Statutory Report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

7.44 Following examination of the car by an Ammunition Technical Officer (ATO) for explosive devices, which was correct practice in such circumstances, the Triumph Acclaim was removed on a trailer to the NIFSL. 7.45 While awaiting removal of the car detectives in attendance entered the vehicle to establish if the lights were functioning and if there was any petrol in the car. This was unnecessary and threatened to compromise the evidential integrity of the vehicle. 7.46 My investigation found no evidence that an examination of the field itself was conducted for footprints or soil samples, which might have been compared with the footwear of suspects subsequently identified. Consequently, I have concluded that there were missed forensic opportunities at this scene due to some poor and undisciplined scene management. 7.47 Shortly thereafter, police made enquiries with the licensing authorities and the last registered keeper of the Triumph Acclaim was identified as Person O who lived at an address in North Belfast. 7.48 My investigators found no record of the considerations of Police Officer 8 as to the strategy, if any, he intended to pursue in dealing with Person O. This is particularly surprising in view of the early police suspicions that the car had not been reported stolen but had broken down and had been abandoned . Indeed it is difficult to comprehend why Person O was not, at that stage, considered a suspect and why appropriate, properly supervised resources were not invested in this line of enquiry. Page 94 of157
7.49 Instead, the Murder Investigation Team telephoned Tennent Street Police Station and requested that local police visit Person O. This was the beginning of a sequence of events, which due to poor decision making, if not malpractice, is likely to have undermined significant evidential opportunities and contributed to a loss of confidence in the police investigation by the bereaved families of Loughinisland. 7.50 In a 1994 statement, Police Officer 9, a uniformed Inspector, stated that he visited the address at 9.30am as a result of a request from police at Downpatrick. He spoke to a woman claiming to be Person O’s wife, who told him that Person O still owned the car but had taken it to a garage to be fixed as the camshaft was broken. 7.51 When seen by my investigators, Police Officer 9 said that he had not been told about the significance of the enquiry but understood the request from Downpatrick to be a ‘simple owner’s check’ and at the time he did not make any notes. The decision by the Loughinisland Murder Investigation Team not to deploy their own detectives to locate the last registered owner of the car or to provide Police Officer 9 with a comprehensive briefing, not only risked compromising his safety but also served to undermine this crucial line of enquiry. 7.52 As the first report police received in relation to the Triumph Acclaim being found in a field at Listooder Road was not until shortly after 10.00am, Police Officer 9’s note that he called at the address at 9.30am is incorrect. He also failed to establish the correct identity of the woman with whom he had spoken, the whereabouts of Person O or the garage to which the car had allegedly been taken for repair. If the account given by the female had been truthful, the Triumph Acclaim might have been taken from the point of repair for use in the murders at Loughinisland. I acknowledge, however, that there is no evidence that Police Officer 9 was provided with sufficient information to enable him to understand the critical nature of these enquiries, a failing for which the murder investigation was entirely responsible. Page 95 of157
Page 1 and 2:
Statutory Report Public Statement b
Page 3 and 4:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On 18 June 1994,
Page 5 and 6:
Events leading up to the Loughinisl
Page 7 and 8:
It is of concern to me (whilst ackn
Page 9 and 10:
In addition, investigative opportun
Page 11 and 12:
1.5 Six men, Adrian Rogan, Daniel M
Page 13 and 14:
2.0 BACKGROUND OF COMPLAINT 2.1 Rep
Page 15 and 16:
3.0 THE PUBLIC COMPLAINTS & TERMS O
Page 17 and 18:
The families were concerned at the
Page 19 and 20:
3.4 I incorporated the allegations
Page 21 and 22:
4.0 ARMS IMPORTATION AND THE FIREAR
Page 23 and 24:
4.8 The holdall also contained thre
Page 25 and 26:
4.20 As the van containing Mr Reyno
Page 27 and 28:
4.33 A short time after the shootin
Page 29 and 30:
4.43 The RUC’s knowledge of the i
Page 31 and 32:
4.53 In early June 1985, and allege
Page 33 and 34:
The FRU CFs noted the handlers’ c
Page 35 and 36:
4.61 Conspiracy to rob the Northern
Page 37 and 38:
4.74 Robbery of Northern Bank, Port
Page 39 and 40:
He reported on the reaction to the
Page 41 and 42:
4.95 In late October 1987 Persons C
Page 43 and 44:
4.104 The first Ford Granada was fo
Page 45 and 46: 4.115 My investigation obtained evi
Page 47 and 48: 4.125 At my request, the PSNI ident
Page 49 and 50: 4.136 Shortly before 10.30am on 8 J
Page 51 and 52: 4.149 At interview Mr Mitchell desc
Page 53 and 54: Security Service telegrams record t
Page 55 and 56: 4.160 In May 2016 the PSNI provided
Page 57 and 58: 4.169 The only intelligence record
Page 59 and 60: 4.179 It is evident that the Browni
Page 61 and 62: 4.187 I am satisfied that the arms
Page 63 and 64: 4.196 Analysis of police intelligen
Page 65 and 66: 5.0 EVENTS PRECEDING THE ATTACK AT
Page 67 and 68: 5.11 My investigation has identifie
Page 69 and 70: 5.22 Person L was arrested and admi
Page 71 and 72: 5.33 The success of Police Officer
Page 73 and 74: 5.45 Police Officer 4 told my inves
Page 75 and 76: 5.54 Whilst Police Officer 4 was no
Page 77 and 78: 5.66 Police Officer 5 was posted to
Page 79 and 80: 5.75 My investigation identified re
Page 81 and 82: 5.84 Police Officers 5 & 6 may have
Page 83 and 84: 6.5 Intelligence and open source re
Page 85 and 86: 6.12 The extension of this argument
Page 87 and 88: 7.0 THE RUC INVESTIGATION OF THE AT
Page 89 and 90: 7.10 Another local resident heard s
Page 91 and 92: 7.18 A military helicopter was task
Page 93 and 94: 7.29 In addition to ballistic exhib
Page 95: 7.38 My investigation has concluded
Page 99 and 100: 7.58 Police Officers 10 & 11 were n
Page 101 and 102: 7.71 The witness statement recorded
Page 103 and 104: 7.79 My investigators have spoken t
Page 105 and 106: 7.90 Saturday 18 June 1994 7.91 Wit
Page 107 and 108: 7.102 The vehicle was subsequently
Page 109 and 110: 7.114 The forensic examination of t
Page 111 and 112: 7.125 More recently my investigator
Page 113 and 114: 7. Church Road, Kilmore, Crossgar.
Page 115 and 116: 7.138 There is evidence of a more t
Page 117 and 118: 4. On the day of the Loughinisland
Page 119 and 120: 7.155 On 24 August 1994 police rece
Page 121 and 122: 7.165 This presented the investigat
Page 123 and 124: 7.175 On 18 July 1994 police search
Page 125 and 126: 7.183 In early 1995 police received
Page 127 and 128: 7.193 Since 1994 there have been si
Page 129 and 130: 7.205 The RUC investigation of the
Page 131 and 132: 8.3 The related police HOLMES Accou
Page 133 and 134: 8.13 It is the view of the Chief Co
Page 135 and 136: 8.23 Once again I am aware that Pol
Page 137 and 138: 9.5 I have also concluded that ther
Page 139 and 140: 4. An unco-ordinated response to th
Page 141 and 142: 9.16 Taking account of the above, b
Page 143 and 144: 9.22 He further stated: ‘In such
Page 145 and 146: 9.28 Notwithstanding my criticism a
Page 147 and 148:
9.36 The fact that an informer was
Page 149 and 150:
Appendix 1 Summary of findings in r
Page 151 and 152:
Allegation 6: Forensic exhibits sei
Page 153 and 154:
Allegation 10: Vehicle Checkpoints
Page 155 and 156:
Appendix 3 Loughinisland Scenes 1.O
Page 157 and 158:
Appendix 5 The Asbestos Situation a
Page 159 and 160:
My investigators have seen document
show all

Statutory Report

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?