Transcripts

Return to the list of transcripts

Full Hearings

Hearing: 10th November 2008, day 73

Click here to download the LiveNote version

 

 

 

 

 

 


----------------------

 

 

ROSEMARY NELSON

PUBLIC INQUIRY

 

 

----------------------

 

held at:
The Interpoint Centre
20-24 York Street
Belfast BT15 1AQ


on Monday, 10 November 2008
commencing at 1.00 pm


Day 73

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

1 Monday, 10 November 2008

2 (1.00 pm)

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Currans, the checklist. Is the public

4 area screen fully in place, locked and the key secured?

5 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Are the fire doors on either side of the

7 screen closed?

8 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Are the technical support screens in place

10 and securely fastened?

11 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Is anyone other than Inquiry personnel and

13 Participants' legal representatives seated in the body

14 of this chamber?

15 MR CURRANS: No, sir.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr (name redacted), can you please confirm that the

17 two witness cameras have been switched off and shrouded?

18 MR (NAME REDACTED): Yes, sir, they have.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: All the other cameras have been switched off?

20 MR (NAME REDACTED): Yes, sir, they have.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Bring the witness in, please.

22 The cameras on the Panel, Inquiry personnel and the

23 Full Participants' legal representatives may now be

24 switched back on.

25 Would you, please, take the oath?

 

 

2

 

1 P276 (sworn)

2 Questions by MR PHILLIPS

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Please sit down.

4 Yes, Mr Phillips?

5 MR PHILLIPS: I think it is right, isn't it, that you have

6 made a single statement to the Inquiry? We can see it

7 on the screen there. And do we see your signature at

8 RNI-842-120 (displayed) and the date of 21 August this

9 year?

10 A. I certainly signed the statement. I cannot see the

11 statement, but I do accept that I did make the

12 statement.

13 Q. Thank you very much. As we can see from that page, you

14 have been granted anonymity in the Inquiry and given the

15 cipher P276, and I hope that you have on the table there

16 a short list of further ciphers, to which I would ask

17 you please to refer before naming anybody, so that their

18 anonymity can also be preserved.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Can I ask you to look back to the first page of your

21 statement, please? You tell us there that you joined

22 the force in 1974 and on the next page, paragraph 2,

23 RNI-842-112, you tell us that in January 1997 you were

24 transferred to Portadown where you held the post of

25 Subdivisional Commander.

 

 

3

 

1 As I understand it, your rank in that post was

2 superintendent. Is that correct?

3 A. That's correct, sir.

4 Q. And before that, what was the job that you had within

5 the force before being transferred to Portadown, please?

6 A. I was a superintendent and Subdivisional Commander in

7 Lisnaskea subdivision.

8 Q. So this was your second subdivisional commander posting;

9 is that correct?

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. Thank you. And you were there in that post in

12 Portadown, you tell us, until November 1998, before

13 transferring to Headquarters.

14 Now, can I just ask you, please, about your time in

15 Portadown in 1997 and 1998? What were the main

16 challenges that you faced as Subdivisional Commander

17 during your posting?

18 A. Portadown was quite a small subdivision geographically,

19 although it had quite a large population. The main

20 issues throughout 1997 and 1998 were public order issues

21 and, of course, there was a terrorist threat from

22 various organisations.

23 Q. Now, in paragraph 4, which we have on the screen there,

24 you say that there were a number of paramilitary groups

25 in the region which were active, and you list them

 

 

4

 

1 there. And it is clear, isn't it, that those were

2 groups on both sides, if I can put it that way?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. Yes. And during this period were those groups active

5 and part of your day-to-day work in the subdivision?

6 A. Yes, they were active, yes.

7 Q. Now, you were, as I understand it, throughout your

8 career, a uniformed officer. Is that correct?

9 A. That's correct. I did have an appointment as a staff

10 officer to one of the assistant chief constables and

11 I also spent a period of time in Complaints and

12 Discipline Branch, but apart from that, it was uniformed

13 duties.

14 Q. Thank you. And you were never part of CID or

15 Special Branch?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. Thank you. Now, you tell us -- if we can go back to the

18 page, please, on the screen, paragraph 3 -- do you see

19 there? -- that the role of Subdivisional Commander was

20 set out in the code:

21 "Broadly, a subdivisional commander was responsible

22 for the operational policing of his or her subdivision

23 in relation to uniformed response."

24 So you were the senior uniformed officer in your

25 subdivision. Is that correct?

 

 

5

 

1 A. That's correct, sir, yes.

2 Q. Did you have any management responsibility for CID or

3 Special Branch officers stationed in the subdivision?

4 A. They had their own line of authority from outside the

5 subdivision.

6 Q. So can I take it that the answer is no?

7 A. The answer is no.

8 Q. Thank you. I would like to ask, please, about some of

9 the meetings you mention in your statement so that we

10 get an idea of that. In paragraph 7 in particular, you

11 tell us about divisional action committee and

12 subdivisional action committee meetings.

13 Now, can I just take them in turn? First of all the

14 divisional action committees. As I understand it, you

15 would attend those meetings; is that correct?

16 A. That's correct, sir, yes.

17 Q. How regularly did they take place?

18 A. I think it was about fortnightly.

19 Q. Thank you. Who attended?

20 A. It would be chaired by the Divisional Commander or

21 Deputy Divisional Commander, who both would have

22 attended if they were on duty; subdivisional commanders

23 from the subdivision, that was Lurgan, Banbridge and

24 Portadown; a representative CID Special Branch. I think

25 there may have been someone from Community Affairs and

 

 

6

 

1 possibly even for a period from Traffic branch, but that

2 was the bulk of it. And the representative from the

3 military.

4 Q. Thank you. And what were the matters regularly on the

5 agenda at those meetings, please?

6 A. At the outset of the meeting, normally the issues -- the

7 operational issues were dealt with and the overall

8 threat briefing, which would have been provided by

9 Special Branch. The strategy for the period ahead would

10 have been then decided, discussed.

11 After that, the Special Branch and military, as I

12 can recall, probably would have left and then we

13 moved on to general uniformed, big patrol-type issues,

14 management issues, and that was really the format of the

15 meeting.

16 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you in relation to the first point

17 you made, which you also refer to in your statement --

18 do you see there about six lines in you say:

19 "At the meetings, a Special Branch officer would

20 have provided a threat assessment for the division."

21 Was that basically an assessment of terrorist

22 activity within the division?

23 A. Well, basically, as I recall, it would have been an

24 overview of what was happening or what the threat was

25 towards the division. And really it was a reiteration

 

 

7

 

1 of information or threats we would have received by way

2 of action sheet over the period between the last meeting

3 and that meeting, or if anything new had come in, we

4 would have been briefed accordingly.

5 Q. Thank you. And were these meetings minuted?

6 A. Yes, I understand they were, yes.

7 Q. Who was responsible for taking the minutes, do you know?

8 A. As far as I can recollect, it may have been the

9 Divisional Commander's staff officer or some of his

10 staff would have minuted the meeting.

11 Q. Would minutes be circulated after the meetings had taken

12 place?

13 A. I think they would. I'm not certain, but I think they

14 would, yes.

15 Q. So that in the normal way, as with most meetings, you

16 would have the minutes of the previous one before you

17 obtained the next one?

18 A. As best I can recollect, yes.

19 Q. Yes. Then you tell us in the next paragraph about the

20 subdivisional action committee meetings, and it looks as

21 though those tended to take place immediately after the

22 divisional action committee meetings. Is that right?

23 A. That's right.

24 Q. And presumably for your subdivision you would be in the

25 chair?

 

 

8

 

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Who else would attend, please?

3 A. If the Deputy Subdivisional Commander had been there, he

4 would have attended; a uniform inspector, if there was

5 one on duty; the duty sergeant; a representative of CID;

6 a representative of Special Branch; and perhaps

7 community officers. That was the bulk of it -- and of

8 course operational planning sergeant as well.

9 Q. Would there have been a representative of the Army at

10 any of those meetings at that lower level?

11 A. Occasionally we would have had an ops officer from the

12 Army. I don't believe they were at every meeting, but

13 we did have them on a reasonably regular basis.

14 Q. Thank you. Again, can I ask you what was the standard

15 form of those meetings?

16 A. It was similar to the DAC meeting. At the outset we

17 would have had a briefing in relation to the terrorist

18 threat, insofar as it affected the subdivision, from the

19 Special Branch representative. We would have discussed,

20 you know, general operational priorities and, again, at

21 that stage the Special Branch, and if the military had

22 have been present, they both would have left and then we

23 would have moved on to general management issues.

24 Really a mirror image of the DAC meeting on

25 a subdivisional basis.

 

 

9

 

1 Q. Again, please, can I ask, would minutes have been taken

2 of those meetings?

3 A. Yes, I expect they would have been, yes.

4 Q. This is very much your territory as the Subdivisional

5 Commander. So presumably you were concerned to ensure

6 that the meetings were minuted?

7 A. Yes, I think they were minuted, yes.

8 Q. Who was responsible for the minutes in this case?

9 A. I would expect it probably would have been the

10 operational planning sergeant would have taken the

11 minutes.

12 Q. Was that somebody who was a member of your staff?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. So can I take it, therefore, that the minutes would have

15 been kept in your office or in his office?

16 A. They would have been kept in either office, yes.

17 Q. Now, in relation to both these types of meetings you

18 have told us about, we have looked together at the part

19 of your statement, paragraph 7, where you say that the

20 Special Branch officer would provide a threat

21 assessment, and you have helpfully explained what that

22 would entail. Did it on occasion deal with threats to

23 individuals?

24 A. I have no recollection in my time at Portadown having

25 dealt with a threat to an individual, but if that would

 

 

10

 

1 have been necessary, I am sure they would have

2 mentioned it.

3 Q. So can I take it from that answer that you don't recall

4 there ever having been a discussion at either of these

5 types of meetings of Rosemary Nelson's case?

6 A. No, I have no recollection whatsoever of Mrs Nelson's

7 case ever being mentioned.

8 Q. Thank you. Now, can I move on and ask you some

9 questions in relation to intelligence? You start in

10 your statement on this topic by telling us in

11 paragraph 5 -- and that is RNI-842-112 (displayed) --

12 that as Subdivisional Commander -- do you see the first

13 sentence there? -- you had no access to Special Branch

14 intelligence files, either paper or electronic. Do you

15 see that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Thank you. Now, then you go on to deal with

18 Special Branch action sheets and in particular in the

19 context of threats, do you see in the next sentence in,

20 you refer there to a specific note of a threat? Do you

21 see that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Now, do I understand you to be saying that where

24 Special Branch had information/intelligence which they

25 wished to draw to your attention, it came in the form of

 

 

11

 

1 these action sheets?

2 A. That's correct, yes.

3 Q. Now, just so we have got a picture of them in our minds,

4 can you describe what they would look like?

5 A. Yes, it was an A4-size page and at the top of it there

6 was a subject and -- what the heading was, what the

7 subject heading was and then specific wording of what

8 the threat was. And further down there would have been

9 a place for comments, if I wished to make a comment or

10 whoever received this action sheet wished to make

11 a comment, and a point for signature acknowledging

12 receipt of it. That really was the gist of it.

13 Q. How would they come to you?

14 A. They would come direct, personally delivered by

15 a Special Branch officer.

16 Q. So far as the reference within them as to threat, did

17 that encompass the sort of general threat to your

18 subdivision or did it also include individual cases?

19 A. It depends on the nature of the case. If the threat was

20 general towards the subdivision, it would have been

21 reflected in the action sheet. If it had have been

22 specific to an individual, then the individual would

23 have been named as such.

24 Q. So it could have been either?

25 A. It could have.

 

 

12

 

1 Q. Imagine a situation where you received such an action

2 sheet in relation to an individual. What then, as

3 Subdivisional Commander, did you do with it?

4 A. There was a policy in place and I did receive a copy of

5 a document, the force order.

6 Q. Would it help to look at that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. It is at RNI-101-228 (displayed). This is the force

9 order which came into effect, do you see, top right-hand

10 corner, of 20 March? So during your time at Portadown.

11 There is a copy --

12 A. Yes, I have a copy, yes.

13 Q. Thank you very much. Do continue.

14 A. So if it was specific to an individual, the individual

15 then would have been informed.

16 Q. And whose responsibility was it to inform the

17 individual?

18 A. Well, if we look at the force order -- we deal with the

19 category "other persons", which is at RNI-101-230,

20 paragraph 6 (displayed).

21 Q. Thank you very much.

22 A. Paragraph 6. The second sentence of that paragraph:

23 "The Subdivisional Commander will then take steps to

24 have the individual under threat informed."

25 Q. Yes.

 

 

13

 

1 A. So.

2 Q. So in a case of the kind we were talking about, it would

3 have been your responsibility?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. How would you go about it? What would you actually have

6 done to make sure that the individual concerned was

7 informed?

8 A. Well, the action sheet which would provide the detail of

9 the threat. It may also have contained a wording -- and

10 I think they go on to -- in the order to mention the

11 nature of the wording which may be used.

12 Q. Yes, that's at B.

13 A. Yes. That would have been the gist. Depending on the

14 nature of the threat, the wording would have been in or

15 around that to inform them.

16 Q. So you would have given orders, would you, for more

17 junior officers to convey this message?

18 A. Yes. Normally if a message of a terrorist threat --

19 sorry, if there was information of a terrorist threat

20 and the decision was made to inform the individual, it

21 would have been a duty sergeant or inspector who would

22 have provided that information to them.

23 Q. And then what would happen to the action sheet? Would

24 it be filed? What would happen to it?

25 A. The original action sheet would be -- would have been

 

 

14

 

1 retained, I think, by Special Branch as acknowledgment,

2 and normally the officer delivering the message or the

3 threat would have used a copy.

4 Q. Yes.

5 A. To deliver. So the original action sheets, as I recall,

6 would have been retained by Special Branch.

7 Q. Yes. What about keeping the copy in your department, if

8 I can put it that way? What would happen to it?

9 A. When I read the force order, I think there is a general

10 considerations. I'm not sure where, but the detail

11 should be retained in a threat log.

12 Q. Yes. Can we look at RNI-101-231, paragraph 5

13 (displayed)? That may help you.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Is that the paragraph you had in mind?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. So what would you do with the action sheet, then? Does

18 that help you?

19 A. The action sheet, the original action sheet, would still

20 have been retained by Special Branch, but I'm working on

21 the basis -- the policy would have been then for the

22 officer who delivered the message to keep the action

23 sheet in the threat log.

24 Q. So he would physically have put the copy, would he, in

25 the threat log?

 

 

15

 

1 A. Can you bear with me just until I read through the

2 paragraph, please?

3 Q. Yes. (Pause)

4 A. I'm not sure that it is very clear, paragraph 5, but I

5 would have expected it to be kept in the threat log.

6 Q. But that's not something you can specifically recall

7 now?

8 A. No.

9 Q. And can I ask you: you were in post, we heard earlier,

10 in Portadown for nearly two years, the beginning of 1997

11 until nearly the end of 1998. Do you have any

12 recollection of how regularly during that time you

13 received an action sheet with a specific threat against

14 an individual?

15 A. I have no recollection of receiving any action sheets

16 against any individuals in my time in Portadown.

17 Q. So the process that we have discussed in relation to

18 your time at Portadown is in fact entirely hypothetical

19 because you never had to go through those steps?

20 A. Not that I can recall.

21 Q. No. Now, in the context of dealing with these matters,

22 in paragraph 6 of your statement, if we can go to that,

23 please, at RNI-842-113 (displayed), you say here in

24 setting out what would have happened had you received

25 such a specific threat notification, that crime

 

 

16

 

1 prevention advice may also have been offered. Again, of

2 course, with the caveat this is all hypothetical, how

3 would you have gone about that?

4 A. Each subdivision would have had a uniformed crime

5 prevention officer.

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. And they would have been directed to -- well, if we take

8 a step back, the officer delivering the threat message

9 would have then offered that advice to the individual

10 who was the subject of the threat.

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. And if they wished to have the crime prevention advice,

13 then the duty sergeant or duty inspector would have

14 arranged for that crime prevention officer to meet up

15 with the individual and give that advice.

16 Q. Yes. But, again, can I take it from your earlier

17 answers that this is something that never happened

18 during your time at Portadown?

19 A. As far as I can recollect, yes.

20 Q. Yes. Can I just ask you as a matter of interest: you

21 were a subdivisional commander, you told us, elsewhere

22 before coming to Portadown. Did you ever receive advice

23 of a specific threat when you were in that post?

24 A. I don't recall. It is such a long time ago.

25 Q. No. Now, one other question about what would have

 

 

17

 

1 happened had a threat advice been received.

2 Can we look, please, at the top of RNI-842-113

3 (displayed), which is paragraph 5, and the last sentence

4 of it beginning with the word "together"? This is where

5 you are talking about discussing matters with the Army:

6 "Together we would have implemented a patrol

7 programme which was geared towards preventing the threat

8 from transpiring."

9 Can you just help me with that, please? What do you

10 mean by a "patrol programme"?

11 A. There were various resources available over the period

12 of the week or two weeks between meetings, both police

13 and military sources. They would have been pencilled in

14 for particular times and areas to patrol, depending on

15 the nature of the threats.

16 Q. But, again, can I take it from the answers you have been

17 giving so far -- all of this, again, is hypothetical --

18 that you never had to implement a patrol programme based

19 on advice of a specific threat?

20 A. Sorry, I'm not clear on the question.

21 Q. Well, so I have understood it, in this paragraph 5 of

22 your statement you are talking about advice coming

23 through in action sheets. Do you see that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Now, at the top of the page that we have on the screen,

 

 

18

 

1 it says:

2 "In relation to non-specific threats, the

3 information would have been used in planning operational

4 policing ..."

5 Do you see?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. So is it in that context of non-specific threats that

8 you talk about implementing a patrol programme?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. I see. So this is something which you had experience

11 of, is it, during your time at Portadown?

12 A. Non-specific threats?

13 Q. Yes.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. So this was much more familiar territory, in actual

16 fact?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Thank you. Now, one final question about meetings,

19 please. In paragraph 9, RNI-842-114 (displayed) at the

20 top of the page, you also refer to operation meetings.

21 Can you just help with us a little more detail as to

22 what operation meetings were?

23 A. They were a meeting where -- again, it was -- a meeting

24 where the broader resources available to subdivisions

25 were discussed. For example, the Deputy Divisional

 

 

19

 

1 Commander would have chaired that meeting and you would

2 have had a representative from each of the subdivisions,

3 a subdivisional commander or their representative and

4 perhaps the operational planning sergeants and the

5 operations officer or a military representative. And at

6 that meeting really there was a discussion on how the

7 resources would be allocated to each of the

8 subdivisions; in other words, they weren't subdivisional

9 resources, they were divisional assets. And it was

10 a meeting to decide who would get what assets and when.

11 Q. And were those regular meetings?

12 A. They were generally, but I recollect that they had faded

13 away at a period. I'm not sure just when that period

14 was, but they certainly became a regular feature.

15 Q. Thank you. Now, can I ask you some questions about

16 Rosemary Nelson?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. In your statement, paragraph 12, we have it on the same

19 page on the screen, you begin to deal with this topic.

20 First of all, can I ask you did you ever meet

21 Rosemary Nelson?

22 A. I certainly have no recollection of meeting Mrs Nelson.

23 Q. What was your understanding, as far as you can remember

24 it, at the time of the sort of work she did as a lawyer?

25 A. Well, certainly she acted for the Garvaghy Road

 

 

20

 

1 Residents Coalition and that would have been my, you

2 know, main knowledge of Mrs Nelson.

3 Q. Yes. You say in this part of your evidence she had

4 quite a high public profile. As far as you are

5 concerned, what had led to her having that high public

6 profile?

7 A. I'm not sure if it was the Garvaghy Road Residents

8 Coalition and her association with that.

9 Q. Do you think there may have been other things?

10 A. I take it you are coming to her representation of

11 Mr Duffy?

12 Q. Yes.

13 A. I now know that she represented Mr Duffy, but just when

14 I became aware of that representation and her profile,

15 I'm not exactly clear. I certainly know now and have

16 subsequently -- but just when and the timing of that in

17 around that time, I'm not so clear.

18 Q. Do you think it is possible that you were aware of it

19 during your time at Portadown?

20 A. Oh, yes.

21 Q. You were?

22 A. Oh, yes, I would think so, yes.

23 Q. So the question is precisely when?

24 A. I don't know exactly.

25 Q. No. You tell us in this paragraph 12 that after

 

 

21

 

1 Drumcree in 1998, which you also talk about in some

2 detail in your statement, you recall receiving a number

3 of complaints from Rosemary Nelson on behalf of her

4 clients in your role as Subdivisional Commander.

5 Now, again doing the best you can many, many years

6 later, can you remember how many complaints we are

7 talking about there?

8 A. In 1997 I believe there was approximately

9 120 complaints.

10 Q. So a very large number indeed?

11 A. A very large number, yes.

12 Q. And were these complaints that arose out of the

13 confrontation that took place on the Garvaghy Road that

14 year?

15 A. They were, yes.

16 Q. And in general terms can you remember what sort of

17 allegations were being made in those complaints?

18 A. Yes, the letters Mrs Nelson sent in were very, very

19 similar. They were very brief. Obviously each client

20 was named individually, but the basis of the complaint

21 was that unnecessary or excessive force was used on her

22 clients during the events of the Drumcree operation in

23 1997.

24 Q. Now, you say you received them in your role as

25 Subdivisional Commander. What did you then do with them

 

 

22

 

1 as a matter of processing them?

2 A. There was a format for processing complaints. What was

3 done, I -- on receipt of them, they were acknowledged.

4 There was then a form completed which identified the

5 incident or event arising, which was the basis of the

6 complaint. They tried to identify the police officers

7 involved if that was possible, the nature of the

8 complaint. And those forms, along with a covering

9 statement from myself, which was fairly much very

10 similar statements because the whole process was, you

11 know, much the same for each of the complaints, that

12 would then go off Complaints and Discipline branch at

13 Headquarters, where an investigating officer would be

14 appointed within the department, and I had no further

15 dealing with it.

16 Q. Yes. Were you required to express a view on whether the

17 complaints had any validity?

18 A. Not in those forms, as far as I can recall.

19 Q. Did you have a view about that?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Did you consider that they were genuine complaints?

22 A. Well, given the events of the operation, it didn't come

23 as any surprise. People were physically lifted from the

24 road. There was a major police operation. It certainly

25 didn't come to me as any surprise that a number of

 

 

23

 

1 people complained about it.

2 Q. Now, you tell us in your statement about your own

3 involvement in Drumcree and that begins at paragraph 14

4 on page RNI-842-115 (displayed). Thank you.

5 We have it on the screen there and the Inquiry has

6 heard a good deal of evidence about it from others who

7 were present, but can I just ask you some specific

8 questions about it? Were you aware of Rosemary Nelson's

9 involvement as the lawyer for the Residents Coalition at

10 that time; in other words, when you attended the

11 Drumcree protests in 1997?

12 A. I can't be clear. I cannot be sure, to be frank about

13 it. I just don't know.

14 Q. As I understand it from your statement, in paragraph 19,

15 at the bottom of RNI-842-116 (displayed), you tell us

16 that you don't recall seeing Rosemary Nelson at any

17 stage during Drumcree that year?

18 A. I certainly have no recollection of seeing Mrs Nelson at

19 any stage during that day. That is not to say that I

20 didn't, but as far as I can recall, I didn't.

21 Q. Now, can I ask you this: can you remember when you were

22 first aware that she had alleged that she had been

23 assaulted herself on that occasion, in July 1997?

24 A. I have no recollection of becoming aware of it. I don't

25 know how the complaint was made. And when I was

 

 

24

 

1 interviewed about this, I asked that question -- when it

2 was made -- and no one could tell at that point.

3 Q. So that was not a point that came to you as

4 Subdivisional Commander in the way that you have

5 described in relation to her clients?

6 A. Not as far as I can recall.

7 Q. Now, so far as Rosemary Nelson herself is concerned, can

8 you recall what or how you regarded her in the period we

9 are talking about in 1997 and 1998?

10 A. Mrs Nelson was a solicitor doing her work, doing her

11 job. I did not have a view on her.

12 Q. Now, you say in paragraph 13 of your statement,

13 RNI-842-115 (displayed) at the top that you never heard

14 any RUC officer make a derogatory comment about her. Do

15 you see that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Did you ever hear a derogatory comment made about her by

18 anyone else?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Did you ever hear any view about her expressed by any

21 police officer?

22 A. Not that I recall.

23 Q. Now, certainly in some of the evidence the Inquiry has

24 received it is clear that some at least believed that

25 she did not trust the RUC. Is that a view that you ever

 

 

25

 

1 heard expressed?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Or that she was in any way anti-police?

4 A. No, I never heard that expressed.

5 Q. And so can I take it that, if her name was ever

6 mentioned, it was in the same way that you have just

7 mentioned it; in other words, that she was a solicitor

8 doing her job?

9 A. I never really heard her name mentioned that often. So,

10 I mean, no recollection of anything else other than what

11 I have said.

12 Q. On the occasions on which it was mentioned, do you think

13 that was in respect to Drumcree in 1997 and 1998?

14 A. Quite possibly.

15 Q. Can you think of any other connection in which her name

16 might have been mentioned in your presence?

17 A. If you go back to Mr Duffy, I have never heard her name

18 mentioned in respect of Mr Duffy.

19 Q. Now, so far as Drumcree the next year is concerned, you

20 deal with that briefly in paragraph 25 at RNI-842-118

21 (displayed). Can I take it that you were also present

22 there that year?

23 A. I was.

24 Q. Now, you deal with the important distinction between

25 that year and the previous year because the march did

 

 

26

 

1 not go down the road, but there was still a very

2 substantial police presence on the road that year, was

3 there not?

4 A. Yes, there was. There had been a very substantial

5 police presence in the run-up to the Drumcree Sunday and

6 there was a very major police and military operation

7 around the entire Garvaghy Road and that area where the

8 parade would have been due to pass. So there had been

9 a substantial operation for many days around that

10 period.

11 Q. And were you aware that this year also Rosemary Nelson

12 was acting on behalf of the Residents Coalition?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And they continued to be, didn't they, a major player,

15 if I can put it that way, in the negotiations, the

16 discussions, about the march?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And those discussions and negotiations had a political

19 importance in that year, did they not?

20 A. Oh, absolutely, yes.

21 Q. Yes. Was that, do you believe, something -- in other

22 words, Rosemary Nelson's role in relation to the

23 Residents Coalition -- that was generally known, do you

24 think, in your area, in Portadown at that time?

25 A. I would expect that it would have been.

 

 

27

 

1 Q. Yes. Now, in your statement in paragraph 4, which we

2 looked at a little while ago, RNI-842-112 (displayed),

3 and in the evidence you gave earlier, you talked about

4 the terrorist threat and the paramilitary groups that

5 were active at that time, including, do you see, the

6 UVF, the LVF; in other words, Loyalist groupings?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Now, do you think that as a result of her,

9 Rosemary Nelson's, involvement in the Drumcree events on

10 behalf of the residents, she was at least a potential

11 target for those terrorist groupings?

12 A. Given the profile of the Residents Coalition, I think it

13 would be reasonable to expect that anyone with such

14 a profile would have been certainly known to those

15 terrorist groups.

16 Q. And the communities became very polarised, did they not,

17 as a result of the conflict arising out of Drumcree?

18 A. Oh, there was -- yes, there was division in Portadown

19 between the communities, absolutely.

20 Q. There was a great deal of hatred, bluntly?

21 A. It was a very divisive issue, yes.

22 Q. I would like to show you one or two documents arising

23 out of this year's events at Drumcree with which you

24 were concerned. The first is at RNI-305-066, please

25 (displayed). It is a letter of 9 July from

 

 

28

 

1 Rosemary Nelson to you in fact -- the Subdivisional

2 Commander at Portadown -- and you see the text of it

3 there.

4 Essentially Rosemary Nelson was asking for details

5 in relation to the proposed procession or march and

6 those who were behind it. And in the last paragraph, do

7 you see there is a reference there to the involvement of

8 the Drumcree Faith and Justice Group?

9 Now, what did you know about the Drumcree Faith and

10 Justice Group?

11 A. I can recollect very little about it, to be frank. But

12 in advance of coming here, I did look on the Internet

13 and did see that it was a group who were connected with

14 the community and Garvaghy Road, but I can't recollect

15 a lot about them.

16 Q. Do you think it is likely that you would have known more

17 about them at the time?

18 A. Quite possibly, yes.

19 Q. Yes. Well, moving on to the next document in this part

20 of the file, the same date, 9 July, RNI-305-067

21 (displayed), do you see here there is a document which

22 has been partly redacted but dated 9 July, as I say,

23 from an inspector, and referring to the contact from

24 Dara O'Hagan? And in particular I wanted to look with

25 you, please, to the last paragraph where there is

 

 

29

 

1 reference to these requests for information. And do you

2 see in the second sentence:

3 "He [the inspector] has briefed Miss O'Hagan,

4 Mrs Nelson and the Parades Commission that senior

5 command has been informed of the request. Inspector

6 [name redacted] has briefed you who directed this

7 action."

8 Now, as I understand it, that means that you had

9 directed that senior command be informed of the request.

10 Is that right? It is a slightly complicated note.

11 A. Could I just read the paragraph, please?

12 Q. Of course. (Pause)

13 A. No, my reading of that is that the inspector has -- has

14 briefed senior command -- that senior command has been

15 informed of the request and that he also briefed me --

16 Q. Yes.

17 A. -- who directed this action. That would be that I told him

18 to brief senior command.

19 Q. Exactly. And senior command in this context, does that

20 mean the Command Secretariat, the Chief Constable's

21 office?

22 A. It would probably -- I would expect, from my experience

23 latterly in operations department, that the command room

24 would have senior command and an

25 assistant chief constable, but also they may have

 

 

30

 

1 briefed Command Secretariat as well, yes.

2 Q. We know from the timing of this that this is right in

3 the middle of the difficult period, if I can put it that

4 way, that year, and we also know that the handwritten

5 annotation from P157, who you will see on your cipher

6 sheet, that's an annotation by the Chief Superintendent

7 at Command Secretariat. So we know it went to them.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Why do you think it was -- can you help now? -- that you

10 directed your inspector to brief senior command on this?

11 A. Sorry, could I go back -- could I view the full

12 document, please?

13 Q. Of course, yes. Can we have the full document, please,

14 RNI-305-067 (displayed)? Thank you.

15 A. Well, Drumcree was a huge issue both in terms of public

16 order and politically.

17 Q. Yes.

18 A. Now, given that there was -- the reason for the request,

19 I take it, was to consider legal action?

20 Q. Yes.

21 A. So given that there may have been some sort of legal

22 action in relation to the events that had either gone by

23 before or may be about to take place, I probably at that

24 stage, you know, felt it would be appropriate that

25 senior command would know about it and, indeed, that I

 

 

31

 

1 would probably need a policy steer on what to do

2 about it.

3 Q. So it was because, if I can put it this way, the stakes

4 were very high politically and in terms of public order,

5 that you directed the matter up to senior command?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Can we look at the final part of the documentation,

8 please, at RNI-305-070 (displayed)? And here, the

9 advice comes back to you from the Chief Superintendent

10 and it is advice about the request for information that

11 we have considered.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And I think we can pass over the detail, but at the end,

14 you see:

15 "I hope you find this advice helpful and I would be

16 grateful if you would clear your final reply with this

17 office ..."

18 i.e. Command Secretariat:

19 "... and also the legal advice."

20 Now, presumably this was a relatively unusual state

21 of affairs, where you were seeking guidance from the top

22 of your organisation and you were receiving it, but also

23 being told that before you sent anything out, it had to

24 have been cleared with both Command Secretariat and the

25 legal adviser?

 

 

32

 

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And it is a reflection, isn't it, of precisely the sort

3 of importance that the issue had, that you have just

4 described for us?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Thank you. Now, can I then turn with you to look at

7 the August 1998 threat assessment, which you deal with

8 in your statement from paragraph 26 -- and that's

9 RNI-842-118 (displayed) -- and in particular the

10 question of the leaflet which we call the "Man Without

11 a Future leaflet" because that's its title?

12 Now, just to remind you and put it in context, it is

13 probably helpful first to look together at the chart we

14 have made showing the ways in which the material goes up

15 and down the chain of command. So can we have

16 the August 1998 threat assessment chart, please

17 (displayed)?

18 And we can see your role in it at the bottom

19 right-hand corner. Do you see that, the second box from

20 the bottom on the right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Thank you. And we can also see from the chart, as we

23 can in due course from the documents, that the issue and

24 the relevant material comes in from the NIO to

25 Command Secretariat -- that's the fourth box down in the

 

 

33

 

1 centre -- and then takes two paths: one down through

2 Special Branch -- do you see ACC E Department on the

3 left? -- and the other through South Region to you at

4 the subdivision, and then down to Portadown

5 Special Branch and back up again to Command Secretariat.

6 Do you see that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Thank you very much.

9 A. Could I just comment before you leave that?

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. It seems unusual to me that from ACC South in the

12 right-hand column, down to the right, the third box up

13 direct to me, I would have expected that to go through

14 the divisional chain of command.

15 Q. I think it is fair to say that we would as well, but

16 there appear to be documents missing from this

17 particular run of material. But that's the way you

18 would expect it to go, yes?

19 A. Yes, down and back up through the divisional chain of

20 command, yes.

21 Q. Yes. We know, for example, there is an earlier threat

22 assessment, which you may or may not be aware of,

23 in February and that's exactly what happened. So from

24 the ACC to the Divisional Commander, to the

25 Subdivisional Commander down to the local office and

 

 

34

 

1 back up again. That was the way communication went,

2 was it?

3 A. It was, yes.

4 Q. And can I just ask you to complete this? From the

5 material you have seen about this, is there any reason

6 to think that that didn't in fact happen in this case?

7 A. Sorry, I'm not clear.

8 Q. Well, you have seen material which doesn't disclose the

9 involvement of the Divisional Commander?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Now, what I'm asking you is: is there anything in the

12 material you have seen which might explain to you why it

13 didn't go through the Divisional Commander in this case?

14 A. No.

15 Q. No. Thank you.

16 Now, can I just look at your role in it? And the

17 first document is RNI-101-334 (displayed). It is

18 a slightly complicated document to look at, but

19 essentially at the top of it, 17 August 1998,

20 correspondence from NIO re leaflet apparently being

21 circulated in Portadown. The top of it is your input,

22 namely:

23 "To: Detective Sergeant, SB. Forwarded for urgent

24 report by return."

25 Then there is your ciphered signature. And at the

 

 

35

 

1 bottom of the document -- and we will come back to this

2 in a moment -- is the comment made by the local

3 Special Branch officer, in fact a junior officer, a

4 detective constable, on behalf of the Detective

5 Sergeant. So it looks as though in terms of going down

6 the chain, the relevant part of this is the top of the

7 document, which we have there on RNI-101-334

8 (displayed).

9 Now, if we look to RNI-101-345, please (displayed)

10 and have that on the left-hand side of the screen, and

11 RNI-106-289 on the right (displayed), we can see what

12 came down to you from Command Secretariat originally in

13 the memo to the ACC South. Do you see that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Of 7 August. Now, do you remember at this stage

16 receiving this pamphlet?

17 A. Yes, I do. But before we move on, is there a memo from

18 ACC South to me?

19 Q. No, there isn't, as far as I am aware. I think there

20 may be a memo from ACC South to the Divisional

21 Commander, but I do not have it to hand. We will look

22 for that and see if we can show it to you.

23 A. I think that would be quite helpful to me in

24 anticipation of questions you may ask in a few moments.

25 Q. Right.

 

 

36

 

1 A. So it might be helpful if I could see the ACC's memo.

2 Q. Yes, we will look for that now. (Pause)

3 While we are doing that, can I just ask you a more

4 general question? Did you have any experience in your

5 career of compiling or conducting threat assessments?

6 A. No.

7 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Is it possible for me just to fill in

8 a --

9 MR PHILLIPS: Yes, absolutely.

10 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Whilst we are looking for these other

11 documents, can I just ask you about the threat log. Can

12 we go back to that, if we may?

13 A. Yes.

14 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: From your experience at Portadown, if

15 a specific threat was put into the threat log, what

16 would you have expected then to happen in relation to

17 the entry in the threat log? Who would have seen it?

18 What would your officers have done with it?

19 A. I would have expected a threat log would have contained

20 details of the threat and any action that was directed

21 in relation to the threat.

22 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Where would that have then been

23 retained?

24 A. I'm not certain, but I would have expected it may well

25 have been in the criminal intelligence officer's office.

 

 

37

 

1 Q. Was there a specific process or procedure for officers

2 to update themselves on the threats within the log?

3 A. There was a briefing book at Portadown and details of

4 threat -- of threats. Action sheets, copies of action

5 sheets, would have been put in that briefing book along

6 with other general patrol information, such as, you

7 know, attention to areas for anti-social behaviour and

8 so forth.

9 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Were there specific shift briefings?

10 A. Yes, every division of duty coming on would have been

11 briefed by the duty sergeant primarily on their duty for

12 the day, what they were doing, mobile patrols, station

13 duty officer, et cetera.

14 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: And he or she would refer to that in

15 the briefing?

16 A. That book -- the briefing book I refer to now, was

17 available in the briefing room on an ongoing basis.

18 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Right, thank you very much indeed.

19 MR PHILLIPS: Just going back to generalities while we

20 continue to look for this document, you told us earlier

21 that you didn't receive, or you have no recollection of

22 receiving, an action sheet from Special Branch with

23 notification of a specific threat?

24 A. I have no recollection of receiving --

25 Q. Yes. But in the context of those answers, do you

 

 

38

 

1 remember we looked together at the force order?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Now, here, of course, as we see from the left-hand side

4 of the screen, the notification in relation to what was

5 thought to be a threatening pamphlet came not from

6 Special Branch but from the Chief Constable's office,

7 from Command Secretariat. Is that correct?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. And that wasn't a situation specifically catered for

10 within the force order, was it?

11 A. No, it was fairly unusual, I have to say.

12 Q. Yes. Well, let me ask you this in relation to your time

13 at Portadown: have you any recollection of that

14 happening at any other point; in other words, receiving

15 notification of what was believed to be a threat from

16 Command Secretariat?

17 A. No.

18 Q. No. Well, now, so far as we, the Inquiry, believes,

19 just in answer to the point you have made, we don't have

20 those missing parts of the chain in relation to

21 this August threat assessment. What we do have, which I

22 will show you now on RNI-101-339 (displayed), is the

23 memo that you sent in return. Do you see that on the

24 left-hand side?

25 A. Yes.

 

 

39

 

1 Q. So that shows the matter going back up the chain?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And presumably what you were doing was to respond to

4 Divisional Commander J; in other words, to the memo

5 which unfortunately appears to be missing, but which

6 would have reached you from him at an earlier stage in

7 the process?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. That sounds logical, doesn't it?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Well, I'm sorry about the missing material. It is

12 perhaps a feature of such a long time elapsing, but we

13 were about to look together at the pamphlet itself and

14 I asked you, I think, whether you remembered receiving

15 it and I think you told me that you had?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Now, granted that you have told us that you had no

18 experience yourself of threat assessments, what did you

19 make of the pamphlet when you saw it?

20 A. I think the pamphlet has to be set in the context of

21 what was going on in Portadown, not only that year but

22 the previous years, because of the ongoing issues around

23 Drumcree. And in that context, you know, Mr Mac

24 Cionnaith, who is the primary focus of the leaflet, was

25 such a well-known person that, you know, there was

 

 

40

 

1 nothing startling about it.

2 Q. Were there a number of pamphlets of this kind in

3 circulation at this time?

4 A. I'm not certain. Certainly I think -- whether they were

5 during my time or prior to my time in Portadown, I'm not

6 sure, but I have no recollection personally of any other

7 pamphlets about that time.

8 Q. But the sort of comment or allegation that's made in it,

9 does that in your view reflect the sort of bitterness

10 and hatred that was very much in the air at this time

11 and in relation to this issue?

12 A. There was a lot of division. It was a very, very

13 divisive issue, Drumcree, and I mean, it had been the

14 catalyst for widespread public disorder for several

15 years which, you know, was widespread across the

16 Province, millions of pounds' worth of damage caused,

17 and it was a very divisive and high profile issue.

18 Q. Yes. Can we have back on the screen, please, the

19 original memo from Command Secretariat? That's

20 RNI-101-345 (displayed). On the left-hand side, please.

21 And you will see what's said there in the second

22 paragraph:

23 "I am advised that the leaflet is being distributed

24 in Portadown and was passed to the NIO from Rosemary

25 Nelson by a third party. The NIO informed me that

 

 

41

 

1 Ms Nelson is extremely distressed about the leaflet and

2 is seriously concerned about the threat to her personal

3 security posed by the claims in the leaflet and by the

4 circulation of her address and telephone number."

5 Because although you have referred to

6 Breandan Mac Cionnaith as the focus of the leaflet, of

7 course, Rosemary Nelson was referred to specifically as

8 well, wasn't she?

9 A. She was, yes.

10 Q. And she was described there as being a "former bomber".

11 Do you see about five lines from the bottom?

12 A. I can't read it on the screen, but I accept what you are

13 saying.

14 Q. Thank you. Again, presumably that's not the sort of the

15 description of solicitors or lawyers that you were used

16 to reading in any material?

17 A. No.

18 Q. It had a distinctly intimidatory feel about it, didn't

19 it, this leaflet?

20 A. Certainly the tone of the leaflet was designed to raise

21 tensions.

22 Q. Yes. And it associated her, didn't it, with a number of

23 other people: not just Breandan Mac Cionnaith, but also,

24 in the first line:

25 "... other well-known, murdering scum like the

 

 

42

 

1 Duffys ... Bobby Storey ... Spike Murray ..."

2 And described her as being part of "the motley

3 crew". Do you remember that?

4 A. I can see what you are reading there.

5 Q. Yes. So this was slightly out of the ordinary,

6 presumably, even for the tension-filled times that you

7 have described because of the references not to Mr Mac

8 Cionnaith or even to the other individuals there, but

9 specifically to the lawyer for the Residents Coalition,

10 being alleged to be a former bomber?

11 A. Sorry, I'm not clear of your question.

12 Q. Well, it is not just, is it, this leaflet, a leaflet

13 arising out of Drumcree and focusing on Mr Mac

14 Cionnaith? It is something that makes an allegation

15 against a solicitor, that she was a former bomber?

16 A. That's what it is saying.

17 Q. Yes, which was an unpleasant allegation?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And you had no reason to believe that it was true?

20 A. Absolutely not.

21 Q. No. And presumably, therefore, when you read it, you

22 could understand the concerns that she had expressed in

23 the memo on the left-hand side of the screen?

24 A. She obviously had expressed her view on the leaflet,

25 which came down to me.

 

 

43

 

1 Q. Yes. One can imagine, if the allegation is untrue, that

2 that would be a very unpleasant thing to have written

3 about one in the context of this sort of very intense

4 environment?

5 A. Yes, it would.

6 Q. Thank you. Now, if we go back to your involvement in

7 this at RNI-101-334, if we can have that on the

8 left-hand side of the screen, please (displayed), you

9 forwarded it to the Portadown detective sergeant in

10 Special Branch for his urgent report by return. Do you

11 see that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Why did you do that, please?

14 A. Well, because it came from Force Command and it was

15 obviously a pretty important issue.

16 Q. What was the important issue, please?

17 A. What was important then, the fact that it had come

18 through the channels that it did, down through the

19 region. If Force Command were concerned about it or

20 were dealing with it, it was an important issue.

21 Q. But presumably the issue at the heart of it is whether

22 it gave rise to risk or danger to the persons named

23 in it?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. And in particular to Rosemary Nelson?

 

 

44

 

1 A. Well, it would have been to all the people named in it.

2 Q. Yes, exactly. So what were you expecting the

3 Special Branch office, the local Special Branch office,

4 to do?

5 A. Well, if I can take you back to my earlier point and ask

6 for the memos that were sent down to me, and to the best

7 of my recollection those memos were quite specific in

8 what they asked for, in that the question that, as far

9 as I can recollect, was being asked was: was there any

10 intelligence of a threat to Rosemary Nelson held at

11 Portadown.

12 Q. Let's look back at the original memo, which is all we

13 have, I fear, at RNI-101-345. If we can have that on

14 the right-hand side of the screen, please (displayed)?

15 Thank you. Do you see what the officer in Command

16 Secretariat says in the third paragraph:

17 "I would appreciate whatever information you can

18 provide on this matter and an assessment of whether or

19 not you consider those named to be the subject of any

20 threat."

21 Do you see that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So the request that comes down to the

24 Assistant Chief Constable, the South Region, is for

25 whatever information can be provided and an assessment

 

 

45

 

1 in relation to threat and those named in the leaflet?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And it is likely, isn't it, that that was the request

4 that came down to you, down the chain from the

5 Divisional Commander?

6 A. What I said earlier was what I believe came from the

7 regional and divisional command, and that it was

8 specific in that there was a question asked: was there

9 any intelligence held at Portadown in relation to

10 a threat against Mrs Nelson.

11 Q. Now, Mrs Nelson didn't live in Portadown, did she?

12 A. No, she didn't. She lived and worked in Lurgan.

13 Q. So why do you think the request was directed -- either

14 by you, which we have seen, or by your superiors -- to

15 Portadown?

16 A. I think it is probably because the origins of the

17 leaflet were believed to be in Portadown.

18 Q. Now, so far as the force order is concerned, if we just

19 look back at that, at RNI-101-230 (displayed), do you

20 remember we looked at this paragraph 6 earlier on under

21 the heading "Other Persons":

22 "Local Special Branch will inform the Subdivisional

23 Commander in whose area the subject resides or works.

24 The Subdivisional Commander will then take steps to have

25 the individual under threat informed."

 

 

46

 

1 So the key, so far as the force order was concerned,

2 is where the individual supposedly under threat resided

3 or worked. Do you see that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. So in this case, the matter would go to Lurgan,

6 wouldn't it?

7 A. I would expect that, yes.

8 Q. Now, did you at any point in the process direct that

9 there should be a report from Lurgan Special Branch as

10 well as Portadown?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Can you explain why not?

13 A. I would have expected, on the basis of that material

14 that came down to me, when it went through the region

15 down to division, that if there was an issue about it or

16 even when the file had come down to Portadown and back

17 in, that the information, the totality of any

18 information, would have been available to

19 Special Branch. And on that basis, if there had been

20 intelligence of a threat, then that would have been

21 actioned at Lurgan, rather than me because -- simply for

22 the point you mentioned, that Mrs Nelson lived in

23 Lurgan.

24 Q. Yes. We have seen from the document that you authored

25 that you directed a report from Portadown?

 

 

47

 

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. How was the matter going to reach the Lurgan

3 Special Branch office if it wasn't from you?

4 A. Well, I take it because it had come through the chain of

5 command down, that it would have gone back up. And

6 I did reply back to that, but I also would have expected

7 that within Special Branch there were mechanisms in

8 place and procedures in place that, if there was

9 intelligence of a threat, that would be passed within

10 Special Branch through the regional office at

11 Mahon Road, or whatever structures were in place in

12 Mahon Road, back across to Special Branch and Lurgan, if

13 there had have been intelligence available. That is the

14 channel I expect it would have taken.

15 Q. So this is all on the basis that there had been

16 intelligence of a threat?

17 A. If there had been, yes.

18 Q. But at the stage we were looking at earlier, where you

19 direct a report from Portadown Special Branch, of course

20 what you are trying to find out at that stage is whether

21 or not there is?

22 A. It is whether or not there was any intelligence in

23 Portadown.

24 Q. Indeed. So what I'm asking you is what was done, as far

25 as you are aware, to find out whether Lurgan

 

 

48

 

1 Special Branch had intelligence indicating that there

2 was a threat?

3 A. Well, as I mentioned in my statement, I think at some

4 point I would have expected, when the communication

5 reached divisional level, if there could have been an

6 issue about Mrs Nelson, I think it would also have gone

7 to Lurgan subdivision. But I asked the question earlier

8 about the correspondence so I could have worked out or

9 explained to the Inquiry why I thought that.

10 Q. Can we have a look at that passage in your statement?

11 It is paragraph 27 at RNI-842-119 (displayed), and you

12 say -- do you see about five lines from the end:

13 "I have no recollection of contacting Lurgan

14 subdivision in relation to the pamphlet. The request

15 was sent to me via ACC South, presumably through my

16 divisional commander. If it had been appropriate to

17 involve Lurgan subdivision, my divisional commander

18 would have involved them at that stage."

19 So I think what you are saying there is it was the

20 responsibility of your superior to involve the other

21 Special Branch office, namely Lurgan, at this stage. Is

22 that right?

23 A. Well, I'm not so sure if it would involve the Lurgan

24 Special Branch as such. If there had been an issue, he

25 would have put it down to the subdivision.

 

 

49

 

1 Now, while uniformed officers had, you know, sight

2 of the leaflet, Special Branch, ACC Special Branch had

3 sight of the leaflet. So I would have expected it to go

4 down the chain of Special Branch, whatever that chain

5 was, to Lurgan, as well as Portadown.

6 MR PHILLIPS: Yes. Sir, would that be a convenient moment?

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly.

8 Before the witness leaves, Mr (name redacted), would you

9 please confirm that all the cameras have been

10 switched off?

11 MR (NAME REDACTED): Yes, sir, they have.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Please escort the witness out. We will have

13 a quarter of an hour break.

14 (2.15 pm)

15 (Short break)

16 (2.31 pm)

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Currans, the checklist. Is the public

18 area screen fully in place, locked and the key secured?

19 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Are the fire doors on either side of the

21 screen closed?

22 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Are the technical support screens in place

24 and securely fastened?

25 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

 

 

50

 

1 THE CHAIRMAN: Is anyone other than Inquiry personnel and

2 Participants' legal representatives seated in the body

3 of this chamber?

4 MR CURRANS: No, sir.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr (name redacted), can you please

6 confirm that the two witness cameras have been switched

7 off and shrouded?

8 MR (NAME REDACTED): Yes, sir, they have.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: All the other cameras have been switched off?

10 MR (NAME REDACTED): Yes, sir, they have.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Bring the witness in, please.

12 Please sit down.

13 The cameras on the Panel, Inquiry personnel and the

14 Full Participants' legal representatives may now be

15 switched back on.

16 Yes, Mr Phillips?

17 MR PHILLIPS: Now, can we look, please, at the report once

18 more which came back to you from Portadown

19 Special Branch? This is RNI-101-334 (displayed). And

20 again, please, can we have the leaflet on the right-hand

21 side of the screen? I think that is RNI-106-289

22 (displayed). Thank you.

23 So the report comes back to you from the

24 detective constable and we see it at the bottom of the

25 page, don't we, on the left-hand side? Do you see that?

 

 

51

 

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. It is three short paragraphs of a couple of lines each.

3 Now, it says this:

4 "During Drumcree 1998, several different propaganda

5 leaflets were distributed by Loyalists in Portadown."

6 I think from your answer earlier you were only aware

7 of this one; is that correct?

8 A. So far as I can recall, yes.

9 Q. "This particular leaflet contains information which is

10 easily obtained and it is designed to intimidate those

11 mentioned in it.

12 "There is no intelligence held at this office to

13 suggest that Rosemary Nelson is under specific threat

14 from Loyalist paramilitaries."

15 Now, when this came back in to you from Portadown

16 Special Branch, presumably you would yourself have

17 considered it?

18 A. I did read it. If I take you back to the point I made

19 earlier, from the best of my recollection, what came

20 down to me was quite specific, in that it asked the

21 question and it was quite brief. And what the question

22 was: was there any intelligence held at Portadown in

23 relation to any threat against Rosemary Nelson.

24 It was quite specific and short, and I take it the

25 reason that the detective constable replied in those

 

 

52

 

1 terms was because of the nature of the memo coming down,

2 and that's why I have put it such a short minute to him.

3 Basically there is the question being asked, can you

4 answer it.

5 Q. Yes. Now, if you look at the memo that we saw together

6 a little earlier to ACC South, RNI-101-345 -- could we

7 have that on the right-hand side, please, RNI-101-345

8 (displayed)? -- do you remember the point I drew to your

9 attention was that the request coming from South -- that

10 the regional commander passing on the NIO's request was

11 in relation to those named in the pamphlet. So if what

12 you are saying is right, there must have been a decision

13 higher up the chain of command than you but lower than

14 this to narrow the request for a report to

15 Rosemary Nelson. That's right, isn't it?

16 A. I don't know what the process was, but from my

17 recollection, the minute coming from region and division

18 was quite narrow and quite focused in relation to was

19 there a threat against Rosemary Nelson. It didn't

20 embrace the wider issues, as far as I can recollect.

21 Q. No. What we know for certain, looking at the report on

22 the left-hand side of the screen, is that the report you

23 received only dealt specifically with Rosemary Nelson,

24 didn't it?

25 A. That's right.

 

 

53

 

1 Q. Now, you have described to us the process involved in

2 the force order and we looked together at the question

3 of whether it should have gone to Lurgan because

4 Rosemary Nelson was resident in Lurgan. Do you remember

5 that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Now, two of the other individuals named in the pamphlet,

8 Breandan Mac Cionnaith and Eamon Stack, were resident,

9 weren't they, in Portadown?

10 A. They were.

11 Q. Weren't you concerned that, they having been named in

12 this intimidatory leaflet, you had nothing from

13 Portadown Special Branch in relation to their safety?

14 A. Well, if I could put it in these terms. If there had

15 have been intelligence of a threat from a Loyalist

16 paramilitary group, I would have expected an action

17 sheet. But as I understand it, there was no

18 intelligence of a threat against Mr Mac Cionnaith or

19 Father Stack. That said, I didn't ask was there

20 intelligence about them.

21 Q. No.

22 A. If there had have been, I would have expected that there

23 would have been an action sheet to inform them of a

24 threat.

25 Q. But as we agreed before, this business was being dealt

 

 

54

 

1 with in an unusual way. It wasn't by way of action

2 sheet; it was coming down to you from

3 Command Secretariat?

4 A. Well, the action sheet really was the conclusion of any

5 assessment of a threat. The threat -- you asked earlier

6 about had I made a threat assessment. I think you could

7 only make a threat assessment if you were privy to the

8 entire picture, which, of course, as Subdivisional

9 Commander, I would have only been -- had a picture of

10 what I was being informed about.

11 Q. Indeed.

12 A. So in relation to the wider issues of others, I mean, I

13 would have expected that the leaflet would have been

14 looked at holistically in relation to any other

15 intelligence if there was a threat, and then actioned.

16 Q. But nobody was telling you anything about the other

17 individuals, were they? They weren't saying there was

18 no evidence of a threat against Breandan Mac Cionnaith

19 or Eamon Stack?

20 A. No, it wasn't discussed.

21 Q. So in relation to the individuals who were resident in

22 your subdivision, this report was utterly silent?

23 A. It was.

24 Q. Thank you. Did you take any steps at the time to find

25 out more about their position from B141?

 

 

55

 

1 A. No, I didn't.

2 Q. Did you follow up this report in any way with B141 at

3 the time?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Did you take any other steps to obtain any more

6 information about what was set out in B141's report?

7 A. I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but if I can put it

8 in these terms: to the best of my recollection and under

9 separate cover from this, I sent a memo to uniformed

10 personnel to enquire into the leaflet. I'm not certain,

11 but I'm relatively confident that I did.

12 Q. Right.

13 A. Now, that would have been to the neighbourhood unit.

14 Now, again, unless I'm getting it confused with

15 another leaflet, which I have already said to the

16 Inquiry I'm not aware of another leaflet, I do believe

17 there was a brief report came back from the uniformed

18 personnel basically to say that it was a leaflet in

19 Portadown.

20 Now, there were very limited investigative

21 opportunities with the leaflet, in that it was a copy or

22 perhaps a copy of a copy of a copy, and it was extremely

23 poor quality. It may even have been a faxed copy, I

24 don't know. So there were no investigative

25 opportunities in relation to the leaflet fingerprints or

 

 

56

 

1 DNA. That said, as far as I can recollect, there was

2 a memo come back in from the neighbourhood unit, which

3 basically was very general, non-specific as to who it

4 could have been attributed to because we simply did not

5 know. But there was action taken, as far as I can

6 recall, separate from that and under separate cover.

7 Q. Right. Can I just ask you a few questions about that,

8 and the first is to ask you, please, to look at your

9 statement at paragraphs 26 and 27, and we can have them

10 on the screen, if it would help. That's RNI-842-119

11 (displayed). Perhaps we should have the preceding page,

12 RNI-842-118, on the left-hand side, please (displayed).

13 Thank you.

14 Now, there is no reference whatsoever in your

15 statement, is there, to sending a memo to the

16 neighbourhood office or to uniformed branch about this

17 leaflet?

18 A. That's absolutely correct. If I could explain to the

19 Tribunal, at the time of making this statement, I was

20 never asked -- or at any time throughout the

21 investigations, I was never asked was there any other

22 reports or any other statements and, indeed, it is only

23 in this last week or so when I have started to give this

24 matter some considerable consideration did I remember or

25 recall -- and I put that in inverted commas -- to the

 

 

57

 

1 best of my recollection, was there another enquiry made

2 about it. And that's why it is only at this stage, the

3 hearing today, that I am advising the Inquiry that to

4 the best of my recollection, there was another avenue

5 down to uniform branch.

6 It did come back as vague, but I would expect there

7 is a reasonable prospect that that correspondence is --

8 certainly there would be a record of it going down to

9 the neighbourhood unit. There should have been a record

10 of it coming back in to me and then there may well be

11 a copy of what it was held in Portadown.

12 Q. Yes. Just to be clear about this, you say that you, you

13 think, wrote a memo, did you, and sent it out to the

14 neighbourhood unit?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. What's the neighbourhood unit? We have never heard

17 reference to that before.

18 A. It was a uniformed section who dealt with primarily

19 community issues. They were uniformed, but there was

20 a sergeant and a number of constables, reserve

21 constables in it who dealt with community issues.

22 Q. What were you directing them to do?

23 A. From the best of my recollection, I asked them to

24 enquire into the leaflet, what was the background to it.

25 Q. Would that memo in written form have been retained on

 

 

58

 

1 a file?

2 A. I would expect that it would -- it wouldn't have been

3 under Mrs Nelson's name by any means. I expect that if

4 it hasn't been picked up by the Inquiry or anyone else,

5 the reason may well be for that that it probably went --

6 a separate memo under the title of the leaflet or under

7 Mr Mac Cionnaith's name, given that he was the main

8 person mentioned in it.

9 Q. What of the point of the memorandum? What were you

10 seeking to do through the neighbourhood unit?

11 A. I was trying to establish what we could do about the

12 memo; what information I could provide about the memo.

13 Then to see if we could take the matter forward in any

14 way. But on the basis of my recollection, there wasn't

15 much come back in about it. It was quite brief.

16 Q. Is that because the document that you had, as you have

17 pointed out before, was a copy of a copy?

18 A. That would probably have been one of the major issues,

19 because it was such poor quality.

20 Q. Yes. So that there was no useful forensic work that

21 could be done on it?

22 A. No, there wasn't.

23 Q. Because one of the things, presumably, you would have

24 wanted to establish is who the authors were, who was

25 putting out material like this?

 

 

59

 

1 A. That's right.

2 Q. In order to do that, you needed the original, didn't

3 you?

4 A. You did.

5 Q. Did you instruct anybody to search for or do what they

6 could to get hold of the original?

7 A. I would have expected, having sent it down to the

8 neighbourhood unit, that if they had an original or were

9 aware of an original, they would have submitted it along

10 with the report.

11 Q. And were you ever given any information about their

12 search for the original?

13 A. No.

14 Q. So did anything come of this initiative?

15 A. No, not really. As far as I can recall, there was

16 a memo come back in, but it didn't go anywhere because

17 there was nothing of substance, as far as I can

18 recollect, found as a result of their enquiry.

19 Q. Yes. Now, this obviously was, from what you have been

20 telling us, a further action that you took in order to

21 address the leaflet and, as it were, get to the bottom

22 of it?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Now, the original request for a report had come from

25 Command Secretariat; in other words, from the office of

 

 

60

 

1 the Chief Constable?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. That's correct, isn't it?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And it was to go back up the chain to the office of the

6 Chief Constable, presumably for report onwards to the

7 NIO?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And you presumably were concerned to inform the next

10 person up the ladder exactly what you had done to get to

11 the bottom of the matter?

12 A. Well, as I mentioned earlier, the memo that came down to

13 me was quite specific, and I responded to that

14 accordingly.

15 Now, when I have mentioned to the Inquiry about this

16 separate memo going out to what I believe -- you know,

17 to the neighbourhood unit -- I believe on the basis of

18 what was contained in that, I wouldn't have sent it back

19 up to chain simply because there was nothing significant

20 in this, as far as I can recollect.

21 Q. Let's look at your report together at RNI-101-339

22 (displayed). This is dated 21 August and it is your

23 memorandum up to your divisional commander:

24 "Please see the attached report from the Deputy

25 Sergeant, Special Branch, Portadown."

 

 

61

 

1 That is the one we looked at together and we will

2 return to it in a minute:

3 "There is no intelligence in Portadown that

4 Rosemary Nelson is under a specific threat from Loyalist

5 paramilitaries."

6 That is a paraphrase, isn't it, of what B141 had

7 said?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. There is no reference there to what you are now telling

10 us is your separate memorandum to the neighbourhood

11 unit?

12 A. No, I would have expected that the timing of that might

13 not have been in parallel to the memo going to

14 Special Branch. It may well even have been in around

15 that time that come back in or separately. You know,

16 I'm not clear about the times, but certainly, if I would

17 have had the report from the neighbourhood unit at that

18 time, I would have expected I may have either attached

19 it or made reference to it.

20 Q. Indeed, but it would have been a very simple thing,

21 wouldn't it, for you to have told your divisional

22 commander, "I have asked my neighbourhood unit to look

23 into this matter, and as and when I receive a report

24 from them I will let you know what it is"?

25 Why didn't you do that?

 

 

62

 

1 A. Because I'm not sure of the timing of sending out the

2 memo to the neighbourhood unit, whether it was in

3 advance of that or after that.

4 Q. Can we just look back, please, at the report from B141

5 that came in to you, RNI-101-334 (displayed), and on the

6 right-hand side of the screen, RNI-106-289 (displayed)?

7 Now, you will see the substance of the report on the

8 left. It begins in the second paragraph:

9 "This particular leaflet contains information which

10 is easily obtained and it is designed to intimidate

11 those mentioned in it."

12 It may be that when you were looking at it, that you

13 thought the information which could easily be obtained

14 was, for example, Rosemary Nelson's address and

15 telephone number. That sounds right, doesn't it?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Now, what about the rest of the information set out in

18 the leaflet, namely that she was a former bomber and

19 a member of a motley crew who were trying to destroy the

20 religious rights and freedoms of Protestants? Was that

21 something which was easily obtained?

22 A. No, because it wasn't factually accurate.

23 Q. Indeed. But the report on the left doesn't address

24 those claims in the leaflet, does it? It just focuses

25 on the publicly available information?

 

 

63

 

1 A. Yes, and I go back to the point I made to the Inquiry

2 several times now that my recollection is that the memos

3 that came down were quite specific in what they asked

4 for, in that: was there specific intelligence in regard

5 to a terrorist threat to Mrs Nelson.

6 Q. Although, again, you accept that that wasn't the

7 question posed by Command Secretariat?

8 A. That's correct, yes.

9 Q. Now, you have told us about the memo that you say you

10 sent out to the neighbourhood unit. Did you consider

11 the option of crime prevention advice in this case?

12 A. No, I wouldn't -- from my recollection, I wouldn't have,

13 no.

14 Q. Why was that, please?

15 A. I don't recall.

16 Q. No. Might it not have been a sensible course to take?

17 A. It may have been. I mean, ten years later, you know, it

18 may have been. At the time, I can't recollect my

19 decision-making process was.

20 Q. Now, you say in your statement, dealing with the

21 report -- and this is paragraph 26 at RNI-842-119

22 (displayed) -- could we have that on the screen, on the

23 right-hand side? -- you say:

24 "I have been asked about what

25 Detective Constable [B141] meant by 'no specific

 

 

64

 

1 threat'. This was a term used by him and not myself, so

2 I can't add anything further."

3 So when you read it, presumably you took it, as you

4 say there, that there was no intelligence held at

5 Portadown Special Branch of any specific threat to

6 Rosemary Nelson from Loyalist paramilitaries?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. So you weren't in a position yourself to assess that or

9 to form any judgment yourself about it?

10 A. No. Well, I mean, I go back to the point again. I was

11 being asked, to the best of my recollection, was there

12 a specific threat. And I was replying, responding --

13 a detective constable answered and I presume he answered

14 in that frame of wording because the question was quite

15 specific, and I went back accordingly. I didn't try to

16 read into what he said. It was quite specific that

17 there was no intelligence in relation to a threat.

18 Q. Yes. And we can see again your memorandum, RNI-101-339

19 (displayed) -- thank you -- that you passed the matter

20 to your divisional commander with the summary of the

21 fact that there is no specific threat in the second

22 paragraph?

23 A. That's correct, yes.

24 Q. Now, so far as that is concerned, can I just ask you

25 a couple of questions about the general issue of the

 

 

65

 

1 threat log.

2 We looked at the relevant part of the force order

3 earlier at RNI-101-231 (displayed). Do you see there,

4 paragraph 5, and we discussed it in the context of

5 action sheets; do you remember?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Did you keep a threat log at Portadown RUC station?

8 A. I have no recollection of there being one, but if there

9 was a force policy to say that there should have been

10 one, if there had have been a threat against the

11 individual, a threat log would have been opened.

12 Q. Yes. Would you have expected there to have been an

13 entry made recording this pamphlet?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Why was that, please?

16 A. Because there was no specific threat emanating from any

17 Loyalist paramilitary group. This was a pamphlet which

18 was -- could have been made by anyone.

19 Q. Yes. But as we have agreed, the one thing you didn't

20 receive from Special Branch, the local Special Branch,

21 was an assessment of what the pamphlet meant to other

22 local residents, people living in your subdivision,

23 namely Breandan Mac Cionnaith and Eamon Stack.

24 Wouldn't it have been appropriate to get to the

25 bottom of that and, as necessary, make sure reference to

 

 

66

 

1 the pamphlet was made in the threat log?

2 A. I would have expected that the pamphlet would have been

3 read by Special Branch along with any other relevant

4 material against -- about any of the individuals or any

5 threat or intelligence they held where a complete threat

6 assessment was made, not just on the basis of leaflet.

7 And if that had have been done and there had have been

8 a threat as a result of that assessment, then I would

9 have expected to receive an action sheet and the action

10 sheet then would have been put into the threat log.

11 Q. So as I understand that then, if you had received an

12 action sheet from Special Branch about an individual

13 living locally, that would have gone into the

14 threat log?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. But you can't now remember whether such an action sheet

17 came through in relation to the pamphlet; is that right?

18 A. I have certainly no recollection or any reason to

19 believe there was an action sheet in relation to the

20 pamphlet.

21 Q. Now, can I just ask you some further questions in

22 relation to some of the matters you have dealt with in

23 your statement? First of all, can I ask you to look,

24 please, at paragraph 4, which is at RNI-842-112

25 (displayed)? Can we have that enlarged, please?

 

 

67

 

1 There, in the context of your explanation about the

2 terrorist paramilitary threat in your subdivision, you

3 say in the penultimate sentence:

4 "During [your] time in Portadown as Subdivisional

5 Commander, there was a terrorist incident involving

6 a massive car bomb attack."

7 Can you give us some more information about that?

8 Who carried out that attack, please?

9 A. I believe that was a dissident Republican group and it

10 was about February 2008.

11 Q. 2008?

12 A. I beg your pardon, 1998.

13 Q. 1998, thank you. What form did it take? Where was the

14 car bomb?

15 A. It was in Edward Street actually. It was down below the

16 police station, just adjacent to the main street in

17 Portadown.

18 Q. Was anybody injured in the attack?

19 A. No, there wasn't, thankfully.

20 Q. Was there property damage, for example?

21 A. There was extensive damage done to a number of

22 properties. A number of properties were completely

23 gutted with explosion and fire and had to be demolished.

24 Q. Thank you. In relation to Garvaghy Road and Drumcree

25 1997, as I say, you deal with this in your statement at

 

 

68

 

1 some length in paragraph 14 and following, beginning at

2 RNI-842-115 (displayed). Can I just ask you one or two

3 specific questions about it? First of all, in

4 paragraph 15 you say that in an earlier statement -- and

5 I'm not going to take you to that -- you mentioned:

6 "... petrol bombs being thrown from high ground

7 adjacent a Ballyoran Park which overlooks the

8 Garvaghy Road."

9 Who was responsible for throwing petrol bombs,

10 please?

11 A. We didn't establish who was responsible for throwing the

12 petrol bombs, as far as I can recall.

13 Q. Were they successful, in the sense of did they ignite,

14 the bombs?

15 A. They did, yes.

16 Q. So far as the general position in July 1997 is

17 concerned, can you help us, please, with just some

18 indication of the nature and scale of the police and

19 Army operation that day or at that time?

20 A. Well, it was a very extensive operation. This is 1997?

21 Q. Yes.

22 A. Yes. It was a very extensive operation. There would

23 probably -- in the run-up to and over the period of the

24 operation, there would probably have been in excess of

25 1,000 police officers and certainly 1,000 military

 

 

69

 

1 colleagues as well.

2 Q. Yes. And so far as members of the public, were they

3 there in their hundreds or thousands? How many people

4 were there or did it vary during the days?

5 A. It varied at different times.

6 Q. But are we talking about hundreds or thousands.? Can

7 you give any indication?

8 A. When we moved in to take control of the Garvaghy Road at

9 the operation, I would say it was in hundreds rather

10 than thousands. But during the day, the numbers built

11 up quite significantly. A lot of people were in their

12 beds obviously at the time.

13 Q. That was in the middle of the night, wasn't it?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. What about the atmosphere there on the road? Presumably

16 at times it became very hostile and threatening indeed?

17 A. Well, when we moved in -- and you allude briefly to the

18 period with the petrol bombs being thrown -- I moved in

19 from the town centre end of the Garvaghy Road and the

20 other units moved in from the top end, the country end

21 of the Garvaghy Road. We got a relatively quiet

22 passage, I have to say, right up to the Ashgrove Road

23 junction, whereas on the other side, the high ground was

24 used to throw -- to -- as a platform for throwing petrol

25 bombs, stones and so forth at the other police officers

 

 

70

 

1 coming in from that end.

2 So it was quite tense in those early hours, the

3 early period in the night (inaudible) hours, and a lot

4 of people had got on to the road and sat down in

5 protest.

6 Q. And is it fair to say that there was antagonism to the

7 police on both sides shown during those days?

8 A. Oh, that's correct, yes.

9 Q. So the atmosphere must have been very, very difficult?

10 A. It was a difficult atmosphere, yes.

11 Q. And a very challenging public order problem for you as

12 a senior officer on the ground?

13 A. It was challenging for everyone, yes.

14 Q. Yes. Now, those are the only questions I have for you,

15 but if there is any other matter which we haven't

16 covered which you would like to draw to the attention of

17 the Tribunal, this is your opportunity.

18 A. No, no, sir. I have no questions to ask the Tribunal,

19 thank you.

20 Questions by THE CHAIRMAN

21 THE CHAIRMAN: You have mentioned that your recollection now

22 is you have got really a specific instruction from above

23 in relation to Rosemary Nelson alone; is that right?

24 A. That's my recollection, sir, yes.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you expect that instruction, which

 

 

71

 

1 would be in writing, a copy to be kept not only with you

2 or in your subdivisional offices but also in the

3 divisional offices?

4 A. Yes, I would have expected --

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Two copies: one for you in the top and then

6 a copy in the office of the sender.

7 A. Yes, I would have expected that the divisional office or

8 regional office -- the origins of the memo -- they would

9 have kept a copy of their own memo, yes.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

11 Thank you very much for coming to give evidence.

12 Yes, Mr Donaldson, it is good to see you back again.

13 MR DONALDSON: Thank you very much, sir. I'm glad to be

14 back although you may not be glad to see me back.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.

16 MR DONALDSON: I have only one other question. I have

17 spoken to Mr Phillips and he has been kind enough to

18 deal with most the matters I raised. There's only one

19 point in an MSN question -- I think I can read it out.

20 May I enquire, have you seen our drafts?

21 THE CHAIRMAN: No.

22 MR DONALDSON: The question very briefly is this. You say

23 that the press were present in force at the

24 Garvaghy Road. If any protesters had been assaulted by

25 police, is it likely that they would have witnessed such

 

 

72

 

1 assaults?

2 Now, you will recollect that in this witness's quite

3 detailed written statement that he made earlier, shortly

4 after the event he does describe the press being there

5 in considerable numbers and, of course, there is an

6 issue in relation to assaults, as you will be aware, and

7 the Inquiry may wish to pursue that question as to

8 whether or not --

9 THE CHAIRMAN: He was at the quiet end, wasn't he, this

10 witness?

11 MR DONALDSON: That depends which end he was at. It was

12 relatively quiet, but of course he was present, I think,

13 in the thick of it, maybe not the worst part of it, but

14 I think it would be helpful if an enquiry was to be made

15 about the press.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Would you put that question,

17 Mr Phillips?

18 MR PHILLIPS: Certainly, sir.

19 The question is you observe in your earlier

20 statement -- again, I'm not going to show that you.

21 Just take it from me, please -- that the press was

22 present in force on the Garvaghy Road in 1997?

23 A. They were, yes.

24 MR PHILLIPS: And the question is: if any protesters had

25 been assaulted by the police, is it likely that they,

 

 

73

 

1 the press, would have witnessed those assaults?

2 A. It was very likely, yes.

3 MR PHILLIPS: Thank you very much.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr (name redacted), before the witness leaves, would

5 you, please, confirm that all the cameras have been

6 switched off?

7 MR (NAME REDACTED): Yes, sir, they have.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Would you, please,

9 escort the witness out.

10 We will sit tomorrow at quarter past 10.

11 (3.05 pm)

12 (The Inquiry adjourned until 10.15 am the following day)

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 

 


 

1 I N D E X

2

3 P276 (sworn) ..................................... 2

4 Questions by MR PHILLIPS ..................... 2

5 Questions by THE CHAIRMAN .................... 70

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25