Transcripts

Return to the list of transcripts

Full Hearings

Hearing: 17th September 2008, day 51

Click here to download the LiveNote version


 

 

 

 

 


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

 

 

ROSEMARY NELSON

PUBLIC INQUIRY

 

 

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

 

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


on Wednesday, 17th September 2008
commencing at 10.00 am


Day 51

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

1 Wednesday, 17 September 2008

2 (10.00 am)

3 Ruling on Application by MR DONALDSON

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Trevor McKeown is scheduled to give evidence

5 later today by videolink from Maghaberry prison where he

6 is serving a life sentence for the murder of a young

7 woman, Bernadette Martin. McKeown was arrested for that

8 murder on 15 July 1997. Following his arrest, he was

9 interviewed by two RUC officers, one of whom is due to

10 give evidence this afternoon and the other is expected

11 to give evidence in the near future.

12 On 25 May 2003, the News of the World published an

13 article in which the reporter stated that McKeown had

14 alleged to him that, during interview by the two RUC

15 officers, he, McKeown, had been incited to murder

16 Rosemary Nelson.

17 Yesterday afternoon, Mr Donaldson, leading counsel

18 for the PSNI, made to us a fourfold submission: the

19 first, that the PSNI required more time to prepare for

20 the questioning of McKeown and his call as a witness

21 should be deferred; the second, that McKeown should not

22 be called at all because, as a convicted murderer, he is

23 without credibility; the third, that if McKeown is

24 called, exceptionally, counsel for the PSNI should be

25 given leave to question McKeown after Counsel for the

 

 

2

 

1 Inquiry has completed his questioning of McKeown; the

2 fourth, that two specific questions or lines of enquiry

3 submitted on behalf of the PSNI, which Counsel for the

4 Inquiry has stated he will not pursue with McKeown,

5 should be asked or pursued.

6 With regard to the first limb of the submission,

7 Mr Donaldson stressed that the PSNI had had limited time

8 to prepare for the questioning of McKeown. His witness

9 statement was served on the PSNI on 27 August and the

10 supporting documents on the 28th, although McKeown had

11 made a signed statement dated 19 May 2008 to the

12 Inquiry.

13 Mr Donaldson pointed out that the Inquiry had not

14 obtained statements from McKeown's solicitor, to whom

15 McKeown allegedly reported the alleged incitement to

16 murder, nor from McKeown's leading and junior counsel at

17 his murder trial.

18 However, McKeown had, on 17 July 1997, made

19 a statement of complaint alleging assault by the police

20 while he was in custody, but in that statement of

21 complaint made no mention of the alleged incitement to

22 murder.

23 Mr Donaldson informed us that the PSNI are making

24 further enquiries into the circumstances of the Martin

25 murder and its investigation out of which the

 

 

3

 

1 allegation arose, and have arranged a meeting with the

2 senior investigating officer of the Martin murder on

3 Friday morning of this week.

4 Mr Donaldson told us that the PSNI's enquiries

5 should be completed in about a week, when it would be

6 ascertained whether there is some more vital information

7 out of which questions may arise, which will be notified

8 to the Inquiry.

9 Leading Counsel for the Inquiry in his submission

10 pointed out that the PSNI had been aware of the

11 allegation of incitement to murder since it became

12 public in May 2003. It was specifically referred to in

13 Justice Cory's report in 2004, the precursor to this

14 Inquiry. It was specific issue number 15 in the

15 Inquiry's List of Issues published in May 2005.

16 It is canvassed in detail in the Ayling Report, the

17 relevant sections of which were disclosed to the Full

18 Participants when the oral hearings began in April this

19 year. It was also referred to by our leading Counsel in

20 his opening.

21 Furthermore, the statement of one of the two

22 interviewing officers, P121, was served on all Full

23 Participants in November 2007. In that statement, he

24 deals with the alleged incitement to murder. P121 is

25 due to give evidence this afternoon and we note there is

 

 

4

 

1 no application on his behalf for deferral of McKeown's

2 evidence or his own.

3 In our judgment, no unfairness will be occasioned to

4 the PSNI or the RUC officers concerned if McKeown gives

5 evidence today as scheduled. Already, on the PSNI's

6 behalf, a substantial number of questions and lines of

7 enquiry have been submitted to Counsel to the Inquiry.

8 Special arrangements have been made through the prison

9 authorities to enable McKeown to give evidence by

10 videolink today. In fairness both to McKeown and P121,

11 they should be able to give evidence today, as they

12 expect to do.

13 The rescheduling of witnesses increases the length

14 of the Inquiry and, consequently, its cost and will not

15 be allowed unless unavoidable. If, when the PSNI's

16 further enquiries are completed, Mr Donaldson submits

17 that further questioning or lines of enquiry should be

18 pursued, and assuming that we consider that the

19 suggested questioning or lines of enquiry are relevant

20 to our Terms of Reference, helpful to our Inquiry or

21 otherwise should be pursued, we shall make arrangements

22 to enable McKeown to be recalled.

23 With regard to the second limb of Mr Donaldson's

24 submission, we do not accept the proposition that,

25 because an allegation is made by a convicted murderer

 

 

5

 

1 against police officers involved in the murder

2 investigation, it is per se without any credibility. It

3 is an allegation clearly relevant to our Terms of

4 Reference. It has been in the public domain for over

5 five years and was specifically referred to by

6 Justice Cory in his report.

7 In our judgment, we must consider the allegation.

8 This cannot satisfactorily be done without giving

9 McKeown and the two RUC officers the opportunity to give

10 evidence.

11 In considering the allegation, we shall take into

12 account all the evidence and material before us, which

13 includes McKeown's evidence. In weighing up McKeown's

14 evidence, we shall bear in mind that McKeown is

15 a convicted murderer. We shall consider matters

16 including when the allegation was first made, to whom it

17 was made and the circumstances in which it was made;

18 throughout, fully heeding the principle that a very

19 grave allegation such as this requires the basis of very

20 convincing material before it can be given any

21 substance.

22 With regard to the third limb of Mr Donaldson's

23 submission, in our judgment his application is

24 premature. In accordance with our protocol, if at the

25 end of our counsel's questioning of McKeown,

 

 

6

 

1 Mr Donaldson submits there are questions or lines of

2 enquiry of which our counsel has been notified but

3 declines to pursue, we may, exceptionally, give

4 Mr Donaldson leave to question McKeown, assuming that

5 the suggested line of questioning is relevant to our

6 Terms of Reference, helpful to our enquiry or otherwise

7 should be pursued.

8 With regard to the fourth limb of Mr Donaldson's

9 submission, we rule that in accordance with our

10 protocol, if on further reflection Mr Donaldson

11 considers that the two specific questions or lines of

12 enquiry should be pursued, he should make formal

13 submission to us when our counsel has completed his

14 questioning of McKeown.

15 But Mr Donaldson should be aware that our

16 provisional view is that to allow these two specific

17 questions would be inconsistent with our earlier rulings

18 on similar questions suggested for earlier witnesses.

19 We will adjourn now until quarter past 10, when we

20 will continue to hear the evidence of Mr Cully.

21 (10.10 am)

22 (Short break)

23 (10.15 am)

24 MR ANDREW CULLY (continued)

25 Questions by MR SKELTON (continued)

 

 

7

 

1 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Skelton?

2 MR SKELTON: Mr Cully, when we left it yesterday, we were

3 discussing the issue of questionnaires and their use

4 during a complaints investigation. Had you yourself

5 used questionnaires?

6 A. I hadn't used the one that you referred to, no.

7 Q. In what situation had you used one?

8 A. Well, I personally preferred not to use questionnaires,

9 you know, I liked to formulate my own questions

10 depending on the nature of the complaint.

11 Q. Can you see in a case where perhaps there are a large

12 number of officers, that it may be an appropriate way to

13 at least get the ball rolling in terms of finding out

14 who may have been involved?

15 A. Yes, I certainly do, yes.

16 Q. Would you accept that the danger of such a questionnaire

17 is that if an officer says effectively, "I had nothing

18 to do with this incident" in response to

19 a questionnaire, that is the end of the matter?

20 A. A thorough investigator would look further into that. I

21 wouldn't tend to be just as naive to say if somebody

22 says they are not there, they are not there and leave it

23 at that. It depends how thorough you are investigating.

24 Q. What would you do to try and investigate further?

25 A. Try and cross-refer who was there and who wasn't there,

 

 

8

 

1 you know, and try and see -- maybe form a matrix to see

2 who -- well, how come he was there and he wasn't and so

3 on. It's like trying to find out who was sitting where

4 in the back of a Land Rover. You know, by a process of

5 elimination, you'd find out.

6 Q. In your statement at paragraph 5, which is on

7 page RNI-803-106 (displayed), you mention --

8 A. Can I stop you there. Is this supposed to be on?

9 Q. Yes, it should be.

10 A. Sorry.

11 Q. Paragraph 5, which is on page RNI-803-106. You mention

12 the ICPC?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. What did you consider their role to be?

15 A. To supervise complaints to make sure we carried out

16 a thorough investigation.

17 Q. Were you supervised on every investigation?

18 A. No, the ICPC decided which ones they would supervise.

19 Now, they did tend to supervise the more serious

20 complaints and, indeed, if you, in the process of

21 investigating a complaint, realised it was more serious,

22 you had a duty really to report it to the ICPC and they

23 may then call themselves in to supervise it.

24 Q. When you say "serious", what do you mean?

25 A. Where there was, for instance, injury, serious injury or

 

 

9

 

1 something like that. Maybe something of public

2 interest.

3 Q. Did Rosemary Nelson's complaint fall into the latter

4 category?

5 A. I would say it did, yes.

6 Q. Were you generally happy to be supervised in your work?

7 A. Yes, I was. I was comfortable with it, yes.

8 Q. Were other officers in the complaints department

9 similarly content?

10 A. Well, I can't really answer for them. To me, it was

11 good to have a further, you know, set of eyes.

12 Say you were doing an investigation or an interview

13 and they might have put something to you. Now, the ICPC

14 didn't directly put questions to officers, but they

15 could ask you to ask them, and I was quite happy with

16 that because at the end of the day, the complaint

17 investigation would have gone to them to approve whether

18 or not it was investigated properly. So to me you were

19 halfway there if the ICPC were supervising it.

20 Q. When did you first hear about Rosemary Nelson?

21 A. I can't really say. I mean, I know it sounds strange,

22 but being in Portadown, to me Lurgan was a different

23 subdivision. I mean, I didn't interfere with their

24 policing and they didn't interfere with mine. So really

25 I don't think I come across Mrs Nelson until the very

 

 

10

 

1 day that I met her.

2 Q. Were you aware that she had represented Colin Duffy, for

3 example, in his appeal against the conviction for the

4 murder of John Lyness?

5 A. No, I don't think I did. Now, I was aware of

6 Colin Duffy, but no, I don't think -- I don't remember

7 that, no.

8 Q. In terms of Portadown, would you not have been aware

9 that she was the legal adviser for the GRRC and had been

10 since about 1996?

11 A. I may well have been aware at that time, but it doesn't

12 ring a bell to me now.

13 Q. Were you aware of any existing tensions between

14 Rosemary Nelson and the RUC generally at the time that

15 you were involved with her complaint?

16 A. Not until the complaint, no.

17 Q. You mentioned in your evidence yesterday that you had

18 been involved with policing Drumcree at a particular

19 time, particularly 1997?

20 A. Well, I would say I was more involved in 1996.

21 Q. What was your involvement in the weekend of 1997,

22 if any?

23 A. Well, I think I said yesterday I was on night duty

24 throughout Drumcree 1997. I can remember, you know, I

25 didn't really have a specific role, I remember that.

 

 

11

 

1 And I can recall patrolling at night and checking up on

2 units that were out on the ground at the time and so on.

3 A general supervision duty, but I was accompanied by

4 another superintendent. I was a chief inspector at the

5 time. So I wouldn't have been that heavily involved in

6 1997.

7 Q. You also mention that you had attended a Craigavon

8 Council meeting, and this is at paragraph 43 of your

9 statement on page RNI-803-113 (displayed). Why was

10 that?

11 A. I can't remember now. I just remember sitting beside

12 Breandan Mac Cionnaith. I can remember that. But I

13 can't remember was it prior to or after Drumcree.

14 Q. Mr Mac Cionnaith became a councillor, an independent

15 councillor in 1997. Was he a councillor at that stage?

16 A. I can't remember.

17 Q. Why would you be at a council meeting?

18 A. I must have been representing the Subdivisional

19 Commander at the time. And if Breandan Mac Cionnaith

20 was there, it must have been something to do with

21 Drumcree, but I can't recall.

22 Q. So you would have been there in your professional

23 capacity, would you?

24 A. I know this much: I was there in full uniform.

25 I remember that. So presumably I was.

 

 

12

 

1 Q. Did you speak to him?

2 A. I don't think we spoke at all, no.

3 Q. Did you deal with any other complaints about Drumcree?

4 A. As an investigator?

5 Q. Yes.

6 A. No, no.

7 Q. So Mrs Nelson's complaint was the only one that you saw

8 during your ten months?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Were you aware that there had been a number of

11 complaints about the treatment of Nationalists around

12 the time of the march?

13 A. I have no doubt there was many, many complaints, but

14 that was the only one I dealt with.

15 Q. When you say you "have no doubt", what information did

16 you have about those complaints?

17 A. You see, having been in Portadown and then become an

18 investigating officer, I am unsure -- do you mean when I

19 was in Portadown or do you mean when I had left?

20 Q. Any way which informs your knowledge, either from your

21 being an officer in Portadown or from your work in the

22 complaints department talking to your colleagues?

23 A. Anybody living in Northern Ireland at that time would

24 have known that Drumcree was a right contentious issue.

25 I'm not going into the whole history of it, but I think

 

 

13

 

1 most people would be aware of that. So anything

2 contentious like that where the police were involved

3 and, as usual, in the middle, there is going to probably

4 be complaints.

5 Q. Did you know what sort of outcome these complaints had?

6 A. Well, I learned later -- I mean, most complaints there

7 might have been a criminal element and a discipline

8 element.

9 Now, because I moved from complaints investigation

10 to internal discipline, sometimes I would see the

11 outcome of complaints within, that is internal

12 discipline. Because, as I said yesterday, I presented

13 at discipline hearings.

14 So if you are asking me -- yes, I did see the

15 outcome of some of them. Of course, any internal

16 discipline would have awaited the outcome of the

17 criminal investigation, which would have gone -- the

18 investigation file would have gone to, at that time, the

19 DPP.

20 Q. To your knowledge, were many of the complaints upheld,

21 and I am talking specifically about complaints about

22 protesters at Drumcree against police officers?

23 A. I don't know.

24 Q. There is a document which the Inquiry has been shown and

25 it can be found at RNI-541-032 (displayed).

 

 

14

 

1 Now, this is a prison document. It is an

2 intelligence report. The date is about November 1996

3 and it is to do with the Drumcree issue. And if we go

4 to the next page, RNI-541-033 (displayed) -- could you

5 highlight paragraph 4, please? -- it deals with

6 reporting that Rosemary Nelson was coordinating the

7 legal matters for the GRRC and under her guidance the

8 GRRC was arranging for approximately 120 people to make

9 complaints regarding Drumcree?

10 A. Can you just give me a moment because I have never seen

11 this. Can you give me a minute just to read it?

12 Q. Of course. (Pause)

13 A. What is the source of this?

14 Q. It is an intelligence report.

15 A. What's the source?

16 Q. I can't give you that answer for sensitivity reasons,

17 but suffice it to say that is a report that was given to

18 Special Branch and was circulated certainly within

19 Special Branch during the period of late 1996.

20 I appreciate that you weren't involved with

21 complaints that year or, indeed, the year after, your

22 involvement came in 1998, but by the time you were

23 involved with complaints, were you aware that there had

24 been an issue about the legitimacy of complaints about

25 Drumcree?

 

 

15

 

1 A. I can't remember. I really can't. I certainly don't

2 remember this -- no, I don't. I don't remember seeing

3 it or hearing about that.

4 Q. There is a particular sentence in there.

5 A. Right.

6 Q. "They hoped to do this in blocks of ten people at a time

7 in order to waste police time."

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Now, that implies that the complaints weren't being made

10 for proper reasons?

11 A. Yes, you could read that into that, yes.

12 Q. But you are saying you weren't aware of such a --

13 A. No, I don't remember that. If you were given

14 a complaint to investigate, regardless of the motives of

15 the complainant, I mean, to my view, you investigated it

16 to the best of your ability regardless of what their

17 motives are.

18 Q. Turning to Rosemary Nelson's specific complaint, this

19 wasn't in fact your case originally; it was Chief

20 Inspector Oliver's?

21 A. He was the investigating officer. The only part

22 I played was the actual interview of Mrs Nelson.

23 Q. In paragraph 27 of your statement, which we can find on

24 page RNI-803-109 (displayed), I think you explain that

25 you became involved because Chief Inspector Oliver had

 

 

16

 

1 gone on holiday?

2 A. I can't remember why he wasn't able to do it, but that

3 could well be, yes.

4 Q. So in effect you were a stand-in for this one issue,

5 were you?

6 A. I was.

7 Q. In reading into the case, what did you look at?

8 A. I'm unsure what --

9 Q. You would have looked at her complaint itself,

10 presumably?

11 A. Yes, I am fairly sure that Davy Oliver -- he was pretty

12 thorough -- would have briefed me before I would have

13 gone to interview her. I mean, to me the most -- the

14 only unusual thing about this complaint was that it was

15 coming from a solicitor. You know, the actual details

16 of the complaint to me would be reasonably typical.

17 Q. Do you mean coming from a solicitor or about

18 a solicitor?

19 A. No, coming from. The complainant being a solicitor.

20 That was unusual, yes.

21 Q. What would Chief Inspector Oliver have told you during

22 his briefing?

23 A. I can't remember, you see, what documents I had with me

24 before I got to the ICPC offices that day, but I'm sure

25 whatever Davy Oliver had he would have presented to me.

 

 

17

 

1 He would have given me some idea of the kind of

2 questions to ask.

3 Having said that, I would have been fairly thorough

4 in my preparation anyway, and no doubt I would have

5 written out questions that I would have wanted answers

6 to. You see, I can't remember whether I already had

7 a pre-prepared statement -- you will be referring to,

8 I have no doubt -- or not. I just can't remember that.

9 Q. You mention in your statement that it was unusual for

10 Belfast Complaints and Discipline Department to be

11 involved in a complaint that wasn't in their locality.

12 Did you ask Chief Inspector Oliver why that was?

13 A. No. That decision would have been made -- it wouldn't

14 even have been made by him. It would have been made

15 above. It would have been made at a higher rank.

16 I'm not saying there is anything sinister in that.

17 Just in my experience it was a wee bit unusual that the

18 complaint itself was within, if you like, County Armagh

19 area but we were dealing with it up here. It may be

20 because -- I mean, the initial interview was going to be

21 up here. I don't know. I don't see anything sinister

22 about that.

23 Q. In reviewing the file, did you also note the fact that

24 there wasn't any medical evidence in support of the

25 complaint?

 

 

18

 

1 A. I did, yes, and I think I even commented on that

2 possibly during the interview, both with Mrs Nelson and

3 I think also with Eversheds before this.

4 Q. How important is such evidence?

5 A. Well, I thought it was quite important, you know, not

6 only to give support and evidence, if you like, of the

7 complaint but also to have another witness, you know,

8 medical -- a medical witness.

9 Q. Presumably you can still uphold a complaint of physical

10 assault or manhandling without medical evidence?

11 A. Yes, you can.

12 Q. But it does add significantly to the --

13 A. In my view, yes.

14 Q. Given your previous involvement in Portadown and the

15 fact that you had been involved particularly in 1996 and

16 at least had some peripheral involvement in 1997, did

17 you consider it to be appropriate that you had any

18 involvement in Rosemary Nelson's complaint?

19 A. If hadn't considered it appropriate, I would have

20 declared that immediately and ruled myself out.

21 Q. I mean, there may have been a perception, for example,

22 that you, having had some pre-existing knowledge of the

23 officers in question, may have been biased towards them

24 and against Mrs Nelson?

25 A. Aye, I was very conscious of that. I declared my

 

 

19

 

1 interest -- I was approached not by Davy Oliver, but by

2 my supervisor and I said what I had done during Drumcree

3 1997 and I had no real involvement in it. So I felt

4 quite comfortable that I could do the interview.

5 Q. What did your supervisor say when you mentioned your

6 previous connection?

7 A. I think he just says, "Are you happy enough to do it?"

8 and I says, "Yes, I am, I know in my own heart that,

9 yes, I can do this, I can do it objectively and

10 professionally."

11 Q. Who was your supervisor?

12 A. I knew you were going to ask me that. Ian someone. It

13 will come to me.

14 Q. Did you approach this issue with any views about whether

15 or not the police acted appropriately in handling the

16 protesters that day?

17 A. It is always dangerous going into any kind of

18 investigation with preconceived views, in my view.

19 Q. As far as the interview goes, were you aware that there

20 had been an issue about Rosemary Nelson's compliance

21 with the requests to be interviewed?

22 A. I don't think I did, no. But -- you know, I wouldn't be

23 surprised at that.

24 Q. Why?

25 A. Well, again, it was unusual to have a solicitor making

 

 

20

 

1 a complaint on their own behalf.

2 Q. Wouldn't you have expected a solicitor, who is a legal

3 person involved with the court system, the complaint

4 systems, to have been more compliant rather than

5 less so?

6 A. I can't really say what was in Mrs Nelson's mind.

7 I assume she was there under her own volition.

8 Q. Did you know there had been an issue about where the

9 interview should take place?

10 A. No, but I think it was maybe one of the first -- I'm not

11 sure if it was the only, but I think it was the only one

12 maybe I did in the actual ICPC offices. I think

13 previously to that, most interviews for complaints took

14 place at police stations.

15 Q. You mention in your statement -- this is paragraph 30,

16 which is on page RNI-803-110 (displayed) -- that over

17 time it became more common for interviews to take place

18 at the ICPC?

19 A. I think that's right.

20 Q. Why did that change take place?

21 A. Maybe complainants were more comfortable being in there,

22 what they could see maybe was an independent arena.

23 Q. Why was the interview tense at the start?

24 A. I'm not sure. I mean, I would always have tried to

25 relax a complainant.

 

 

21

 

1 My memory of that day -- 21 September, ten years ago

2 coming -- I remember it being in a room with a long

3 table and I was seated like this (indicates).

4 Stephen Herron was to my left. He was a junior member

5 of the ICPC. Standing on over to the left was

6 Geralyn McNally, senior member of the ICPC. Opposite

7 was Mrs Nelson, and I can recall, standing behind her,

8 Paul Mageean from the Committee for the Administration

9 of Justice. I just felt a wee bit of tension in the

10 air, but at the end of the day I tried to relax things.

11 I can remember Miss McNally maybe introducing us or

12 setting the scene, and I don't think she remained. I

13 think she just set the scene and left. I then carried

14 on with my interview. But initially, yes, I did feel

15 a wee bit of tension in the air.

16 Q. As you say, the interview took place on

17 21 September 1998. Had you had contact before the

18 interview with the ICPC?

19 A. I can't recall it, but I probably did, yes.

20 Q. Was it unusual for there to be two people from the ICPC

21 present?

22 A. Yes, I think it was, but as I said to you,

23 Geralyn McNally was only present at the initial period.

24 So it was Stephen Herron sitting beside me during the

25 interview itself, I think.

 

 

22

 

1 Q. Was it unusual to have someone from another

2 organisation, such as CAJ, present at an interview?

3 A. Yes, it was. Now, again, it was different because the

4 solicitor was the complainant. Now, what you would have

5 maybe was the complainant with the solicitor beside

6 them, in my experience. That was reasonably normal.

7 Yes, I suppose the whole thing in a way was a bit

8 unusual for me.

9 Q. Is that what caused the tension?

10 A. Well, I wasn't tense. The funny thing to me -- the most

11 tense person there was Paul Mageean.

12 Q. Why was that?

13 A. I don't know.

14 Q. Did you ask him?

15 A. Well, no, I didn't, but it is just the fact, you know --

16 my memory is of us all sitting but him standing, like

17 this, sort of thing (indicates). You know, the way you

18 can sort of sense if someone is a bit tense or ill at

19 ease. That is my memory of it.

20 Q. Stephen Herron, who was of the ICPC, had produced a list

21 of questions, which we can see at RNI-301-147

22 (displayed). It should come on screen. It may be that

23 you need to take a second just to have a look through

24 that. It is a handwritten note. I will try and explain

25 it while you are reading it. It gives a background to

 

 

23

 

1 the statement very briefly. (Pause)

2 And then goes on to provide a brief explanation of

3 the kind of issues that need exploring. (Pause)

4 Did Mr Herron show you this list before you went in?

5 A. It looks very like something I would write. Obviously

6 it is not my writing, but those kind of questions are

7 exactly what I would be asking, yes.

8 Q. What I wanted to establish, Mr Cully, is whether or not

9 you had had a discussion beforehand about the kind of

10 things you needed to put to Mrs Nelson?

11 A. I remember I arrived early, so it may well be that we

12 had a discussion before Mrs Nelson arrived. So, yes, I

13 wouldn't question that.

14 Q. Would Mr Herron or Miss McNally have asked the questions

15 themselves during the course of the interview?

16 A. No, the protocol, I think, was that the questions would

17 be channelled through me. You know, the complainant

18 would hear the question being asked of me to ask the

19 complainant.

20 No, sorry. I tell a lie, no, this wasn't an

21 officer. The normal protocol was that I would ask the

22 questions.

23 Q. And did you have a written list or were you confident

24 just to, as it were, do it off the top of your head?

25 A. I have no doubt I had some kind of written list.

 

 

24

 

1 Q. Would that be still with the file? We haven't seen such

2 a thing.

3 A. It would have been -- you see, it is a wee bit unusual

4 because I did the initial interview, but I wasn't the

5 investigating officer, so I would have thought those

6 papers -- you see, I'm not sure. I was a wee bit of a

7 creature of habit of keeping my own stuff. So I might

8 have kept them somewhere about the office.

9 Q. I appreciate it is difficult for you now, but can you

10 remember broadly speaking what type of questions you

11 would have asked?

12 A. Those kind of questions there.

13 Q. So who was there?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Where you were? Who you spoke to?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. The resulting statement is very short and we can find it

18 on RNI-302-131 (displayed). You see, it is barely half

19 a page?

20 A. That's right. Aye, well, you see, that was in addition

21 to the pre-prepared statement that was taken by

22 Paul Mageean.

23 Q. That's correct, which sets out the original complaint

24 and explains what happened, what is alleged to have been

25 said to her, et cetera. You presumably went over all of

 

 

25

 

1 that ground with her?

2 A. I did.

3 Q. Were you surprised that she couldn't add any more to the

4 description that she gave in that original statement?

5 A. I can't really say what was in her mind, but, you

6 know -- I mean, I don't think she could add much more

7 maybe than was in the statement, but nevertheless

8 investigating it you have to cover all issues. You

9 know, you have to try and determine where and when it

10 happened, who was involved, any other evidence, any

11 witnesses and so on. And if you look at that short

12 statement, it sort of -- it is almost as if it is in

13 answer to short questions.

14 Q. She says there in the middle of it:

15 "I have nothing further to add to my statement dated

16 7 July."

17 That could either mean that in answer to all of your

18 questions, she just said, "I can't say anything further,

19 it is all down already" or did she go over the same

20 ground and give you effectively the same answers so

21 there was no need to write it down in a second

22 statement?

23 A. It could be. Can you show that note of Stephen Herron's

24 and put it beside that statement? Can that be done?

25 Q. It might be able to, yes. On my screen they are,

 

 

26

 

1 unfortunately, on top of each other. I wonder if it is

2 possible to ...

3 Sorry, RNI-301-147 was Mr Herron's note. There we

4 are (displayed).

5 A. Aye, if you notice there point 3 on Mr Herron's note:

6 "Witnesses are referred to regarding an assault on

7 Mrs Nelson. Who are they?"

8 I would like to add that Tom Cusack from "redacted"

9 witnessed the incident. If you look at the questions,

10 they do sort of twin with that statement, short and all

11 as it is.

12 Q. Can we go overleaf to RNI-301-148 on Stephen Herron's

13 note and see what is on the second page, please

14 (displayed). There are a few further questions there

15 but, again, there aren't any answers to that

16 substantially. She can't really comment. Is that your

17 recollection?

18 A. I can't just recall that. We are doing it a wee bit

19 back to front because if we could see the statement that

20 Paul Mageean took of Mrs Nelson, that might make more

21 sense.

22 Q. I can show you that. That can be found at RNI-306-129

23 (displayed). I may have given you the wrong reference

24 there.

25 A. That's definitely not it.

 

 

27

 

1 Q. It definitely isn't. I'll try and find you the correct

2 one, Mr Cully. While we are looking at it, could you

3 describe Mrs Nelson's general demeanour during the

4 course of the interview?

5 A. Sorry, RNI-302-129? That's what you said, wasn't it?

6 Q. I think I said RNI-306-129, in fact. We can find one

7 version of it -- there are quite few in our bundles --

8 at RNI-301-057.

9 A. I have RNI-302-129.

10 Q. There is a version of it for you.

11 A. Yes, it is. Sorry, do you want me to answer the

12 demeanour or do you want me to ...

13 Q. Would you like to look at that statement and comment

14 upon that first?

15 A. Can you make it a bit bigger?

16 Q. Is that better?

17 A. Right.

18 Q. So the key paragraph is the bottom one there. (Pause)

19 Now, presumably, Mr Cully, one of the key questions

20 for you must have been whether you could identify the

21 specific officers?

22 A. That's right, yes.

23 Q. And the answer to that was no?

24 A. Well, I think maybe you will probably be going on to

25 that, but it would be very difficult in those

 

 

28

 

1 circumstances.

2 Q. Now, we have heard from other officers who were present

3 at Drumcree that they were wearing a particular type of

4 outfit which didn't have numbers on, for example. Were

5 you aware that that was a potential problem for you as

6 an investigator?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And how did you hope to get round it?

9 A. Well, in this particular case I wasn't the investigating

10 officer. I stress that. I mean, it would be difficult

11 to get round it. Officers deserve to get protection and

12 the kind of protection they had from petrol bomb attack

13 and so on would have left it that even their faces would

14 have been concealed, as well as the helmets. So it

15 would have been difficult, yes, I must admit that.

16 Q. From your experience, were officers reluctant to provide

17 their names or numbers when asked to do so?

18 A. No, not in my experience, no.

19 Q. Did you ask Rosemary Nelson if she had tried to get

20 names or numbers from officers who were alleged to have

21 assaulted her?

22 A. I think I did. Was there something there about she

23 asked an officer?

24 Q. As we understand it, after the assault she went back to

25 the police lines and started to ask to see senior police

 

 

29

 

1 officers to discuss the alleged assault?

2 A. Yes. Can you excuse me a second? (Pause)

3 Sorry, can you put that to me again?

4 Q. She did go back after the alleged assault to speak to

5 senior officers at Drumcree and ask to make a complaint.

6 Now, it may be that you are thinking of that?

7 A. Yes. Was that not in writing, no?

8 Q. There is some evidence to that effect, yes.

9 A. Right. It is just I have a memory of it actually being

10 in writing somewhere.

11 Q. Mr Cully, all I'm concerned about is the issue really of

12 identification for the moment?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Would you accept that the principal problem with this

15 case was the fact that there was no identification of

16 a particular officer?

17 A. It would be very difficult, yes.

18 Q. Is it possible to pursue a complaint to completion where

19 you can't identify the officer?

20 A. It is very important to try and identify the officers

21 involved. I mean, in any investigation you try and

22 identify who is involved. I mean, it is difficult for

23 me to second guess what another investigator would do.

24 I mean, you just would try and do your best to narrow it

25 down to, say, a particular section or a particular unit

 

 

30

 

1 and then whittle it down further through questioning,

2 cross-examining or, you know, investigating. That is

3 your job.

4 Q. But ultimately, if you can't identify any officer, any

5 individual officer, a complaint cannot be upheld,

6 can it?

7 A. Well, you can't take it much further with individual

8 officers without -- sorry, individual officers.

9 Q. Did you ask Rosemary Nelson why she hadn't obtained any

10 medical evidence in support of her complaint?

11 A. I think I did. I think I did, but I can't recall what

12 her response was now.

13 Q. Overall, having interviewed her, did you believe that

14 some untoward event had taken place, either physical

15 assault or some form of verbal assault?

16 A. I believe something had happened, yes.

17 Q. Which one of those?

18 A. Well, her complaint was both assault and verbal abuse.

19 Q. That's correct.

20 A. It could have been both or either.

21 Q. You had the impression she was being truthful about her

22 allegation?

23 A. Well, I always started off with a blank sheet when

24 I went to see a complainant. I didn't immediately

25 think, "I don't believe this" before I have even heard

 

 

31

 

1 it.

2 So, you know, I listened to the complainant.

3 I mean, I can't say what was in her mind, but at the

4 same time I don't think she would go there for no

5 reason. Let's put it like that.

6 Q. Did you have any further involvement with

7 Rosemary Nelson's complaint?

8 A. I think that was it.

9 Q. You mentioned earlier that Mr Mageean was present?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Did you interview him separately about his knowledge of

12 the event?

13 A. I can't quite recall that. I remember showing him what

14 is on the screen at the minute, I think, and he wasn't

15 prepared even to, you know, say that that was his

16 statement.

17 Q. Why was that?

18 A. You would have to ask him. I think he was going to run

19 off a copy to make sure off his computer or something,

20 but as I said earlier, he was the most tense person in

21 that room.

22 Q. Now, to be fair to Mr Mageean, we ought to put on screen

23 the file note made by Mr Herron from the ICPC of the

24 interview, and that's at RNI-301-149 (displayed). That

25 gives you, Mr Cully, just an overview of Mr Herron's

 

 

32

 

1 account of what happened that day. The particular bit

2 about Mr Mageean is at the bottom there.

3 A. Is this the final -- can you give me a moment?

4 Q. If you would like to read it through and then we will

5 focus on the final paragraph.

6 A. Okay. (Pause)

7 Sorry, I have just hit the last paragraph. So that

8 is what you want to talk about?

9 Q. Yes. I wanted you just to clarify what Mr Mageean had

10 said in relation to the original statement that he had

11 taken?

12 A. Sorry, could you give me a moment? (Pause)

13 Yes, okay.

14 Q. Now, it appears from that that he did say he was almost

15 certain that it was the same statement, but he wasn't

16 quite sure?

17 A. That's fair comment. That could be, yes.

18 Q. Why was he resistant to making a formal statement?

19 A. I can't remember. Again, you would need to put that

20 question to him.

21 Q. He also mentions -- or at least he is recorded as

22 mentioning -- a video. We do have a video clip which we

23 think came from CAJ, and I would like to play it to you.

24 It is very short, but I would just like you to comment

25 on whether this is anything you saw at the time.

 

 

33

 

1 A. Okay.

2 (video shown)

3 Q. Did you see that video in 1998?

4 A. I can't recall seeing that video, no.

5 Q. Mr Cully, I do not have any further questions for you.

6 It may be that the Panel do.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Cully, there is nothing further you wish

8 to say to us that might assist us?

9 A. I don't think so, sir, no.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, thank you very much for coming to give

11 evidence before us.

12 We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.

13 (10.55 am)

14 (Short break)

15 (11.10 am)

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Currans, can you hear me?

17 MR CURRANS: Sir, I can.

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you in the interview room provided at

19 Maghaberry prison --

20 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: -- provided so that the witness,

22 Trevor McKeown, can give evidence?

23 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

24 THE CHAIRMAN: Has his lawyer turned up this morning?

25 MR CURRANS: His lawyer did attend today, sir, but

 

 

34

 

1 Mr McKeown declined to leave his cell, so has not given

2 him any instructions.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: So he is still in his cell and declining to

4 leave it to come to the interview room; is that correct?

5 MR CURRANS: That's correct, sir.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Currans.

7 Well, Mr Donaldson, that will be glad tidings to

8 you. The Inquiry will do all it can to secure the

9 witness to give evidence through the videolink at some

10 convenient time. It seems a waste of time trying again

11 today.

12 MR DONALDSON: I see. Is it the intention that someone

13 might try to get him out of his cell at a future date to

14 give evidence?

15 MR PHILLIPS: Sir, I should say that, based on what I have

16 learned this morning, I think it unlikely that

17 Mr McKeown's attitude will change. And so I don't think

18 I should hold out any prospect to you, sir, that if we

19 try the same system again, it will have any more

20 success. I think that's only fair to add.

21 MR DONALDSON: Thank you.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Anything further you wish to say,

23 Mr Donaldson?

24 MR DONALDSON: No, sir, except that -- well, some comment

25 may be necessary later in relation to whatever credence

 

 

35

 

1 or credibility may be given to what he has said. It is

2 on the record. The allegation that he has made is still

3 on the record. So I would now formally ask the Tribunal

4 to dismiss it totally from their minds.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Donaldson, we will not do that. What we

6 will do, Mr Donaldson, is to take every reasonable step

7 to secure that Trevor McKeown gives evidence through the

8 videolink at a convenient time as soon as possible, and

9 presumably it will be after Friday, when you will be

10 hopefully fully instructed.

11 MR DONALDSON: That would be helpful in that respect, yes,

12 thank you.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. There are no other witnesses

14 available at the moment?

15 MR PHILLIPS: No, sir. We start again at 2 with P121.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Mr Donaldson, P121 will be here at

17 2 o'clock.

18 MR DONALDSON: Thank you.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

20 Mr Currans, you can return to Interpoint.

21 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

22 (11.12 am)

23 (The short adjournment)

24 (2.00 pm)

25 (Proceedings delayed)

 

 

36

 

1 (2.10 pm)

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Currans, may we go through the checklist

3 with you, please, before the witness comes in?

4 Is the public area screen fully in place, locked and

5 the key secured?

6 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

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

8 screen closed?

9 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Are the technical support screens in place

11 and securely fastened?

12 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Is anyone other than Inquiry personnel and

14 Participants' legal representatives seated in the body

15 of this chamber?

16 MR CURRANS: No, sir.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

18 Mr (name redacted), can you confirm, please, that the two

19 witness cameras have been switched off and shrouded?

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

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. All the other cameras been

22 switched off?

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

24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

25 Bring the witness in, please.

 

 

37

 

1 The cameras on the Panel, Inquiry personnel and the

2 Full Participants' legal representatives may now be

3 switched back on.

4 P121 (sworn)

5 Questions by MR PHILLIPS

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Please sit down.

7 Yes, Mr Phillips?

8 MR PHILLIPS: Can I ask you to look, please, at your

9 statement, which is at RNI-840-085 (displayed), and can

10 we have now on the screen, please, the final page of the

11 statement at RNI-840-098 (displayed). Do we see your

12 cipher there and the date of 19 March 2007?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. Thank you. Now, you have been granted a cipher P121 and

15 you have already been provided with a list of names and

16 further ciphers, and obviously that's a matter which you

17 should consult, please, as we proceed through the

18 evidence, and as and when you are in doubt, please

19 consult the list. If you are in any difficulty about

20 that, please say immediately and we will try and assist

21 you.

22 A. Okay.

23 Q. Beginning, please, at the beginning, you say in

24 paragraph 4 of your statement, at the very bottom of

25 this page which is on the screen, that you worked in the

 

 

38

 

1 Regional Crime Squad in Gough and that went

2 from June 1986 to October 1989. If we go back to

3 paragraph 1, we can see that in 1989 you moved from

4 there to Lurgan. Do you see, the second sentence at

5 paragraph 1?

6 A. Yes, that's correct.

7 Q. And you worked there, as I understand it, until 2002?

8 A. Yes, that's correct.

9 Q. Can you tell us, please, briefly, the nature of your

10 work, first of all at Gough in the late 1980s?

11 A. I was involved in the interviews of suspects for

12 terrorist offences and involved in the investigation of

13 a number of terrorist crimes.

14 Q. So that whether interviewing or investigating, the focus

15 of your work was terrorist crime?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. Thank you. Now, in relation to your time in

18 Lurgan, October 1989 to 2002, what was the nature of

19 your work there?

20 A. Again, it was investigation and interviews connected to

21 both ordinary crime -- for example, burglaries,

22 deceptions -- and terrorist offences.

23 Q. So it was a mixture of ordinary crime and terrorist

24 work?

25 A. That's correct.

 

 

39

 

1 Q. And did you during that long period in Lurgan also take

2 part in interviewing for both non-terrorist and

3 terrorist offences?

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. Thank you. You were in Lurgan for a reasonable period

6 of years there. It looks as though it was about

7 13 years. Did you become well-known as a police officer

8 in the town?

9 A. Yes, I was well-known, yes.

10 Q. Would it be correct to say that you perhaps had a higher

11 profile than some of your colleagues?

12 A. Yes, I would say that, yes.

13 Q. We see -- we will look at it in a moment -- that when

14 you are talking about one of the complainants here -- I

15 think it was Barry Toman -- you say in particular that

16 he knew you by name?

17 A. Yes, that's correct.

18 Q. Thank you. At the time with which we are particularly

19 concerned, which is the late 1990s, 1997 in particular,

20 to 1999, what was the level of paramilitary activity in

21 and around Lurgan?

22 A. It was very high, and on both sides of the fence there

23 was murders conducted by the Provisional IRA and by the

24 UVF at that time.

25 Q. And does that comment apply for the whole of the period

 

 

40

 

1 I have mentioned, i.e. between 1997 and 1999?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. There was no change in the pattern of terrorist

4 offending at that stage?

5 A. Not at that stage, during my period there.

6 Q. Now, you went there, as we have seen, in 1989. Is it

7 possible for you to compare that period, 1997 to 1999,

8 ten years later, with the state of terrorist activity at

9 the beginning of your posting in Lurgan?

10 A. Well, the actual incidents had decreased, but the threat

11 was every bit as high then as when I first arrived.

12 Q. Presumably in the course of your work in relation to

13 terrorist crime, you must have come to know the local

14 players, if I can put it that way, on both sides?

15 A. That is correct, yes.

16 Q. And presumably the same applies in relation to

17 non-terrorist crime; you would have got to know the

18 prominent local criminal fraternity?

19 A. Definitely, yes.

20 Q. Now, can I ask you a question about your own appearance

21 because you know in the various complaints, descriptions

22 were given of interviewing officers?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And I would like you, if you can, to describe yourself

25 as you were in the late 1990s?

 

 

41

 

1 A. Yes, I was six foot tall, stout, with fair hair -- short

2 fair hair, and very much as I am at the moment although

3 I may have got greyer.

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

5 interviews? You tell us that from October 1989 you were

6 based in Lurgan in the CID, I think?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. But you have also explained that during that period you

9 did some interviewing in relation to terrorist crime?

10 A. That's correct, yes.

11 Q. Now, those interviews presumably would with take place

12 at holding centres?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Rather than at police stations?

15 A. That's correct, yes.

16 Q. And would the main one have been Gough?

17 A. That's correct, yes.

18 Q. Thank you. It may be a very difficult thing for you to

19 give me an estimate for, but see if you can try: how

20 regularly would you conduct interviews in relation to

21 terrorist offences, let's say in that period of the

22 three years at the end of the 1990s?

23 A. I would say certainly every month I would have been

24 involved in interviewing for up to a week.

25 Q. Thank you. We have heard a great deal of evidence from

 

 

42

 

1 others about the way the interviewing system worked so

2 I only want to pick up just a few points with you,

3 please.

4 It looks from the papers as though at this phase,

5 the phase we are concerned with, beginning in 1997, you

6 had a pretty regular interviewing partner; is that

7 correct?

8 A. Yes, that would be correct, yes.

9 Q. And that was DC Walker?

10 A. That is correct.

11 Q. So you would be interviewing with him, if not all of the

12 time, then perhaps most of the time. Is that fair?

13 A. That is fair, yes.

14 Q. Thank you. Now, can I ask you about briefings? As I

15 understand it, before interviewing began, there would be

16 a briefing given to the interviewing officers. Is that

17 correct?

18 A. That is correct, yes.

19 Q. And then subsequent briefings during the course of the

20 interviews?

21 A. That's correct, yes.

22 Q. Who would give briefings of that kind?

23 A. The senior investigating officer in charge of the lift.

24 Q. And that would be the case, would it, at the subsequent

25 briefings during the interview?

 

 

43

 

1 A. That would be correct, yes.

2 Q. Did any other officers ever attend briefings and take

3 part in the briefing?

4 A. Not to my recollection.

5 Q. Now, there are a lot of interview notes in our files

6 where you were one of the interviewing officers. Can

7 I ask you some questions about general practice?

8 The first is this: did you always identify yourself

9 at the start of an interview?

10 A. On all occasions, yes.

11 Q. Even where, as in the sort of example we talked about

12 a little earlier, you believed that the suspect knew

13 exactly who you were?

14 A. Yes, we always introduced ourselves.

15 Q. Yes. And did you and your regular partner have any

16 particular technique or particular approach to

17 interviewing?

18 A. Not that I am aware of, no.

19 Q. So far as the notes of the interview are concerned, we

20 see a lot of questions and answers recorded and we will

21 look at some examples in a minute. Often it seems that

22 there were no answers or the answer was "no reply"; is

23 that fair?

24 A. That's fair, yes.

25 Q. To what extent were the interview notes a verbatim,

 

 

44

 

1 a full verbatim record of what was said during the

2 interviews?

3 A. They were always a verbatim record of the interviews

4 unless it was always stated in the notes.

5 Q. Can we just look at an exchange about that, please,

6 together? The document I would like to you look at with

7 me, please, is at RNI-226-172 (displayed).

8 Now, as you see there is a screen in front of you

9 and it may be more convenient for you to look at this

10 and other documents on the screen. The disadvantage of

11 the screen is that it is very difficult to turn over

12 pages, as it is with hard copy. So I would just like to

13 flick over on the screen, please, to the beginning of

14 this interview, which is at RNI-226-170 (displayed)

15 because that will give you the context. Do you see? It

16 is one of the Mulvihill interviews?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. It took place on Wednesday, 11 November at 2.57, and you

19 see the names of members of the Mulvihill team, of

20 Geralyn McNally from the ICPC and you were the

21 interviewee, at the top left-hand side of this page?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So the passage I wanted to look at with you is two pages

24 in. So can we go back, please, to RNI-226-172

25 (displayed) where this very point came up? Do you see

 

 

45

 

1 about ten lines from the bottom of the page the

2 interviewer asks you:

3 "What about periods that seems to be classed as

4 general conversation?"

5 You then deal with that topic of general

6 conversation.

7 Now, so I have understood this, general conversation

8 is conversation other than about the alleged crime?

9 A. That is correct.

10 Q. And the purpose of it was?

11 A. To try and engage the subject in conversation.

12 Q. And when would you in an interview move into general

13 conversation mode?

14 A. Whenever it was obvious that he wasn't going to answer

15 questions we may have discussed other things, i.e. his

16 hobbies, sports, et cetera. It didn't always happen,

17 but it sometimes happened.

18 Q. So, so I'm clear then, that sort of conversation

19 unrelated to the alleged offence, would not be recorded

20 verbatim in the notes?

21 A. That is correct.

22 Q. Okay. Now, can we look at this in practice, please?

23 I'm going to show you a passage in an interview of

24 Barry Toman, who is one of the individuals who

25 complained, and we can see that at RNI-205-199

 

 

46

 

1 (displayed). Can you see that on the screen?

2 A. Yes, I have it.

3 Q. It is an interview -- one of many, as we will discover

4 together -- on the 14 February 1997 and it began at 9.20

5 and ended at 11 o'clock. The interviewing officers

6 there, it is the usual partnership, if I can put it that

7 way: you and DC Walker?

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. And, again, on the screen, please, can we flick over to

10 RNI-205-203 (displayed)? That is the final page of the

11 interview and it is signed at the bottom by, I think,

12 the Inspector. Do you see his signature at the bottom

13 left?

14 A. I do, yes.

15 Q. Thank you. It looks, therefore, going back to

16 RNI-205-199, as though this interview, which took an

17 hour and 40 minutes, is recorded in about four and

18 a half pages of notes. Do you see that, between

19 RNI-205-199 and RNI-205-203?

20 A. Yes, I'll take your word for it. It is not in front

21 of me.

22 Q. No. Let's look at it together, please. You see how it

23 begins, and most of the first page is taken up with the

24 introductions, the identification and the caution. And

25 then turning over, please, to RNI-205-200 (displayed),

 

 

47

 

1 there is a page of questions with no replies?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Save at the very top, "yes" and "no". Then to

4 RNI-205-201 (displayed), there is a brief reply to the

5 second question:

6 "Do you deny this?

7 "Answer: Yes."

8 Again, very brief replies, RNI-205-201 (displayed):

9 "Have you ever owned one?

10 "Answer: No.

11 "Question: Have you ever worn one?

12 "Answer: No."

13 Et cetera.

14 Going on to RNI-205-202 (displayed), "no reply" and

15 there is one very brief answer there. Do you see:

16 "Do you deny running away after the attack?

17 "Answer: Yes."

18 But most of the page records "no reply"?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. Then RNI-205-203 (displayed), at 10.22:

21 "DC Walker escorted Toman to the corridor to be

22 photographed and returned at 10.24."

23 Do you see that in the second line?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Right. Now, we know that the interview concluded at

 

 

48

 

1 11 o'clock?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. So that one infers -- I hope you agree with this -- that

4 between 10.24 and 11 o'clock, questions continued. That

5 is what it says in the third line, isn't it?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And you are questioning him about the alleged offence?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And he is refusing to answer any questions?

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. Now, that, therefore, took about 35/36 minutes?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And none of those questions and answers are recorded

14 are they?

15 A. No.

16 Q. So that is not, is it, a verbatim account of the rest of

17 the interview?

18 A. That's a generalisation of the rest of the interview.

19 Q. Yes.

20 A. From my memory, the questions asked during that period

21 were similar to the questions already asked.

22 Q. Let me ask about that. Was that your practice: when you

23 had asked them and recorded them, as it were, the first

24 time, and you then attempted to have a general

25 conversation, did you simply summarise where you were

 

 

49

 

1 repeating in the second part of the interview?

2 A. It seemed my practice in that interview. I cannot say

3 whether it was my practice on all occasions. I cannot

4 say that.

5 Q. Can I ask you: whose writing is this?

6 A. That's my writing.

7 Q. So, as I understand it, those lines -- "We continued to

8 question ..." and "His refusal ..." which is the next

9 sentence -- those five lines are a summary, are they, of

10 the 35/36 minutes of questions and answers?

11 A. That is correct, yes.

12 Q. So we have got two exceptions, haven't we, therefore, to

13 the verbatim rule: we have got the general conversation,

14 which you discussed with the Mulvihill team?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And we have got the summary of what you say is repeat

17 questions and answer at the end of this -- and perhaps

18 other -- interviews?

19 A. That's correct, yes.

20 Q. It looks, doesn't it, as though you had another go at

21 general conversation because you say:

22 "He talked freely about unrelated matters"?

23 A. That's correct, yes.

24 Q. So you would keep going back, would you, to try and

25 prompt an easier flow of discussion; in other words, by

 

 

50

 

1 diverting to non-incident-related questions?

2 A. That is correct, yes. Your ultimate aim is to have the

3 suspect talk to you.

4 Q. And were there any rules or was there any guidance given

5 to you as to at what point it was appropriate for the

6 scribe, in this case you, to stop recording verbatim the

7 questions and answers and summarise in this way?

8 A. No, there is no rules.

9 Q. But, as I understand it, at the end of each interview

10 the opportunity was given to the suspect to read the

11 notes made and, if he wished to, to sign acceptance of

12 their accuracy?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. Finally, the signature we see, again, is something on

15 all of the notes that a senior officer was required to

16 sign at the end of the notes?

17 A. Countersign the notes, that's correct.

18 Q. What was the purpose of that, do you know?

19 A. I presume to authenticate the notes.

20 Q. Now, as I said, we have seen literally hundreds of pages

21 of notes in the files. Generally speaking, the tone,

22 the way in which the questions are expressed, is rather

23 bland, isn't it?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Was that an accurate record of the actual tone of the

 

 

51

 

1 questions as posed?

2 A. Yes, I would say it was, yes.

3 Q. So far as the links of the sort of questions and the way

4 that they were posed is concerned, was a certain degree

5 of aggression in interview generally considered to be

6 acceptable?

7 A. Aggression, raising voices?

8 Q. Yes.

9 A. Yes, I would have thought so, yes.

10 Q. It was?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. That was a practice, was it, that you followed and that

13 your colleagues followed?

14 A. I wouldn't say it was a practice. It was a style you

15 developed yourself. You either -- you did it or you

16 didn't do it, or you just talked freely or you didn't.

17 There is no pattern and there is no style.

18 Q. But that was your style. Was it also the style of

19 DC Walker?

20 A. I wouldn't say it was my style. It happened on

21 occasions that I would have raised my voice. There is

22 no 100 per cent pattern that it happened on all

23 occasions.

24 Q. But was DC Walker somebody who on occasion would also

25 raise his voice and become a bit more aggressive?

 

 

52

 

1 A. Yes, I would say he would have raised his voice.

2 Whether he was aggressive or not, that is not for me to

3 comment on, but yes, I would say he has, yes.

4 Q. And in cases like that, where the questions were getting

5 more aggressive, are you saying that nevertheless the

6 full content of the questions would be accurately noted?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. As you know, at the heart of the complaints are

9 allegations that improper remarks of one kind or another

10 were made during the course of interviews?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Now, what do you say to the suggestion that no doubt

13 some would make that if any remarks of that kind were

14 made by interviewing officers, the last thing they would

15 do would be to make a careful note of them?

16 A. I can't say speak for other officers. Had remarks been

17 made, certainly if I had been recording the notes, the

18 remarks would have been recorded, but I can assure you

19 that no such remarks were made any time during any

20 interview that I was present.

21 Q. Can I ask you this question: If you had heard an

22 unacceptable remark, any sort of unacceptable remark

23 made in the course of an interview, what would you have

24 done?

25 A. I have already answered and said it did not happen in my

 

 

53

 

1 time. That is a hypothetical question.

2 Q. It is.

3 A. Which can only be answered if it happened.

4 Q. Put yourself in that position, if you would, for me.

5 What would you have done?

6 A. I certainly -- if anything inappropriate had happened,

7 I certainly would have reported it to my officers, my

8 senior officers.

9 Q. You would have reported the officer who had made the

10 unacceptable remark to a senior officer?

11 A. Yes, in a hypothetical situation.

12 Q. Yes.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Can I ask you another couple of questions about checking

15 the notes while we have got this page on the screen,

16 where we have an example? Do you see three lines from

17 the end:

18 "Notes read over to him. He made no comment and

19 ignored my offer to him to read or sign them"?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. I suggested to you that this was something that seemed

22 to happen at the end of every single interview?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Was it a requirement? Was it part of the rules under

25 which you operated, that you should offer an opportunity

 

 

54

 

1 to check the notes?

2 A. Yes, I believe it was.

3 Q. Yes. Now, we also see that in quite a lot of cases,

4 quite a lot of interviews, the suspect didn't take up

5 the offer, i.e. the offer to read the notes?

6 A. That's correct, yes.

7 Q. What would happen in cases of that kind?

8 A. Just a record of the fact would be made at the end of

9 the notes.

10 Q. Such as the comment made here?

11 A. Such as the comment made here, yes.

12 Q. Yes. Now, broadening the thing out rather, at the start

13 of the interview, we saw -- if we can go back to

14 RNI-205-199, please (displayed) -- you say in the third

15 line:

16 "He was already aware of our identities."

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. I think by then you had already interviewed him at least

19 once before. Then we see the reminder of the nature of

20 the enquiries, then the caution is set out in full and

21 at the bottom we can just see:

22 "Do you understand the caution?"

23 Do you see that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. What of the question of complaints? Was an opportunity

 

 

55

 

1 afforded in the interview for him to raise any concerns

2 or complaints with the interviewing officers?

3 A. Yes, that opportunity is always there. Some interviews

4 are maybe referred to by the interviewing officers, but

5 yes, he always had the opportunity to make any complaint

6 at any stage.

7 Q. We see in the custody record -- which, again, we will

8 look at in a moment -- that part of the review conducted

9 by the senior officer about continued detention included

10 a question to the prisoner about whether he had any

11 complaints?

12 A. Right, that is a uniform case. CID had nothing to do

13 with custody records.

14 Q. Right. Do you think there were occasions then, during

15 interview, when you as an interviewing officer would

16 raise that question with the suspect?

17 A. Yes, I have no doubt about that, yes.

18 Q. Would it be recorded?

19 A. Yes, it should be.

20 Q. It should be?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Thank you. Now, can I ask you about a completely

23 different topic now, and start by showing you

24 a paragraph in your statement? It is paragraph 14 at

25 RNI-840-088 (displayed).

 

 

56

 

1 That's, as you can see, the middle of the paragraph.

2 It begins on the previous page, but the references in it

3 I want to look at with you are on the page now and it is

4 where you are talking about the complaints, and you

5 refer there to your views and beliefs about membership

6 of the Provisional IRA and you make two references in

7 those last three sentences to having intelligence. Do

8 you see that?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And there are a number of references, aren't there, in

11 the rest of your statement to having views, holding

12 beliefs, based on intelligence?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Thank you. Can I just ask you about that question of

15 intelligence generally? To what extent, as a CID

16 officer, did you have access to intelligence material?

17 A. None. That was all -- that was Special Branch would

18 have held that. But obviously we would have been aware

19 or made aware of any particular intelligence in relation

20 to anyone that we had been speaking to, anything that

21 could be given to us.

22 Q. How would you be made aware?

23 A. Probably through a senior officer at a briefing.

24 Q. Through a senior Special Branch or a senior CID officer?

25 A. I would say a CID officer.

 

 

57

 

1 Q. So from that officer you would learn intelligence which

2 you understood had originated from Special Branch?

3 A. I presume that is where it originated from, yes. I

4 think it is fair comment.

5 Q. But do I take it then that you did not have your own

6 direct access to any form of Special Branch

7 intelligence?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Did you have your own access to any other form of

10 intelligence?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. What sort of access was that?

13 A. Well, you would have access to intelligence held by the

14 local collator, which would have been a generalisation.

15 Q. How would you get access?

16 A. We would go and see him and speak to him, or he would

17 brief us.

18 Q. You didn't use any of the computer systems?

19 A. No.

20 Q. No?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Is that because you weren't permitted to or because you

23 didn't want to?

24 A. Because I couldn't.

25 Q. Yes. What about intelligence from any other sources?

 

 

58

 

1 Were there any other sources -- Army, military

2 intelligence, any other type of intelligence -- to which

3 you, as a CID officer, had access?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Now, in relation to this question of intelligence, in

6 briefings before interviewing would there be an

7 intelligence element to the briefings?

8 A. If it was relevant to what you were going to question

9 the suspect about.

10 Q. Can I take it from your earlier answer that that part of

11 any such briefing would come to you from the senior CID

12 officer rather than, for example, by a Special Branch

13 officer attending the briefing him or herself?

14 A. That's correct, yes.

15 Q. Thank you. So you wouldn't yourself, as an interviewing

16 officer, have been in a position to seek or ask

17 Special Branch for intelligence about an interviewee?

18 A. That opportunity would always be there if you were

19 speaking to the guys, yes.

20 Q. Did you ever do that?

21 A. I'm sure I have, yes, I'm sure I have on occasions.

22 Q. And by the "guys", presumably you mean the local

23 Special Branch officers?

24 A. That's correct, yes.

25 Q. Forget about the interviews for a moment. Did you

 

 

59

 

1 receive any general Special Branch briefings on

2 intelligence?

3 A. No.

4 Q. No. Now, what about intelligence held, I think you

5 said, by the local collator or held perhaps even by CID?

6 Would you have access to that before beginning to

7 interview?

8 A. Yes, you would, yes.

9 Q. So would you in any particular case be able to go and

10 check up intelligence on a suspect before beginning the

11 task of interviewing?

12 A. Yes, you could, yes, but intelligence is a big word.

13 Intelligence to me covers antecedent history and things

14 like that.

15 Q. So in other words, you give to that word a meaning which

16 would include previous convictions?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. What else would it include?

19 A. As I say, antecedent history of the person you are

20 interviewing, information in relation to his parents,

21 his family, his employment, anything that you need to

22 build up a picture of a person sitting on the opposite

23 side of the desk to you.

24 Q. So it would include all of those things as well as

25 covert intelligence?

 

 

60

 

1 A. Yes -- well, there wasn't so much covert intelligence,

2 but yes.

3 Q. So far as the local Special Branch was concerned, what

4 degree of cooperation was there between the Lurgan CID

5 and the local Special Branch officers?

6 A. We worked closely together.

7 Q. And was it at this stage, in the late 1990s, an

8 effective working relationship?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. So you would see Special Branch officers, would you, on

11 a daily or frequent basis at work?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And would you have from time to time informal

14 discussions with your local Special Branch colleagues

15 about intelligence matters?

16 A. Not on a day-to-day basis; only if it referred to an

17 interviewing situation that was going to come up. You

18 wouldn't sit around a table day to day and talk about

19 intelligence that they had on different people.

20 Q. So it would be task-specific?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Now, when you received intelligence with interviews in

23 mind, beginning a task of interviewing suspects, for

24 example, what would you have done with that

25 intelligence? Would you have discussed it with your

 

 

61

 

1 interviewing colleagues --

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. -- for example?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. You would?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Would that be in order to form a strategy or a plan for

8 the interviews to come?

9 A. It certainly would be to make everyone aware that we

10 were all singing off the same hymn sheet.

11 Q. And was there ever an occasion where it was necessary or

12 where you did share intelligence of that kind outside

13 your colleagues; in other words, beyond other members of

14 the CID?

15 A. No.

16 Q. No?

17 A. No.

18 Q. I would like to ask you, please, before we look at the

19 first of the complaints you address in your statement,

20 some very general questions about memory because here in

21 your statement you have dealt with a number of

22 complaints. The most recent events are in 1998/1999.

23 It is a very, very long time ago?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Now, in order to prepare your statement and to do the

 

 

62

 

1 interview with Eversheds, I understand that you were

2 shown a number of documents?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Can I ask you this question, please: do you have any

5 actual recollection of the events you deal with in your

6 statement absent the documents?

7 A. No, I don't believe so.

8 Q. So in fairness, therefore, what you have done is,

9 presumably, to consider the written material and use it

10 to job your memory and, where you do not have an actual

11 memory, to reconstruct what must have happened from the

12 documents?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Is that a fair summary?

15 A. I believe so, yes.

16 Q. Thank you. Now, the first matter you deal with in your

17 statement is a very old matter indeed, and you begin to

18 deal with it at paragraph 15. Could we have that on the

19 screen? Yes, it is. Okay, that is RNI-840-088

20 (displayed).

21 This is what you describe as the Colin Duffy

22 complaint, 1993. And so you are aware, particularly if

23 you have got the hard copy of your statement there, this

24 passage goes on to paragraph 31.

25 A. Okay.

 

 

63

 

1 Q. As I understand it, this complaint arose in the course

2 of the investigation of the John Lyness murder. Is that

3 correct?

4 A. I believe so, yes.

5 Q. Yes. And you tell us in that first paragraph of this

6 section that you can't remember whether Mr Colin Duffy

7 was represented by Rosemary Nelson at the time. Do you

8 see that?

9 A. I do, yes.

10 Q. But then you say:

11 "As far as I recollect, he was always represented by

12 her."

13 Does that mean that as long as you can remember

14 dealing with him, she was his lawyer?

15 A. That's correct, yes.

16 Q. And if, therefore, she was indeed acting for him in this

17 case, do you think that was the first time that you had

18 come across her?

19 A. No, I cannot say that that would be correct, no.

20 Q. You think you may have come across her before?

21 A. Yes, I may have, yes.

22 Q. Presumably in the context of other cases?

23 A. That's correct, yes.

24 Q. Are you able to say -- maybe you can't because of the

25 limitation of your memory -- whether you formed any

 

 

64

 

1 impression of her as a lawyer during the course of this

2 first case in 1993?

3 A. No. The only thing I would say is she was a solicitor

4 in Lurgan doing her work and, as far as I am concerned,

5 a well-respected solicitor and I had no problems with

6 her whatsoever.

7 Q. Did your view of her, your perception of her in any way

8 change when in due course Colin Duffy was released on

9 appeal in relation to this offence?

10 A. Absolutely not.

11 Q. Now, looking at that point, and moving on so I can show

12 you paragraph 27 of your statement at RNI-840-090

13 (displayed), where you are talking about a statement you

14 made in the course of the complaint, you say there that

15 intelligence -- again, you refer to that word in the

16 sixth line of the paragraph. You say:

17 "Our intelligence indicated this ..."

18 Now, what do you mean by that?

19 A. Just what we had built up in relation to Mr Duffy on

20 this occasion, what I was aware of myself through

21 interviews, through talking to various suspects, various

22 informants and Special Branch intelligence, collators'

23 intelligence, the whole generalisation.

24 Q. So tell me if this is a fair summary: the intelligence

25 backed up your own view of him, notwithstanding the fact

 

 

65

 

1 that he was in fact acquitted on appeal for that

2 offence?

3 A. Yes, I would say my view on him was based on an

4 intelligence, on what I knew about him, yes.

5 Q. Yes. Now, you say after that that you felt no

6 resentment. Presumably that means in relation to the

7 acquittal on appeal?

8 A. That's correct, yes.

9 Q. But surely it must have been more than frustrating to

10 see a man who you believed was guilty walking free from

11 the Court of Appeal?

12 A. Frustration and resentment are two different things. I

13 should point out that it is a policeman's job to bring

14 the matters to court. What happens there is out of his

15 hands. There's not a thing he can do about it.

16 Q. So you have signed up as a police officer, have you, to

17 a certain element of frustration, but that does not in

18 your view lead to resentment? Is that what you are

19 saying?

20 A. That is exactly what I'm saying, yes.

21 Q. What about your colleagues though: did they have a less

22 philosophical approach to the matter?

23 A. I can't speak for them.

24 Q. You didn't discuss it with them?

25 A. No.

 

 

66

 

1 Q. You weren't aware of a general view, very much like

2 yours, about what had happened in that case?

3 A. It wasn't discussed. I'm sure there was general

4 frustration, but it wasn't discussed.

5 Q. There wasn't any discussion when he was acquitted on

6 appeal. Is that what you are saying?

7 A. That is what I am saying, yes.

8 Q. You and your colleagues in Lurgan did not discuss the

9 fact that the Court of Appeal had ordered his release?

10 A. I don't believe we did, no.

11 Q. Now, in this very statement referred to in the same

12 paragraph, which I would like to show you, please, so

13 you have got it there in front of you -- so perhaps we

14 can move from the statement at RNI-831-060 (displayed).

15 It is a very ancient statement, 13 September 1993. But

16 can I just remind you of what you said here:

17 "The allegations are totally untrue ..."

18 That is the allegations he was making in the

19 complaint:

20 "... and as far as I am concerned, he is a murderer

21 trying his best to form a defence for these charges."

22 So was that your view of this particular complaint,

23 namely that it was a tactic being used as part of the

24 defence to the criminal charge?

25 A. Yes, that was my belief. I should say at this stage I

 

 

67

 

1 cannot remember what the complaint was about. I haven't

2 read through it, what this particular complaint was.

3 Q. Yes. Well, this was a complaint, as I say, arising out

4 of the arrest and detention there in the course of that

5 investigation and, as I remember it, at any rate -- and

6 I will be corrected if I am wrong -- it was a complaint

7 about the way the interview had been conducted. In

8 other words, that the notes were not properly recorded

9 and he wasn't allowed access to the notes?

10 A. Okay, yes.

11 Q. It was a relatively low level complaint, if I can put it

12 that way?

13 A. Okay.

14 Q. So far as the tactic, though, can I just focus on that

15 for a moment, the tactic that you describe in there,

16 trying his best to form a defence for these charges: is

17 that something that in your view was a relatively common

18 reason for putting forward complaints?

19 A. No, I don't believe it was, no.

20 Q. You don't?

21 A. No.

22 Q. So was this, then, an isolated example?

23 A. Yes, I believe it was at the time, yes.

24 Q. Now, can you remember what the result in relation to

25 this complaint was?

 

 

68

 

1 A. There was no charges preferred.

2 Q. Exactly. You denied the allegation and no charges were

3 brought against you?

4 A. Yes, I denied the allegation because it did not happen.

5 Q. Yes. Now, can I just see whether you can remember

6 something else which happened much later in connection

7 with the 1997 Colin Duffy complaints. There are

8 a number, actually, in that year. You deal with these

9 in paragraph 50 of your statement at RNI-840-093

10 (displayed).

11 Now, you break them down into (a) to (d), do you see

12 there, at the bottom of the page?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And the one I would like you to look at just for the

15 purposes of our discussion about tactics -- one of the

16 complaints here was centred around a comment which

17 Colin Duffy had allegedly made to another interviewing

18 officer -- who also has a cipher, by the way: DC P149,

19 if you would like to just check that on your sheet?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Thank you. And the argument -- and eventually the

22 complaint -- centred round the suggestion that he,

23 Colin Duffy, had made that comment.

24 Now, again, can I ask you, was that approach to the

25 complaints system something with which you were familiar

 

 

69

 

1 at this stage in 1997?

2 A. Sorry, I don't understand.

3 Q. My fault. The suggestion being, you see, that the

4 complaint was being made for court purposes, i.e. for use

5 later in court?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Was that something that by this stage, 1997, you had

8 come across?

9 A. No, I don't believe it was, no.

10 Q. It wasn't?

11 A. No.

12 Q. You see, some have suggested that complaints were

13 sometimes made in order to bolster a defence in

14 a criminal case or, indeed, to form the basis of

15 a subsequent civil case against the police. Is that

16 something you ever came across?

17 A. Oh, it is, yes, yes.

18 Q. Where complaints, in your view, were just put forward

19 with that sort of tactical advantage in mind?

20 A. Yes, that is an opinion I have formed in the past, yes.

21 Q. Going back briefly to 1993 and the very early complaint

22 we looked at then, can you remember whether at that

23 point, in 1993, you had ever been the subject of

24 a complaint before?

25 A. I am sure I have. I can't remember. I am sure I have,

 

 

70

 

1 yes.

2 Q. Before 1993?

3 A. I'm sure I have, yes.

4 Q. Moving to the first of the 1997 complaints, in February

5 that year a number of arrests were made in Lurgan,

6 weren't they?

7 A. That's correct, yes.

8 Q. And amongst the individuals arrested were a ciphered

9 suspect, C138?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Anthony Simmons and the Toman brothers, and the one we

12 are concerned with is Barry Toman?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, as I understand it, they were all arrested under

15 the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Is that right, as far

16 as you know?

17 A. As far as I am aware, yes.

18 Q. Yes. And taken to Gough Barracks for questioning?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And Rosemary Nelson was the legal representative, the

21 solicitor, for all of those men, wasn't she?

22 A. I believe so, yes.

23 Q. Now, they all made complaints at a later stage and you

24 featured one way or another in those complaints, didn't

25 you?

 

 

71

 

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And just to look to the end of the matter, they were

3 investigated by the Complaints and Discipline

4 Department?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. With P146 being the investigating officer, if you just

7 check that cipher, please?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And subsequently by the Mulvihill team, as we have seen

10 in your interview?

11 A. That's correct, yes.

12 Q. You were involved in interviewing, at some stage at any

13 rate, three of those four individuals -- C138,

14 Anthony Simmons and Barry Toman -- weren't you?

15 A. I believe so, yes.

16 Q. Yes. Can we start by looking at the C138 case, and your

17 statement deals with it -- again, so that you have got

18 the context -- I don't know, have you got a hard copy of

19 your statement with you?

20 A. I have, yes.

21 Q. Well, it is at paragraph 32, RNI-840-091 (displayed).

22 There it is on the screen as well.

23 He was arrested, this suspect, on 6 February. Can

24 you remember what the arrest was for?

25 A. Yes, I believe there was a device found in a car in his

 

 

72

 

1 garage.

2 Q. Had you come across him before?

3 A. I'm not sure whether I interviewed him before, but I

4 would have been aware of his name.

5 Q. Why? How?

6 A. Because he would have been a member of the unit or on

7 the outskirts of members of the unit, the Provisional

8 IRA unit in the Kilwilke Estate in Lurgan.

9 Q. What was the basis for that belief of yours?

10 A. It was just something that I had built up over that

11 time. You are aware from various interviews and, again,

12 from what I said, on the broad usage of the word

13 "intelligence".

14 Q. It is the intelligence that you mention in your

15 statement, isn't it, in the last sentence of

16 paragraph 32? Do you see that:

17 "This was probably because of the intelligence"?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. So that is information passed to you rather than

20 something you knew yourself; is that right?

21 A. No, as I said earlier, intelligence can be broken down

22 into various matters. It may have been something I read

23 myself, it may have been something I had been briefed on

24 by a CID officer.

25 Q. Can you now recall which?

 

 

73

 

1 A. No, I can't.

2 Q. Can I just ask you: what do you mean in this paragraph

3 by the phrase "one of their supporters"?

4 A. Well, you have a unit, the Provisional IRA would have

5 a unit of about five or six men who would be actually

6 doing the deeds, and then they had an outside structure

7 of people who would come in and clean up and provide

8 houses at various other stages of an operation.

9 Q. And it is the second group whom you regard as the

10 supporters, is it?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Just so I can be clear how far the question of support

13 extended, did you regard Rosemary Nelson as one of the

14 supporters?

15 A. No, I did not.

16 Q. No?

17 A. No.

18 Q. How did you come to draw the distinction?

19 A. Rosemary Nelson was a solicitor going about her daily

20 work. She was not involved with the Provisional IRA.

21 Q. And not, in your view, associated with the cause?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Let's look at the custody record, please, for this

24 individual. It begins at RNI-204-009 (displayed). Do

25 you see there the first entry shows the arrest on

 

 

74

 

1 6 February?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. I won't get you to look at every single page because it

4 is on the record, but it looks as though he was held

5 until the 9th, when he was released, I think, without

6 charge.

7 Now, can I just ask you about the tension time, just

8 so we have got this clear before we go on to more

9 detailed questions. For how long in relation to

10 a Prevention of Terrorism Act case were the police

11 entitled to detain?

12 A. I'm not sure now. It was either 48 hours or 72 hours.

13 I think the Emergency Provision Act was 72 hours, the

14 Prevention of Terrorism Act was 48 hours initially.

15 Q. Were there circumstances in which authority could be

16 given for extensions?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. But that presumably was the province of senior officers?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Thank you. Now, it looks from these records as though

21 he was interviewed about 14 times during that period.

22 Is that something of which you have any recollection

23 now?

24 A. No.

25 Q. And again, rather typically of all the cases we are

 

 

75

 

1 going to look at, the interviews are conducted by

2 officers in pairs. It looks, in fact, as though there

3 were six officers in all involved. Again, do you have

4 any recollection of that now?

5 A. No, I don't, no. Six seems a lot. Usually it is only

6 four.

7 Q. It looks as though there was a bit of changing around in

8 this particular case.

9 A. Okay, yes.

10 Q. So can we take it then that in accordance with the

11 general practice you mentioned, there would have been

12 a briefing before the interviews began?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And then subsequent briefings during the course of the

15 next days when he was being interviewed?

16 A. That's correct, yes.

17 Q. To save time, can I ask you, do you have any

18 recollection now of any of the contents of those

19 briefings?

20 A. No, I am sure we were told initially as to why he was

21 arrested and, indeed, the circumstances of it, but in

22 relation to anything else, no.

23 Q. No. Sir, would that be a convenient moment to break?

24 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. Quarter of an hour break?

25 Yes. Before the witness leaves, Mr (name redacted), would

 

 

76

 

1 you please confirm that all the cameras have been

2 switched off?

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

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please escort the witness out.

5 Just before 25 past.

6 (3.20 pm)

7 (Short break)

8 (3.25 pm)

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Currans, may we go through the checklist

10 with you, please, before the witness with comes in?

11 Is the public area screen fully if place, locked and

12 the key secured?

13 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

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

15 screen closed?

16 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Are the technical support screens in place

18 and securely fastened?

19 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Is anyone other than Inquiry personnel and

21 the Participants' legal representatives seated in the

22 body of this chamber?

23 MR CURRANS: No, sir.

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

25 the two witness cameras have been switched off and

 

 

77

 

1 shrouded?

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

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. All the other cameras have been

4 switched off?

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

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

7 Bring the witness in, please.

8 The cameras on the Panel, Inquiry personnel and the

9 Full Participants' legal representatives may now be

10 switched back on.

11 Yes, Mr Phillips?

12 MR PHILLIPS: Now, we were looking at the case of C138. Can

13 I ask you to look with me, please, at the custody

14 record? We saw the date of arrest, 6 February, on this

15 page, RNI-204-009, and if we look over, please, to

16 RNI-204-011 (displayed), we will see that the first

17 interview, in fact, took place the next day -- that is

18 the 7thyou see it right at the bottom of the page at 11

19 minutes past nine in the morning. You were not involved

20 and I would like to skip over, please, to the first

21 interview involving you, as far as we can see anyway,

22 which is at the top of RNI-204-015 (displayed). It is

23 on the same day, 7 February, but you can see the time by

24 now, 21.40, and there is your cipher.

25 A. Yes.

 

 

78

 

1 Q. Do you see? That is as far, as we can see, the first

2 time that you interviewed this particular suspect.

3 Can I ask you a specific question about these

4 interviews, please: do you have any actual recollection

5 of any of the interviews of C138?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Can you remember now how many times you interviewed him

8 in the three or four days that we know he was in

9 detention?

10 A. No.

11 Q. We think it was five times. Does that sound about

12 right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Thank you. Can you recall who your interviewing partner

15 was for those interviews?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Well, as far as we can see, if you look first of all at

18 this part we had on the screen, the first interview, it

19 looks as though your partner there was another ciphered

20 witness?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. P228. You can see that from the list. And later -- and

23 I'm not going to show you all the entries in the custody

24 record -- but it looks as though you interviewed with

25 P160, if you can just check that cipher, please?

 

 

79

 

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now, so far as those two officers are concerned, so P228

3 and P160, can you give a physical description of either

4 of them?

5 A. Yes. P160 would have been six foot-odd tall, slim,

6 greying, with -- I think he had a grey beard. P228 was

7 about five foot nine, medium build, with, I would say,

8 fair, fine hair.

9 Q. Now, the other officers who appear to have taken part

10 are P135, P162. Again, could you check those for me,

11 please, on your list?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And DC Walker?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Can you give, again, just a very outline description of

16 any of those three, please?

17 A. P162 would have been about five foot ten, stocky build,

18 with dark hair, and P135 would have been early 50s, five

19 foot eight/five foot nine, grey hair with glasses.

20 Q. Thank you very much.

21 Now, this complainant, C138, gave his own

22 description of the officers who he said had interviewed

23 him in a statement which he made, again, to the

24 Mulvihill team, in fact just a few days before the

25 interview that you had, which we have just looked at.

 

 

80

 

1 Can we look at that together, please? It is at

2 RNI-224-014 (displayed). There you see his statement,

3 the date of 6 November and he first of all describes the

4 circumstances of his arrest. And if we turn over the

5 page to RNI-224-015 (displayed), you see just about

6 eight lines down, he says:

7 "While I was waiting, I asked to see my solicitor,

8 Rosemary Nelson."

9 And described the events of that evening.

10 Then on the next page he begins the section about

11 the interviews. That is RNI-224-016 (displayed). And

12 do you see he describes six officers, and says:

13 "Before that, I was interviewed by pairs of

14 officers, but the pairs would not always be the same,

15 some officers not always interviewing with the same

16 partner. I would describe the six officers as

17 follows..."

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Can I ask you first of all, does the description of

20 number 1 sound like a description of yourself?

21 A. Yes, I would agree with that.

22 Q. And from what you have just said, does number 2 describe

23 P160?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Can you help with number 3?

 

 

81

 

1 A. Not really. It doesn't strike me to be a description of

2 anyone mentioned.

3 Q. Might it be a description, for example, of DC Walker?

4 A. No, I wouldn't have said so, no.

5 Q. No. Can I just remind you of the other officers: P228,

6 P135 and P162. Do any of those descriptions fit any of

7 those officers in your view?

8 A. No, I wouldn't have thought so.

9 Q. Now, if you carry on down this statement, he says

10 that -- do you see about five lines from the bottom:

11 "I remember the first two officers, one and two

12 I have described the best as they were the most

13 aggressive during the interviews."

14 Do you have any recollection of being aggressive

15 during these particular interviews?

16 A. No, I don't.

17 Q. No. Now, can I ask you this question about the way the

18 interviewing of this suspect went? Do you remember that

19 he, C138, handed over a statement during an earlier

20 interview, I think it was an interview before you began

21 to interview him? Do you have any recollection of that?

22 A. Yes, I believe I have, yes.

23 Q. Do you think that was something you would have been made

24 aware of before your own interview began?

25 A. Yes.

 

 

82

 

1 Q. And in circumstances such as that, where a statement

2 emerges from a suspect, would you then make sure you had

3 read it before you began your interviews?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Yes. Was that a reasonably regular occurrence, that

6 a suspect would hand in a written statement?

7 A. No, I wouldn't say it was regular. It has happened. It

8 did happen before, but I wouldn't say it was a regular

9 occurrence, no.

10 Q. How was that development regarded? Was it something

11 that was a cause of irritation or concern on the part of

12 the interviewing officers?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Can you remember anything about this statement or what

15 was said to you about it by your colleagues?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Can you remember whether, during the course of the

18 interviews that you conducted -- as I said, we think it

19 is five -- at any point C138 made a complaint to you?

20 A. I can't recall whether he did or not, but had he have

21 done so, it would have been recorded, yes.

22 Q. Again, can I ask you whether you recall being made aware

23 at the time of any complaint that he was making during

24 the time of his detention?

25 A. No, I can't recall whether he did or not.

 

 

83

 

1 Q. Well, moving the matter forward, on 21 January, so

2 11 months later, you received a 17/3 form, in other

3 words a form under the Complaints and Discipline system,

4 and we can see that together at RNI-203-057 (displayed).

5 Now, if you look at the bottom and your signature

6 and the date, 21 January, can I ask you this question:

7 was this, do you think, the first you had heard of these

8 allegations made by C138?

9 A. I can't say for certain. Normal practice would be if

10 a complaint was made that you would be served with

11 a form 17/3 at the earliest convenience, and that set

12 the wheels in motion then. The matter was then referred

13 to Complaints and Discipline and a follow-up interview

14 then. Whether this was the first time I had heard of it

15 or not, I can't say.

16 Q. But I think you said earlier you certainly don't have

17 any recollection of being told about it at the time,

18 i.e. during the detention in February 1997?

19 A. I said I didn't think so or I couldn't be certain

20 whether I did or didn't.

21 Q. Now, you will see there that the detail given on this

22 page, which is where the complaint is set out, is much

23 more limited, and two officers, specifically, are

24 referred to.

25 Can I just ask you a question really by way of

 

 

84

 

1 confirmation: at the time that we are talking about for

2 the interviews, February 1997, would you have described

3 yourself as being grey-haired?

4 A. No.

5 Q. No, thank you.

6 As you can see on this page, the complainant, C138,

7 alleged that a number of derogatory comments about

8 Rosemary Nelson were made during the course of the

9 interviews. It was said, he alleged, that she was

10 a money grabbing bitch, she was only in it for the

11 money. She had got Colin Duffy off, Colin Duffy was

12 a Provo bastard and Rosemary Nelson was as bad as him.

13 She was a Provo solicitor and comments -- derogatory

14 comments were made -- remarks about her face and other

15 abusive comments were made.

16 Now, I ask you this question: Did you in the course

17 of your interviews of this suspect make any comments of

18 that kind about Rosemary Nelson to this suspect?

19 A. None whatsoever.

20 Q. Did you hear any such comments being made?

21 A. I did not. In relation to that complaint, the

22 interviewing officer was P162. The interview notes will

23 clearly record who was interviewing with him. I do not

24 believe it was me.

25 Q. That's quite correct. Did you at any point hear words

 

 

85

 

1 in an interview at which you were present of a similar

2 kind to those set out on that page?

3 A. I most certainly did not.

4 Q. Did you hear any words that might have been understood

5 or misunderstood in that way?

6 A. Definitely not.

7 Q. Did you hear at the time about such comments having been

8 made by any of your colleagues in interviews in which

9 you were not present?

10 A. No.

11 Q. And did you ever hear comments of that kind being made

12 by colleagues outside the interviews?

13 A. Definitely not.

14 Q. Now, let us look together, please, at the response you

15 gave. That's at RNI-203-058 (displayed). That is the

16 response when served with the 17/3 form. You say,

17 again, 21 January 1998:

18 "Nothing at this stage."

19 Can I ask you this question about this particular

20 response? Why was that your answer when served with the

21 form?

22 A. Because the procedure would be that you were served with

23 the form and you were then asked to sign, which is

24 basically a receipt, that you had been served with the

25 form, which is this document.

 

 

86

 

1 You wouldn't have had time to have read it, and as

2 I referred earlier, there would be a follow-up

3 investigation in which you could explain yourself.

4 Q. As far as you can, can I ask you to help with this

5 question: do you think that at this stage

6 in January 1998 you would have had a good recollection

7 of the events in the interviews which you had conducted

8 of C138?

9 A. I can't say.

10 Q. Well, on the basis of the answers you gave us earlier, I

11 can take it, can I, that between February 1997 and this

12 day, 21 January 1998, you would have interviewed a large

13 number of other terrorist suspects?

14 A. Yes, I would have remembered it for the pure fact that

15 these allegations were falsely made. That is the only

16 way I can answer it.

17 Q. Presumably if you first knew of them in January 1998,

18 then that was the first you knew that what you regarded

19 as false allegations were being made?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Now, can we look at the way you deal with this in your

22 statement, please? That's at RNI 840-091 (displayed).

23 Referring to the form in paragraph 35, you say:

24 "The description in the form does not fit my

25 description. I am six foot tall and fair haired,

 

 

87

 

1 whereas the officer described had greyer hair."

2 That is what you said a little earlier. Then you

3 explain why you were served with the form?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Looking back, can I just ask you this question: if, when

6 you had received this 17/3 form and it, as far as you

7 could see, did not make reference to you or describe

8 you, would that not have been something worth saying

9 right at the outset?

10 A. On reflection perhaps so, but practice was that you were

11 served with the form and it was a later interview when

12 it was followed up.

13 As I say, when you were served with the form at that

14 time, it was immediate that you were then handed the

15 statement to sign. It was a pre-prepared statement,

16 typed out. It wasn't handwritten in any shape or form,

17 and I believe then that is when you give -- certainly

18 that was my practice. That is when I gave my full

19 answers.

20 Q. Of course, if you had made that comment -- in other

21 words that doesn't fit my description; I'm not the

22 person referred to --

23 A. Yes, but -- sorry, I should make it clear that in an

24 interview scenario, if a complaint is made against one

25 person, then all interviews -- all interviewers are then

 

 

88

 

1 treated the same way. Everyone then is served with

2 the 17/3.

3 Q. Does it follow, therefore, that your understanding was

4 once you had been served with the 17/3, inevitably the

5 process would then just carry on anyway?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. So whatever you had said in answer to the service of the

8 17/3, you believed that you would be interviewed and the

9 complaints system would run its course whatever you say?

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. So that provided a substantial disincentive for saying

12 very much when served with the 17/3 form?

13 A. That's exactly right.

14 Q. That's very helpful, thank you.

15 Can we move on to the next one, which is the

16 Anthony Simmons case. Again, for your reference you

17 started to talk about this in paragraph 39. Yes, it is

18 on the screen there: RNI-840-092 (displayed). We know

19 from the records that he was arrested on 11 February.

20 Can you remember what the circumstances of his arrest

21 were?

22 A. I believe there was a hide found in his back garden,

23 a hide being somewhere for terrorists to put their arms

24 or explosives or whatever in safe keeping.

25 Q. Thank you. And, again, we have his custody record from

 

 

89

 

1 which it looks as though he was taken into custody on

2 11 February and eventually released, I think again

3 without charge, on the 14th.

4 Again, can I take it that you don't have a detailed

5 recollection of the events of those days?

6 A. No, I don't, sorry.

7 Q. No. But do you remember being involved in interviewing

8 him?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Again, can you help with how many times you think you

11 interviewed him?

12 A. Without looking up, I can't say how many times.

13 Q. As far as the records show, it appears that you

14 interviewed him only once.

15 A. Okay.

16 Q. And we can see that -- again, just to give you the

17 context before I ask you questions about it -- at

18 RNI-2304-229 (displayed). Do you see that on

19 11 February at 21.24, you and your usual partner, if I

20 can put it that way, DC Walker?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Thank you. So far as we can see from the records, at

23 this time, on 11 February, you were also involved in the

24 long series of interviews of Barry Toman.

25 Now, would that be a common thing for you to have to

 

 

90

 

1 deal with, where you were involved in two lots of

2 ongoing interviews at the same time?

3 A. No, it wouldn't normally happen.

4 Q. Can you remember why it happened in this case?

5 A. I presume it was just a changeover of personnel, but I

6 can't remember exactly. I think the changeover would be

7 the best to explain it, but I have no exact recollection

8 of it.

9 Q. Now, so far as these officers are concerned, as far as

10 the records show, again, there were four others -- and,

11 please, if you could check against the cipher list:

12 P117, P149, P164, and an officer named Campbell. I

13 think DC Campbell, but I may be wrong about that.

14 You presumably knew all of those officers?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And again, can I take it that before you began your

17 interviewing -- we see where it is there on the screen,

18 at 24 minutes past 9 in the evening on the 11th -- you

19 would have received a briefing in the usual way?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Can I assume again that you don't have any detailed

22 recollection of this particular briefing about the case

23 of Anthony Simmons?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Thank you. Can you remember whether in the course of

 

 

91

 

1 the interview you conducted, Mr Simmons made a complaint

2 to you?

3 A. No, I can't remember. But if he had, it would be

4 recorded and reported.

5 Q. So we can take it if there is no record, no such

6 complaint was made to you?

7 A. That's correct, yes.

8 Q. Thank you. Can you recall whether you were aware of

9 other complaints made by Anthony Simmons during his

10 detention?

11 A. No, I can't.

12 Q. Again, please, if we can look together at the form 17/3

13 in this case and first, please, to look at the

14 statement, your statement, where you deal with it,

15 RNI-840-091 (displayed). Do you see in paragraph 42,

16 you note that the form was served on 21 January, the

17 same day in fact as the last one we looked at, some time

18 after the interview:

19 "I'm not aware that a complaint was made at the time

20 of the interview"?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. So, again, can I take it -- if we can have the complaint

23 form on the screen now at RNI-203-179 (displayed) --

24 here it is. Again, your signature at the bottom and the

25 same date. We can see the complainant's name again in

 

 

92

 

1 the box at the top. Again, a very short statement of

2 the complaint.

3 Can I take it that you have no recollection of being

4 made aware of this complaint before this time, in other

5 words January the following year, 1998?

6 A. I do not have a recollection, no.

7 Q. No. Now, you see the allegation there. In the second

8 line, can I draw to your attention, it says:

9 "At the subsequent interviews, Rosemary Nelson's

10 name was frequently brought up by the CID during the

11 second day."

12 Do you see that?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, we saw earlier that you interviewed him only once

15 and, in fact, in the evening of the first day, so it

16 would follow, wouldn't it, that you didn't in fact take

17 part in any interview on the second day?

18 A. That's correct, yes.

19 Q. Thank you. The allegations there, which I'll take

20 rather briefly in those circumstances, are that it was

21 said she was a terrorist with a deformed face. He

22 alleged that he had been asked whether he was seeing

23 Rosemary Nelson and was told that he was a game bastard

24 as she had a face on her like a man's ball bag.

25 Again, can I ask you very briefly, please, did you

 

 

93

 

1 hear those comments made in any interview, in the

2 interview that you conducted?

3 A. No, I did not, no.

4 Q. Did you use those words or words like those during the

5 course of the interview you conducted?

6 A. I did not.

7 Q. Can I ask you to look briefly at the statement that was

8 made by this same complainant to the Mulvihill

9 investigation? We can see that at RNI-227-021

10 (displayed). The part of it I would like to look at

11 with you, please, is the descriptions again because you

12 see, about eight lines from the bottom, he says:

13 "During my time in custody, I was interviewed four

14 or five times each day by two pairs of plain clothes

15 police officers."

16 Then he gives a description of the two pairs, and

17 the first pair, the first member was:

18 "Stocky, overweight, age, late 40s, with short black

19 hair with a side parting."

20 Now, bearing in mind the other officers who were

21 involved in the interviewing -- P117, P149, P164 and, I

22 think, DC Campbell -- does that description tally with

23 any of them?

24 A. I wouldn't have thought so, no.

25 Q. What about the second person described:

 

 

94

 

1 "Six foot one, tall, late 40s, fair hair, short,

2 combed back, wearing a smart, grey checked suit"?

3 A. I wouldn't have thought so, and as far as I would be

4 concerned, it certainly didn't refer to myself.

5 Q. Why do you say that?

6 A. I never had my hair combed back and I certainly never

7 wore a smart, grey checked suit. It wouldn't look smart

8 on me.

9 Q. Thank you very much. Then the second pair. Again,

10 bearing in mind the ciphers, the identities in that

11 sense, of the other officers, please, do you see the

12 first is:

13 "White, five foot eight tall, slim build with grey

14 hair combed back, mid 50s, heavy stubble and wore

15 glasses, wore a suit and smoked"?

16 A. No, I wouldn't say it refers to any of those guys.

17 Q. Okay. Then the final and rather general description, it

18 has to be said -- does that help you at all:

19 "Male, white, clean shaven and in his mid 40s"?

20 A. No.

21 Q. No?

22 A. No, I'm sorry.

23 Q. Now, in this same statement, to complete the process of

24 putting these matters to you, the next page, RNI-227-022

25 (displayed), he says -- and, again, it is important that

 

 

95

 

1 you see this -- in the fifth line:

2 "At some time on the second day whilst I was being

3 interviewed by the pair of officers I first

4 described..."

5 The pair we looked at earlier. He then says:

6 "... the stocky police officer with black hair then

7 began to make comments about Rosemary Nelson."

8 And you see the comments are set out in the next few

9 lines, and it concludes with the passage in capital

10 letters:

11 "It should have been Rosemary in here instead of

12 youse."

13 Looking at those alleged comments, again, can I ask

14 you: were those comments that you made or heard made in

15 the interview that you conducted of Anthony Simmons?

16 A. Most definitely not.

17 Q. Were comments of a similar kind or comments which could

18 have been understood in those senses made at that

19 interview?

20 A. At no time.

21 Q. Did you hear any such comments being made outside the

22 confines of the interview by your colleagues?

23 A. I didn't.

24 Q. Again, so far as the complaint investigation is

25 concerned, the form we looked at together, the 17/3,

 

 

96

 

1 produced the same response from you. And for

2 completeness let's look at it at RNI-203-180

3 (displayed). You simply say:

4 "Nothing at this stage."

5 Can I take it that the rationale is the same as you

6 gave earlier?

7 A. That's so, yes.

8 Q. Thank you. Can I just ask: given what we have looked at

9 together and the fact that the allegation was said to

10 have occurred on the second day when you weren't

11 involved in any interviewing, can I take it that the

12 reason you didn't make that point was because your view

13 was that this process was going to continue anyway, and

14 for that reason you would simply say nothing and wait

15 for the process to take its course?

16 A. That's correct, yes.

17 Q. Thank you. Again, can I ask you, do you think you would

18 have had any actual recollection of those interviews by

19 this stage, January 1998?

20 A. Again, the only recollection I would have would have

21 been in relation to the complaint and the words that are

22 alleged.

23 Q. Now, moving on to the Barry Toman case, here in your

24 statement you deal with it at paragraphs 44 to 46, and

25 that is at RNI-840-092 (displayed). Do you see at the

 

 

97

 

1 bottom of the page?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. He was arrested again on 11 February. Can you recall

4 the circumstances of that arrest?

5 A. No, just what I read. But no, I can't recall.

6 Q. You see you mention briefly in your statement at 44:

7 "He was arrested in relation to a handheld rocket

8 launcher"?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. I think this was the case where there was a suggestion

11 of an attempted attack on a patrol in Lurgan, where it

12 was suggested that the patrol had effectively been lured

13 in in order to be attacked?

14 A. Oh, yes.

15 Q. Does that help you?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Thank you --

18 A. I think I recall that, yes.

19 Q. It looks as though he was also held in Gough for about

20 three days, and his custody record we can see in the

21 file beginning at RNI-205-005 (displayed).

22 Again, arrested on the 11th, and if we flick over to

23 RNI-205-016 (displayed), released on the 14th. Do you

24 see that there?

25 A. Yes.

 

 

98

 

1 Q. Again, any actual recollection of the interviews of this

2 suspect?

3 A. No, I would say not, no.

4 Q. It looks from the record as though he was interviewed

5 about a total of 19 times and you were involved in nine

6 of those interviews. Does that sound right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Can you recall who your partner in interviewing was?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Well, if we look together at the custody record, we will

11 see. If you look first of all at RNI-205-007 at the top

12 of the page (displayed). So we are on 11 February still

13 at 14.18. Do you see the third line?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And it looks, doesn't it, as though it is you and

16 DC Walker?

17 A. That's correct, yes.

18 Q. Thank you. Can you remember the other interviewing

19 officers involved in this interviewing process?

20 A. Not without reading it, no.

21 Q. Again, just to help you, we can look at their ciphers

22 further down the page. It is P228 and P162.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. So far as they are concerned, can you give a brief

25 description of either of their appearances at this time,

 

 

99

 

1 about ten years ago?

2 A. As I have already described, P126 was about five foot

3 ten, stocky build with dark hair, about 40-odd, and P228

4 was somewhat smaller, with medium build, 30s, with fair

5 hair.

6 Q. And again, can I just ask you, if necessary, to remind

7 me, can you give a description of the appearance of

8 DC Walker at this time?

9 A. DC Walker was about five foot ten or 11, stocky build,

10 with a thick head of black hair brushed backwards.

11 Q. Did he have a parting in his hair?

12 A. No, I don't believe so.

13 Q. You don't believe so?

14 A. I don't believe so, no.

15 Q. Can I take it that you have no detailed recollection now

16 of any briefing before or during these interviews?

17 A. I think we were briefed in relation to why he was there.

18 I do recall that once you have told me that, yes.

19 Q. But other than that, any actual recollection?

20 A. No, other than that I had come across Mr Toman before.

21 I don't think there is anything else. And since.

22 Q. And since?

23 A. And since, yes.

24 Q. But so far as the interviews you conducted, the nine

25 interviews we have discussed earlier, any recollection,

 

 

100

 

1 absent the notes obviously, of the content of those

2 interviews?

3 A. No.

4 Q. No. Again, you received the form some time later, and

5 this is at RNI-208-160 (displayed). We can see that

6 together, please. 30 October this one, so considerably

7 earlier than the others we have looked at.

8 Can you remember whether this was the first you knew

9 of these complaints, the complaints of Barry Toman?

10 A. Yes, I would say it probably was, yes.

11 Q. So you don't have any recollection of being told of

12 complaints at the time in February?

13 A. No, I don't believe so.

14 Q. No. Now, so far as the complaint is concerned, you

15 point out in your own statement -- and it is absolutely

16 right -- that the first two paragraphs deal with the

17 circumstances of the arrest and don't involve any of the

18 interviewing at all.

19 So could we turn to the next part, please, which

20 begins at RNI-208-162 (displayed)? In paragraph 4

21 there, he says that in the first interview, the officers

22 were shouting at him. The interview lasted for two

23 hours. He said nothing back and then gives

24 descriptions.

25 Now, might those be descriptions of you, first of

 

 

101

 

1 all, and of DC Walker?

2 A. Yes, vaguely, yes.

3 Q. I think when you were interviewed by the Mulvihill team,

4 you accepted that certainly the description of the first

5 person might refer to you?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. So far as the descriptions further down the page are

8 concerned, do you see at the end of paragraph 6, do they

9 fit the other two interviewing officers; in other words,

10 P162 and P228?

11 A. No, no.

12 Q. They don't?

13 A. No. The first one might vaguely relate to P162, but not

14 very closely.

15 Q. But the second one, in your view, isn't a description of

16 P228?

17 A. No.

18 Q. No. So far as the complaint is concerned, could we go

19 back to paragraph 4, please, on RNI-208-162 (displayed)?

20 Paragraph 4 on page RNI-208-162, please (displayed). Do

21 you see the first thing that is suggested here is that

22 the detectives, the first pair that we looked at

23 together, didn't identify themselves?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Now, could that be the case in this first interview of

 

 

102

 

1 Barry Toman?

2 A. No, if I conducted the first interview, we certainly

3 would have identified ourselves, but I think in this

4 case there would probably have been no need to identify

5 myself as Mr Toman was aware of who I was.

6 Q. That's a point, as I have said, you make in material.

7 But even where you already knew the suspect and he knew

8 you, would you nevertheless go through the formality of

9 identification?

10 A. In the very first interview, yes.

11 Q. Yes?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Let's look together, please, at the relevant notes.

14 RNI-205-021 is where they begin. It is on the 11th at

15 14.18.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And it is the two of you, the regular partnership. And

18 do you see in the third line, you say:

19 "We introduced ourselves to him"?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Is that the very point that you are making?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Is it conceivable that you would have kicked off without

24 introduction and nevertheless noted -- because this is

25 your handwriting, isn't it?

 

 

103

 

1 A. It is, yes.

2 Q. -- that an interruption had been made?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Even where you knew him and he knew you?

5 A. Yes, in the first interview you would introduce

6 yourself.

7 Q. You didn't just write down all these formalities about

8 the caution, et cetera, and the identification

9 automatically?

10 A. No.

11 Q. If we go back, please, to the complaint form -- that is

12 RNI-208-162 (displayed) -- we will see the substance of

13 what he is saying. And picking out the relevant

14 comments, which he alleged were made about

15 Rosemary Nelson:

16 "Rosemary knows a lot about rockets. You and

17 Rosemary and Tony shot the rocket, you are dead. Tell

18 Rosemary she is going to die too."

19 And the suggestion was that he, the suspect, should

20 ask Rosemary about explosives because they were going to

21 match the rocket to him.

22 Now, there were nine interviews, as we have seen in

23 all, with this suspect. Were those comments or comments

24 like them made at any of the interviews that you

25 conducted?

 

 

104

 

1 A. Definitely not.

2 Q. And were any threats or other abusive remarks about

3 Rosemary Nelson made by you and your colleagues during

4 those interviews?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Did you hear any such remarks being made outside the

7 confines of the interviews by any of your colleagues?

8 A. I did not.

9 Q. Had such remarks been made, would they in fact have been

10 noted solemnly in the interview notes?

11 A. They would, yes.

12 Q. They would?

13 A. They would, yes.

14 Q. Again, so far as this is concerned, your response to the

15 form is exactly the same, which is to say, at

16 RNI-208-161 (displayed):

17 "Nothing to say at this stage"?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Do you see that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And, again, you say -- and can I assume for the same

22 reasons -- that it was your practice not to say anything

23 more and wait for the system to take its course?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. With that in mind, can I ask you, please, to look at

 

 

105

 

1 notes of one of the interviews you conduct with this

2 suspect, Barry Toman, and they begin, these notes, at

3 RNI-205-068 (displayed). This is on the 12th at 9.44.

4 It is the same partnership and, again, you are the

5 scribe, aren't you?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. The interview proceeds and there is very little by way

8 of reply until this exchange on RNI-205-070 (displayed),

9 and I would like you to look at that with me, please.

10 You see you deal with the question of a request to

11 see the solicitor and authorisation nevertheless to

12 carry on interviewing. Do you see that? Given by

13 Detective Superintendent?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And then you ask him whether he has understood that and

16 there is no reply, and you then say:

17 "Did you get your breakfast?

18 "Answer: Aye.

19 "Question: Did you sleep okay?

20 "Answer: Yes.

21 "Question: Are you cold or anything?

22 "Answer: No, I'm all right."

23 That, I would describe -- I don't know whether you

24 agree with this -- as general conversation?

25 A. Yes.

 

 

106

 

1 Q. Why then in this particular case was it recorded in

2 question and answer form?

3 A. I can't say.

4 Q. Because it is not what we have seen in any other notes,

5 is it, together or in the file, where it just says:

6 "We had a general conversation. We discussed other

7 matters"?

8 A. No, probably because it is at the early part of the

9 interview. Mostly in the previous times when general

10 conversation was referred to, it was after he had

11 already gone through a series of questions and either

12 answers or no answers. I can't say if that's the

13 reason. I just don't know.

14 Q. Let's look back together at the first page, shall we,

15 which is at RNI-205-068? The interview began at 09.44

16 and ended at 11.05. RNI-205-068, thank you (displayed).

17 Do you see that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. So it is taking an hour and 20 minutes in all. If we

20 turn over to the bottom of -- it's RNI-205-057.500

21 (displayed), for some reason. Can we try that, please?

22 Anyway, it is the second --

23 A. No, it is not my interview.

24 Q. Right. Well, I had better not ask you any questions

25 about it. It appears to have got in to completely the

 

 

107

 

1 wrong place. I'm sorry about that.

2 A. It's okay.

3 Q. Let's look together a bit further on then, when I'm

4 pretty confident we are in the same interview, at

5 RNI-205-072 (displayed). Do you see, you start about

6 eight lines from the bottom with this question:

7 "Are you innocent of these charges?

8 "'No reply.'"

9 It is put in inverted commas. Does that mean he

10 actually says the words "no reply"?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. "If you are, do you think an innocent man would reply

13 'no reply'?"

14 To which, perhaps inevitably, there is the answer

15 "no reply".

16 Then the next question:

17 "Would an innocent man not talk to try to prove his

18 innocence?"

19 To which the answer is:

20 "No reply."

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. In a sense, what is going on here is perhaps that this

23 individual is exercising his right to silence and

24 waiting for the criminal process to take its course?

25 A. Yes.

 

 

108

 

1 Q. Now, that's very much what you have told us already you

2 did when faced with the form 17/3, where you say:

3 "Nothing to say at this stage."

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. So I'm bound to ask you, therefore, wouldn't an innocent

6 man, innocent in relation to the complaint allegations,

7 have explained, on service of the 17/3 form, his case

8 and "to try to prove his innocence"?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. So what's the difference between your position and this

11 suspect's position?

12 A. The difference is at a later stage I did prove my

13 innocence.

14 Q. But you see the point?

15 A. I see your point, yes.

16 Q. You are saying to him:

17 "Look, if you have got an answer to this charge, if

18 are innocent, you would be speaking up."

19 So the question is why you didn't speak up when you

20 received all these 17/3 forms?

21 A. Because that is the way I dealt with the procedure. I

22 would say the difference between this case and myself

23 was that I was innocent.

24 Q. Okay. Can we move now to the second lot of complaints

25 concerning Colin Duffy? You deal with them in your

 

 

109

 

1 statement at paragraph 47 and following at RNI-840-093

2 (displayed). And for your information, it goes on, this

3 section of your statement, to paragraph 52 on the next

4 page, RNI-840-094.

5 Now, Colin Duffy and Rosemary Nelson raised a number

6 of complaints, didn't they, arising out of his

7 detention --

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. -- for the murders of Constables Johnston and Graham

10 in June 1997?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Putting the complaints entirely to one side for

13 a moment, these murdered officers were colleagues of

14 yours, weren't they?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And there was considerable public outrage and, indeed,

17 expression of sympathy towards the police when the

18 murders took place, wasn't there?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And presumably there was a considerable impact on you

21 and your colleagues, who were colleagues of the murdered

22 men, in Lurgan?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And in that sense, it must have been a tough case to be

25 involved in?

 

 

110

 

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now, in this particular one of the Duffy complaints, you

3 were specifically named, weren't you?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And the allegation was that you had asked him in an

6 interview whether Rosemary Nelson was proud of what he

7 had done?

8 A. That's the allegation, yes.

9 Q. And that's the allegation that I'm particularly

10 interested in today.

11 Now, I would like to ask you first a general

12 question about these interviews, so June 1997. Do you

13 have any actual recollection of these interviews, the

14 interviews of Colin Duffy?

15 A. No more so than the others, no.

16 Q. Can you remember what Colin Duffy's demeanour was during

17 the interviews?

18 A. I know he answered some questions and made no reply to

19 the majority of them.

20 Q. Would it be fair to say that the vast majority of the

21 questions he refused to answer?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Was that a frustrating experience?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Do you remember trying to provoke him into a response?

 

 

111

 

1 A. No.

2 Q. You are in this particular case interviewing somebody

3 who certainly you make clear in your statement you

4 believed to have committed these murders. Did that not

5 affect the way you approached the interviews?

6 A. No, because any time I interviewed Colin Duffy, it was

7 in relation to murder.

8 Q. So you conducted them, did you, in exactly the same way

9 as you conducted previous interviews of him and of other

10 suspects?

11 A. I would say so, yes, professionally.

12 Q. Did the tone of the interviewing, either from you or

13 your colleague, ever become aggressive?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Or partisan?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Did you make the comment alleged about Rosemary Nelson

18 and him?

19 A. I did not.

20 Q. Did you believe that Rosemary Nelson supported acts of

21 terrorism or terrorist organisations?

22 A. I certainly did not.

23 Q. Now, can we look together, please, at the notes of one

24 of these interviews? It took place on 23 June at 17

25 minutes past nine in the evening, and it starts at

 

 

112

 

1 RNI-212-118 (displayed). Thank you.

2 This, I think I can guess, is not your handwriting?

3 A. No, it is DC Walker's.

4 Q. So he was the scribe on this occasion, was he?

5 A. That's correct.

6 Q. In relation to that, can I ask you a general question

7 before we look at the detail? In the interviews you

8 conducted with DC Walker, would both of you ask

9 questions?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. As a general rule?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Yes. So even if one of you was acting as scribe, that

14 person would also from time to time be asking questions?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Now, we can see the interview beginning in the familiar

17 way. There is introductions referred to in third line,

18 an explanation about what the subject matter of the

19 enquiry was and then the caution. Do you see, going to

20 the bottom of the page?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Thank you. And the interview proceeds with various

23 questions about the offences, and if we look together at

24 the next page, which is RNI-212-119 (displayed), and

25 then RNI-212-120 (displayed) and RNI-212-121 (displayed)

 

 

113

 

1 and RNI-212-122 (displayed), I think it is right that he

2 made no reply at any stage?

3 A. That's correct, yes.

4 Q. Can I take it from the way those no replies are written

5 that this is not an interviewee saying "no reply", this

6 is in fact just silence?

7 A. That's correct, yes.

8 Q. Thank you. Now, it is this next page, RNI-212-123

9 (displayed), please, that I would like to look at with

10 you because you -- well, one of you at any rate asks:

11 "What purpose did these murders serve?"

12 This is about six lines down.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. "Did you watch the funerals of the policemen on TV."

15 "Answer: No reply.

16 "Question: Did you see the sorrow and distress of

17 the young children?

18 "Answer: No reply."

19 Then this question:

20 "Are you proud of yourselves for being involved in

21 these killings?

22 "Answer: No reply.

23 "Question: Can you not see that world opinion is

24 totally against you?"

25 A. Yes.

 

 

114

 

1 Q. Is it possible for you to tell from these notes and at

2 this distance of time, who asked the question:

3 "Are you proud of yourselves for being involved in

4 these killings?"

5 A. No, I can't recall who asked any of the questions.

6 Q. But presumably there was, as it were, a 50/50 chance

7 that it was in fact you?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Do you think it is possible that the question was

10 a rather wider question than that written down here,

11 and, indeed, was the question which he alleged was put

12 in the complaint, namely as to whether Rosemary Nelson

13 was proud of him for what he had done?

14 A. I'm happy enough that the question is recorded as it was

15 asked.

16 Q. You don't think it is possible that this is simply

17 a short form for a longer question involving

18 Rosemary Nelson of the kind alleged in the complaint?

19 A. No, this is a question that was asked in real time and

20 recorded in real time.

21 Q. Can I ask you this: did you hear that sort of question

22 or remark made outside the context of the interviews by

23 any of your colleagues?

24 A. I can't say. I don't believe so, but I can't say at

25 this stage.

 

 

115

 

1 Q. Again, just to raise a point with you that you have

2 touched on before, imagine a hypothetical situation

3 where somebody had said in your hearing to a suspect:

4 "I'm sure your mother is proud of you, I'm sure your

5 wife is proud of you and I'm sure your solicitor is

6 proud of you as well."

7 In that hypothetical situation -- hypothetical, as

8 you say -- what would you have done?

9 A. Number 1, it didn't happen. Had it have happened,

10 I presume I would have been certain that I would have

11 brought it to the attention -- if there was any

12 wrongdoing -- to the attention of my senior officer.

13 Q. But wouldn't that have laid you open to allegations of,

14 you know, ratting on or betraying your colleagues?

15 A. I don't know what it would lead me on to, but that is

16 the way in a hypothetical situation it would have been

17 dealt with.

18 Q. Did you ever find yourself in a similar situation in all

19 your years of service?

20 A. Sorry?

21 Q. Well, in a situation where an inappropriate comment had

22 been made which you felt obliged to report?

23 A. I can't say. There may well be occasions where someone

24 has said something wrong that I have maybe brought to

25 the attention of my officers, maybe a junior CID officer

 

 

116

 

1 maybe saying something -- maybe not getting his law

2 right or something like that. But, no, I can't recall

3 at this stage.

4 Q. You can't recall such a specific example?

5 A. No, I can't, no.

6 Q. So how sure can you be that you would have complained or

7 raised the matter with a senior officer had it happened?

8 A. As I say, that is what I believe I would have done. It

9 didn't happen and I wouldn't expect it to happen.

10 Q. Were you ever aware of a similar situation arising

11 involving your colleagues, where somebody had overheard

12 an inappropriate comment in interview and decided that

13 he ought to report it to a senior officer?

14 A. I can't say.

15 Q. You can't recall a specific occasion of that kind?

16 A. I can't say that it either did or didn't happen. No, I

17 don't recall anything.

18 Q. But you can't think of an example now?

19 A. No, I can't.

20 Q. No. Looking, please, at the process here, you were

21 served with the 17/3 form in August that year, so some

22 two months later, and we can see that at RNI-211-119

23 (displayed). And there were, as we agreed earlier,

24 a number of complaints made and this is the one I would

25 like to focus on with you, so here it is. You sign it

 

 

117

 

1 on the 7 August?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. So somewhat under two months after the events, and you

4 are specifically identified in this complaint made by

5 Colin Duffy, aren't you? We see your cipher there in

6 the third line?

7 A. That's correct, yes.

8 Q. Now, can we look together, please, at your reaction as

9 recorded, and that is at RNI-211-120 (displayed):

10 "I did not make these comments."

11 These comment, those comments?

12 A. Those.

13 Q. "As far as I am concerned, it is Mr Duffy's way of

14 trying to create a defence for himself at a later murder

15 trial."

16 So just pausing there, that's exactly the point we

17 looked at together earlier, isn't it?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. You are suggesting that this is a little tactic for the

20 purpose of the criminal trial?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Can you help with this? The response here is not

23 exactly fulsome, but you do deal with the allegation by

24 saying first that you didn't make the comments, and then

25 secondly, by suggesting a motive for why the comments or

 

 

118

 

1 the allegations might have been made?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Can you explain to us why your reaction to this 17/3

4 form was so very different to the others?

5 A. I can only say it was a fact that I had been named in

6 it, so there was no doubt that the complaint was made

7 against me.

8 Q. This was a case then, was it, where you felt that you

9 had to say something by way of defence because you had

10 been specifically identified?

11 A. No, I hadn't finished. I think maybe it was also

12 because it was close to the time that the complaint was

13 made. Previous complaints, as you note, were made

14 somewhat down the line. I think this was somewhat

15 closer. Whether that's the reason or not, I don't know.

16 Q. Thank you for pointing that out because I wanted to show

17 you in that context the circumstances in which this

18 complaint arose because they are very different.

19 Can we look together, please, at the custody record

20 at RNI-212-071 (displayed)? I have taken you straight

21 into the middle of the custody record for Colin Duffy.

22 You will see that by the middle of this page we have got

23 to the first few minutes, in fact, of 25 June; do you

24 see?

25 A. Yes.

 

 

119

 

1 Q. And there, it seems that at that stage -- so during the

2 course of Mr Duffy's detention -- the complaints were

3 made. They are numbered on the left-hand side of the

4 central column, and do you see number 3:

5 "During an interview, probably the first interview

6 of ..."

7 Then there is the date of the 24th. You are named:

8 "... told her client 'I'm sure your mother is proud

9 of you, your wife is proud of you and I'm sure Rosemary

10 is proud of you as well'."

11 So it looks, doesn't it, as though this complaint,

12 unlike the others, was made at the time?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. In fact, while the detention was still continuing?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. So, again, it is likely, isn't it, following procedure,

17 that you were made aware of that at the time?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And if you look with me at a few pages on, RNI-212-074,

20 (displayed), it looks as though later that same day, on

21 the 25th, again, while interviewing continues,

22 Colin Duffy is himself interviewed, if you look at the

23 bottom of the page, in relation to the various

24 complaints himself.

25 So the first one we saw was Rosemary Nelson and here

 

 

120

 

1 is an account of what he was saying, and your role

2 appears at the bottom, this time numbered 1. Do you

3 see?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. "Asked if the prisoner's solicitor was proud of what he

6 had done."

7 Referring to the murder of the two RUC men in

8 Lurgan?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. So, again, it looks as though you must have been made

11 aware at the very time that this allegation against you

12 specifically was being made?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And is that why you think that you gave a slightly

15 fuller response when you received the 17/3 form?

16 A. I can't say. I honestly can't say why. I presume it

17 was, yes, because it is different.

18 Q. What would happen in a case like this? Just help me.

19 If a complaint is made during the detention and you are

20 an officer and you are specifically identified by the

21 complainant, would you then be notified of that by, say,

22 the custody officers?

23 A. I would say probably the procedure would be that the

24 custody officer would notify the senior investigating

25 officer who would then bring it to my attention, and if

 

 

121

 

1 it was thought serious enough, I have no doubt I would

2 have been taken off the interview team.

3 Q. That was the next question I wanted to ask you. Do you

4 recall now whether you continued to interview after this

5 time on the morning of the 25th? Do you think you were

6 pulled from the team, as it were?

7 A. No, I don't believe I was pulled from the team, no.

8 Q. It looks from the custody record as though, in fact, by

9 this stage the interviewing process had been completed.

10 So presumably it would follow from that that the

11 question of whether or not to withdraw you from the team

12 would never have arisen?

13 A. I can't comment on that.

14 Q. No. Thank you.

15 Now, can I just take you to look back, please, with

16 me at RNI-211-120, which was your answer to the 17/3

17 form (displayed)?

18 We have touched on this already. I would like to

19 just approach it with you again, please. The tactic of

20 trying to create a defence for himself at a later murder

21 trial, was that something that by this

22 stage, August 1997, you had come across in other cases,

23 in your view?

24 A. Yes, probably not for some time, but yes, it was

25 a tactic used in the early years of the Troubles and the

 

 

122

 

1 court system, yes.

2 Q. Do you think that the other three complainants we have

3 looked at, the February 1997 complainants, were also

4 acting tactically?

5 A. It is possible. I can't say as to why they made false

6 allegations. I honestly just don't know.

7 Q. In your statement, you do put forward a suggestion as to

8 why these complaints were made, and I would like you to

9 look at that, please. It is paragraph 14 at the bottom

10 of RNI-840-087 (displayed).

11 You begin by saying:

12 "Some of these complaints arose in the period around

13 1997. I believe that at this time this related to the

14 fact that there was talk that the RUC was being

15 disbanded, so an effort was being made ..."

16 Reading over the page:

17 "... to discredit the RUC."

18 So there is something significant, is there, in your

19 mind about this period, 1997?

20 A. Yes, I believe that was the first talk of the RUC being

21 disbanded.

22 Q. Are you saying, therefore, that the complaints we have

23 looked at from that year, so the Duffy one and the three

24 other ones we have looked at, were made in order to

25 discredit the RUC, in your view?

 

 

123

 

1 A. Well, yes, I believed that at that time. I could think

2 of no other reason as to why false allegations were

3 made.

4 Q. Well, we will look at other suggestions you make later.

5 But does it follow with your reference there to 1997

6 that there was something particular about what was

7 happening, perhaps politically, that year that made 1997

8 complaints motivated by discrediting the RUC?

9 A. It was the year after the first ceasefire. I don't know

10 whether it was anything to do with that or not, I'm not

11 sure.

12 Q. Say a complaint had been made about you in 1998. Would

13 that for the same reason not have this question of

14 discrediting the RUC as motivation?

15 A. Again, I can't comment on that because I don't believe

16 there was a complaint made then. This is something

17 I said at the time. Whether I was right or wrong, this

18 is what I believed at the time. It was the only excuse

19 I could come up with as to why these false allegations

20 were made.

21 You would have to ask the people who made the false

22 allegations why they made them. I cannot comment on

23 their behalf.

24 Q. Did you think, in ascribing these motives for making

25 complaints to Colin Duffy and others, that his solicitor

 

 

124

 

1 was involved in the construction of false complaints?

2 A. No, I did not, no.

3 Q. You did not?

4 A. No.

5 Q. So this is something you would ascribe to the clients?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And in that sense, you'd draw a distinction, would you,

8 between the clients and whatever their motivation was

9 and the lawyer doing her job?

10 A. Very much so, yes.

11 Q. Now, in the course of your work, your long years in

12 Lurgan in the CID, were you aware of complaints made by

13 other clients of Rosemary Nelson over the years?

14 A. No, I'm not. I think I would only be concerned with the

15 complaints made against myself.

16 Q. Did you not learn from your colleagues that other

17 complaints were made against other police officers by

18 clients of Rosemary Nelson?

19 A. I don't believe these -- those matters were discussed.

20 As I say, it was only in relation to false allegations

21 and complaints made against myself that I worried about.

22 Q. Was there a perception amongst you and your colleagues

23 that she was wont to make, or her clients were wont to

24 make more complaints than others?

25 A. As I say, not on my behalf. I can't speak for my

 

 

125

 

1 colleagues. Certainly no discussions ever took place in

2 relation to it.

3 Q. So she wasn't perceived by yourself and your colleagues

4 as something of a troublemaker?

5 A. Not by myself, no.

6 Q. What about your colleagues?

7 A. I can't speak for them.

8 Q. Because there was no such discussion with them?

9 A. Not that I recall.

10 Q. Can I ask you to look, please, at your Mulvihill

11 interviews where you offer other suggestions in relation

12 to motivation? And the first one I would like to look

13 at with you is at RNI-227-176 (displayed). This, again,

14 for context I should say is an interview on the same day

15 as the one we looked at a little earlier,

16 11 November 1998.

17 Can I just show you the first page, please, which is

18 RNI-227-160 (displayed). The familiar cast and the time

19 and the duration of the interview.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. I'm not going to take you through the lengthy text,

22 apart from this passage on motivation, which is at,

23 RNI-227-176 (displayed), please. And there the DCI, who

24 is interviewing you, was covering very much the same

25 topics that I have been covering.

 

 

126

 

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. He says:

3 "Can you suggest any reason why these allegations

4 have been made?"

5 I should tell you, by the way, that the allegations

6 you are discussing in the course of this long interview

7 are the three we looked at earlier: C138,

8 Anthony Simmons and Barry Toman?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. This is not an interview about the Duffy complaints. We

11 will see that in a minute:

12 "I am quite convinced that the allegations are

13 false, as I have said, fabricated, totally untrue and

14 made up in an effort, in the present political climate,

15 to throw dirt on members of the RUC and the RUC itself

16 in a constructive effort to have the RUC disbanded to

17 suit their aims."

18 Is that the point you were seeking to make to me

19 earlier about why at this point, in your view,

20 allegations were being made?

21 A. Yes, that's the view I made at the time, yes.

22 Q. So the point of the exercise was, as it were, not just

23 to get at individual officers who were the subject of

24 the complaints, but to get at the institution itself?

25 A. That's correct.

 

 

127

 

1 Q. And that was the view you held?

2 A. At that time, yes.

3 Q. And you still hold it about these complaints?

4 A. I do.

5 Q. Thank you. And you are asked how you feel, and you say:

6 "I am totally disgusted. It is not my nature to

7 make any referrals described. I'm an experienced police

8 officer. I'm totally appalled by these allegations."

9 A. That's still the same position.

10 Q. Thank you. Then finally:

11 "Do you wish to add anything further or clarify?"

12 Then you make this comment:

13 "Nothing, other than we were interviewing terrorists

14 daily throughout this last 25 years and very few have

15 made complaints, and certainly very few have ..."

16 I'm reading over the page:

17 "... made complaints of this nature. And, again,

18 I just wish to say I believe in the Lurgan area it is

19 a concentrated effort to discredit the RUC."

20 Can I again ask you to confirm that that remains

21 your view?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So that these three complaints -- not the Colin Duffy

24 one -- we will come to that in a minute -- were part of

25 a concentrated effort to discredit the RUC?

 

 

128

 

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. So are you suggesting there that these individuals were

3 acting together and as part of a deliberate plan?

4 A. Possibly, yes.

5 Q. Well, you sound a little more definite about it in

6 your --

7 A. A plan orchestrated by who, I do not know. But that is

8 my belief, yes.

9 Q. So that it was no coincidence in your view that

10 allegations about the same sort of inappropriate,

11 derogatory comments about the lawyer were made by these

12 three individuals, all arrested and detained

13 in February 1997?

14 A. No questions, no.

15 Q. Sir, would that be a convenient moment?

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly.

17 MR DONALDSON: Before rising may I mention something please?

18 We have furnished two lists of questions. I would be

19 grateful if the Panel would look at them overnight to

20 save time in the morning.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: We will consider your request, Mr Donaldson,

22 and we may or may not accede to it. We will let you

23 know first thing in the morning.

24 MR DONALDSON: Very well.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: We will consider it in private.

 

 

129

 

1 Mr (name redacted), before the witness leaves, would you

2 please confirm that all the cameras have been switched

3 off?

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

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Please escort the witness out. You realise

6 you will have to be back tomorrow morning at quarter

7 past 10?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: We will adjourn now until quarter past 10,

10 and I will discuss the matter you have raised,

11 Mr Donaldson, with my two colleagues.

12 MR DONALDSON: Thank you.

13 (4.45 pm)

14 (The Inquiry adjourned until 10.15 am the following day)

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 

 


 

1 I N D E X

2
Ruling on Application by MR ...................... 1
3 DONALDSON

4 MR ANDREW CULLY (continued) ...................... 6

5 Questions by MR SKELTON (continued) .......... 6

6 P121 (sworn) ..................................... 37

7 Questions by MR PHILLIPS ..................... 37

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25