you do not know. It is quite reasonable if and of course the Northern Ireland Human Rights you do not know as you have not had any. Commission? Mr Perry: No ministerial representations have been Y Mr Pearson: I do not recognise the figure of 15 received since the Minister took up o ce. legislative changes and I would be very interested to hear some of the detail about how those have come Q193 Chairman: That is why it is very fair to ask you about. I think the government substantially got it because you were there before he was. right in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. Mr Pearson: I would imagine it would be the security There have been a few legislative changes since then. minister who would look at these. The Police Act 2000 introduced the Ombudsman’s power to report on police practices and policies and Q194 Chairman: It is Mr Pearson’s predecessors, not the Police Act 2003 widened powers to investigate the Secretary of State, who handle this? Is that what complaints against designated support staV, but that you are saying? is it in terms of legislative changes as far as I am Mr Kyle: They are looked at at oYcial level. Unless aware. A lot of those changes were pattern driven there was some evidence, they would not normally over a period of time so I do not recognise the figure go up to the minister for final decision. of 15 that has been quoted. Ev 82 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 October 2004 Mr Ian Pearson MP, Mr Nick Perry, Mr Ken Lindsay and Mr David Kyle

Q198 Reverend Smyth: As I understand it from the delay but clearly obviously it would have been Ombudsman’s OYce there has been a request that preferable if the guidance had been there in a more her powers of mediation be strengthened and she timely manner. considers that this will require further legislation. Will the government be supporting this request? Q202 Mr Clarke: Would it be fair to say we have Mr Pearson: I understand that the Ombudsman has probably identified one diYculty this afternoon and produced alternative mediation proposals and I can that is that, in the case of who polices or who looks quite understand why she wants to do this. It is at complaints against the Ombudsman, the system important that any alternative mediation perhaps was not as robust as it should be? Would arrangements and new conciliation proposals have that be fair comment? the agreement of all parties, but we are certainly Mr Pearson: Can you say that again and I will tell considering any legislation that will be required to you whether I agree with you. implement these. If all parties are agreed that this is a sensible way forward, this is something that we Q203 Mr Clarke: I believe that some of the would like to facilitate as a government. As always, confusion as to why judgments were not released these will be subject to allocation of parliamentary quicker, or why the police service itself felt that time. oYcers who had complained about maladministration were not being given the Q199 Reverend Smyth: I understand the answer that seriousness they should have been, was that nobody has been given. The powers are already there, as I understood the system. Here we had a situation understand it. In the Police (Northern Ireland) Act where the body responsible for policing the police 2003 changes can be made. Specifically, the did not have any guidance itself when it was first set Secretary of State was to consult with the up as to how it should do its job. The Chief Ombudsman on setting long term policing Constable, the Policing Board and the Ombudsman objectives and the chief constable, on the other were operating without proper guidance and that hand, was to do likewise on the formulation of codes could have led to the type of error that you have so of practice. It is in the Ombudsman’s own evidence clearly identified and so courageously acted upon that there have been some 15 legislative changes to this afternoon. Are there other errors within the which her oYce has been subject during the three operational procedures that could come to light years of its existence, so it would be helpful for you because of that gap between the guidance and the to have a look at that. setting up of the Ombudsman’s service and the Mr Pearson: I understand the point you are making. guidance? There is a diVerence between legislative changes Mr Pearson: On the latter point, I hope not, but aVecting the Ombudsman’s OYce and legislative clearly it would have been better if guidance had changes aVecting the police. been available in a more timely way. I fully accept that. Again, the point I made in the introduction is Q200 Mr Clarke: Minister, you have already been valid. We were creating a completely new body, very helpful to the Committee, clearing up some of something that was pretty much unique—that is the ad hoc arrangements as to how some of these clearly a contradiction—but certainly we were maladministration claims are answered. I wonder if breaking new ground here. Maybe the fact that the I could take you back in time a little bit to the guidance was not there directly on side was partly appointment of Mrs O’Loan. That appointment attributable to that but I am sure that we have took place in October 1999 and she took up her learned lessons from it since. designated responsibilities in April 2000. The OYce was established on 6 November 2000 and yet it was Q204 Reverend Smyth: I understand the Minister’s not until May 2001 that the government issued point. As I understand it, investigation must come formal guidance as to how the Ombudsman should before mediation whereas the Ombudsman believes operate. There has always been some confusion as to it would be much better if mediation came before how the Ombudsman should operate, what the people started getting into these issues. Would it not arrangements are between various diVerent bodies. be wiser to change the legislation and allow Do you not think it is unusual that we should mediation to take place rather than investigation or appoint the Ombudsman, that the Ombudsman are we saying we must investigate before we can should be up and running for a period of five months mediate? before the government issues the guidance to the Mr Pearson: I understand the point made by the Ombudsman and to the Policing Board and the Ombudsman and I do have a great deal of sympathy Chief Constable about how they should operate? with it. I understand that it is an agreement that has Mr Pearson: I am tempted to say that it did not been reached by everyone that we ought to be happen on my watch. looking to go down this route. As a government, we will be happy to facilitate the necessary legislation Q201 Chairman: That is why you can answer so should parliamentary time allow but it will require freely. primary legislation, as I understand it. Mr Pearson: I appreciate the guidance may not have been in place in November, but I understand that all Q205 Mr Pound: While there are some people who the necessary powers were. I am not aware of any are seeking a diminution of the Ombudsman’s role diYculties that arose because of administrative and responsibilities, there are others who are seeking Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 83

20 October 2004 Mr Ian Pearson MP, Mr Nick Perry, Mr Ken Lindsay and Mr David Kyle to extend it. One of the pieces of evidence we have through the line of command of the police but there received has been a communication from the are two views and I wonder what the government’s Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission who view is. are calling for the role of the Ombudsman to be Mr Pearson: My view is that the police should be enlarged in three particular ways. Could I ask you investigating allegations of criminal behaviour by for an opinion, either personal or ex-catheter or members of the police and that will be the sensible, whatever is convenient, on the three proposals which logical thing to do. I have no reason to doubt that are the investigation of complaints against retired they would do that in anything other than a proper, police oYcers, to investigate the British Army when rigorous, eVective way. acting in support of the civil power and to place the Ombudsman under duty to investigate allegations of criminal conduct raised against police oYcers by Q209 Chairman: I have just been reminded that persons other than members of the public, the anyway they have the power to call in another force obvious example being police oYcers. to do it. Mr Pearson: Retired police oYcers, the Army and Mr Pearson: That is right. the third one was? Mr Pound: Other police oYcers. Q210 Mr Pound: For the record, Minister, you are Chairman: Criminal conduct allegations against not persuaded by the Northern Ireland Human other police oYcers. Rights Commission’s three proposals? Mr Pound: At the moment you have to be a member Mr Pearson: The other proposal is retired police of the public. You cannot be a police oYcer and take oYcers? No. I look to oYcials to tell me some of the a case against another police oYcer. detail on this, but there are grounds on which the Police Ombudsman can investigate past complaints Q206 Chairman: This is just the view of one body, where there are issues of grave concern and new the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. evidence has been brought to light. I am not sure Mr Pearson: I believe the title gives it away. This is whether this would allow an investigation of police a Police Ombudsman and the responsibilities of the oYcers who have now retired. Police Ombudsman should be to investigate police Mr Perry: Retired oYcers cannot be compelled to complaints. I am not persuaded therefore that cooperate. looking at complaints made against members of the Mr Pearson: They can be investigated? armed forces would be appropriate. There are Mr Perry: They can be interviewed if they wish to be. separate arrangements through the MoD for a They are in the same position as civilians. completely diVerent complaints procedure. In those circumstances, what it is right is for there to be Q211 Mr Clarke: I took you back in time on my last appropriate protocols where there might be cross question and now I want to take you forward and over between police and the Army being involved in ask your opinion on comments that were made by a particular complaint. Dr Maurice Hayes in his report A Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland when he said that Q207 Mr Pound: Do you feel there is any grey area the Police Ombudsman should come under the in which the Army may be under temporary jurisdiction of a general Northern Ireland Assembly operational control of the police, as may happen in Ombudsman, should the Assembly be up and an emergency situation? Do you feel that a protocol running. Do you have any views as to whether or not or the protocol could always apply? that would be favourable or are the government Mr Pearson: I am sure I could contemplate cases happy that the Police Ombudsman would operate where complaints might be made that relate to both separately from a general body that operated under the Army and to the police jointly. In those the auspices of the Assembly? circumstances, the Police Ombudsman would Mr Pearson: What I would like to see is the investigate the complaint against the police oYcer or Assembly back up and running, the end of all oYcers and it would be for the Army complaints paramilitary activity, the devolution of policing to procedure to deal with the complaints against Army the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern personnel. In those circumstances, it is important Ireland Assembly making that decision as to that you have good working protocols between the whether the Assembly Ombudsman should have a two bodies. We have encouraged the Ombudsman’s role. While policing remains a reserved matter, we OYce to do that. With regard to the situation of have I believe an eVective accountability framework. investigations against the police, I am not As you know, the Ombudsman will produce a report particularly well sighted on what the Northern through the Secretary of State to Parliament. A lot Ireland Human Rights Commission are saying in of the operations of the Ombudsman’s OYce are this respect. scrutinised. Budgets will have to be agreed by government. The Comptroller and Auditor General Q208 Chairman: What they are saying is quite will look at the accounts and operation of the simple. They are saying a police oYcer ought to be Ombudsman’s OYce so there is an accountability able to go to the Ombudsman and say that another framework there at the moment. I do not think while police oYcer is behaving in a criminal way and the policing is a reserved matter it would be appropriate Ombudsman at the moment cannot receive that to have some link in with the Assembly information. The argument is that it ought to go up Ombudsman. Ev 84 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 October 2004 Mr Ian Pearson MP, Mr Nick Perry, Mr Ken Lindsay and Mr David Kyle

Q212 Mr Swire: In a response to a parliamentary Q218 Mr Swire: Was there any pressure from the question to Lady Hermon back in May this year, the Ombudsman to look at the Management Statement Secretary of State was asked how many formal again before now? meetings he had had with the Ombudsman to date. Mr Kyle: Not that I am aware of. Although he said he intended to have a further Mr Perry: The Management Statement has been meeting soon, he said that he had only ever had one. redesigned by the Treasury bringing together both Is a single, formal meeting suYcient, do you believe, financial and management issues over the last 12 to to fulfil his responsibilities to the Ombudsman and 18 months. has he met her formally since May as he indicated he was going to in that answer? Q219 Chairman: The Treasury? That is why it has Mr Pearson: There are no fixed meetings. The slipped then. All is explained. Secretary of State and ministers meet the Mr Pearson: The current one is perfectly adequate if Ombudsman to discuss matters of interest as not entirely interesting to read. necessary. I visited the OYce last week and saw at first hand its work and discussed some of its Q220 Mr Swire: What input do you and your activities with is staV. Through the Management oYcials have in the setting and monitoring of Statement there are provisions for regular meetings performance targets for the Police Ombudsman and at an oYcial level and NIO oYcials have quarterly does the Department have concerns about any meetings with the Chief Executive. Other senior, aspects of the performance of the Ombudsman? non-NIO oYcials will meet with the Ombudsman’s Mr Pearson: At an oYcial level through some of the staV as necessary as well. There is a level of regular meetings that take place, the setting of engagement there, while also recognising that the performance targets will be discussed and those OYce of the Ombudsman is independent from conversations will be reported back to ministers. government. Ultimately, however, it is for the Ombudsman’s OYce as an independent body to set its own targets. Clearly, we will express views if we think targets are Q213 Mr Swire: Can I ask, Minister, since your not suYciently stretching or indeed appropriate. I appointment how many times you have formally am comfortable with the targets that the met with the Ombudsman? Ombudsman’s OYce has set for itself and, as I keep Mr Pearson: I have met with the Ombudsman once Y stressing, it is an independent body and needs to be formally in terms of going to the O ce and some treated as such. other times as well in and around meetings where we will both have attended. I think it is good practice Q221 Mr Swire: Are those targets to which you refer not just to have meetings for the sake of it but to in the public domain and whose decision was it to have meetings for a purpose when there are issues drop the performance targets from the current and matters to be discussed. annual report to 2003–04 when they had been in the Ombudsman’s 2002–03 annual report? Is your Q214 Mr Swire: You referred to the Management Department satisfied that the current format is fully Statement. It is my understanding that the transparent and could not be improved upon? Management Statement was going to be formally Mr Pearson: The main performance measures are set reviewed in 2003 as planned, three years after it first out in the Management Statement which was agreed appeared. Has this happened? by the Secretary of State. I am not aware of the Mr Pearson: It is my understanding that it is being reasons why certain performance information did reviewed now. not appear in the 2003–04 annual report. Mr Perry: I think the content of the annual report is a matter for the Ombudsman. Q215 Chairman: It is not 2003 now. Chairman: But you are nevertheless free to comment Mr Pearson: I am very well aware of that. on it.

Q216 Mr Swire: Is there any reason why it was not Q222 Mr Swire: Do you think it would have been reviewed at the time it was planned to be and it is more helpful if the performance targets had been now nearly 2005? continued to be included in a public document which Mr Pearson: I do not have any explanation as to why was readily accessible to anyone who was interested? Mr Pearson: Ultimately, this is a matter for decision it has not been reviewed before now. I do not see it Y as being a particularly defective document but no by the Ombudsman’s O ce as to what it puts in its doubt it can be improved on and looked at. I gather report. Having read the report, I believe that it is a that is happening at the moment. very informative document. You however make a point and I will take it away and consider it. Mr Swire: Perhaps in the next Management Q217 Chairman: Did it just slip or was there a Statement. conscious decision not to do it in 2003? Mr Kyle: It just slipped. There is a Treasury template Q223 Chairman: Turning to police conﬁdence in the out for the Management Statement now and that is Ombudsman which is not everything but it is a very the document we are now looking at with the important part of the perception of how the OYce Ombudsman’s OYce. works, in the survey of police attitudes to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 85

20 October 2004 Mr Ian Pearson MP, Mr Nick Perry, Mr Ken Lindsay and Mr David Kyle

Ombudsman and the new complaints system Q226 Mr Beggs: The Northern Ireland OYce published earlier this year, 48% of police oYcers submission indicates that the Ombudsman was who had been in contact with the Ombudsman’s given an additional 250,000 in 2003–04 in response OYce said that they were dissatisfied with the way to pressures on the OYce, but that this was unused they had been dealt with. 37% said the Ombudsman at the time and your agreement was given for it to be was doing a poor job and 42% thought that the carried over into 2004–05. What were the pressures Ombudsman was out to get them. Both the police on the OYce that caused the additional funding associations that we saw report that their members requirement? Why was it not spent within the do not have confidence in the present arrangements originally agreed timescale and what will it now be and it is fair to say that, towards the end of our used for? session, they were both careful to point out that that Mr Pearson: I think those are questions that are best was mostly a thing of the past and they hoped they directed at the Ombudsman herself as they are were putting most of this behind them. What is your matters of her operational budget. view of how the Ombudsman has gone about developing relations with the police and what is your Q227 Mr Beggs: Has the Ombudsman bid for any view about the police reactions to the establishment additional resources over and above the 250,000? of her OYce? Mr Pearson: I am not aware that the Ombudsman Mr Pearson: First and foremost, the role of the has bid for any other additional resources, other Ombudsman’s OYce is to be impartial, to be than the agreement we reached recently on the independent and to investigate complaints. It is complaints handling system. always going to be the case that there is going to be a degree of tension between a body that has been set Q228 Mr Beggs: You say that it is also important to up to investigate complaints and a complainant recognise that, with the independence of the OYce, organisation. There are bound to be tensions but I it is for the Ombudsman to decide how best to make have seen no evidence to suggest that the use of these resources, whatever their level, provided Ombudsman’s OYce has been anything other than by the NIO. Can you confirm that the Ombudsman completely impartial and independent in the way is required to give the Department a business case that it has investigated those complaints. I do for any additional public funds it receives which recognise that some police oYcers have concerns. I requires the NIO to take a view on the purpose for think those concerns are fewer than they were when which the funding is required? Surely such a process the OYce was first set up and I believe that the fact does not compromise the Ombudsman’s that there have been positive developments such as independence in investigative matters? the working group that has been set up which we Mr Pearson: My understanding is that in any discussed earlier to raise and look at issues of mutual organisation that receives public funds in the way concern shows that there has been some recognition that the Ombudsman’s OYce does or, for that by members of the police service that the matter, a NDPB, major items of expenditure will be Ombudsman’s OYce is an organisation that they required to submit for approval in a business case. have to work with, they should work with and that That is standard practice. they have nothing to be afraid of. Q229 Mr Beggs: We have had a suggestion that the Y Q224 Chairman: Would you encourage the Northern Ireland O ce is withholding resources for Ombudsman’s OYce to go on holding and the Ombudsman to carry out retrospective V publishing these regular surveys so we can keep investigations. Can you o er any comment on track of what these perceptions are? that, please? Mr Pearson: I do believe it is important to have Mr Pearson: No, we are not. The Ombudsman has monitoring information. It is an issue of confidence. not given us any request for additional resources to We want both the public and the police to have look at retrospective cases. Clearly, she will have to confidence in the Ombudsman’s OYce and I think make a decision on how she prioritises her resources we need to survey both the public and the police to when looking at current cases and when looking at assess whether those confidence levels are rising or retrospective cases that she wants to investigate. She not. has not been saying to us that she thinks her budget is woefully inadequate and we believe that the amount we allocate at the moment is suYcient for Q225 Mr Beggs: One of the government’s aims for the purposes for which we set up the Ombudsman’s the OYce as set out in the Management Statement is OYce and the legislation. that it should be aVordable. How does the Department determine aVordability? Q230 Mr Bailey: Mrs O’Loan has sought more Mr Pearson: We will discuss and agree a budget with contact with the Policing Board than has appeared the Ombudsman’s OYce that, as a government, we possible to date. She told us that on two occasions believe is reasonable when looking at all the other the Police Ombudsman has been permitted to priorities that there are for public spending. I am not address the full board and that there is in addition a aware that the Ombudsman herself is asking for six monthly sharing of information and report but more funds. We set a budget that we think is realistic “this could be improved.” When Professor Rea, the and suYcient to meet the needs of running an chairman of the board, gave evidence to us, he eYcient and eVective Ombudsman’s OYce. indicated that he was aware that the Ombudsman Ev 86 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 October 2004 Mr Ian Pearson MP, Mr Nick Perry, Mr Ken Lindsay and Mr David Kyle had “problems with the board.” We know that there Mr Pearson: Let me tell you what I know and then are other channels of communication between the confess to what I do not know. What I do know is two bodies—for example, the Human Rights and that under section 61(4) of the Police Act the Professional Standards Committee of the Policing Ombudsman shall at least once every five years make Board—but the current position would appear to be a report on it—ie, police complaints and disciplinary less than satisfactory. What steps do you think as a proceedings—to the Secretary of State. We expect minister you can take to improve on this? the Police Ombudsman will, as part of this Y Mr Pearson: I am not aware of any particular undertaking, review the working of her O ce as well diYculties in this area. If both the Policing Board as the complaints system and make a report and it and the Ombudsman’s OYce however are saying will then be for the Secretary of State to consider that there are tensions and diYculties there, then I that report. would encourage both of them to work them out. Q234 Chairman: That was exactly the question I did There has been cooperation between the two. We not ask you. The question is whether all non- were discussing young people earlier. There was a departmental bodies have a quinquennial review jointly commissioned report, Policing done by the department concerned. This is coming Accountability and Young People, so there has been a up next year. cooperative relationship between the Policing Board Mr Pearson: Let me confess to what I do not know. and the OYce of the Ombudsman. Certainly I want I do not know the answer to that. I have a feeling in to do all that I can to encourage them to have good the back of my mind somewhere that as a dialogue with each other and to make sure that they government across the piece we said that would not have eVective working relationships. do quinquennial reviews any more and there would not be an automatic requirement to do that, but that is something that does not come from Northern Q231 Chairman: We are coming up, as your Ireland. It just comes from some peripheral memorandum reminds us, to the statutory five year knowledge. review which happens to all non-governmental departments. That is due in 2005. What will the Q235 Chairman: I would be surprised because I scope of that review comprise and who is going to think it is in your most recent memorandum that it conduct it? is due. Mr Pearson: I have some confusion here as to Mr Pearson: There might be some confusion. I think whether you are referring to what I might call the we were referring in our memorandum to section 61. traditional, quinquennial review or whether you are Mr Perry: It is my understanding also that referring to section 61(4) of the Police (Northern quinquennial reviews have been discontinued and Ireland) Act 1998. the five year review we may have been referring to in our memorandum was this one.

Q232 Chairman: For the avoidance of doubt, I was Q236 Chairman: They are two distinct things. For referring to the quinquennial review. I am not quite the Ombudsman to report how she thinks she has familiar with section 61(4) of the Police Act. Maybe been going is one thing; for you to review the way her you have to do both things but let us talk about the OYce has been operating is another. What you are quinquennial review which is ﬁrmly in your lap, or saying is that you are not going to conduct a review somebody’s lap. yourselves? Mr Pearson: I can talk to you a lot more about the Mr Perry: My understanding is that quinquennial other one. reviews are not now done in the way they used to be. Chairman: It is we who have it wrong. There will not be a quinquennial review. Thank you very much, Q233 Chairman: Have you to do both? Do they both Minister, for the honest answers to your questions, cover the same ground? even the ones where you said, “I do not know.” Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 87 Written evidence

APPENDIX 1

Memorandum submitted by the OYce of the Oversight Commissioner Thank you for your letter of 10 February 2004, in which you requested information on the functions of the OYce of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. As you may know, the Oversight Commissioner has maintained a focussed remit on evaluating the changes to the policing structures of Northern Ireland, as recommended by the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland. Although the OYce of the Police Ombudsman predates the release of the Independent Commission’s report, the Commission nonetheless made several recommendations which impacted on the Police Ombudsman. You will ﬁnd our comments in that regard in our oYcial reports, particularly reports numbers 4 through 9, and primarily in the chapters on “Accountability” and “Management and Personnel.” Brieﬂy, our publicly reported assessment of the OYce of the Police Ombudsman is that she and her oYce are meeting the Independent Commission’s objectives. The only other relevant comment I can add is that the Ombudsman and members of her staV have always demonstrated a high level of professionalism, courtesy and cooperation in any dealings with myself and my evaluation team. In closing I would also note that I have been personally impressed by the Ombudsman’s commitment to extending knowledge and learning on law enforcement and civilian oversight. This she has done through several professional sessions open to the policing community ancLthe public, both locally and internationally. 26 February 2004

APPENDIX 2

Memorandum submitted by the Independent Police Complaints Commission I am replying to your letter of invitation requesting evidence about the progress, performance and eYciency and eVectiveness of the OYce of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, PONI. As Chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission for England and Wales (IPCC), I and colleagues have had significant contact with and assistance from the Ombudsman’s oYce over the last 13 months. It is from that perspective that I write. The IPCC was established by the Police Reform Act 2002, broadly on the PONI model and with similar powers. The diVerences include the fact that IPCC is a Commission of 18 Commissioners, rather than one Ombudsman to reflect the scope of our work with over 43 police forces. Unlike PONI, we do not record all complaints but have certain categories of complaints referred to us on statutorily specified criteria. Like the Ombudsman we can call in incidents and have an investigative capacity. I and the Chief Executive took up post on 1 February 2003 with a remit to build the Commission to be fully operational on 1 April 2004. We were invited by the Ombudsman to spend three days at the beginning of March 2003 with her oYce and speaking to a wide range of stakeholders about PONI. Since then Mrs O’Loan and her staV have been extremely generous with their time and resources. The lessons have been practical and strategic. The IPCC has had the advantage, not enjoyed by PONI of a non-operational year to establish the organisation, recruit and train staV, plan for the transfer of cases and staV from existing body and build good relationships with a wide range of stakeholders including the policing family. Our task was undoubtedly made easier by having a PONI “road map”. We therefore feel well placed to comment on the size of the challenge PONI faced and the progress made over the last three years. At a practical level we have seen at first hand the work of the Ombudsman’s oYce and looked closely at their handling of casework, enquiries and investigations. We were very impressed with the eYciency of case handling by PONI, by the professionalism of the staV and their customer service ethos. As regards the quality of investigations, it was clear from our discussion with the police themselves, from the Chief Constable, professional standards department to district commanders, that PONI investigators had won respect, after some suspicion at the outset. This was evidenced by regular meetings between the Executive Director and head of professional standards, a way of working that we have adopted for our Commission. From speaking to members of the public in communities across the religious divide we gained an impression that it was the willingness of PONI, led by the example of the Ombudsman herself, to go into communities, to listen and explain, to be accessible to witnesses and complainants that had won respect, albeit in some instances a grudging respect, even if for other reasons the oYce of the Ombudsman had not been universally welcomed. For our part we came away with the view that given the diYcult job of PONI and the IPCC, and the potential to please no-one—we would be very satisfied with grudging respect after a similar period of time. Ev 88 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

At a strategic level we benefited from a number of key decisions made by the Ombudsman. First the critical importance of ensuring competence in investigation and the need for a mix of excellent police and non-police investigative experience. Independence would count for very little if the quality of investigation was not of the highest order. Second, the impact and importance of evidence based approach. From the Ombudsman we learned that it is as a much a result to endorse the police where appropriate as to criticise where fault has been established. Justice, respect for human rights integrity and independence go hand in hand. Our resulting message that IPCC is about establishing the facts first rather than focussing only on blame has been very important in gaimng and maintaimng the support of police and complainant representatives to date across England and Wales. Thirdly the importance of family liaison and good intelligence shaped our plans, organisational structures and even our accommodation. The approach to and specification for our training and development was highly influenced by PONI. We have benefited from the loan of staV to assist with specific tasks in our set- up programme from the recruitment of our Director of Investigations (equivalent to the PONI Executive Director) and development of professional standards and research functions. At an early stage our senior executive Deputy Chairs and Commissioners spent days with the Ombudsman and her staV-developing and testing our plans and proposals. Recognition of the integrity of the Ombudsman herself has been a recurring theme amongst our discussions with people within Northern Ireland and across the world. She and her staV are recognised as world leaders in civilian oversight. Mrs O’Loan led a session on ethical issues as part of the training for our Commissioners in February and has been a source of support to me personally over the last year. I would be happy to expand on this evidence to your enquiry after Easter. 23 March 2004

APPENDIX 3

Memorandum submitted by the Northern Ireland Retired Police OYcers Association

Our organisation represents the interests of seven and a half thousand Retired Police OYcers. We submit herewith for your consideration our concerns in respect of the current position of the OYce of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, hereinafter referred to as “the OYce”: 1. Following the legislation to set up the OYce pressure was brought to bear to allow for the investigation of older “historic” cases which arose before the setting up of the PSNI, on the allegation that the public were not satisfied with investigations prior to the setting up of the “new” police force. The OYce even went so far as to write to the Law Society to enquire of solicitors to see if they were satisfied with the treatment which they had received from the police during earlier investigations. There seems to be a culture within the OYce of “shopping” for cases to further increase the workload of the OYce, also as part of the denigration process of past RUG operations. 2. The OYce is not just reactive to complaints but is intrusive in seeking out cases for attention. The result of this over zealous activity is to divert police attention and time from other more important activities at a time when the force has already been depleted in numbers, to a dangerous extent, and where future cuts are planned with special reference to the Police Reserve. 3. In England and Wales the Police Complaints Commission for England and Wales has a staV complement of 60 personnel, whereas the OYce has a staV of between 120 to 130. This would appear to be an excessive strain on the Exchequer. 4. We have the perception that the OYce is engaged in a witch-hunt against former members of the RUG in order to discredit them. In the investigation of “historic” cases the OYce staV are often aggressive to the point of treating our Members as if they were the criminals. 5. In a recent extensive interview in the Belfast News Letter, 6 July 2004, David Wood, the executive director of the OYce, was very critical and clearly set out to blacken the name of the RUG much to the annoyance and distress of our Members. He said furthermore that the PSNI were now “highly competent”, yet they still lack the resources and experience due to lack of manpower and experienced detectives. However, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary Kenneth Williams reported that all areas of policing are not as competent as Mr Wood would have us to believe. Such statements from the executive director seriously damage the impartiality of the OYce. We take the view that such oYcials should go quietly about their business without making controversial statements for public consumption. 6. Recent statistics from the OYce itself indicate a total lack of confidence from serving Police OYcers in the OYce of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. This is a view which is shared by our Members. 7. We are given to understand that in a submission to your Committee Mrs O’Loan stated that, should a complaint be made against her staV such a matter would be investigated by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 89

Northern Ireland. However, when our organisation wrote to the Secretary of State on this very point we were informed that the Government had no supervisory powers over the OYce since it was completely independent from Govemment. In conclusion to our submission we feel most strongly that some system of supervision and accountability should be applied to the OYce of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. 15 October 2004

APPENDIX 4

Memorandum submitted by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission wishes to make the following brief submission to the Northern Ireland AVairs Committee’s Inquiry. If any of the points are not clear do please come back to us. The Commission has always supported the establishment of the Police Ombudsman’s OYce, but we have not conducted any systematic assessment of the performance of the OYce since its establishment. The comments we would like to make to the Committee relate more generally to the need to have in place an oYce which can completely independently investigate a range of matters. We think the present powers of the OYce of the Police Ombudsman need to be enhanced in three vital respects. First, the OYce cannot currently investigate complaints made against police oYcers who have retired from the police. We know that this has meant that in several cases the OYce has not been able to conduct the kind of investigation it wished to conduct in response to a complainant’s allegations and this has left the complainant deeply unsatisﬁed. We cannot see any convincing rationale for maintaining this exclusionary rule, since professionals should surely be judged against the standards that were applicable to them at the time they were acting as such, even if there is little or no sanction which the professional body itself can invoke once the professional has resigned from the profession. Second, the OYce is not under a duty to investigate allegations of criminal conduct raised against police oYcers by persons other than complainants who are members of the public. If, for example, one police oYcer was to accuse another of corruption there is no obligation on the Police Ombudsman to conduct an investigation into the matter. If that OYce does not do so then we have a situation where the police will be investigating themselves; it may even be that some oYcers from one police force are investigating other oYcers from the same force. We do not think that such a system provides the degree of independence in the investigatory work that is required. Members of the public could quite easily (however wrongfully) deduce that the investigation will not be as thorough as it would be if an outside agency were conducting it. Third, we are distinctly unhappy that the remit of the Police Ombudsman does not extend to investigating allegations of improper conduct raised against members of the British Army in Northern Ireland, even when at the time the soldiers in question were operating in aid of the civil power. In this regard there is a serious gap in the current accountability arrangements, since the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures (currently Mr Jim McDonald), who holds oYce under section 98 of the Terrorism Act 2000, has no power to himself conduct investigations into alleged misconduct by soldiers. The army would be investigating itself in these instances, or the police would doing so even though the police were directing the army in the situation in question. In these three areas we would like to see the remit of the OYce of the Police Ombudsman extended. We hope very much that the Northern Ireland AVairs Committee will make recommendations to that eVect when it issues its report. 5 April 2004

APPENDIX 5

Memorandum submitted by the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) The Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) believes that the OYce of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland is a vast improvement over the Independent Commission for Police Complaints (ICPC), the previous police complaints body. The new institution is empowered to conduct independent investigations and has much greater powers, resources and public support than its predecessor. The OYce is also a model with regard to outreach and engagement with external bodies, especially when compared to other statutory bodies. According to public opinion surveys commissioned by the Police Ombudsman, 85% of the Northern Ireland public have heard of the OYce (hereafter PONI), and very importantly 85% of those who have heard of the OYce believe it is independent of the police. Ev 90 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

It is clear that the Police Ombudsman is determined to improve policing through impartial investigation of complaints and policing policies and practice, as well as referring recommendations for better practice to the Police Service and to the Policing Board. The Police Ombudsman guards her independence well and strives to protect the rights of both oYcers and complainants. In so doing, the OYce oVers greater credibility and legitimacy to the new policing arrangements overall, and facilitates increased public confidence in the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). CAJ has no hesitation in asserting that the establishment and operation to date of PONI has contributed positively to the new beginning to policing. Of course, we also believe that, like all institutions (especially new ones), PONI could make further improvements to its operations, and the following submission highlights a number of issues which have come to our attention in this regard. CAJ is currently finalising a very detailed commentary on the work of the NI Police Ombudsman’s OYce. As part of the process, CAJ has met or corresponded with over 40 individuals and organisations, including solicitors, community groups, human rights organisations, and statutory agencies regarding their experience of the work of the Police Ombudsman. Unfortunately, the full document will not be available in time for the inquiry by the Northern Ireland AVairs Committee, but we have highlighted some of the major issues and concerns that we think that the Committee might find it useful to address in the course of its own inquiry.

Issues the Committee May Want to Pursue 1. Independence: is a crucial principle for the Ombudsman’s oYce—both in reality, and in terms of public perception. There is however a high proportion of investigative staV seconded from police forces elsewhere (approx 25%), as well as quite a number of former police oYcers, including ex-RUC staV. What is the policy of the OYce in regard to recruitment and what steps are being taken to increase the proportion of non-police oYcers on staV? 2. Investigations: Some concerns have been raised with CAJ about the attitude of investigators towards complainants, delays in the investigation process and the quality of investigations. PONI has introduced a quality assurance programme but it is not clear that it monitors for such issues and, if not, should it not be changed to do so? 3. The oversight of operational issues is still problematic: CAJ’s commentary will be looking in detail at the Ombudsman’s work in relation to the policing of public order situations, decision-making around raids, arrests and deployment, and the information the police give to the press and the public with regard to operations and suspects. The Patten report noted that operational responsibility “does not mean that the Chief Constable’s conduct of an operational matter should be exempted from inquiry or review after the event by anyone. That should never be the case” (para 6.21). NIAC should discuss the extent to which PONI’s legislative mandate currently allows for the investigation of complaints about operational matters, and the extent to which legislative changes are called for. 4. Mediation: This is an important alternative to formal investigations but appears not to be being fully or eVectively used as yet. A series of measures are needed both in legislative and operational terms to facilitate greater use of this option. NIAC may want to ask PONI how this aspect of the Ombudsman’s work could be improved. 5. Substantiation rates: This is the usual measure that is used by the general public to assess the eVectiveness of an independent complaints mechanism. While not the sole or necessarily most important measure, it is clearly of concern that current substantiation rates seem very low, and the reasons for this need careful examination. NIAC may want to recommend that a review be conducted to determine what happens particularly in cases where it is the complainant’s word against the word of a police oYcer and that in the meantime an “unable to determine” case outcome category be created. A “police misconduct” case outcome category could also be created for use in cases where it is clear that misconduct occurred but not clear which oYcer was responsible. CAJ has previously recommended that an active policy on whistle-blowing could contribute to ending the practice of individual oYcers engaged in wrongdoing being misguidedly protected by their colleagues. 6. Disciplinary Hearings: To ensure greater transparency, it would be excellent if PONI were required to report on the outcome of all disciplinary hearings resulting from their investigations. 7. Role of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP): Many cases appear to fail the test for prosecution set by the DPP but this element of the investigation is totally lacking in transparency. An independent review should be carried out to examine the approach being taken by the DPP in response to cases originating from PONI. 8. Retrospective cases: PONI should consult on and publish its detailed criteria for determining to take action on certain retrospective cases, and on the deﬁnitions it is using when commenting on allegations of collusion. Adequate funding must be provided to PONI to allow it where appropriate to exercise its statutory powers to investigate, without any further delay, retrospective cases. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 91

9. Plastic Bullets: CAJ is totally opposed to the use of plastic bullets and is campaigning actively for their withdrawal. In the meantime, we urge that the Police Act be amended to require the Chief Constable to refer all plastic bullet firings to the Police Ombudsman for investigation (at present the Chief Constable has introduced a voluntary code to refer such firings). The CAJ commentary will discuss PONI reports to date on plastic bullet firing, and the army/police division of work. It is noteworthy that with increased scrutiny of the police firing of plastic bullets, army usage has increased markedly. 10. New weaponry: CAJ expressed grave reservations at PONI’s apparently unsolicited endorsement of the Policing Board’s decision to purchase CS spray. This is discussed in CAJ’s commentary but one important lesson for the future is that PONI re-examine whether it has the legislative authority to comment on as-yet unused weapons (which, by definition, are not the subject of complaints). Even if it were determined that PONI can comment on proposed new weaponry, such comment must be made only when all relevant research, especially independent research, has been carefully evaluated. 11. Transparency: The quality of the transparency of the OYce of the Police Ombudsman was considered mixed by interviewees for CAJ’s commentary. Many people spoke very highly about the amount of information the public can access from PONI—press conferences, published statistics, contact with families and community groups, outreach to local District Policing Partnerships, and extensive use of the OYce’s website and publications to issue quarterly complaint data and other such material. Monthly statistics are also shared with the PSNI and the Policing Board. Compared to the other policing institutions, the Police Ombudsman is extremely open to engagement and information sharing. At the same time there was concern about the problem of disclosure (see on) and major events like the international conference organised by PONI in November 2003 which allowed little time for open debate and critical self-examination. 12. Disclosure: By far the biggest complaint of solicitors who assist complainants and others is the extent to which PONI does or does not disclose information. CAJ is currently pursuing a judicial review against the Chief Constable and Police Ombudsman in this regard, and some reference to this problem was raised in the Hayes review but the issue has clearly not yet been resolved satisfactorily. An unfortunate consequence of the lack of clarity in this area means that complaints are not being resolved—either because solicitors will advise their clients not to provide a statement until their hearing(s) are concluded and/or because the Police Ombudsman closes the case due to lack of co-operation. Due to the time limitations involved, this can lead to complaints not being investigated, the oYcer not being charged or disciplined, and the concerns raised in the complaint not being passed to the PSNI or made known to the public. The Committee may want to pursue this issue in some detail with PONI in the course of their testimony. The full CAJ commentary will discuss the issues above in some detail, will look at the research reports issued by the Ombudsman, and will examine more closely the links between the Police Ombudsman’s OYce and other policing institutions. In our earlier commentary on the Policing Board (November 2003), we expressed concern about the lack of frequent and routine contacts between the Board and the Ombudsman, and CAJ understands that the situation has not dramatically changed in the interim, despite an interest on the part of the Ombudsman for more systematic exchanges. This may be an issue that the Committee will want to explore with the Policing Board witnesses to the inquiry. The NI AVairs Committee may also want to ascertain from police witnesses the extent of routine exchanges between the PSNI and the Ombudsman’s OYce. If institutional learning and institutional change is to occur, it is vital that the findings of the Ombudsman be forwarded to, and acted upon, by police trainers and middle-level as well as senior police managers. CAJ believes that routine information exchanges of this nature are not necessarily yet in place within the PSNI, and the Committee may want to assure themselves that the creation of an independent complaints system is complemented by internal police management systems that can pick up on trends and take action accordingly. CAJ will complete and publish its full commentary in the coming weeks. We look forward with great interest to study the findings of the Committee. We hope that the thrust of the Committee’s report will be to focus on the important contribution the institution of the Ombudsman is making to increased public confidence in policing, while emphasising that there is still much improvement that is possible. The challenge for the Committee is to learn how changes to the work of the Ombudsman’s OYce can further contribute to the “new beginning” for policing. The Committee may want in particular to seek comments from witnesses on the extent to which the recommendations made by Patten are now in fact in place— “The Police Ombudsman should be, and be seen to be, an important institution in the governance of Northern Ireland, and should be staVed and resourced accordingly. The Ombudsman should take initiatives, not merely react to specific complaints received. He/she should exercise the power to initiate inquiries or investigations even if no specific complaint has been received. The Ombudsman should be responsible for compiling data on trends and patterns in complaints against the police, or accumulations of complaints against individual oYcers, and should work with the police to address issues emerging from this data. He/she should have a dynamic co-operative relationship with both the Ev 92 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

police and the Policing Board, as well as other bodies involved in community safety issues. He/she should exercise the right to investigate and comment on police policies and practices, where these are perceived to give rise to diYculties, even if the conduct of individual oYcers may not itself be culpable, and should draw any such observations to the attention of the Chief Constable and the Policing Board. The Ombudsman should have access to all past reports on the RUC (para 6.41, recommendation 38).” July 2004

APPENDIX 6

Memorandum submitted by the Institute for Conﬂict Research

EXTRACT FROM POLICING, ACCOUNTABILITY AND YOUNG PEOPLE

by Jennifer Hamilton, Katy Radford and Neil Jarman

April 2003

SECTION 2

METHODOLOGY The research focused on young people’s attitudes and experiences of policing in Northern Ireland and especially on the process of making complaints against oYcers in the PSNI. The research was initiated by the Police Ombudsman’s OYce to look at all aspects of young people’s attitudes to and knowledge of the complaints process. The methods adopted included both qualitative (focus groups and interviews) and quantitative (questionnaires) enabling a larger sample of opinions to be obtained. Three main issues were addressed throughout the research: 1. The attitudes of young people to the PSNI, their experiences of that service, any diVerences that have been noted between the PSNI and the RUC and the scale and nature of problems that they have experienced in interacting with the PSNI; 2. The attitudes of young people to the OYce of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland: their knowledge of that OYce, its work and responsibilities, their experience of making complaints about the police and any changes that they feel could be made to the system of reporting or processing complaints; and 3. The attitudes and knowledge of young people to the Policing Board and DPPs. The research involved: — a broad range of focus groups and self completion questionnaires covering the experiences of all major communities; — both urban and more-rural locations; — the experiences of both males and females; and — the views of minority ethnic communities and socially excluded young people. The self-completion questionnaires were delivered to a broad and representative range of educational establishments, including secondary schools, Further and Higher Education Colleges, training centres and the universities. Youth Councils, community youth groups, training schemes and the young oVenders’ centre were also targeted. Focus groups were held in 18 locations, with 31 groups completed and a total of 242 participants. The groups were mainly composed of young people of mixed gender and background although some groups were single identity.

Demographic Breakdown of Survey Respondents The participants selected for investigation were between 16 and 24 years of age although some participants were below the age of 16 (10%). In total 1,163 young people completed the survey between November 2002 and February 2003. The sample consisted of 554 males (48%) and 609 females (52%). All 29 DCUs were represented in the survey. Of the 1,163 people surveyed 567 (49%) considered themselves to be Catholic and 524 (45%) Protestant. These proportions correspond with the 2001 Census results, which reveal that 50% of 16–24 year olds identify themselves as Catholic and 46% as Protestant. Sixty-seven people (6%) considered themselves to be in the other category. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 93

The majority of the sample (1,134, 98%) classiﬁed themselves as having a white ethnic background, while 1% (13) was Chinese. The sample also included small numbers of individuals from other ethnic backgrounds. This is broadly in line with the ethnic breakdown of the Northern Ireland population according to the data from the 2001 Census.

SECTION 5

POLICE OMBUDSMAN FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

5.1 Quantitative Findings

Fifty-seven people who completed the questionnaire (5% of the sample) said they had made a complaint about the police in the past 12 months (although 94 respondents (8% of the sample) said they had made a formal complaint about police behaviour at some stage). This number represents just over 23% of those people who reported that they had experienced unacceptable behaviour from the police. While this is a relatively low ﬁgure, it is however slightly higher than the ﬁndings of the recent PONI surveys. These have indicated that around 17% of people who had experienced unacceptable behaviour had lodged a formal complaint (see Section 1.2 above). Table 17 shows where complaints had been lodged by the complainants.

Table 17

ORGANISATION WHERE COMPLAINT WAS LODGED

Organisation Frequency Percentage

Local Police Station 24 26

Solicitor 19 20

Police Ombudsman 15 16

Chief Constable 4 4

MP/MLA/Councillor 4 4

Other 2 2

Did not know who to complain to 2 2

Did not know how to complain 1 1

Don’t know 1 1

CAB 0 0

(Participants were allowed to tick more than one, some participants who had made a complaint did not respond to this question.)

Over half (52%) of respondents had heard of the Police Ombudsman OYce with awareness being greater among older participants (72% of 22–24 year olds were aware of the Police Ombudsman compared to only 27% of under 16s) and those within the higher education brackets (70% with an HND or degree compared to 33% who had no formal qualiﬁcation). Awareness had mainly come through television (40%) and the focus group discussions also revealed that the media reports concerning the Omagh bomb investigation had increased young people’s awareness.

Nearly three quarters (72%) of those who had heard of the Police Ombudsman recognised her role as being “to investigate complaints against the police”. Table 18 shows the responses received. Ev 94 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

Table 18

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE ROLE OF THE POLICE OMBUDSMAN IS?

Role Frequency Percentage

To investigate complaints against the police 494 72 To receive complaints 173 25 Don’t know 83 12 To investigate complaints by the police 67 10 To protect the police from investigation 21 3

(Participants were allowed to tick more than one.) Only 11% of the respondents (130 people) said they knew how to contact the Police Ombudsman if they had a complaint concerning the PSNI with only 2% (24 people) ever having contacted the OYce directly. Just over one quarter (26%) of those who had made a complaint to any of the relevant bodies said that they were happy with the service they had received. Three main reasons were cited by those who were unhappy with the service they had received: — the process took too long (21%); — the complaint was not taken seriously and (21%); and — the complainant did not hear anything after making the complaint (21%). Slightly more people were happy with the service they had received from the Police Ombudsman: 38% (eight people) said they were happy with the service. Three people omitted to answer whether or not they were happy with the service. Of the 62% (13 people) who were not happy with the service the two main reasons given for their dissatisfaction were: — a slow response (33%); and — the feeling that their complaint was not taken seriously (33%). This feeling was echoed in the discussion groups where young people felt that their complaint would not be taken seriously and therefore were discouraged from complaining formally. Also for the 33% who had a complaint but chose not to complain 5,900 felt that the police would not do anything therefore their eVorts would be wasted. The series of questions regarding opinions of the Police Ombudsman show that the majority of respondents opted for the neither agree nor disagree option. Table 19 illustrates the responses given to the questions and between 23% and 47% agreed or strongly agreed with the various statements viewing the Police Ombudsman’s OYce in a positive way. When these responses were crosstabulated with community background few diVerences were noted between Catholics and Protestants. However, one exception was noted with more Catholics agreeing that the Police Ombudsman was necessary (57% compared to 43% among the Protestant community).

Table 19

OPINIONS ABOUT THE POLICE OMBUDSMAN Statement Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree

Police Ombudsman will help Police do a better job 4 28 49 9 3 Police Ombudsman is impartial 3 20 58 9 4 Police Ombudsman is independent of the police 4 24 55 9 3 Police Ombudsman treats aperson complaining fairly 3 24 58 6 3 Police Ombudsman investigates complaints against 3 22 58 9 3 the police fairly Police Ombudsman is necessary 18 29 42 3 3 Police Ombudsman can help change the police and 6 27 51 7 4 make it more acceptable Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 95

5.2 Attitudes and Knowledge of Police Ombudsman The Police Ombudsman’s OYce was not considered to be easily accessible and for those people living outside Belfast it was felt that it “was bound to be Belfast-based”. Some were aware of the organisation and the gender of the Police Ombudsman with a few aware of her name, “Nuala Pot Noodle?” cracked one person. Some were unclear about the role and work of the OYce, although 72% in the survey had a clear indication of her role defining it as “investigating complaints against the police”. Knowledge centred on the basis of highly publicised events, “Isn’t she something to do with the police and the Omagh bomb?” (Monkstown). One young woman who worked in the Citizens’ Advice Bureau (CAB) told her group that the Police Ombudsman’s OYce was impartial and, “if you have a complaint they look into it . . . they use our OYces for interviews” (Omagh). However, none of the other group members were aware that this was the case, and none of the young people who had made a complaint against the police had done it through a Citizen’s Advice Bureau (Table 17). This highlights a basic lack of knowledge of the Police Ombudsman’s operations and procedures even if there is a general awareness of the oYce and of its role. There was also a belief that attempting to use the OYce as part of the process of rebuilding confidence in the police was flawed, “There’s been such a history of abuse to both Catholics and Protestants from the police that it will take more to correct this than setting up an Ombudsman’s OYce.” (Glengormley). Those who did know about the Police Ombudsman’s OYce frequently assumed that it was there to “Police the Police” and when they were more familiar with the role there was a degree of scepticism about its impartiality and eYcacy, “It’s pointless to complain, no-one will listen, it’s their word against mine” (Belfast). However, the survey indicated that the Police Ombudsman’s OYce is generally viewed in a positive way as shown in Table 19. Some within the focus groups who knew of the OYce did however feel that there was an inbuilt relationship between the police and the Ombudsman and this in turn led to a lack of trust within the system, “you wouldn’t feel safe giving details, you don’t know who would get hold of it” (Hazelwood). “I wouldn’t trust information as being safe” (Hazelwood). “It would be my word against theirs” (Glengormley). “They’d just stick up for their colleagues” (Belfast). “The courts will always believe the Police”(Belfast). In addition, the lack of impartiality was compounded by a fundamental belief among some young people of collusion between the police and loyalists, which would have implications particularly for those within nationalist and loyalist communities. Many therefore felt there would be little point in making any complaints and the police’s position over minor complaints would stand, “they would only say there were sitting outside your house reading a paper or doing normal checks” (Belfast). For those who were familiar with the aims of the Police Ombudsman, there was a degree of scepticism about the OYce’s accountability. A number of positive suggestions were made to enable the OYce to be seen to be more transparent. These will be considered more fully in Section 7, but they included suggestions that there should be “more feedback” (Portadown), and that the OYce “should ensure people know when police oYcers are reprimanded” (Hydebank). While many understood the organisation to be a separate body to the PSNI, the incorporation of the name Police into the Ombudsman’s title undermined its perceived impartiality. This concern was compounded by the expectation of some that people working at the Police Ombudsman’s OYce would be former police oYcers or people who have worked in law enforcement. It was felt that the “set a thief to catch a thief” attitude was not without complications in the form of built-in prejudices and biases.

5.3 Experiences of the Police Ombudsman As has already been noted some people had a basic knowledge of the Police Ombudsman’s OYce while those who had made a complaint about the police (either current or past) had a greater knowledge. The experiences that were expressed were based on either actual or perceived knowledge of the OYce and of the handling of a complaint. Much of the discussion concerning experiences was also based upon the Omagh bomb investigation—for many this was the ﬁrst time they had heard of the Police Ombudsman’s OYce. A nurnber of leading news items in the days prior to focus groups being conducted often reﬂected the participants’ only understanding of the organisations. For the OYce, Omagh was a frequently cited instance, though many had heard the name they had not absorbed the information in the news bulletins. Subsequently, their acquaintance with these bodies was scant and while the name was recognised there was no deeper knowledge. In fact young people’s knowledge and insight into the workings of such public bodies Ev 96 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

was minimal and frequently non-existent. What limited knowledge there was frequently proved to be inaccurate. Comments such as “Aren’t they something to do with the marches?” (Larne) or “They’re there to protect the police” (Glengormley) were not uncommon. Many of the participants perceived that complaining about police behaviour and treatment would be a “waste of time” unless the complaint was about something serious, Young person 1 “I reckon at the end of the day she probably gets loads and loads (of complaints) and she (Police Ombudsman) probably wouldn’t take yours into account unless it was really serious.” Young person 2 “If it wasn’t serious you wouldn’t bother.” Others felt that complaining, no matter what the nature of the incident, would not be worthwhile, “they would never go against the police, the courts will always believe the police anyway” (Belfast). One young male who had put a complaint through to the OYce via his solicitor felt that it had been worthwhile, “Well it all adds up I mean if one person complains and another person complains soon it will be hundreds and you have to let them know what is actually happening” (Belfast). However another young male felt that his experience was very diVerent, “It was like complaining to a wall because nothing was going to be done about it anyway ...the police will just deny it or say there was no evidence to prove it” (Belfast). Two members of one group in a loyalist area of Belfast had made complaints to the Police Ombudsman’s OYce but both said bluntly “Fuck all happened”. When the facilitator probed the boys about the issue it became clear that something had happened but the outcome was not what they had desired, “we only got a letter . . . but me ma opened it”. The involvement of parents in the complaints process was common with some young people not fully aware of the process or the outcome. Another individual felt his complaint was “a waste of time” as he only had one brief meeting, and this did not produce a favourable outcome, “I was only at one meeting and my case was closed after that meeting it was only on for about half an hour” (Belfast). It is diYcult to comment on any of these individuals’ experiences, as so often experiences are shaped by the ﬁnal outcome and for many people who do not receive the outcome they desire their experiences, no matter how good, end up being negative. This was the case for the respondent, who complained about the length of his meeting, Researcher: “Would you have been impressed (with the Police Ombudsman’s OYce) if the outcome had been dVerent? Yes, if they still had my case going and if there had been something carried out, like a charge against the police, instead of just saying “aye right you got hit that was it” and close the case” (Belfast). Some individuals also said that they were hesitant of complaining due to fear of reprisals, “if you make a complaint against the police . . . they are going to watch you even more” (Belfast). “They would aggravate you and watch you even more if you did complain” (Dungannon). Some young people even commented that they would not feel safe handing over information “you wouldn’t know who would get hold of it”. This suggests that some young people do not see the Police Ombudsman as being an independent body. A NISRA survey (February 2002) found that 18% of 16–24 year olds viewed the Police Ombudsman as part of the police, while 71% considered it to be independent. The survey within this research indicated that only 28% agreed that the Police Ombudsman was independent with over half of respondents opting for the neutral response (see Table 19). For those who had no direct experience of the OYce there was a sense of the unknown and confusion at how the complaint would be dealt with. Questions were asked such as “would they listen and how would they investigate?” and “would our complaint be investigated properly?”. This led the young people to recommend that the OYce should be more widely publicised and suggestions were made as to how knowledge could be increased.

5.4 Complaining Experiences of the PSNI had led some individuals to make complaints whilst others, with similar experiences had either decided not to complain or did not know how to complain, “I didn’t make a complaint, to be truthful I didn’t really know what way to go about it” (Glengormley). The reasons for and against complaining were discussed within the groups and various opinions were put forward. This section will discuss the issue of complaining against the PSNI and the complainants’ views on the procedure. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 97

Ramiﬁcations of making complaints There was a prevalent culture demonstrated by the majority of focus group participants that it is preferable not to draw attention to oneself. The act of making a complaint against the police through whatever channels was generally expected to have either no result at all or a negative result, “You’d only get stopped more often”. Concern that whether a complaint was upheld or not by the Police Ombudsman, the very act of registering a complaint would mean that the police would “aggravate you and watch you even more if you did”.

Reasons for complaining “I’d only complain if they hit me” (Monkstown). Most of the young people felt that the action that merited a complaint had to be serious otherwise it would be ignored and viewed as trivial. When this issue was pursued it was generally felt that “serious” meant physical assault, while complaints about other forms of police behaviour such as verbal abuse and harassment would not be taken seriously, “I reckon at the end of the day she probably gets loads and loads (of complaints) and she (Police Ombudsman) probably wouldn’t take yours into account unless it was really serious.” Researcher: What would you view as serious? “If you seen some kind of injustice you know if you saw something like somebody being beat up.” However, there were other issues which were important to young people including lesser forms of harassment such as verbal abuse, being moved along, sitting outside their houses or at meeting places and being watched, that the young people felt they could not complain about, “You would feel stupid complaining for such a small thing” (on police attitude and ways of talking to young people) (Fermanagh). “You would be laughed to because you’re a kid” (Belfast). In theory many felt that if an individual felt unfairly treated this was enough to justify a complaint but in reality this probably would not be the case, “I think in theory if you believe that you have been treated unfairly that would be a reason for you to go to the Ombudsman but I think in reality people would feel that they would need to be physically attacked or verbally abused—strongly verbally abused before they would consider approaching the Ombudsman” (Glengormley).

Reasons for not complaining The quantitative study asked “if you had problems with the police but chose not to complain why did you not do so?”. Table 20 documents the results of the respondents who chose not to complain (382 respondents, 33% of the total).

Table 20

REASONS FOR NOT COMPLAINING

Reason Frequency Percentage

Police would not do anything 226 59 Incident was not serious enough 48 13 Could not be bothered 40 10 Did not know how to complain 24 6 Scared of police reprisals 34 9 Other 10 3 Total 382 100

Within the focus groups there was a perception that the issues considered to be important to young people would be seen as less signiﬁcant by the Police Ombudsman. Therefore, their importance would be minimised by the systems set in place by the more powerful Ombudsman, “they would be too busy to deal with “lesser complaints.” (Glengormley). From one Belfast group there was an overriding feeling that, “small things would be laughed at or ignored, for example being followed around in shops” (Belfast). Ev 98 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

1. Lack of Knowledge: For some who did not complain the simple reason was that they did not know how to, “I would have complained to her, but I didn’t know how to” (Glengormley). This led some of the young people to request more information about how and who to complain to and the complaints procedure itself. One group commented on the South City Beat television programme about the PSNI in South Belfast and thought a similar programme could follow complaints, “I thought that (South City Beat) was a really good series . . . Maybe the Ombudsman could produce something . . . a case where Joe Bloggs takes a complaint . . . I have never heard the Ombudsman publicising” (Glengormley). 2. Accessibility: For some there was also an issue of accessibility as there was no local OYce in their area for them to call in and lodge a complaint, “If there was an OYce in Derry I would go in and see about it (complaint)”. “Their OYce isn’t massively accessible” (Derry Londonderry). As noted above one young woman who worked in the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) told her group that the Police Ombudsman’s OYce “use our oYces for interviews”, but none of the other group members were aware that this was the case. This again highlights the lack of knowledge of the operations of the Police Ombudsman’s OYce and of the ways that people can complain about police behaviour. 3. Support for the Police: There were a number of respondents who were reluctant to complain due to their overall support of the police, “You don’t want to go against them if you are sympathetic to the diYculties of policing.” 4. Pointless: Among those who had decided not to complain there was an overwhelming feeling that there was “no point” “...there’s no point in putting a complaint in . . . nothing happens” (Larne). It was felt that their version of events would not be believed, “...thecourts will always believe the police anyway” and “it’s my word against the police oYcers” (Belfast). One group indicated that complaining through the Police Ombudsman would be useless as “they are bound to show favouritism to the police”. This belief in “favouritism” towards the police led to discussions on the impartial nature of the Police Ombudsman. As noted above many young people felt that the organisation was just another division of the police and not a separate or independent organisation. The inclusion of “police” in the name underpinned this sense of connection for some, “The name Police Ombudsman makes people think they are something to do with the police” (Belfast). 5. Too Much Hassle: Other young people simply said that they felt that it was not worth the hassle to make a complaint and it was easier to accept the situation and get on with life, “to be honest with you I couldn’t be bothered with the hassle” (Ballymena). The perceived hassle of making a complaint indicated that some do not view the procedure to be “user friendly”. In addition some young people feared that they would be subjected to further harassment or reprisals if they complained, “...ifyoumakeacomplaintagainst the police ...theyaregoingtowatchyoueven more” (Belfast). 6. Nothing To Gain: One young female said that she didn’t complain because she had nothing to gain. She had witnessed a man being beaten but didn’t complain as, “there was no likelihood of getting any compensation for herself” (Derry Londonderry). However, this attitude was not echoed by the rest of the group, who felt that “the police shouldn’t cross the line” and that only by complaining could police boundaries be established.

The Procedure of Complaining For many participants the formal procedure of complaining was considered to be daunting (the procedure is set out in Appendix 2). For some people the lack of knowledge only served to increase their fear about the procedure. Within the focus groups only a few participants had actually made a formal complaint but many others said that they would have liked to but did not know how or just hadn’t bothered. Those who had complained made their complaints at a variety of locations. Some had lodged the complaint at a police station, although some had said they had been reluctant to complain in this way because of fear of reprisals. Others had made a complaint direct to the Police Ombudsman’s OYce, at a Citizen’s Advice Bureau or through their MLA. Table 17 shows the organisations/individuals that complainants approached to voice their complaint. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 99

For those who had complained to the Police Ombudsman the complaint had been mainly made through a solicitor. Some of the young people said that their parents had taken charge of the complaint and they themselves had little to do with the actual procedure, “I didn’t complain myself, but my mum and dad did, through the solicitor to the Ombudsman” (Belfast). However the majority of young people who felt that they had cause for complaint against the police chose not to initiate a formal process as they felt that the issue was too trivial. This caused frustration and some young people suggested that they needed somewhere to lodge dissatisfaction with the police service as well as complaints. One young person suggested that the Police Ombudsman’s OYce should have separate departments for diVerent types of complaint, a complaints section for more serious situations that required investigation and a separate department to lodge general dissatisfaction.

The Outcome

Some of the young people who had lodged a complaint were not happy with the outcome. The survey revealed that 15 of the 24 respondents (62%) who had contacted the Police Ombudsman’s OYce were not happy with the service they had received. Table 21 highlights the reasons for their dissatisfaction. One young male in the focus groups felt that there had been no point complaining as nothing was done, “...there’sno point . . . there’s nothing done”. However, another individual felt that even though the outcome was not what he had desired it was still worth complaining as the complaints might add up and then someone would have to listen.

Table 21

REASON FOR NOT BEING HAPPY WITH THE SERVICE FROM THE POLICE OMBUDSMAN

Reason Frequency Percentage Slow Response 5 33 Did not take complaint seriously 5 33 Did not hear anything after making complaint 2 13 Did not follow up complaint 2 13 Process took a long time 1 6 Total 15 100

One participant who had been unhappy with the Police Ombudsman’s handling of his complaint admitted that his dissatisfaction arose from not receiving the outcome he had desired, “Fuck all happened . . . I just got a letter and nothing was done” (Belfast).

For many the ﬁnal outcome of any complaint would be to see the police oYcer against which the complaint was made be disciplined to ensure that no one else would suVer, “I would like to see discipline . . . something really done about it like . . . for people in the future”¡ (Belfast).

One young man said that all he wanted was “guarantees that action would be taken” and to be kept informed whilst the investigation was being carried out. “While they carry out the investigation it would be good if they kept in touch” (Belfast).

The lack of any information about the nature of the investigation made this participant feel that things were being concealed.

A few of the participants said that their motive for complaining would be ﬁnancial and they would want compensation, “All I want is compensation, to make something out of it” (Hydebank). But others within this group disagreed and said that an apology and a change in the way they were treated were more important. For the young people who took part in this research there was a desire to have their complaints and sense of dissatisfaction towards the police recognised and for them to be listened to. This was something that many of the young people felt never happened and this left them feeling worthless and unimportant. Ev 100 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

SECTION 7

SUGGESTIONS The following suggestions are based on ideas generated within the discussion groups with the young people.

7.1 General Suggestions Need for Transparency: The general suggestion made was the need for more transparency from all of the organisations. Throughout the discussion groups, participants suggested how the issues of engagement and transparency could be tackled within policing organisations and these were used within other groups as basis for discussion. Many suggestions were eagerly picked up and encouraged debate within the groups. Outreach: It was also suggested that the both the police and the Police Ombudsman’s OYce should engage in more outreach work to increase knowledge and understanding. It was further recommended that this should be conducted at an inter-generational level beginning with preschoolers to encourage debate and support from within the family and educational systems.

7.3 Police Ombudsman’s OYce Feedback: Participants who had made a formal complaint against the police indicated that they would like to have more feedback and updating on the progress of their complaint. Increase Awareness: Some groups suggested that the OYce should have a public awareness campaign to increase consumer awareness of its role and procedures. In spite of the OYce producing information leaflets and providing talks none of the respondents had received any information. Group discussions perceived that the most far reaching eVects would come by advertising on TV in a documentary style that would personalise the narrative elements within the work and be followed up with key images in, for example newspapers, on the back of buses and in college libraries. It was also felt that more general information about how to contact the OYce should be publicised by: Youth-friendly posters in venues used by young people such as the dole oYce, church, youth centres, nightclubs, school and colleges; newspapers; back of buses; child benefit books; road shows that told the stories not just the process; a freephone number. Outcome of complaints: Some individuals within groups emphasised the incentive of compensation whilst others were more satisfied with a personalised and full apology with explanations and acknowledgments of their actions. However, whatever the outcome the young people wanted to be informed and feel that their complaint had been fairly dealt with. Structure: It was also suggested that there should be a separate department within the OYce dedicated to young people, for dealing with small complaints (like being followed in the town/round shops). This would enable complaints to be registered, even when there was a minimum/lack of evidence on the part of the complainant. It was also felt that the Police Ombudsman’s OYce would be seen to raise its profile and demonstrate its impartiality if it were to take a more active role in lobbying for more transparent policing policies such as cameras inside police land rovers to record what happens and as one interviewee commented, “we never have evidence, if they want it they should put cameras inside police Land Rovers to see what they do” (Hydebank).

SECTION 8

RECOMMENDATIONS

Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland 1. There is still clearly a need to promote greater awareness of the organisation and its work among young people. This appears to be particularly important for young people living outside of Belfast. One option would be to organise a road show or out-reach programme involving presentations in schools and youth organisations. Many young people have some knowledge of the Police Ombudsman’s OYce but that knowledge is lacking in depth and an outreach programme should aim to build upon existing knowledge, rather than focus on providing very basic information. 2. Information for young people on the OYce should be more attractive and appropriate to a young audience. Designing this material will require some consultation and discussion with young people. It might therefore be appropriate to convene an advisory group of young people for say a six month period to discuss in more detail how the Police Ombudsman’s OYce might make their information and services more accessible to young people. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 101

3. A number of young people commented on the South City Beat programme and suggested a similar programme on the OYce would be of interest. The Police Ombudsman’s OYce could approach one of the local TV companies and suggest the idea of a documentary on the work of the organisation. Such a programme might be made more relevant by exploring the complaints process from a young person’s perspective. 4. There is also a need to increase awareness of practical matters such as where people can go to lodge complaints other than the Police Ombudsman’s OYce, the police or through a solicitor. No young person had lodged a complaint through a Citizen’s Advice Bureau for example. There should be a wider range of outlets throughout Northern Ireland for people to go to lodge complaints and a promotion of those which already exist. One option would be to have a Police Ombudsman logo that could be used to advertise where to lodge a complaint. 5. Many young people commented how the OYce was Belfast based. It would therefore be worth exploring options for the Police Ombudsman’s OYce to have OYces in other areas to promote a presence outside Belfast. These could be organised as surgery style oYces whereby a representative of the Police Ombudsman’s OYce would attend diVerent towns on a monthly basis. 6. We also noted the variability of information on the initial complaint that is lodged. It would be useful to either devise a standardised complaints form, or ensure widespread availability of the current form for all those agencies and organisations that receive complaints against police oYcers. 7. Finally given the large number of complaints made by young people it would be worth considering creating a team within Police Ombudsman’s OYce who speciﬁcally deal with complaints by young people and produce information especially for them. This would enable specialist knowledge to be developed and information to be gained on problems experienced by young people and best methods of responding to them.

APPENDIX 7

Memorandum submitted by Citizens Advice in Northern Ireland

Citizens Advice Citizens Advice is the largest advice charity in Northern Ireland working against poverty, and meeting the information and advice needs of some 200,000 people per year. The Association has formal links to CAB in England and Wales and close working relationships with Citizens Advice Scotland. Together the three Associations constitute the biggest advice network in Europe with 60 years of giving advice and information to the public. Citizens Advice in Northern Ireland also has close working relationships with the Dublin based Agency Comhairle with which we operate a cross border advice project supported by EU funding. The Association has funding relationships with 24 of N. Ireland’s District Councils, and in the 12 months to March 2003 had a turnover of some £3 million, of which the Citizens Advice Regional OYce accounted for £700,000.

Casework Profile In Northern Ireland, Citizens Advice deals with some 200,000 enquiries per years 53% of these relate to social security with Disability Benefits and Income Support the largest categories. Queries to CAB have more than doubled in the last 10 years. In particular the trend to self assessment in benefits and the introduction of complex self assessment forms in respect of Disability Living Allowance, Incapacity Benefit and Job Seekers Allowance has, along with the Government’s policy of means testing access to benefits, greatly increased the demand for CAB’s advice network. With the Welfare Reform Programme, and cross party support for means testing and the targeting of benefits, these trends are clearly set to continue.

Access,Inclusiveness and Principles Advice is provided to both main communities in Northern Ireland, and to minority communities, from 28 main oYces, from some 100 other outlets., and from our website www.citizensadvice.co.uk by E mail and via the self serve website www.adviceQuideora Advice is provided within the framework of four principles. The advice is — Free at the point of use. — Impartial. — Conﬁdential. — Independent Ev 102 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

Progress Towards Developing a Role for the Police Ombudsman In a divided society such as Northern Ireland with its recent 30 year history of conflict, the Police Ombudsman has had a very complex and diYcult brief in seeking to establish the independence and impartiality of her oYce. This is particularly so in respect of policing, which in many ways has been politicised over many years, and the oYce of the Police Ombudsman has been, from its inception, at the centre of powerful and conflicting expectations from both communities, political parties and a range of other stakeholders. At an early stage we were approached by the Ombudsman in respect of the use of our oYces to provide a neutral venue for members of the public who wished to make a complaint against the police but who did not wish to meet the staV of her oYce in local police stations. This arrangement, small in the larger scheme of things, has now been in place for a number of years and reflects the level of attention to detail which has been paid to how people approach the Ombudsman to seek help and advice and how this can be best facilitated. In Northern Ireland the concept of “neutral space” is an important one in all urban areas and is also an influence on where Citizens Advice locates its own oYces. It was therefore reassuring to see that the OYce of the Ombudsman displayed an instinctive understanding of the importance of this at an early stage in its establishment. As reflected in the Ombudsman’s Annual Report for 2003 Table 8, considerable eVort has continued to go in to engaging with voluntary groups and local communities. This degree of involvement in unusual in statutory agencies and is most welcome. In many ways much of CAB’s work is generated by the need to assist the public in accessing public services and the Ombudsman’s pro active approach is particularly necessary for people in social need, members of minority ethnic groups and the 24% of the Northern Ireland population which suVers from functional literacy (DENI 1994). We believe that the Police Ombudsman’s oYce has successfully established itself as an approachable, impartial and independent agency in Northern Ireland and that this diYcult and significant achievement owes much to the personal qualities which the current incumbent has brought to the post.

Performance of the Office, and Efficiency and Effectiveness In compiling this response, Citizens Advice has referred to the 2003 Annual Report published by the Police Ombudsman’s oYce, and we believe that the range and detail of information contained in that report conﬁrms the Ombudsman’s commitment to the rnnning of an open and accountable service for the public in Northern Ireland. Having recently been in correspondence with a local NDPB about its refusal to publish either an annual report or a complaints procedure, we are struck by the range of information provided in respect of objectives, targets, complaints, key performance indicators ,and the monitoring of equality issues. This is considerably in excess of many of the reports published by public bodies in Northern Ireland.

Conclusion Citizens Advice in Northern Ireland has a major interface with public services, frequently dealing with issues which have gone wrong and with cases where people have been badly treated. In many ways the oYce of the Police Ombudsman is a new institution for a new society which is hopefully emerging,—one which will have a civilian police force. We believe that immense strides have been made, particularly in establishing the independence and impartiality which are so central to the success of the role of any Ombudsman, but which are so crucial in the context of Northern Ireland.

APPENDIX 8

Memorandum submitted by Mediation Northern Ireland

I understand that the Northern Ireland AVairs Committee is conducting the aforementioned inquiry and that the deadline for submissions is Tuesday 23 March. Therefore I am unable to make a full, written submission at this late stage. However, you may wish to know that my organisation have had a relationship with the Police Ombudsman’s oYce since its foundation in 2001 and that we have provided a degree of external support to its development. A basic outline of our areas of interest is attached. If your committee should like to pursue any of these issues with Mediation Northern Ireland, I would be happy to respond. 23 March 2004 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 103

MEDIATION NORTHERN IRELAND

in association with

“FUTURE WAYS”

(The University of Ulster)

Policing Programme, 2001–04

The Police Ombudsman Project Purpose: to assist the organizational development of the Police Ombudsman’s oYce. Rationale. The Police Ombudsman’s oYce has been established as a mechanism for the accountability of police. To discharge this function, the ombudsman’s staV need to: — Develop and maintain a collective sense of civic integrity; — A capacity to relate to the community in ways which are credible; — An ability to engage with police in ways which are eVective. Mediation Northern Ireland’s Police Ombudsman project will seek to support the development of this new agency by facilitating dialogue with its staV on a sustained and regular basis.

Themes — Self Awareness: attending to personal strengths and shortcomings in a stressful job. — Culture: the cultures relevant to policing in Northern Ireland. — Civic Responsibility: maintaining integrity in the face of conﬂicting pressures from across society. — Mediation: developing skills for conﬂict intervention.

Activities —StaV Induction Courses. — Mediation Awareness Training. — Reﬂection Workshops. — Senior StaV residential “retreat”.

APPENDIX 9

Memorandum submitted by Omagh Support and Self Help Group I am writing in my capacity as chairman of the above group and as a bereaved father of our 21 year old son Adrian who was murdered in the 1998 Omagh bomb. This is a statement of evidence as our experience of the Ombudsman’s oYce and their involvement in the Omagh bomb investigation. For the ﬁrst three years of the police inquiry, the families of this atrocity believed there was an eVective investigation by the RUC, we received repeated assurances that everything was being done to catch the bombers. A review of the investigation was commissioned in March 2000 by ACC crime again we were told everything was in order, we inquired about co-operation with the Garda to be assured that everything was working well. It was with alarm that we read in a Sunday newspaper on 29 July 2001 that a former security agent named Kevin Fultan was alleging that he had passed on information that a large bomb was being prepared south of the border, he gave this information to his RUC handler and was recorded in the system but not acted upon. When we asked about Fulton, we were told these allegations were not true. On 14 August 2001 the Police Ombudsman decided to carry out a formal investigation as a matter of public interest. On the morning of 15 August 2001 the third anniversary I heard the person who was to head this investigation Detective Superintendent Martin Bridger speak on Radio Ulster about how the investigation would work. I never had any contact with the Ombudsman’s oYce or had any knowledge of how it works but felt that the allegations were of such concern that they should be investigated and I publicly supported this investigation because I was assured of it’s independence. It went on to identify a number of major deﬁciencies in the investigation and the failure of the Chief Constable to implement the recommendations of the McVicar Review. Ev 104 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

The miss-handling of intelligence by Special branch and the fact the Omagh review team were unaware of the Fulton intelligence, the Ombudsman also revealed that significant intelligence was held by Special Branch and was not shared with the Omagh Investigation team or the reviewing team. The Ombudsman’s team also revealed eight other bombings in 1998 which they believed were linked to Omagh. The Ombudsman’s report was given to the families on 4 September 2001 there then began a very public disagreement between the Chief Constable and the Ombudsman’s oYce. After listening to both parties, the families supported the Ombudsman’s findings and as a result of the report and the six recommendations set out in it the criminal investigation by the PSNI is now back on the rails. The Investigation Team under the leadership of Superintendent Norman Baxter is making good progress towards convicting one person in the north for the Omagh bombing and has linked the previous bombings as initially identified by the Ombudsman’s oYce. This now very live investigation could have been closed down three years ago, but for the very professional and impartial inquiry by a truly dedicated team of experienced oYcers from the Ombudsman’s oYce, who continue to be in the very public and often critical spotlight. This work cannot be underestimated and is often thankless, it should be supported and stregenthed by all sections of the community. If there is any criticism it is that the Ombudsman’s OYce has not got the power or recourses to investigate more sensitive areas of intelligence which often impact on serious crime in Northern Ireland such as military intelligence and national security. 19 March 2004

APPENDIX 10

Memorandum submitted by Falls Community Council Falls Community Council is a community development umbrella organisation for the community sector in west Belfast. The mission of Falls Community Council is to achieve human rights, social justice and economic equality through active engagement with the process of conflict resolution, political transition and social transformation. Consequently, Falls Community Council is pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the OYce of the Police Ombudsman. The existence and work of the Police Ombudsman is one of the pioneering and most encouraging eVects of the transformation of policing in the north of Ireland which was promised six years ago in the Good Friday Agreement. The Northern Ireland AVairs Committee has shown interest in policing previously, with an inquiry into policing which preceded the Good Friday Agreement. The Committee’s interest in policing at that time no doubt helped to confirm the view that the status quo on policing in the north of Ireland had failed and to strengthen the demand for wholesale transformation of policing which was later enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement. More importantly, the Committee will also be well positioned to help to convince those who question the need for police accountability, or those who are undermining the OYce of the Police Ombudsman. Falls Community Council submits to the Committee that he only way to create a truly new beginning to policing in the north of Ireland, which is capable of gaining consent from those most alienated from policing institutions, is through demonstrating that the police can be and will be held fully to account. However, there is also the danger that the Committee indulges those who have set themselves against the transformation of policing, some of whom appear amongst the ranks of the PSNI. Not only would that be a terrible waste of the Committee’s valuable time and resources, but it would also be of no assistance to accelerating and deepening the transformation of policing and the implementation of the Patten report. Arguments about the need for a thoroughly independent, fully resourced, and eVectively empowered accountability body for policing in the north of Ireland, were explored in detail by the Patten Commission over many months. The findings and recommendations of the Patten Commission were clear and the rationale for creating the OYce of the Police Ombudsman was explained. Assuming that the Committee agrees with those findings and recommendations and wishes to facilitated the long-awaited, much needed, full implementation of the Patten report, then an important reference point for the Committee’s deliberations on this subject must be the Patten report itself: “The Police Ombudsman should: — be, and be seen to be an important institution in the governance of Northern Ireland and should be staVed and resourced accordingly.” (para.6.41) — take initiatives, not merely react to specific complaints received. S/he should have the power to initiate inquiries or investigations even if no specific complaint has been received.” “The Ombudsman should: — be responsible for compiling data on trends and patterns of complaints against the police and the accumulation of complaints against individual oYcers . . . work with police to address issues arising from this data — have a dynamic cooperative relationship with both the police and the Policing Board and others . . .” Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 105

“We recommend that there should be a commissioner for covert law enforcement in Northern Ireland . . . and a complaints tribunal with full powers to investigate cases referred to it, directly or through the Police Ombudsman . . .” (para 6.45) “We recommend that all oYcers—those now in service as well as all future recruits—should be obliged to register their interests and associations, and that the register should be held both by the police service and the Police Ombudsman.” (para 15.16) “We recommend that use of Plastic Bullets..should be justified in a report to the Policing Board, which should be copied to the Police Ombudsman...video camera recordings should be made of incidents in which use of Plastic Bullets is authorised” (para 9.17) “The Ombudsman should exercise the right to investigate and comment on police policies and practices, where these are perceived to give rise to diYculties, even if the conduct of individual oYcers may not itself be culpable” “...weareinnodoubt that the RUC has had several oYcers within its ranks over the years who have abused their position..It is not good enough to suggest, as some people have, that one should somehow accept that every organisation has ‘bad apples’. They should be dealt with.” (para 5.19) “we are not persuaded that the RUC has in the past had adequate systems in place to monitor and, when necessary, act upon complaints against oYcers and civil claim awards.” (para 5.20) “The presumption should be that everything should be available for public scrutiny unless it is in the public interest—not the police interest—to hold it back” (para 6.38) “The Ombudsman should have access to all past reports on the RUC” (para 6 41) Obviously, the transformation of policing has not yet been completed, and the report of the Independent Commission on Policing (aka the Patten Report) remains to be fully implemented. Some of the issues outstanding and problems which have emerged do indeed impinge on the ability of the OYce of the Police Ombudsman to eVectively make the police accountable. However, FCC respectfully submits to this committee that it would be very ill-informed and unwarranted to conclude that all, or indeed, many of those diYculties are the fault of the Police Ombudsman. Indeed, the Police Ombudsman has shown her oYce very open to discussing and exploring diYculties which may be perceived by others, in an engaging, tactful and transparent manner which many other statutory bodies and public authorities do well to follow. Some of the problems which have the greatest impact on the confidence in the nationalist community in the eVectiveness of police accountability mechanisms, especially in disadvantaged areas, include the following : — The fact that British Army can use, and has used, plastic bullets without being accountable to the Police Ombudsman despite the deployment of British soldiers in policing operations; — The fact that the decision-making which governs the actions of the PSNI has not, to date, been subject to public scrutiny. This includes the smokescreen operational independence used to screen a variety of ongoing controversial activities from thorough, independent investigation, eg: the premise for forcing entry and carrying weapons into homes. Also of concern to many people are the patterns of deployment and tactics used by the PSNI in public order situations. New powers aVorded to the Police Ombudsman may permit eVective, independent scrutiny of such actions but it remains to be seen how co-operative the PSNI will be. — The fact that of 374 cases investigated and referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) by the Police Ombudsman during the last three years, criminal charges have been brought in just 20 cases. There is a strong belief in the nationalist community that the DPP shows preferential treatment to members of the PSNI. That belief is accentuated by the DPP’s stewardship of several Diplock Court, political prosecutions in recent years. However, the problem in regard to wrongdoing by the PSNI is that the DPP, not the Police Ombudsman, takes control of the case before the court. Unfortunately, the actions and decisions of the DPP can lead to great disappointment in the outcome of a complaint, for a complainant and the community from which they come, even though the complaint was first made to the Police Ombudsman. The recent spectacle of the Raymond Boyle case sadly illustrates this problem. — The fact that the Policing Board appears indiVerent to the results of investigations by the Police Ombudsman. For example, the Police Ombudsman’s inquiry into the investigation of Sean Brown’s killing revealed very serious problems inside both the RUC and the PSNI. The fact that key evidence, relating to Sean Brown’s killing, was stolen by members of the PSNI after the Police Ombudsman’s investigators began their inquiries is something which should have been treated with the utmost gravity by the Policing Board. The people responsible should have been held to account by the Policing Board having been exposed by the Police Ombudsman. The impotence of the Policing Board does confound hopes that the police will be held fully to account for any act or omission. — The fact that serial or repeat oVenders cannot at present be eVectively tracked. The development of systems to support trends analysis and the resources to such analysis was always intended to be available to the Police Ombudsman. Ev 106 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

— The fact that the PSNI Chief Constable is the one who retains details about the notiﬁable memberships of the PSNI. That register was to have been also held by the Police Ombudsman. — The fact that an onus appears to rest on the complainant to provide compelling evidence to support his/her complaint. There is of course an onus on a complainant to assist with the investigation of his/her complaint. However, some complainants still feel disenchanted with the process governing complaints including the disclosure of evidence and statements relating to the complaint. Falls Community Council would like to give credit to the Police Ombudsman, Mrs Nuala O Loan, for making herself and her staV for investing time and eVort in discussing the experiences and views of local communities in diVerent parts of Belfast. The promotion of a dialogue about policing and the creation of truly accountable policing service is of vital importance. That dialogue needs to involve all of our society, but particularly those who have historically been most marginalised from policing. Against a background of police impunity, the establishment of conﬁdence in the most marginalised communities that the police will be made accountable for their actions is a touchstone for the new beginning to policing. That is why the OYce of Police Ombudsman has been, and will continue to be so important and also why the Police Ombudsman deserves the Committee’s encouragement and active support. 24 March 2005

APPENDIX 11

Memorandum submitted by Sinn Fein

Sinn Fein welcomes the opportunity to emphasise the necessity for accountability in policing as a pre- requisite to and component part of any new beginning to policing. For that reason, Sinn Fein has determinedly negotiated with the British government on policing and justice legislation for the last six years. The need for a police service which can be and is held fully to account remains central to Sinn Fein’s exchanges with the British government. Advances have been made, particularly in the amending legislation on both policing and justice born out of several phases of negotiations between the British government and Sinn Fein. By concentrating on providing a robust, legislative framework for holding the police to account, Sinn Fein has pressed the British government to fulfil its obligation to fully implement the Patten report and honour the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. We will continue to press the British government to legislate for the transfer of powers on policing and justice, consistent with the Agreement and the development of a new agenda for policing on this island. Sinn Fein advocated the creation of the OYce of the Police Ombudsman. The concept of an independent complaints body which is eVectively empowered to police the police is one which Sinn Fein strongly supports. There is no acceptable level of unaccountable policing. Police services around the world have become familiar with independent complaints mechanisms and oversight bodies. In the context of the six counties, where the status quo on policing is accepted as having been a catastrophic failure, the concept of an independent complaints mechanism assumes even greater importance in the eVort to transform policing. Winning the consent of the nationalist community for policing arrangements is greatly dependent upon evidence that the PSNI are held fully to account. Police accountability must apply to the policies and practices of the PSNI, as much as it does to the misconduct of individual members of the PSNI. Sinn Fein has made these arguments forcefully in discussions with the British government. The eVect of these negotiations for the OYce of the Police Ombudsman is reflected in the new legislative provisions for policing, especially in the Police Act 2003. Provisions enabling the Police Ombudsman to investigate policies and practices of the PSNI came into force in that amending legislation on policing. Sinn Fein argued for these provisions to close the loophole in the legislation whereby PSNI unjust policies and practices were hidden behind the veil of “operational independence” and so-called “direction and control”. We hope that the application of these new provisions will help to lift the veil on many past and present policies and practices, not least, the apparatus and execution of collusion with unionist paramilitary death squads. In negotiations with the British government, Sinn Fein has also argued for the provision of eVective powers to root out human rights abusers, who have transferred en masse from the RUC into the PSNI. In that regard, Sinn Fein supports the incorporation and application of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000). However, it is not within the gift of the Police Ombudsman to direct criminal prosecutions against human rights abusers in the PSNI, or formerly in the RUC. That responsibility rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Sinn Fein notes with serious concern the failure of the DPP to eVectively expedite prosecutions against human rights abusers in the PSNI. It is becoming clear, amongst the nationalist community and amongst many in the human rights community, that the DPP is displaying a degree of partisanship in the direction of prosecutions. This pattern, which has been evident in recent months, is not merely generating anxiety about the eYcacy of police accountability, but also eroding nationalist confidence in the reform of the justice system, expected under the Agreement. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 107

For example, the case of Mr John Boyle has been investigated by the Police Ombudsman after the political conviction against Mr Boyle was found to be a miscarriage of justice. This conviction was secured before a non-jury Diplock Court and was based on evidence fabricated by police oYcers. Having successfully overturned that conviction, Mr Boyle referred his case to the Police Ombudsman and the investigation was completed and passed to the DPP. The DPP directed no prosecution against the (RUC) police oYcers involved and has refused to give any reasons for that decision. Presently, Mr Boyle is judicially reviewing the DPP’s decision to withhold information from him. Sinn Fein believes that unwarranted and unacceptable restrictions have been placed on the powers and resources of the Police Ombudsman to undertake retrospective investigations. When impediments to the retrospective powers of the Police Ombudsman were written into the first Police Act (2000) during the era of Peter Mandelson, Sinn Fein challenged those provisions and had the restrictions mostly rescinded in the amending policing legislation last year (ie Police (NI) Act 2003). Now, it has become known that the Police Ombudsman’s oYce have more than two dozen retrospective investigations stalling because the Northern Ireland OYce is refusing resources for such cases. This appears to be an attempt to stymie the work of the Police Ombudsman by stealth and is unacceptable. For the OYce of the Police Ombudsman to be eVective, it must be fully resourced. Sinn Fein believes the allocation of resources should include provision for an eVective system for managing complaints and cases to enable the speedy analysis of data to monitor trends and patterns. That aspect of Police Ombudsman’s work must be advanced, as noted by the Police Oversight Commissioner last year, so that those human rights abusers who have been absorbed from the RUC into the PSNI and who re-oVend can be weeded out of policing. Sinn Fein is also concerned that the prosecution of members of the PSNI involved in a collision with a car in west Belfast resulting in the death of Mr Raymond Boyle, was thrown out of court when the DPP oVered no evidence earlier this month. The credibility of forensic evidence in that case was also called into question, and adds to controversy about the Forensic Science Agency. The family of the late Mr Boyle may yet pursue other means of legal redress. However, the cumulative eVect of these developments, and many others in recent months, is that the DPP and other agencies in the criminal justice system are acting in a way which reduces public confidence, especially amongst the nationalist community, that serious grievances brought to the Police Ombudsman will be eVectively resolved and human rights abusers in the PSNI will be subject to the full rigour of the law. We also note that the British Secretary of State made an Order in Council in December 2002 designating the OYce of the Police Ombudsman as subject to inspection by the Criminal Justice Services Inspectorate. That Order in Council was introduced merely to placate Ulster Unionists and it is notable that the enthusiasm shown by them for inspections and investigations of the Police Ombudsman is not matched by enthusiasm and encouragement for the investigations of the PSNI or RUC by the Police Ombudsman. At present, Sinn Fein is monitoring the passage of the Justice (NI) Bill 2004, which the British government agreed in negotiations last year. While the provisions of that Bill are generally welcome, there remain serious deficiencies in the version of the Bill which received its second reading in the British House of Commons on 10 March 2004. Particular problems arise from Clause 5 (6). This places a restriction on the powers of the Police Ombudsman to investigate cases of police misconduct or malpractice which may come to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions. This amendment to the Justice Bill was tabled in the British House of Lords by Ulster Unionists and was accepted by the British government. That amendment places a time limit on cases which may be referred by the DPP to the Police Ombudsman for investigation. The eVect of that time-limit will be to screen many cases, which may cross the table of the DPP, from investigation by the Police Ombudsman, since many cases may idle more than 12 months in the Department of the DPP. Sinn Fein believes that the duty on the DPP to refer matters of police misconduct or malpractice should be unqualified and the scope of the Police Ombudsman to conduct independent investigations should be unrestricted. The Justice (NI) Bill 2004 should be amended to bring these requirements into force. The Policing Board has demonstrated an equivocal, even schizophrenic attitude to the OYce of the Police Ombudsman. It seems that findings by the Police Ombudsman, in research reports and investigations are welcomed by the Policing Board whenever the PSNI are exonerated of any wrong-doing. However, when research reports are published by the Police Ombudsman, such as the survey of defence solicitors, or investigations are undertaken by the Police Ombudsman, such as the inquiry into the Omagh Bomb investigation and the inquiry into the murder of Sean Brown, the Policing Board has failed to act decisively on those findings and appears unwilling to make those in the PSNI responsible for failures and wrong-doing, fully accountable for their actions. For example, the investigation into the Omagh bomb inquiry revealed a devastating failure of leadership in the RUC. It also began to expose the underhand dealings of the Special Branch. Those same patterns are apparent in the investigation into the killing of Sean Brown. The Policing Board has received full reports on both investigations and yet no member of the PSNI has been held to account. Sinn Fein believes that there is room for improvement in the oYce of the Police Ombudsman. As a party, we do not agree with everything the Police Ombudsman has said or done. For instance, the research reports which have been done on plastic bullets do not fairly reflect the views of those injured by those weapons, the abusive and dangerous conduct of the PSNI, or the risk to life posed by the deployment of plastic bullets. Ev 108 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

Human rights observers, campaign groups and community organisations have all documented the lethal eVects of plastic bullets and that body of information and experience should be more fully reflected in monitoring of the use of plastic bullets. Sinn Fein’s position on plastic bullets is informed by that body of information which is why we continue to argue for plastic bullets to be banned immediately. Sinn Fein also has concerns about the failure to substantiate some complaints which have been referred to the OYce of the Police Ombudsman. It has been argued that complaints can only be substantiated on the basis of evidence gathered, and in the absence of evidence or witness statements, that complaints cannot be substantiated. Sinn Fein has expressed concerns about the approach taken to evidence-gathering in some cases and has attempted to assuage the genuine anxiety amongst witnesses about coming forward to assist investigations. The case of Paud Devenny, who was seriously assaulted by members of the PSNI in May 2002, exemplifies Sinn Fein’s concerns. Our concerns are deep-seated and are informed by an experience over many years, that the RUC could act outside the law, particularly in forms of political policing. Sinn Fein remains actively committed to creating a system of accountability for policing which will benefit all sections of the community and will continue to work in conjunction with others, including the Police Ombudsman, to achieve that goal. Nationalists and republicans have enjoyed no favour or fairness from police complaints systems in the north of Ireland in the past. Sinn Fein remains hopeful that the OYce of the Police Ombudsman, which is a recent institutional innovation, will break that cycle of the past and help to engender real confidence amongst those most alienated from policing in this society, that a new beginning to policing is drawing nearer. 26 March 2004

APPENDIX 12

Memorandum submitted by the Ulster Unionists

Recently, a request was made from Clerk of the NIAC seeking views of the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB) on a number of issues, including whether the Police Ombudsman should have a duty to investigate complaints against: — retired police oYcers; — members of the British Army operating in support of the civil power; and — allegations of criminal conduct against police oYcers made by persons other than members of the public, for example police oYcers. At a recent Board meeting it was decided that political parties should reply individually to the request, outlining their views on the matter. This letter sets the views of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) on these issues. You will be aware that, while the UUP supported an Ombudsman oYce, it was clear from the initial intention that its remit was to examine complaints against serving orYcers, and events post-April 1998. The oYce would be allowed to examine events before that date only to identify whether an accused oYcer had a history of such behaviour. At that stage, there was no intention to allow the Ombudsman free rein to blunder through the past 30 years on a “One-sided Truth Commission”, reacting to complaints from those who hold grudges against the security forces. Under pressure from the SDLP, and in return for their entering the Policing Board, the Government— without consultation—expanded the Ombudsman’s remit to includc such a crusade. The result has been that, among broad unionism, the Ombudsman’s OYce has been brought into disrepute and is viewed as being out to punish the security forces, RUC and Army and to rewrite history on behalf of republicanism. These proposals are in keeping with that intention. We believe that any proposal to allow the Ombudsman’s oYce to interrogate elderly retired police oYcers (some in their 70s and 80s) about events that took place perhaps 30 years before would confirm suspicions that an oYcially sanctioned witch-hunt into the security forces was taking place. 15 October 2004 The proposal that the Ombudsman should investigate the Army would conflict directly with the role of the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints, set up to mirror within the military system the role of the Police Ombudsman. The final proposal to investigate complaints from within the police challenges the role of the PSNI’s own very experienced Internal Investigation Department that already eVectively deals with internal complaints against police oYcers. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 109

The Ulster Unionist Party does not believe that the Police Ombudsman should be given any expansion of powers. Indeed, as the Committee will have gathered from previous evidence, we believe that continuing to allow the Ombudsman to career around the past, picking at old wounds, is detrimental and will prevent society in Northern Ireland from moving on. 15 October 2004

APPENDIX 13

Memorandum submitted by Mr S L Morrow I am aware by means of the media that the Northern Ireland AVairs Committee will be in the very near future, looking into the eYciency and eVectiveness of the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman since the establishment of that oYce in 2000. I would be obliged if you would bring the contents of this letter to their attention to address the ineYciency, suppression and non eVectiveness of the Police Ombudsman OYce insofar as it relates to the investigation (more to the point the non investigation/suppression) of a complaint against that oYce made by a Police OYcer. The need for a procedure to investigate these complaints to ensure proper accountability and impartiality is a topic the Committee must address. I, as a retired Police OYcer, am unhappy that a complaint I made against the Ombudsman in September 2001 while a serving Police OYcer, was never acknowledged, actioned or investigated. My complaint was made orally to an Ombudsman Investigator on 26 September 2001 and then faxed to the Ombudsman’s OYce on 28 September 2001. After no acknowledgement I submitted my complaint in writing on 23 October 2001 through the Police Federation for Northern Ireland to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Dr Reid. To date, there has never been an acknowledgement of my complaint or an investigation. It may be that my complaint is so damming of the Ombudsman that it has been suppressed by a cover up from that oYce or even the oYce of the Secretary of State. The complaint outlined actions by the Ombudsman’s oYce regarding: — Oppressive behaviour; — wrongful arrest; — unlawful detention; — false imprisonment; — discrimination; — trauma. Involving my 14 year old son. The above took place on 26 September 2001 between 1835 hours and 0020 hours on 27 September 2001 at my previous home address and at Grosvenor Road Police Station, Belfast. With regards to myself, it was a breach of my human rights insofar as it aVected my medical condition while I was on sick leave with Diabetes (Type II) viz: — Intimidating and Oppressive behaviour at my home address. — Refusal to let me take my medication for Diabetes. — Preventing me from taking my Dietary Meal. — Refusing to let me use toilet facilities at home. — Invasion of privacy whilst using toilet facility eventually. — Failing to inform me that my son would be detained.

The above took place between 1812 hours and 2214 hours on 26 September 2001 at my previous home address and Grosvenor Road Police Station, Belfast. Because of my health at the time, I was certified by a Force Medical OYcer as unfit for interview. With regards to the treatment of my son, the Ombudsman has failed to reply to any written correspondence on the subject from my Solicitor. As a consequence, I have recently caused a Civil Bill to be served on Mrs Nuala O’Loan. I should not have had to go to these lengths. Is there a reason for a cover up? It is quite clear that the post of Ombudsman should not be singular as it is open to accusation of outside pressure, influence, bias and ulterior motives. Ev 110 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

To whom is the Ombudsman accountable with regards to a complaint against her/him? If it is the Secretary of State, who does he appoint to carry out the investigation? In my case did he pass the complaint to Mrs O’loan to follow up and investigate herself? The cry that Police should not investigate complaints against themselves was quite right. I was in favour of an independent body to investigate complaints against the Police and still support same. However, a complaint about the Ombudsman can clearly fall on deaf ears as my complaint shows. A mechanism is required to oversee complaints from Police OYcers. These complaints merit the same eYcient, eVective and unbiased procedures as aVorded to members of the public who make a complaint against the Police, likewise procedural matters and behaviour by investigators who display actions implying they have to justify the existence of the Ombudsman’s oYce by getting a “scalp”. To prevent further animosity including stress and trauma to a member’s family, there is also a need for some sort of code of conduct. Mrs O’Loan covers her back very quickly. I draw your attention to the attached transcript of a Radio Ulster Interview with her on 2 October 2001. This was made six days after the incident at my house. I had six members of the Ombudsman’s OYce call at my house unannounced, trample through it, seize articles, arrest me while I was on sick leave, traumatise my family, use oppressive behaviour and unlawfully arrest my youngest son. My house had the previous weekend been attacked by subversives and damage caused to the front of the house. This was clearly visible, but no questions were asked by the Ombudsman personnel. I was never asked or invited to come in for questioning, in fact I was informed approximately one week later that they were going to arrest me at work, only I was on sick leave. A simple phone call to me would have achieved the desired outcome without the need for the disgraceful behaviour which took place. It is suYcient to say that there was no Criminal or Disciplinary action recommended or taken against me in respect of the complaint that led to the Ombudsman’s action in this matter. I would be obliged if the Committee would take these matters on board when carrying out their review. 12 February 2004

TRANSCRIPT OF RADIO ULSTER INTERVIEW ON 2 OCTOBER 2001

Interviewer In your address today you will be outlining the background to the setting up of your oYce and the powers that it has, how would you persuade people that you are concerned to protect the human rights of Police OYcers as those of their alleged victims?

O’Loan Well it is absolutely fundamental to the whole ethos of the oYce that we will respect the human rights of everybody with whom we deal and the way that we do it is we work on the assumption that we must seek to prove any allegation if we are to bring it to action, either disciplinary or criminal and therefore if a complaint comes to us we will treat them with respect, we will hear the story and we will see whether there is corroborating evidence. At the same time we will talk to the police oYcer and if there is no corroborating then we will, there will be no action, but I would say to you that in the things that we have, like a power of arrest and a power to search and all that sort of thing, power to take equipment and uniform which are kind of sensitive things to do to any individual, we have policies which are designed to ensure that insofar as we can, we are as careful and as sensitive and as respectful of their human rights as we can be, so for example, generally speaking we won’t arrest someone at home. If we have to make an arrest, we will arrange to do it privately, quietly in a place were somebody’s not going to be embarrassed. We would prefer not to have to make any arrests at all.

Interviewer Well that might seem a contrast to many people who have been arrested in very diVerent circumstances.

O’Loan Yes, well obviously I cannot comment in general about the circumstances in which people have been arrested, but what I am saying to you is that any action which we take in the oYce, must be proportionate and must be necessary having regard to the situation which we face and I am sure that is what the Police Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 111

are considering to, now, so that if, do you need arrest, can you ask someone to come and answer questions that you need to put to them. If somebody, for example if I can get an assault allegation, and somebody says, the Police OYcer battened me, and there is a serious injury attaching to that , then what I have there is an oVence for which you could arrest somebody, but if you invite the oYcer to come in for questioning, and he comes and you can put the allegations to him, and get an answer from him, it may be that you will get an answer which satisﬁes you, and it turns out the injury was actually sustained, maybe by somebody else, third party or by an implement of some kind which was not a baton.

Interviewer Right.

O’Loan But if he won’t come, then you must arrest.

APPENDIX 14

Memorandum submitted by Mr Edmund E Lynch Over the past several years, I have had occasion to become knowledgeable as to the workings of the OYce of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. I have led delegations of American lawyers and judges to Northern Ireland for approximately 13 years. We have met with police oYcials, members of the judiciary, members of the Bar, community and political representatives, and ordinary citizens. Most recently, we visited Northern Ireland during the week of 9 February 2004. I was accompanied on this trip by Justice Patrick Henry of the Supreme Court of New York and James O’Rourke and Lindsey Henry of the Bar of the State of New York. Please accept our following observations concerning the performance of the Ombudsman’s functions. 1. The Police Ombudsman has the confidence of many members of the Unionist and Nationalist communities in Northern Ireland. This confidence is reflected in the fact that a request for assistance have originated in both communities. In our discussions with lawyers, community representatives and members of both communities in Northern Ireland, we have found almost universal support for the work of the Police Ombudsman. We receive several specific expressions of respect and trust in the Ombudsman, Mrs Nuala O’Loan and the experienced oYcers on her staV. 2. We have been impressed with the professionalism of members of the Ombudsman’s oYce with whom we have met over the past several years. At no time did we discern and “anti-police” bias. On the contrary, the members of the Police Ombudsman oYce with whom we met were all experienced police professionals. 3. The Police Ombudsman serves as a safety valve for the community. Because of the history of the conflict in Northern Ireland, there is a substantial body of the public that does not, as of the present, trust the police service to investigate, discipline and reform its own members. Without an eVective Police Ombudsman, these sentiments would easily lead to resistance and perhaps renewed violence against the police. 4. The Police Ombudsman serves as a shield against unfounded accusations directed to police oYcers of integrity. In any society, those who attempted to fairly and eVectively enforce the laws are subject to false complaints. Without a Police Ombudsman, such complaints would have more credence among the public when they are discovered and dismissed by ordinary policing authorities. The independence and reputation of integrity of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland creates a sense of confidence on the part of the public and members of the police service that all complaints, both those which are well taken and those which are unfounded, will be dealt with impartially. 5. We know of no case in which there is credible evidence of unfairness or prejudice on the part of the Ombudsman. Of course, for their own reasons, certain politicians may attack the Police Ombudsman, but those attacks have not been based upon credible independent evidence. As members of the judiciary and the practicing bar of the United States, we urge you and members of the Parliament to continue to support the very vital service provided to the citizens and police oYcers of Northern Ireland by the OYce of Police Ombudsman. 22 March 2004 Ev 112 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

APPENDIX 15

Memorandum submitted by Professor Maurice Punch I have been interested in police corruption and control in the police organization for many years and have researched the area, published on it, taught senior oYcers on aspects of it relevant to their functioning and made presentations at a number of international conferences. In relation to this interest I have visited the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (hereafter “PONI”) on several occasions; I gave a public seminar, was involved in a training session for new investigators, presented a paper at a plenary session at the international conference “Policing the Police” in 2003 and travelled to Belfast in 2001 to invite the Ombudsman and several of her staV to an international meeting in the Netherlands. I believe that this had provided me with a reasonable insight into the functioning of PONI. To place that judgement into a context it is first necessary to say a few words about police corruption and the need for “strong” oversight. The police organization is the primary public agency representing the state in the lives of citizens; in western-style democracies, for example, the police institution is ostensibly subject to accountability through adherence to the rule of law and due process; deviation from the ideal of an accountable, public service reflects then on the legitimacy of the state. Yet in studies of policing in numerous countries there is evidence of deviation from rules and laws by oYcers; this may be related to disciplinary oVences, crimes (excessive violence, abuse of human rights, burglary, etc) and “corruption” in its many forms (but principally financial arrangements for not enforcing the law). These practices raise some of the most profound issues in policing: why do police oYcers, who are meant to abide by the law, break the law; why do police organizations seem unable to anticipate and to combat corruption; how do oYcers evade accountability by rule-bending; and the perennial point—“who controls the controllers”? In the past corruption has frequently been associated with bribery; in a valuable literature overview Newburn (1999) maintains that conventional corruption is found in virtually all forces, at every level of the organization and in all countries at some time; in short, corruption is an inherent and universal facet of policing and cannot simply be the product of some “bad apples”. This in turn raises questions about the wider institutional context in which corruption occurs (Punch: 2003). From this broader perspective financial transactions are only part of deviant police behaviour and only part of their interaction with those who pay “graft”; I prefer to widen the concept to represent the broader spectrum of police deviance and crime where oYcers abuse the trust in them to engage in serious oVences against citizens, suspects and criminals. Corruption in this wider sense of “police crime” can be linked to three levels. Firstly, the police may collude with external groups such as politicians, and/or organized criminals; this may take the form of assassinations, involvement in the drug trade and granting immunity to members of the political elite or criminal gangs. Although we may associate this with less developed countries, say in South America with police death squads, it is the case that the Stevens Report noted that certain segments of the police organization in Northern Ireland had cooperated with British security services to leak information about people suspected of supporting the Republican cause to Protestant, paramilitary groups who then murdered innocent citizens. In this category certain segments of the police apparatus have been “captured” or influenced by external groups and collude with them in illegal conduct. Secondly, most research attention to corruption has been paid to practices that are largely internal to the police organization. These can be roughly classified into four categories: — “Grass eaters” accept the perks of free meals, gifts and goods which are oVered to them by legitimate and illegitimate enterprises and indulge in fairly low-level corruption (turning a blind eye to oVences or oVering protection). — The “meat eaters” are the proactive entrepreneurs of corruption who set out actively and even aggressively to regulate the “graft” by eVectively licensing criminal enterprises, by demanding money and by cooperating with favoured criminal groups. — “Noble cause” corruption represents activities where oYcers convince themselves that in order to secure a conviction they have to bend the rules; there is no corruptor, no direct financial gain and no relationship with organized criminals but rather a determination to achieve results. In Britain a series of cases of miscarriages of justice were uncovered, involving suspected terrorists, where detectives had falsified statements, interfered with evidence, pressurized suspects to give false confessions and had lied in court. Although the justification was that some of these were high profile cases it also later emerged that the deviant techniques were employed in routine cases (particularly with vulnerable suspects). — The fourth category relates to the purely “criminal conduct” of super-predators where the oYcers have, in eVect, become criminals and are into violence, drug dealing, stealing from suspects, torture, burglary and even sexual oVences. Thirdly, police corruption when exposed may lead to scandals and to reform (Sherman: 1978); this may in turn attract attention to deviance in the wider system. The miscarriages of justice in Britain led to criticisms of the judiciary, the appeals system and weaknesses in the use of forensic evidence; this in turn fostered major legislative reform. And in Belgium the turbulence around the police and justice failures in Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 113

the investigation and prosecution of Marc Dutroux, a convicted rapist who abducted young girls of whom four died, led to an upsurge of popular demands not just for reform of the police and judicial apparatus but of the broader political and societal system. In short, we have to accept that: — police corruption takes many forms; — is a reoccurring and resilient element in police functioning; — can be highly pernicious; — and revelations about it can have considerable implications beyond the police organization itself. It cannot be dismissed as episodic and cannot be seen as easily dealt with by a “quick-fix” response from reformist senior oYcers. These are vitally important issues because the police have the power to interfere directly in citizens’ lives, can deprive people of their freedom and have the monopoly over violence. Serious deviance within the police organization raises fundamental questions about the accountability of this key institution in democratic society. It is clearly unacceptable that people are degraded and abused, that they are denied their rights, that they are imprisoned on false evidence and that criminals can purchase immunity. Yet scandals and reports have exposed units where oYcers became violent, stole and recycled drugs, came to arrangements with informants, were into heavy drinking and/or drug use and operated closely with criminal gangs. They had, in eVect, become criminals. Reactive and bureaucratic internal control, the rewarding and encouraging of active “thief-catchers”, peer-group loyalty and the code of silence all contribute to the structural and cultural features of policing that enhance deviant behaviour and make its exposure problematic. But, if corruption is a continuous occupational and organizational hazard for the police, can anything be done about it? There is clearly no magic bullet; but there has been considerable attention paid to combating corruption and enhancing police integrity in recent years. The message is clear: a professional police organization that wishes to function with integrity requires strong leadership; senior oYcers are needed who understand the primary processes and the bag of tricks used to camouflage deviant work; of great importance is assertive supervision at the front-line, mechanisms of transparency and proactive internal control. Internal AVairs or Professional Standards Departments have often become robust in their methods by treating bent cops as equivalent to serious criminals and pursuing them with covert units employing the methods of surveillance, telephone taps, cultivating informants and integrity testing. Persistent, well- resourced, intelligence-led strategies are needed to anticipate and locate deviant activities and to tackle them as serious crime within the police organization. Although the police organization has learned a great deal about the prevention and internal tackling of police deviance it does, nevertheless, face a critical issue of accountability and credibility in that there is no external agency that investigates police misconduct. Given everything that has been said about the seriousness of police misbehaviour it could be argued that it is unacceptable that the police organization investigates itself; even if an investigation by another force is conducted with exemplary professionalism it can still not be considered fully independent. A crucial feature of external control, and of its legitimacy and credibility, is the presence of an external oversight agency with teeth. But the history of external complaints agencies has often shown institutions that were understaVed and under-funded, that could not initiate investigations themselves, that only could monitor the complaint procedure and not the original incident itself and that were not taken seriously by the police; indeed they were dependent on the police for cooperation and information (and in some countries were virulently resisted). There was a danger of co-optation, manipulation and lack of credibility. This could be called a “weak” style of external oversight. But it could be maintained that citizens who face police deviance need to have recourse to an impartial and independent ombudsman-style agency that takes their complaints seriously, investigates them, relays any deficiencies uncovered back to the force and, where appropriate, prepares the case for prosecution. After all we are not talking about a complaint against an impolite gas-fitter from the gas company. We are talking about the abuse of power and the abuse of citizens’ and suspects’ rights and their well-being. It is in the light of this essential analysis that PONI needs to be located as a model of “strong” external control. Strong external control requires independence, resources, powers, legitimacy, credibility and leadership. — PONI is, as far as I know, the only independent and impartial oversight agency for the police institution that takes all the complaints against it and investigates all of them; but independence and impartiality are not just characteristics that you are granted but also elements that you have to earn and maintain; I would argue that the record of PONI has established and displayed its independence and impartiality (with broad public satisfaction). It has also been provided with teeth by being able to mount an investigation without a complaint, to work retrospectively and to be able to demand full cooperation from the police. Ev 114 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

— Essential to the success of such an agency is resources to attract first-rate people (investigators and other experts) and to establish a state of the art infrastructure. The quality of investigations, of publications and information to the public and of media presentations has to be very high. The legitimacy and credibility of the agency depends on continually producing quality work that reassures the public that investigations have been conducted with the utmost thoroughness and professionalism. — I am convinced that PONI can withstand the most critical scrutiny in terms of legitimacy and credibility. For an oversight agency has itself to be accountable; there has to be control of the controllers’ controllers! — Of essential concern is that a strong oversight agency possesses a visible, vocal and resilient leader of unimpeachable quality and integrity; I believe that the personality and qualities of Mrs O’Loan have been instrumental in establishing PONI as a unique and valuable model; she has provided consistent leadership, attracted excellent and dedicated staV, has been continually engaged in public debates and has successfully managed a powerful team performance. — In this light it is important to mention that PONI had a broader mandate than just being an investigatory agency of largely local significance; for PONI conducts research, publishes its data, makes policy recommendations to the police and takes part in international meetings. In 2002 Mrs O’Loan and Mr David Wood (Head of Investigations) took part in the Second Global Forum on Fighting Corruption and Promoting Integrity in the Hague; there was considerable interest in their presentations and the example of PONI was the only agency to be mentioned—as innovative and promising—in the final overview speech before ministers from more than one hundred countries. The international conference on “Policing the Police” in 2003 showed that there was great interest in this topic and that PONI could attract leading academics, policy makers and practitioners to debate together on fundamental matters relating to policing and oversight. — Finally, the functioning of PONI had to be placed in the context of Northern Ireland where the police force has been subjected to considerable change. One can imagine that the relationship between the RUC / PSNI had not always been easy; but it could be maintained that PONI was needed by the police to re-establish its legitimacy and its credibility. This has made PONI one of the central pillars in reforming the police in Northern Ireland. In the last resort both the police and PONI are in the business of building trust. The implication of this, I would maintain, is that society should not be satisfied with “weak” external control of the police based on compromises; in that sense PONI has a much broader significance ranging beyond its role in Northern Ireland. PONI has established a model which convinces one that the public, and the police, have the right to a fully independent, impartial oversight agency with resources and sharp teeth. Anything else is second best; and, given the vital issues that control over the police poses, that is just not good enough in a democratic society based on the rule of law and public accountability. 22 March 2004

APPENDIX 16

Memorandum submitted by Justice Patrick Henry

As a member of the New York State Judiciary and former District Attorney of New York I have spent years observing, examining and evaluating law enforcement agencies both here and abroad. When the OYce of Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland came into existence it was observed with enthusiasm by those of us who had a professional interest in police services in Northern Ireland. Colleagues and I made many visits to Northern Ireland to confer with various government and civic leaders. Included in our visits has always been Ms Nuala O’Loan and members of her staV. It is our opinion that a tremendous service has been bestowed on the Northern Ireland community by the creation and implementation of the oYce of Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. The oYce gives every impression of professionalism, fairness and justice. Under less than ideal circumstances it has gained the respect of not only the major factors in Northern Ireland society but also police, prosecutoriaI and civil rights groups both domestic and elsewbere; certainly no smalI accomplishment in todays world climate. The oYce is being emulated in various countries as this letter is being written. Indeed those responsible for its creation and implementation are to be commended and we would urge Parliament to continue to support this vital service and allow it to continue to be an independent safeguard for all the people of Northern Ireland as well as a shining example for the rest of the world to follow. 23 March 2004 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 115

APPENDIX 17

Memorandum submitted by Sir Dan Crompton CBE QPM I am writing in connection with the above and the knowledge I acquired of the Police Ombudsman’s OYce whilst I was HM Inspector of Constabulary for the North of England and Northern Ireland. I was consulted by the Ombudsman in the setting-up of the oYce and the spread of expertise that would be required to ensure that the organisation was regarded as competent, eYcient and independent. These were challenging days because not only was the choice of investigators crucial, but also the need to demonstrate that their individual backgrounds almost guaranteed impartiality and investigative skill. A prime consideration in the Ombudsman’s OYce was investigative competency and being streetwise about media and political focus in high profile cases. And the establishment of the Ombudsman’s OYce was always likely to be a cultural quantum leap for some (and being resented by a few) whilst on the other side “of the fence” there was a need for the Ombudsman to be sensitive about the problems faced in day to day policing and avoiding being seen as a closeted arm chair critic. So, the formulation of investigative teams was no mean challenge and the setting-up of computer support to aid investigative work and complaint trends was a priority, whilst embracing the need to be robustly independent and adopting an investigative style which did not alienate the PSNI. I believe the Ombudsman approached this task in a strategic and focused way and she was acutely mindful of the qualities that would be required in the Chief Investigator. The Ombudsman was also mindful that she would not be judged on routine complaints, but the categories attracting considerable media and political focus. She was unable to identify an applicant who would meet the special needs of a Chief Investigator, and she approached the Chief HMI and myself in a head hunting exercise. A senior oYcer from elsewhere in the UK was identified who we believed would fulfill the special requirements for the post. These qualities were soon needed, particularly in respect of the Omagh enquiry, but other substantial cases too. Any Ombudsman seen to be too “fundamentalist” in approach will lose cooperation and professional respect but, on the other hand, an Ombudsman too accommodating of the decibel level of police representation will not properly serve the community she is supposed to represent. These are diYcult balancing requirements and, on the whole, I believe the Ombudsman has got the balance right—and this also includes the balance required when being “pushed” by external forces beyond the PSNI, be they political or vested interest groups. I believe in a number of high profile cases the Ombudsman has shown courage, a stout backbone, and has pursued conclusions which are evidence based. Some may not like “the message” but an Ombudsman is not in oYce to lean in the direction of the prevailing wind or be seen as politically correct. The principle requirement is to be firm about where the evidence leads the investigation, and be courageous about where the balance of probability lies. Incurring the wrath of some goes with the territory in this role. Presenting findings has certain requirements in respect of tone, content, context and balance. There have been learning curves for the Ombudsman’s OYce in this regard but these considerations should not suVocate the accuracy of her findings and ability to search below surface depth. It is not an unhealthy exercise for the police service to be held accountable or be the subject of constructive criticism. But the Ombudsman also sees her role (correctly) as aiding the development of the PSNI and causing not just reviews of individual conduct, but corporate policies where these are seen as defective or discriminatory. In other words, constructive criticism can aid the quality of police service decision making! This is understood by some, but not all. In one major regard I believe the Ombudsman’s OYce has avoided a problem which has bedevilled major inquiries in England and Wales. This has centred on a tendency to pursue every strand of an enquiry, whether or not linked to the substantive areas of complaint (perhaps with thoroughness or defensiveness in mind) but with the eVect of extending enquiries beyond reasonable time limits, and thus attracting abnormal costs and accusations of enquiry “drift” and lack of focus. The Ombudsman’s OYce have maintained a thoroughness of enquiry approach whilst managing to “ring fence” enquiries so that focus and proportionality are retained. This has been a substantial achievement. Statistical gathering is good, but eVorts are being made to enhance further still complaint and other information which shows trends or the need for a strengthening of police management action. And there is an objective within the PSNI Policing Plan which requires the Deputy Chief Constable to enhance information exchanges with the Ombudsman’s OYce. The Ombudsman’s OYce has managed, so far, to attract a good cross representation of investigator, but the challenge will be “Can this be maintained given length of secondment, postings from other parts of the UK, separation from families and career aspirations within their own organisation?” It stands an “even” chance given that service in Northern Ireland is still seen by many as challenging and attractive within a CV. Many complaints are made directly to the Ombudsman and this can be taken as an indicator of trust, independence and evidence of the Ombudsman’s role and activities becoming more generally known to complainant parties in Northern Ireland. Would they be so willing to make a direct report if the Ombudsman’s OYce was regarded as a toothless tiger, or a “non achieving Government sponsored body?” Ev 116 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence

In three years the Ombudsman’s OYce has come a long way, and has scaled a signiﬁcant learning curve. It will have learned lessons around investigator selection, personality types, report length and style, maintaining contact with complainants, judging proportionality—and will have developed the right sort of political antennae. But I believe on most of the key requirements the OYce of Police Ombudsman has got it right and if I was to highlight one of the main achievements it would be that of strategic direction in major inquiries. If strategic direction is professionally managed many other requirements fall into place ie, management of time, focus of the enquiry, costs, eVectiveness and eYciency, proportionality (crucial), and reporting on the substantive issues within reasonable time frames—important to complainant parties and any accused police oYcers. The Ombudsman’s OYce has also showed a commendable level of resilience, apart from demonstrating a willingness to support police activity where this has been seen to be justiﬁed— and criticising in equal measure where evidence collection has shown failings. A Police Ombudsman will never be loved by all (mission impossible) but can earn a reputation for courage, ability to challenge, being fair and proportionate—and being guided by the weight of evidence, not weight of lobbying or representation. This, I think, has largely been achieved. 25 March 2004

APPENDIX 18

Memorandum submitted by Sir John Stevens QPM DL, Commissioner, Metropolitan Police

I have worked in Northern Ireland for the last 13 years and specifically through the Stevens Investigative team have worked very closely indeed with the Police Ombudsman’s OYce. So I have personal experience of how eVective they have been in a relatively short period of time. Their challenge, to take on the complaints, but also deal with historical cases has been unprecedented. In a resource scarce environment I have demonstrated my commitment to the team and their work by seconding staV from the Metropolitan Police Service to the POO. I fully support the work and their commitment to make a diVerence. I would however suggest that the resource issue is examined, as the team’s current remit is considerably wider than originally intended. It is so important within the community confidence context to have external and independent investigation, and it is for this reason that I give my full support to this oYce, and believe that is beneficial for the people of Northern Ireland. 25 March 2004

APPENDIX 19

Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions

I understand that the Northern Ireland AVairs Committee wishes to conduct an inquiry into the functions of the oYce of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. In particular, it wishes to look into the following: 1. progressing towards developing a role for the Police Ombudsman, since the oYce was established in 2000; 2. the performance of the oYce in respect of its principal activities; and 3. the eYciency and eVectiveness of the administration and expenditure of the oYce, including its performance against key indicators and targets. The role of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland in relation to the Police Ombudsman is, at present, limited. By virtue of Article 5(l)(a) of the Prosecution of OVences (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, it shall be the function of the Director to consider, or cause to be considered, with a view to his initiating or continuing in Northern Ireland any criminal proceedings or the bringing of any appeal or other proceedings in or in connection with any criminal cause or matter in Northern Ireland, any facts or information brought to his notice, whether by the Chief Constable acting in pursuance of Article 6(3) of the Order or by the Attorney General or by any other authority or person. In pursuance of this statutory duty, the Director receives from the Police Ombudsman investigation ﬁles into allegations of criminal conduct by police oYcers. The experience of this Department is that such investigations are carried out in a thorough and rigorous manner. If further enquiries are necessary, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 117

Police Ombudsman is receptive to such requests. The Director is aVorded with these ﬁles the recommendations of the Police Ombudsman as to prosecution. These recommendations are of assistance to the Director in determining whether the test for prosecution is met in respect of any individual reported. 26 March 2004

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery OYce Limited 2/2005 994500 19585