Return to the list of transcripts

Full Hearings

Hearing: 9th September 2008, day 47

Click here to download the LiveNote version














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

on Tuesday, 9 September 2008
commencing at 10.15 am

Day 47








1 Tuesday, 9 September 2008

2 (10.15 am)


4 Questions by MR SKELTON

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Skelton?

6 MR SKELTON: Please would you give your full name to the

7 Panel?

8 A. My name is Trevor Sargent.

9 Q. I believe you made a statement to the Inquiry on

10 15 September last year, and that can be found at

11 RNI-820-091 (displayed). If we go to the end at

12 RNI-820-101 (displayed), we see your signature,

13 Mr Sargent?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Do you recall making that statement?

16 A. I do recall making that statement.

17 Q. Thank you. May I start just by asking you about your

18 background? You were a TD, as I understand it, in 1997,

19 representing the Green Party?

20 A. Yes, I was elected first in 1992 as TD for the Green

21 Party in Dublin North, having been county councillor,

22 a Dublin county councillor elected in June 1991 and

23 a member of the Green Party since its foundation almost

24 back in 1982.

25 Q. Does the Green Party have a particular political stance




1 in relation to Northern Ireland?

2 A. Well, Northern Ireland would be an issue of interest for

3 members of the Green Party as would many areas of

4 conflict throughout the world as the philosophy of

5 thinking globally, acting locally and non-violence would

6 be at the heart of Green Party philosophy following --

7 I suppose, the philosophies of people like

8 Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King would be strong

9 inspirations for many Green Party members.

10 So Northern Ireland would, quite uniquely, I think,

11 amongst political parties, have been the subject of an

12 agreed policy between the Green Parties of England,

13 Scotland and Wales, the Green Parties of

14 Northern Ireland and the Green Parties of the Republic

15 of Ireland.

16 To that extent, it had an international dimension to

17 it and was actually one of the first policies agreed by

18 the Green Party in the Republic of Ireland in common

19 with the Green Parties throughout these islands. So

20 there was a common position throughout the island.

21 Q. You mentioned Mahatma Gandhi. Obviously he is

22 associated with Indian nationalism and independence. Do

23 I, therefore, take it that you are associating your

24 stance with independence for Northern Ireland from

25 British government?




1 A. No, not at all. We in fact would have, in our policy,

2 made very clear that it was through the consent of the

3 people in Northern Ireland that any change would take

4 place, if there was to be a change. And to that extent,

5 if you compared the policy of the Green Party in the

6 early 1980s with the agreement that was subsequently

7 reached and voted upon, the Belfast Agreement or

8 Good Friday Agreement as it is often called, then you

9 would find a great deal in common between that agreement

10 and the policies of the Green Party, in that it was

11 based on consent rather than any coercion or ideological

12 position.

13 Q. When you made your statement to the Inquiry last year,

14 you were leader of the Green Party; is that right?

15 A. I was. Yes, I was leader of the Green Party elected in

16 2001.

17 Q. You are presently Minister of State for Food and

18 Horticulture?

19 A. That is correct. I was appointed by the Taioseach

20 in June 2007 to be Minister of State for the Department

21 of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with special

22 responsibilities for food and horticulture.

23 Q. May we turn now to the issue of Drumcree. In 1997, I

24 understand that you first became directly involved?

25 A. Yes, the tension that at that time was obviously




1 well-known in relation to the march requested by the

2 Orange Order down the Garvaghy Road left many people, I

3 think, wondering what could be done to alleviate the

4 tension. And one practical suggestion that I learnt

5 about, having been a member myself of

6 Amnesty International, was that to be an observer might

7 serve to take the heat perhaps out of a situation if

8 there were people there who did not have a direct part

9 or were not in the business of taking sides but would

10 nonetheless be a presence. And I felt that at least

11 I might contribute something towards lessening the

12 tension if I was there as an observer, and that is what

13 I proposed to do.

14 Q. Had you followed the events the previous year, in 1996,

15 which had been particularly volatile?

16 A. Yes, not in any uncharacteristic way, I think. Just as

17 somebody concerned about the conflict and the pain that

18 it was causing. I followed those proceedings and had

19 hoped that 1997 could avoid the volatile situation.

20 Q. When you say "avoid the situation", do you consider it

21 appropriate for the march to be stopped that year, given

22 the previous experience?

23 A. Well, as referred to when I talked about the policy of

24 the Green Party in relation to Northern Ireland, I had

25 hoped that consent might play a part in an agreed




1 outcome. And given that Mo Mowlam, as Secretary of

2 State in Northern Ireland, mentioned on the news quite

3 often at that time that the residents, whatever

4 happened, would need to be in agreement, I had hoped we

5 had moved to a new level of consent in relation to the

6 Garvaghy Road when I became an observer.

7 Q. Who invited you to attend in 1997?

8 A. From what I can recall, the residents of the

9 Garvaghy Road put out a general invitation to TDs in

10 Dail Eireann to offer to visit and act as observers.

11 I presume they did that also for other groups, but

12 I responded to that general invitation from the

13 residents of the Garvaghy Road, and I can remember

14 phoning Breandan Mac Cionnaith to find out what kind of

15 reception I could expect: Would I be welcomed or

16 would I be in the way or how would I play a part.

17 Q. What did he say?

18 A. He said that he was welcoming of any person who simply

19 wanted to observe and not become involved because he

20 felt the Nationalists on the Garvaghy Road, if they

21 aren't observers, might experience heavy-handedness.

22 And he felt it would be somewhat of a protection if

23 there were people from an international perspective, and

24 certainly a non-violent perspective, in the vicinity to

25 observe.




1 Q. So in fact you were observing the police interaction, as

2 opposed to the Protestant or Orange Order interaction,

3 with the community?

4 A. I certainly didn't know what I was there to observe. To

5 be quite honest, I was there simply to observe whatever

6 took place and I was hoping, to be quite honest, that it

7 would not be confrontational.

8 Q. Did you appreciate that you might not have been

9 perceived as fully independent given your status as an

10 Irish Nationalist and having been invited by the Irish

11 Nationalist community in Northern Ireland?

12 A. I had no control over anybody else's perception of me.

13 I know that it can be quite varied at times, though,

14 because on the one hand I come from a Protestant

15 tradition and that might lead people to perceive me in

16 a certain way, and on the other hand I am elected to

17 Dail Eireann and a lot of my business I transact through

18 the Irish language, and that might cause other people to

19 perceive me in a certain way.

20 In all honesty, I hope people can take me at face

21 value and not perceive me as a stereotype.

22 Q. Did you have any pre-existing connections to any

23 individuals or groups in Ulster?

24 A. I can't really say -- no, I did not have any particular

25 connections, you know, other than a member of the Church




1 of Ireland. I would obviously have had contact with

2 various other Church of Ireland members in

3 Northern Ireland, as I would in the Republic of Ireland,

4 but that would be outside of politics.

5 Q. But how did the fact that you were a Protestant affect

6 your viewpoint, for example, in relation to the Orange

7 Order itself?

8 A. Well, as I mentioned in my statement, hymns that I would

9 have grown up singing in church, such as, you know,

10 "Will Your Anchor Hold", I always saw as very spiritual.

11 And in the context of attending the service in Drumcree,

12 I did feel they took on quite a tribal, you might say,

13 meaning in that they galvanised people preparing to

14 march down the road, but -- and the fact that it was

15 almost entirely male in the congregation also lent to

16 a certain testosterone level, I think, in the

17 congregation.

18 Q. May I just go back to the point about the TDs which you

19 mentioned earlier? Had the invitation gone out to all

20 of the TDs to attend if they saw fit?

21 A. As far as I am aware, it was a general invitation

22 extended to all TDs and I had been speaking in the Dail

23 since 2002 on pretty much any matter under the sun as I

24 was the solitary Green Party representative, and

25 Northern Ireland would have been amongst those topics.




1 So I think I responded to the invitation with a sense of

2 responsibility, that as somebody who had spoken in

3 relation to Northern politics in Dail Eireann, I needed

4 to be on top of the subject and be as helpful as

5 I possibly could.

6 Q. Is it right that it was you, Joe Costello and

7 Eamon O'Cuiv who attended?

8 A. Yes, I can remember meeting both Joe and Eamon O'Cuiv on

9 the Garvaghy Road, although we didn't travel together,

10 we just met up when we got there.

11 Q. Had you met Rosemary Nelson before 1997?

12 A. No, I had never met Rosemary Nelson before that. I was

13 introduced to her in the community centre on the

14 Garvaghy Road, if I recall, and Rosemary Nelson was

15 introduced to me as a solicitor and, you know, somebody

16 who could advise how people should conduct themselves to

17 stay within the law and hopefully to avoid conflict.

18 Q. In paragraph 3 of your statement, which is on

19 page RNI-820-091 (displayed), you make the comment that:

20 "She was legally rigorous and whatever she said

21 [was] founded in reason and in law."

22 That is obviously a statement any lawyer would like

23 to be said of them, but how did you come to that view?

24 A. Well, I had no reason to doubt Rosemary Nelson or to

25 think anything less of her than what I have said in my




1 statement.

2 The situation was extremely sensitive and tense,

3 given that in many ways we were entering new ground as

4 we hoped through Mo Mowlam's statement that the march

5 would not be forced downed Garvaghy Road without the

6 consent of the residents. As I recall, that was the

7 position at the time and Rosemary Nelson was very aware

8 that we were dealing with an issue of negotiated

9 agreement and that one had to be extremely careful in

10 terms of words and actions not to jeopardise that

11 agreement.

12 Q. You describe her as a bridge builder later in your

13 statement. Is that what you mean by that?

14 A. Well, following on what I have just said, her focus was

15 to represent the residents as a legal representative but

16 in a way that hopefully could represent an agreed

17 remedy, shall we say, to the tension of the previous

18 year. So to that extent I would describe her as

19 a bridge builder.

20 Q. Did you know that she was a figure of some controversy

21 in the locality, having represented Colin Duffy in his

22 appeal against his conviction for the murder of

23 John Lyness?

24 A. I didn't really have a deep knowledge of her history. I

25 would certainly say that I was taking at face value the




1 situation I found myself in, and somebody from a legal

2 point of view, I think, needed to certainly be

3 courageous in that scenario and also self-confident,

4 given that she was surrounded by a community that felt

5 besieged, and there was a certain volatility which she

6 had to, I think, take account of as well.

7 Q. When you first met her, what did she say to you about

8 the negotiations and the stance of the British

9 Government, Mo Mowlam in particular?

10 A. Well, she said that through the actions of people --

11 particularly, I think, the Jesuits were mentioned --

12 people, shall we call it, leaders in the community had

13 been entrusted to find a peaceful remedy to the

14 stand-off and in many ways the situation depended on

15 that trust not being betrayed.

16 So when I went up there, that was the position and I

17 was hoping to be in a position to observe the successful

18 outcome to a negotiated position.

19 Q. I haven't already asked you, but please could you tell

20 me which day, if you can remember, in July you went up

21 there?

22 A. I remember arriving on the afternoon of the day before

23 the march. So that was a Saturday.

24 Q. The 5th?

25 A. The 5th, yes. And at the time it was quite relaxed, in




1 the sense that people were hoping that the status quo,

2 shall we call it, the agreed position that there would

3 be no march without the agreement of the residents, was

4 in place. So there wasn't really an expectation of

5 conflict. So much so that, as the day progressed and

6 the night fell, the discussion turned to whether we

7 should all go to bed, and I was very happy to avail of

8 that opportunity, I must say.

9 Q. I will turn momentarily to the issue of that night, but

10 just going back to Rosemary Nelson herself, did you have

11 the opportunity to discuss her attitude towards the RUC

12 and the policing of Drumcree?

13 A. Not explicitly, but I think she put her trust in

14 Mo Mowlam as the experience she had had to date was if

15 matters were left to the RUC, it would be less likely

16 that there would be an agreed position. So I think she

17 was looking beyond the RUC for a remedy.

18 Q. Eamon O'Cuiv in his statement said that there was no

19 love lost between Rosemary Nelson and the RUC. Had you

20 not picked up that tension when you arrived?

21 A. I think that would be a fair characterisation, but as

22 I mentioned, Rosemary Nelson's focus was to look for

23 a remedy rather than to revisit -- no expectations of

24 the RUC.

25 Q. You mentioned Mo Mowlam herself. In her autobiography




1 at page 271, she describes Rosemary Nelson as "pushy and

2 difficult" and she goes on to say that she had:

3 "... respected her and quite liked her, but because

4 of her combative style, she was disliked by many in the

5 establishment, including civil servants, the legal

6 profession and the police."

7 Again, is that an impression that you picked up

8 yourself?

9 A. I think it is very difficult to be a legal

10 representative, with all due respect, without being

11 pushy and difficult at times.

12 Q. The portrait that Mo Mowlam portrays in her

13 autobiography is of someone who is actually disliked by

14 a whole cross section of the establishment, which would

15 include senior RUC and the civil servants themselves.

16 That is a bit more than just being combative as

17 a lawyer, isn't it?

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you be in a position to answer that

19 question?

20 A. I'm not sure really sure I am qualified to answer about

21 circumstances in which I did not have first hand

22 experience. I can only really talk about the experience

23 on that weekend.

24 MR SKELTON: Did Rosemary Nelson ever discuss her safety

25 with you?




1 A. She did not, no, no. No, I'm trying to remember now

2 because it is important if I can.

3 In all honesty, I think she was more concerned about

4 other people. She had that sense of public service

5 about her, that she was prepared to speak out for other

6 people and -- but I don't recall her having concerns

7 about her own safety.

8 Q. Did anyone else mention any concerns about her safety?

9 A. No, not at all.

10 Q. Did you yourself consider her to be in any way

11 vulnerable because of her position vis-a-vis the GRRC?

12 A. I didn't, and maybe I should have, but I genuinely felt

13 that somebody with quite a high profile in the community

14 would, by virtue of their profile, be able to have some

15 level of protection, I suppose. That may have been

16 a naive viewpoint now, in retrospect.

17 Q. Where were you staying on the night of the 6th?

18 A. I was offered a house close to the Garvaghy Road -- I

19 was offered a room essentially, but I feel I was being

20 offered a house because I don't recall anybody else

21 staying in it. And I think it was one of a number of

22 houses vacant as the previous year had probably put it

23 into the minds of a number of people that the best place

24 to be was anywhere except on the Garvaghy Road at that

25 time.




1 So I, at the same time, was offered a house of

2 somebody who didn't mind the house being used for

3 hospitality as -- I remember being shown the house and

4 being told this is somebody else's house, they don't

5 mind if you use it.

6 Q. Could we look at the map of the Garvaghy Road, which is

7 at RNI-302-159 (displayed). If you could give us some

8 idea of where your house was, that would be helpful,

9 maybe by reference to the text?

10 A. Yes. Well, from looking at where the community centre

11 is, I would think the house was somewhere around the

12 Garvaghy Park area, as I see written here, as it was not

13 a long way from the community centre, but it was across

14 the road.

15 Q. We can see the Garvaghy Road marked there. Were you to

16 the left or right of that?

17 A. That is really very hard for me to tell as it was dark

18 when I was finding the house and it was like a scene out

19 of War of the Worlds with lights shining down from

20 a helicopter when I was leaving the house. So I can't

21 really be clear of the exact location other than I had

22 to cross the road to get to the community centre.

23 Q. In your statement, you say that you were woken up and

24 then made your way to the community centre, which we can

25 see marked in the centre of the map?




1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Is that where you based your observations from?

3 A. Well, actually, I was on the road that night -- not on

4 the road, but standing looking at the road as that is

5 where certainly people were gathered. There were

6 a large volume of people. I don't think they would have

7 all fitted in the community centre.

8 Q. Did you ever make your way down, for example, to the

9 junction with Ashgrove Road, which we can see at the

10 bottom right-hand side?

11 A. When the march had passed, I remember being in the

12 Ashgrove Road area -- well, at least at the junction

13 with the Garvaghy Road. There were a number of

14 incidents there, particularly there was stone throwing

15 I can recall of security vehicles that were leaving the

16 area, as I mentioned in my statement. I witnessed women

17 from the Garvaghy Road, mothers essentially, as far as I

18 could tell, of the youths throwing stones, bricks,

19 whatever they had, telling their offspring to stop as

20 there was nothing to be gained.

21 Q. Was it just children throwing bricks or were there older

22 people throwing things as well?

23 A. They looked to me like teenagers. They were certainly

24 youthful anyway.

25 Q. Did you see the protesters being removed from the road?




1 A. Yes, I did. Indeed, I was standing a little bit away.

2 Obviously I was there to observe rather than to

3 interfere and I can recall people sitting on the road,

4 in fact coming from their houses to sit on the road, and

5 making the point verbally that there was no agreement

6 prior to what had happened and they felt that they were

7 making a statement.

8 Q. This was what sort of time?

9 A. Now, I'm trying to remember. It was after we had all

10 gone to bed anyway. So I don't know, was it two or half

11 two or three? It was in the middle of the night

12 essentially, anyway.

13 Q. You mentioned in your statement the fact that you felt

14 a bit dazed by these events.

15 A. I certainly did.

16 Q. Were they frightening and intimidating?

17 A. They were surreal, rather than frightening or

18 intimidating as I had to really pinch myself, given that

19 the previous evening had been one of hope and, you know,

20 a new beginning with the expected agreement and respect

21 for, I suppose, the residents that was quite a novelty

22 for the Garvaghy Road community.

23 So when I had gone to bed, it didn't seem like there

24 was going to be any incident and I think people were

25 generally appreciative and grateful for that, as far as




1 I could tell. So when the noise awoke me as I mentioned

2 in my statement, it seemed like a central heating system

3 that was rattling, it seemed like pipes were rattling,

4 and there was a strange light in the room and I opened

5 the window and it seemed like daylight. Obviously it

6 wasn't daylight at the time of the night, but the

7 brightness of the spotlight from the helicopter overhead

8 explained the light, and the noise of the helicopter

9 explained the noises. And then I saw British soldiers

10 walking through the garden and the whole thing really

11 seemed like a bit of a nightmare.

12 Q. Can I focus, please, on the senior police officers which

13 you mentioned in your statement? Did you speak to any

14 of them?

15 A. No, not at that time because they were very engaged on

16 the tense situation and I didn't think it would be

17 helpful for me to try and explain that I'm not actually

18 a resident of the Garvaghy Road, but I happened to be

19 here as an observer.

20 Q. In your statement, you mention that the senior officers

21 thought the residents were acting unacceptably. How did

22 you form that view?

23 A. Sorry, could you repeat that?

24 Q. If we look at your statement on page RNI-820-094 at

25 paragraph 20 (displayed), we can see there highlighted:




1 "I know that senior officers were saying it was

2 unacceptable behaviour by the residents."

3 A. Yes, and they needed to clear the road.

4 Q. How did you come to that --

5 A. Well, from their utterances when I was observing. You

6 know, they were saying, "You are blocking a public

7 highway." That was the tone of the exchange, and that

8 the road would have to be cleared. But the residents

9 were obviously adamant that there was no agreement for

10 the security forces taking over the Garvaghy Road. So

11 they -- both sides felt the other was unacceptable.

12 Q. Did you appreciate that the police found themselves in

13 a difficult position, having to clear the road?

14 A. Oh, absolutely. I imagine it would be a fairly --

15 a very tense and unacceptable situation for any police

16 officer to be asked to do what was done that night.

17 Q. And in paragraph 39, which we find on page RNI-820-098

18 (displayed), you say that:

19 "The police had crossed the line that you would

20 expect for independent upholders of the law."

21 A. I think honestly that the police were quite frightened.

22 They were in a -- in the position where this was going

23 to be a numbers game between the number of police

24 officers that were available and the number of residents

25 that were also going to be present. So the tension was




1 extremely high.

2 Q. Just focusing on the police interaction with the

3 protesters, just briefly did you consider they had been

4 acting unacceptably or violently, unnecessarily, towards

5 the protesters?

6 A. I think that the operation itself was provocative, and

7 once an action becomes provocative, I think it then has

8 the risk of spiralling out of control. And the dress,

9 I know -- I appreciate that the police were having to

10 protect themselves, but they were dressed in a manner

11 which said they were ready for battle.

12 Q. What time did you see Rosemary Nelson on the road?

13 A. From what I can recall, after I got dressed and arrived,

14 Rosemary Nelson was there ahead of me, from what I can

15 recall.

16 Q. And --

17 A. I imagine she hadn't gone to bed at all. I mean, I

18 can't say for sure, but I think she would have been

19 somebody who would have felt a sense of responsibility

20 to mind the house.

21 Q. When you saw her speaking to the police officers, was

22 this after the protesters had been removed from the

23 road?

24 A. No, it was during the confrontation. People were

25 sitting on the road. The behaviour of the police,




1 I felt, deteriorated almost from the point of view of

2 a panic, that people could not be allowed to accumulate

3 on the road because that would result in other people

4 joining them and the strength of numbers then would make

5 the thing very, very difficult to control, make the

6 whole situation difficult to control.

7 So there was a frantic response that I could see

8 from the police to ensure people did not accumulate on

9 the road. So that did result in a lot of shouting,

10 protesting, screaming and the interaction became very

11 heated.

12 Q. May I focus primarily on Rosemary Nelson for the moment,

13 please? Whereabouts was she? We have seen the

14 community centre towards the middle of the map that I

15 showed you earlier and we have also seen the junction

16 further down. Can you recall whereabouts she might have

17 been when you saw her?

18 A. Well, I can recall her being, as I say, in the middle of

19 the road speaking with the officer who, I presume, was

20 the officer in charge.

21 Q. Was she with just one officer?

22 A. I do recall an exchange between herself and another

23 officer.

24 Q. What were they wearing?

25 A. The officer in question, I think, was, to me certainly,




1 in riot gear.

2 Q. That is the full outfit?

3 A. The full outfit, yes.

4 Q. With a head helmet?

5 A. Helmet, and black from top to toe, yes.

6 Q. Was she accompanied by anyone else, for example,

7 a gentleman or a female journalist?

8 A. I really cannot be so specific in my recall there. She

9 certainly was surrounded by people who were hanging on

10 her every word. I wish I could recall verbatim what she

11 said, but essentially she was certainly speaking on

12 behalf of the residents of -- felt their point was not

13 being understood by the RUC.

14 Q. Were you in this small group of people or were you on

15 the sidelines?

16 A. I would have been a little bit outside that group. I

17 would have been trying to follow and observe and do my

18 best to act as an independent observer, as I had set out

19 to be.

20 Q. Could you overhear what was being said?

21 A. Yes, I could, but I'm trying to recall it now in detail.

22 I just know that it was extremely tense.

23 Q. Was she complaining about the betrayal of trust that you

24 mentioned earlier?

25 A. Yes, that would ring true all right, yes.




1 Q. What was she saying?

2 A. Well, as I mentioned, it is difficult to recall exactly,

3 but I think it kept being repeated that there was an

4 agreement that Mo Mowlam had entered into in good faith

5 and that the community on the Garvaghy Road had taken in

6 good faith and that this was being set aside. So there

7 was a breakdown of trust.

8 Q. Was she also complaining about the way she herself had

9 been treated?

10 A. I don't recall her saying specifically anything in

11 relation to herself personally.

12 Q. In your statement, you mention that she was being -- or

13 was courageous and forthright. Could you just describe

14 that a bit more for me, please?

15 A. Well, the situation that we have just been discussing

16 would, for me, require a considerable amount of courage

17 and forthrightness because her position as a legal

18 representative was that she had enjoyed the trust of the

19 community and the agreement that had been in place was

20 now being set aside. So she was both trying to protect

21 her own honour, if you like, as an honest broker between

22 the community and the Secretary of State, and at the

23 same time by discussion hopefully avoid the situation

24 deteriorating even worse. I think it required a lot of

25 courage and presence of mind.




1 Q. In paragraph 41 of your statement -- and it is

2 particularly the last sentence -- which is actually

3 found on page RNI-820-099 (displayed), you say:

4 "The residents she was representing were also

5 annoyed by the fact that their representative was being

6 disrespected."

7 Did you mean that she was being disrespected by the

8 police officer or officers she was speaking to or more

9 generally by those she had been negotiating with?

10 A. Probably both. In the bigger picture, the agreement was

11 being torn up effectively, and on the night itself she

12 was herself being harassed as not having any role to

13 play in the situation she found herself in. In other

14 words, it had gone beyond discussion; it was now about

15 essentially forcing the closure of the road.

16 Q. In what way were the particular officers she was in

17 contact with being disrespectful?

18 A. Well, as I say, I am having difficulty recalling the

19 exact words. I wasn't there to hear some of the words

20 that are in another statement that described how she was

21 addressed, so I can't stand over those comments. But

22 the impression I distinctly got was that police officers

23 and certainly the officer in charge wasn't giving her

24 the due respect that I would understand a legal

25 representative should be given.




1 Q. You mentioned "in other statements". There is

2 a particular allegation that she was called at some

3 point a Fenian bitch. Is that what you meant when you

4 referred to that?

5 A. Yes, I read that, but as I say, I wasn't present to hear

6 that -- to hear those words.

7 Q. Did you see her being manhandled or otherwise treated

8 violently by the officers?

9 A. I cannot recall -- I cannot recall a hand being placed

10 on her, but there was so much jostling and pushing.

11 I saw a baton being used certainly, I saw blood and the

12 confusion means that it is very difficult to be specific

13 about any one person being jostled.

14 Q. In your statement at paragraph 40, which is on

15 page RNI-820-098 (displayed), there is a middle

16 sentence:

17 "The police ... fell into this trap and saw

18 Rosemary Nelson as the person who was there to cause

19 them trouble."

20 In other words, the police:

21 "... confuse[d] Rosemary Nelson with the issue."

22 How had you come to that view?

23 A. Well, I came to that view because the situation the

24 police found themselves in was that, you know,

25 discussion on the matter was a distraction and was




1 actually an obstruction to them carrying out their

2 orders. So Rosemary Nelson, by trying to engage in

3 debate about how to remedy the situation, was seen as an

4 obstruction.

5 Q. Again, I'm just trying to focus more on the specific

6 officers that you may have seen. Is there anything in

7 particular you can recall that manifests that point?

8 A. The total fracas that I saw was extremely volatile. It

9 is very difficult to be specific about the actual police

10 officer, other than in the discussions she was having,

11 there is no doubt voices were raised and going on around

12 them was total mayhem. So, I mean, there was no

13 prospect of any meeting of minds or reasonable

14 discussion other than that police officer was prepared,

15 with Rosemary Nelson, to go off to a room somewhere and

16 have a discussion because there was nothing possible by

17 way of discussing a resolution on that road that night,

18 as far as I could see.

19 Q. Were they in fact shouting at each other, though?

20 A. Yes, voices were certainly raised. Yes.

21 Q. And you mentioned, as I say, that the police appeared to

22 confuse her with the issue. Was there a sense in which

23 that worked the other way round, in that she had

24 confused the police themselves with the issue?

25 A. Well, she was trying to get to the heart of where the




1 order came from and the police didn't seem to be in any

2 mood to discuss the detail of that. So there was -- it

3 was impossible to have a meeting of minds in that

4 scenario.

5 Q. How long did this conversation take?

6 A. It seemed to take a long time. In all honesty, it is

7 impossible in that scenario to give a clear answer as to

8 how long it took because the actual operation was done

9 very quickly, and I can only imagine that it must have

10 been, I don't know, 20 minutes/half an hour of tension

11 like that. Of course, it extended to stone throwing and

12 in the morning there was debris what seemed like the

13 length of the road.

14 Q. I'm asking in particular in relation to

15 Rosemary Nelson's conversation. Was that a matter of

16 seconds, minutes?

17 A. I mentioned certainly minutes. From what I can recall,

18 it could have been 20 minutes/half an hour of back and

19 forth discussions.

20 Q. So, in fact, you are describing a longer period of time.

21 It is not a single momentary conversation; she is having

22 a continuous negotiation, is she?

23 A. She is present to -- in her own way, to take note of

24 what was happening. So she wasn't going to be absenting

25 herself from the situation as long as there was violence




1 going on around her and as long as she was witnessing

2 strong-armed actions.

3 Q. Did you see her or hear her have more than one

4 conversation with RUC officers?

5 A. I can only describe this as one continuum of an

6 exchange.

7 Q. And after the conversation did you have the opportunity

8 to speak to her about it?

9 A. Yes. I recall talking to her when, I suppose, you could

10 say the situation had been brought under control and she

11 was certainly very resigned that we were into a new

12 chapter, that the trust had been completely destroyed

13 and that the tension was going to result in probably

14 more violence because it certainly had given people who

15 were hell bent on conflict every reason to say that you

16 couldn't trust the Secretary of State.

17 Q. When you heard this from her, was this a one-to-one

18 conversation with her or was this more of a group

19 discussion?

20 A. I think I was talking with her on my own, but there were

21 people around all the time.

22 Q. Did she mention being verbally abused or physically

23 assaulted at that time?

24 A. Again, as I said before, she wasn't focused on herself.

25 It really did revolve around the wider ramifications of




1 what was happening.

2 Q. Did anyone else mention to you that she had been abused

3 verbally or assaulted physically?

4 A. There was reference to police actions, but I can't

5 recall specific names being mentioned. It was

6 essentially discussions like, "Did you see that police

7 officer hitting that person?" and, "Did you see the

8 blood?" And it was essentially a wider observation

9 rather than Rosemary Nelson.

10 Q. Did you make any notes of what you saw that day?

11 A. I didn't make specific notes then, no, but I resolved to

12 have it recorded, and I did when I met with the Garda

13 Siochana later.

14 Q. I think that is in relation to the specific complaint of

15 Rosemary Nelson, is it?

16 A. Yes. That would have been -- on reflection, I would

17 have been trying to see how should this matter be

18 recorded to learn lessons from it.

19 Q. I was thinking just more generally about your status as

20 an observer. Were you notetaking while observing or

21 were you just simply there to watch?

22 A. No, I was really there to watch and, by my presence,

23 hopefully mitigate or avoid whatever extremes of tension

24 were going to manifest themselves.

25 Q. Now, some time after you had left the Garvaghy Road, you




1 were contacted by a Garda Inspector and I think you

2 spoke to him about what you had witnessed. Can we look,

3 please, at page RNI-303-026 (displayed)?

4 Now, you can see from there that the date of the

5 conversation appears to have been the beginning

6 of June 2000, so almost three years after the event.

7 And overleaf on RNI-303-027 (displayed), the second

8 paragraph is your section, as it were. If you would

9 just like to have a look at that and elaborate on any of

10 the comments; in particular, the fact that she was

11 treated with disdain?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Is this really no more than what you have been

14 describing previously?

15 A. Well, it reflects what I have described previously.

16 Q. And it is clear there that you didn't actually identify

17 a particular officer on the day who was being

18 disrespectful; this was more of a general impression?

19 A. Yes, it was quite difficult to identify individual

20 officers. They didn't seem to be in any mood to get

21 down to the detail of who they were.

22 Q. Is there anything in relation to your involvement with

23 the complaint which you would like to add?

24 A. Well, this was as clear and as detailed as I could be at

25 the time. So, unfortunately, I cannot be more detailed




1 at this point after the event.

2 Q. How long after the 6th did you leave Portadown?

3 A. I left as soon as the security forces had essentially

4 withdrawn the vehicles that were blocking off the road.

5 I can recall the difficulty getting back to home in

6 Balbriggan as there had been knock-on disturbances.

7 I remember Newry where there were burning cars blocking

8 the road and having to take a detour. So the journey

9 back also was impacted upon by the violence.

10 Q. Did you meet Rosemary Nelson again after 1997?

11 A. No, not personally, no.

12 Q. And in 1998, did you reinvolve yourself in the Drumcree

13 dispute?

14 A. Well, I was interested in being an observer, but I

15 couldn't, given my responsibilities as a TD at the time,

16 be available at that time. So I only have second-hand

17 information, but it wasn't as fraught with the same

18 violence as the previous year.

19 Q. In paragraph 52 of your statement, you mention that your

20 wife was a county councillor in 1998 and herself was

21 there?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Have you had the opportunity to ask her about any

24 contact she may have had with Rosemary Nelson in that

25 period?




1 A. She didn't, I believe, have any contact directly with

2 Rosemary Nelson at that time, but as I mentioned, the

3 situation wasn't as volatile, from what I can recall.

4 So it didn't escalate to that level as 1997.

5 Q. Thank you, Mr Sargent. Is there anything you would like

6 to add before I open questions to the Panel?

7 A. No. Thank you for your questions.


9 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Mr Sargent, could I just return to the

10 heat of the situation on the night?

11 You have described very graphically what you saw.

12 Could I just ask you this: in relation to your contact

13 with Rosemary Nelson during that night, would it be fair

14 to say that you were not with her the whole time, you

15 were not watching her the whole time; you were looking

16 at other issues, the general sort of panoramic situation

17 there?

18 A. Yes, I was trying to uncover, if you like, where the

19 causes of tension were coming from. That might be a bit

20 simplistic given that there was a whole history of

21 tension. But, for example, I thought it extremely

22 important to let people know that within the

23 Garvaghy Road there were people who had put their trust

24 in the process of negotiation and were determined to

25 avoid violence and to put behind them the kind of




1 tension that had led to violence in the past. And many

2 of these would have been women.

3 The Jesuit community would have been a source of

4 inspiration and leadership and people had put their

5 trust in such leaders in the community. And when the

6 incursion, shall we call it, of the Garvaghy Road took

7 place in the middle of the night, those people were

8 effectively disempowered and the trust was destroyed.

9 So a vacuum was created, which was filled by some of the

10 more youthful people who felt that the only language the

11 security forces understood was violence.

12 So we had the running battles and the debris of the

13 morning after as evidence of that. And when the

14 retreating, as I mentioned, security forces took place

15 after the march had passed in a fairly sombre mood,

16 I might add, the stone throwing was intercepted by

17 essentially mothers of those same children.

18 So within that community, the people who had

19 believed in negotiated settlement, peace and a peaceful

20 resolution had the carpet pulled from under them

21 essentially that night.

22 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: So it would be fair to say that because

23 you were not specifically following Rosemary Nelson's

24 activities for the whole night, there could have been

25 periods when Rosemary Nelson did things, things were




1 done to Rosemary Nelson, she could have said things,

2 things were said to her, she would have met people or

3 not met people, that would not have been within your

4 view?

5 A. Well, of course -- it seems an obvious thing to say, but

6 only for the fact that she was murdered by a car bomb,

7 we may not be even discussing any of these matters now

8 and we certainly would not have been focusing on

9 Rosemary Nelson. And no more than that, I wasn't

10 focusing on Rosemary Nelson; I was there to observe the

11 wider situation and, indeed, not just the Garvaghy Road

12 residents.

13 As I mentioned, as a member of the Church of

14 Ireland, I was also interested to appreciate the role of

15 the Church of Ireland in the situation and the use of

16 the church at Drumcree, the people who were sitting

17 along the walls who didn't have any particular interest

18 in worshipping at that church, but seemed ready just to,

19 I suppose, enjoy, if that's the right word, the tension.

20 They were there with nothing on their mind except for

21 the tension.

22 So the wider picture went far beyond Rosemary Nelson

23 and that is partly the reason -- and I apologise if I

24 haven't been able to recall in greater detail, but

25 I knew Rosemary Nelson only insofar as she was one of




1 a number of people in whom the community had placed

2 their trust.

3 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Yes. It is just important from the

4 Panel's viewpoint. We are trying to piece together

5 a chronology of what took place that night and what you

6 have said has been very helpful, but it is important, I

7 think, that we understand whether you were watching

8 Rosemary Nelson for the whole of the period and,

9 therefore, could say with some confidence what happened

10 and what didn't happen, or whether, as you have

11 helpfully said, you were looking at the wider view of

12 what was taking place and, therefore, were not focusing

13 specifically on Rosemary Nelson.

14 A. I wasn't, but she was somebody who stood out. I have no

15 doubt. I can say that with clarity. I had met her

16 early on, when it seemed matters were going to be quite

17 pedestrian, if that's the right word, and that there was

18 going to be no incident. And from almost an academic

19 viewpoint, we discussed how this was just a matter of

20 observing what hopefully was going to be an

21 incident-free year on that weekend.

22 So having had those very courteous, very interesting

23 discussions, when things did deteriorate, I obviously

24 noticed Rosemary Nelson because this was the same woman

25 who had reassured me and told me very hopefully that




1 hopefully this was going to be the beginning of a new

2 understanding on the Garvaghy Road. So when it

3 deteriorated, she was certainly personally obviously

4 very disappointed, and that came through.

5 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Okay, thank you very much indeed.


7 DAME VALERIE STRACHAN: I just wanted to ask a couple of

8 sort of very practical questions about that night.

9 It is difficult for those of us who weren't there

10 actually to picture what it must have been like as

11 a whole. First of all, you mentioned that when you

12 opened the curtains or the window, it was like daylight

13 because of the lights beaming down. Was that the

14 situation all the way through? Was it very light or was

15 it just when you happened to start seeing it?

16 A. I recall that helicopter, it seemed, hovering over the

17 house that I was sleeping in. I'm sure everybody

18 probably felt that because it was extremely pervasive.

19 DAME VALERIE STRACHAN: It is really was the whole of the

20 Garvaghy Road area very sharply illuminated throughout

21 that period?

22 A. Yes, I recall helicopters overhead pretty much all the

23 time.


25 A. I don't know whether it was one or more, but the noise




1 of the helicopter just became part of the background and

2 the light from above really did illuminate the whole

3 area. So it was reasonably easy to see up and down the

4 road, yes.

5 DAME VALERIE STRACHAN: Right. The second question is

6 a very ordinary one about how many people were there in

7 total?

8 A. As I mentioned, a lot of people had left the area,

9 afraid of what might happen or just not interested in

10 observing the Orange Order and preferring just to go

11 away.

12 DAME VALERIE STRACHAN: But just on the scene, are we

13 talking hundreds, thousands?

14 A. I would think hundreds.

15 DAME VALERIE STRACHAN: Hundreds rather than thousands?

16 A. Yes, I would think hundreds. Yes, it was a large crowd,

17 but there was nobody, apart from the international

18 observers, who was disengaged.

19 You did see people with specific tee shirts who were

20 international observers. I believe you have had some

21 witnesses from America, for example. They would stand

22 out because they were quite measured and they were just

23 standing and observing, whereas other people were

24 extremely exercised and feeling completely let down.





1 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Sargent, we are extremely grateful for you

2 coming up to Belfast to give evidence before us. Thank

3 you very much.

4 A. You are welcome. Thank you very much.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: We will adjourn now until 20 to 12.

6 (11.20 am)

7 (Short break)

8 (11.40 am)

9 THE CHAIRMAN: May the witness take the oath, please.


11 Questions by MR PHILLIPS

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, Mr Phillips?

13 MR PHILLIPS: Mr Maxwell, can you give us your full name,

14 please?

15 A. Yes, my name is Roger Bayley Maxwell.

16 Q. Thank you. I think it is right that you have made

17 a statement to the Inquiry. Can we look at that,

18 please, on the screen at RNI-841-016 (displayed)? Do we

19 see your signature at RNI-841-030 (displayed) and the

20 date of 21 March last year?

21 A. That's correct.

22 Q. You tell us right at the outset of your statement, on

23 the page which is on the screen at the moment, that

24 about 30 years ago you joined the force. The phase of

25 your career with which the Inquiry is particularly




1 concerned began in January 1996, when you joined the

2 Command Secretariat. Just to be clear, your rank at

3 that stage was superintendent; is that correct?

4 A. Yes, that's correct. I was promoted in January 1996 and

5 appointed to Command Secretariat as the Superintendent.

6 Q. You were there until April 1998, you tell us, and then

7 went on to an operational role as a subdivisional

8 commander presumably in the same rank; is that right?

9 A. That's correct, yes.

10 Q. At North Queen Street?

11 A. Yes, that's right.

12 Q. I would like to ask you some questions, please, about

13 the Command Secretariat and its place within the

14 organisation.

15 Can we look at the diagram you have helpfully

16 provided, and that's at RNI-831-075 (displayed)? I

17 think we may need to turn it round. Thank you very

18 much.

19 Here we see the command structure, and what you have

20 done for us is to make clear how the ranks worked within

21 the Secretariat on the left-hand side; is that right?

22 A. That's correct. Yes. Command Secretariat was commanded

23 by a chief superintendent and it was split effectively

24 into two halves. One half comprised the personal staff

25 of the Chief Constable. That would be his staff officer




1 and his personal assistant and his staff officers and

2 PAs to the two deputy chief constables who were in post

3 at the time. Their role was effectively to look after

4 the diary of the chief or, indeed, their principals and

5 to deal with any personal correspondence.

6 I sat on the other side of the Command Secretariat,

7 in that we dealt with all the other correspondence that

8 come into the RUC through the Chief Constable's office.

9 Q. So if I can put it this way, the other side, the staff

10 officer's side, was, as it were, the more personal side

11 of the office and you were, if I can put it that way,

12 the more official side within the organisation. Is that

13 a fair summary?

14 A. That's correct, yes. They were effectively a clearing

15 house for all the correspondence that come into the RUC

16 through the Chief Constable's office.

17 Q. And you tell us in your statement that that

18 correspondence could be very varied indeed. In

19 paragraph 6, I think it is, at RNI-841-018 (displayed),

20 you say, for example, that it might include what might

21 loosely be termed "junk mail"; so commercial

22 solicitation, "Do you want to buy these batons?" or as

23 you put it, correspondence from people of unsound mind.

24 So the full range?

25 A. Absolutely, the full range, everything at all.




1 Sometimes we received correspondence from government

2 departments, from other police forces, from members of

3 the public. It was very wide range of correspondence

4 that come in through Command Secretariat.

5 Q. Can we look back at the chart at RNI-831-075, please

6 (displayed)? Thank you. So we see that has been

7 written in handwriting in the middle on one side, on the

8 left there, and beneath you a chief inspector level,

9 another officer, who is a ciphered officer again, whose

10 cipher we will come across in your statement and,

11 indeed, the documents.

12 Can I just ask you, please, without using names,

13 were there other officers working within your side of

14 the Command Secretariat?

15 A. Yes, when I went there in January 1996, there were

16 actually two chief inspectors and below them there were

17 two sergeants and a number of civilians -- I believe

18 three in total -- an executive officer, one, and

19 a couple of admin assistants.

20 Q. So not shown on the plan, as it were, there were others

21 beneath the level of chief inspector that we have got

22 here on the screen?

23 A. There were, yes, indeed.

24 Q. Now, so far as the range of matters you were dealing

25 with was concerned -- you have explained how wide that




1 was -- were there within your team specialists in

2 particular areas?

3 A. Not specifically within our team. We didn't have

4 anybody with any -- any particular specialist knowledge,

5 to my recollection. What occasionally -- what did

6 happen was that if correspondence of a particular nature

7 come in and it was allocated to, say, for example,

8 myself, then I would follow that chain of correspondence

9 through to its end, whatever that might be. And in

10 doing so, you did build up a degree of knowledge and

11 expertise in that particular area, but it would be wrong

12 to say that there were people had special knowledge. It

13 would be wrong to say they were appointed because they

14 had specialist knowledge.

15 Q. Can I ask you who did the allocation?

16 A. What used to happen is that the post would have come in

17 on a daily basis or, indeed, a twice daily basis to the

18 general office within Command Secretariat. It would be

19 opened by the admin assistants and then it would go

20 across to one of the sergeants or, I think, the EO1, who

21 would be responsible for recording it in the post room

22 on the computer, as it was at that stage. Then they

23 would allocate it to whoever they thought would be most

24 appropriate, whether it be the Chief Superintendent,

25 myself or some of the chief inspectors.




1 Q. So, in fact, the allocation had happened by the time the

2 letter, the correspondence, reached your desk?

3 A. That's correct yes.

4 Q. But as I understand it, you would then follow through on

5 that issue until, one way or another, it had been

6 resolved; is that right?

7 A. That's correct, yes.

8 Q. I ask you those questions because one of the matters you

9 deal with in your statement is the extent to which your

10 colleague at chief inspector level, P136, became, if I

11 can put it that way, the specialist in the matters

12 concerning Rosemary Nelson that came into Command

13 Secretariat.

14 Now, can I take it then that that specialisation was

15 something that probably came about by chance, as

16 a result of an initial allocation of a Rosemary Nelson

17 issue, if I can put it that way, through the process you

18 have just described?

19 A. Yes, that's absolutely right. That is how it would have

20 happened. She wouldn't have been given that particular

21 piece of correspondence to deal with for any other

22 reason initially other than by accident.

23 Q. But does it follow also then that once a particular

24 topic had been allocated to one of you, if another issue

25 but relating to the same person or organisation later




1 came into the Command Secretariat, it was likely that

2 that correspondence would also be allocated to the same

3 officer?

4 A. That's correct. It would have been linked to that

5 particular officer and that particular officer would

6 then -- that correspondence would have been forwarded

7 through the general office to that particular person to

8 deal with.

9 Q. Do you think that that is what happened in this

10 particular case?

11 A. Yes, I think that is what happened in every case, in

12 every piece of correspondence of importance that came in

13 to Command Secretariat.

14 Q. Can I ask you about your files now? When a piece of

15 correspondence, a letter, whatever it was, came in to

16 you and was allocated to you -- let's take

17 a hypothetical example of that kind -- and you dealt

18 with it in whatever way -- and we will look at some

19 examples in a minute -- would there then automatically

20 be a file opened for that chain of correspondence?

21 A. Yes, every piece of correspondence coming in to Command

22 Secretariat would have been given a reference number and

23 that would have been copied and placed on the file, and

24 any response that I would have prepared would have been

25 copied and then the copy would have been initialled by




1 me to show that it was me -- I was the person who was

2 responsible for sending that out.

3 Q. Thank you. Can I just test that in practice with you by

4 looking at a document at RNI-103-009.514 (displayed)?

5 Thank you.

6 Now, we are using the screen and one of the

7 disadvantages of that, as you will see, is that

8 obviously you can only see one page at a time. If we

9 put up RNI-103-009.515 on the right-hand side, please

10 (displayed) -- thank you. Now, looking at the bottom of

11 the right-hand side, this looks as though it is one of

12 your letters; is that correct?

13 A. Yes, that's correct, yes.

14 Q. Thank you. And then turning back to RNI-103-009.514 on

15 the left-hand side of the screen, you see a reference

16 there, "Com Sec 97/7/633". Is that a reference of the

17 kind you have just been describing for us?

18 A. Yes, it is. That is the Command Sec reference.

19 Q. What does it tell us?

20 A. Gosh, it tells us that correspondence occurred in 1997

21 and it is on file 7/633, and that is really all, I

22 think, that it tells us. It just tells us the file it

23 is allocated to, the paper file it is allocated to.

24 Q. But again, so I can understand this, you will see this

25 is a letter to Mr Lynch -- you deal with it in your




1 statement, and we will come back to it -- and we know

2 that there were various other letters coming in to you

3 from that same source.

4 So would the files that were related one to the

5 other be given numbers in a way that seems logical,

6 ie you know, close together in order, for example?

7 A. They should be if it referred to the same topic.

8 Q. Yes.

9 A. Not necessarily letters from -- say, for example,

10 Mr Lynch had written on another topic, then it wouldn't

11 necessarily be given the same Command Secretariat

12 number. However, if he had written on that specific

13 topic, then it should be given a similar reference

14 number.

15 Q. But what I wanted to get at -- and I am afraid you are

16 getting all these questions because you are the first

17 Command Secretariat witness we have had and we have

18 a lot of documents with reference numbers on them.

19 Imagine the case of Mr Lynch again, then. The

20 system did not permit subsequent topics, new topics,

21 raised by Mr Lynch with your office, Command

22 Secretariat, to be filed, as it were, in adjacent or

23 files near to the files on all other Lynch

24 correspondence topics?

25 A. I don't believe so, but I'm not the best person to




1 answer because I didn't do the actual administration.

2 That is an administrative function carried out by the

3 admin assistants and the sergeant of the EO1.

4 Q. Thank you. You describe the Secretariat in your

5 statement at RNI-841-017, paragraph 5 (displayed), as

6 a sort of:

7 "... clearing house for all correspondence which

8 came in to the Chief Constable."

9 And in a number of cases in your statement, you

10 explain how you think letters came to be written by

11 either you or your colleagues, and I would like to ask

12 you about that, please.

13 First of all, in relation to the Chief Constable

14 himself, how often would he become involved in the

15 business of preparing correspondence to go out either

16 within the RUC or to correspondence outside the force?

17 A. Most -- the vast bulk of correspondence would have been

18 prepared without reference to the Chief Constable. The

19 Chief Constable would only have become involved when it

20 was a matter of considerable importance.

21 For example, if myself or the Chief Superintendent,

22 Command Secretariat, was writing to the Secretary of

23 State, that would have to be run past the

24 Chief Constable for his approval. Indeed, under those

25 circumstances, probably the Chief Constable would have




1 signed that letter himself. But the vast bulk of

2 correspondence, the Chief would not have had sight

3 of it.

4 I should perhaps mention that there was a huge

5 volume of correspondence came through the office on

6 a daily basis and to expect the Chief Constable, any

7 Chief Constable, to have had sight of it is probably

8 unrealistic.

9 Q. That's a very important topic I wanted to deal with with

10 you, and we are obviously focusing on just some of the

11 letters received and sent in particular years, 1997 to

12 1999, broadly speaking.

13 Presumably, you were dealing with dozens of files of

14 correspondence each week?

15 A. Yes, at least dozens.

16 Q. On a vast range of topics?

17 A. On absolutely everything.

18 Q. And so can I take it then that the number of letters you

19 sent out, either within the organisation or externally,

20 where there was direct input from the Chief Constable

21 was a very modest proportion?

22 A. It would have been relatively small, yes.

23 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Mr Phillips, sorry for interrupting.

24 Mr Maxwell, at this time can you recall lots of

25 forces -- publications such as the Police Almanac, which




1 lists the address of forces, stipulated that all

2 correspondence should be addressed to the

3 Chief Constable. Did that apply in the RUC's case, do

4 you know?

5 A. I can't recall whether that was the case or not. I'm

6 not honestly sure.

7 MR PHILLIPS: Just picking up on that question, if a letter

8 came in addressed to the Chief Constable, what would

9 happen to it in practice in terms of formulating

10 a response?

11 A. It would depend very much on the nature of the

12 correspondence itself, and in my statement I have given

13 an example of if Mrs Smith who lived in York Road wrote

14 to the Chief Constable to say that she had had her

15 window broken the previous week but had heard nothing

16 more from the police, then I would have written back to

17 Mrs Smith, thanking her, acknowledging the letter and

18 saying that the matter had been referred to the

19 Assistant Chief Constable, Belfast, for his attention.

20 Then the correspondence would have been sent to the

21 Assistant Chief Constable, Belfast, who would have sent

22 it to the local police to deal with and make sure

23 somebody spoke to the lady in question.

24 If it was a complaint, for example, from a solicitor

25 or, indeed, from a member of the public about the




1 behaviour of the police, then an acknowledgment would

2 have gone out and the correspondence would have been

3 sent through to the appropriate department, which was

4 G Branch, or G Department at that time.

5 Q. So there were, as it were, horses for courses, various

6 different ways of dealing with it?

7 A. There were, yes.

8 Q. And there were examples, you describe for us in your

9 statement, where, in order to formulate a response, you

10 had to seek help, input from other departments within

11 the force; is that correct?

12 A. That's correct. And to give you another example, if one

13 of the government departments intended to publish

14 a piece of legislation, they would write to the

15 Chief Constable looking for the views of the RUC. And

16 it would have been the job of Command Secretariat to

17 send it to the relevant department in the police for

18 them to prepare a draft response, which would then have

19 come back to Command Secretariat. And it would have

20 been effectively topped and tailed by someone within

21 Command Secretariat and sent out as the RUC view.

22 Now, it would depend on the importance of the piece

23 of legislation as to whether that would be run past the

24 Chief Constable or not. To give you an example, if it

25 was a minor change in the betting laws, probably that




1 would not have gone to the Chief Constable. If it was

2 a change in the emergency legislation, which might

3 affect police powers, then the Chief would certainly

4 have had a view, and that would have been run past him

5 before we would have sent a definitive response.

6 Q. Can I take another example which you yourself highlight

7 in your statement, and that is paragraph 8. Here on

8 RNI-841-018 (displayed), you deal with the question of

9 parades and changes or proposal for draft legislation on

10 that topic.

11 Now, can we have that paragraph up on the screen,

12 please? It is at RNI-841-018 (displayed). Thank you.

13 Do you see your paragraph 8 there?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. You give as an example the parades legislation in 1997,

16 and in that particular case you say you didn't consult

17 with other departments, I think because of the urgency?

18 A. Yes, the Government required a pretty rapid response, if

19 my recollection is correct, to its proposals in respect

20 of parades, and the normal sequence of events for that

21 piece of correspondence would have been sent by me or

22 the Chief Inspector to Assistant Chief Constable,

23 D Department, who were responsible for operations within

24 the RUC. Then they would have circulated that round the

25 various operational commanders within the RUC and asked




1 them for their views on whatever proposals there were.

2 I did it slightly differently on that occasion

3 simply to short circuit the system, and I got in touch

4 with the operational commanders and got their responses

5 and prepared the RUC response myself without going to

6 D Department, but kept them informed of what was

7 happening. It was simply because the timeframe was so

8 short. It wasn't for any other reason.

9 Q. But in most cases -- is this right? -- where you needed

10 a view from other sections of the police force, other

11 departments, you would simply send out a memo or

12 a minute asking for comment or response and expect in

13 due course to receive it, put all that together and then

14 send out the correspondence?

15 A. Yes, that would be correct, or we would devolve that

16 responsibility to another department. We would ask

17 D Department, for example, the operations department, to

18 do that for us, for them to circulate it and for them to

19 prepare a composite response. We didn't really have the

20 time or the staff to do that ourselves. We were not

21 there to write policy, effectively. We were there more

22 or less to keep the wheels going, to keep the

23 correspondence moving within the organisation.

24 Q. So far as relations between Command Secretariat and

25 other departments within the force are concerned, as I




1 understand it, you acted in writing to them, for

2 example, in one of those cases on behalf of the

3 Chief Constable; is that correct?

4 A. Yes, that's correct, yes.

5 Q. So you expected a response?

6 A. I think I said in my statement that it did tend to

7 concentrate the mind whenever they got a minute from the

8 Superintendent, Command Secretariat because people knew

9 that that was effectively the Chief Constable writing to

10 them asking for a response.

11 Q. Now, so far as the example you gave about the parades

12 legislation is concerned, that was a request which came

13 in, a request for comment presumably, from Government?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Presumably from the NIO?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Am I right in thinking that when the NIO wished to

18 correspond with the RUC, they would correspond with

19 Command Secretariat?

20 A. Yes, that's correct. It would have been -- everything

21 would have been routed through the Command Secretariat,

22 yes.

23 Q. So if the NIO police division or any other part of the

24 department wished to enter into correspondence with any

25 part of the RUC, it would be directed in the first




1 instance to your department, Command Secretariat?

2 A. That's the way it should happen. I couldn't put my hand

3 on my heart and say that it happened in every case, but

4 those were the instructions: that effectively the NIO

5 should come through Command Secretariat to ensure that

6 Command Secretariat, and thereby the Chief Constable,

7 was not unsighted by anything that was going on.

8 Q. Then it was your responsibility to distribute the memo

9 or the letter, whatever it was, for comment as

10 appropriate?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. Imagine a situation where you are allocated a piece of

13 correspondence and you are considering how to formulate

14 a response. Put to one side, please, input from other

15 departments, et cetera, et cetera. Were there cases

16 where you would discuss how to deal with the

17 correspondence with your senior and other colleagues

18 within Command Secretariat?

19 A. There were occasions, yes, there were. The people who

20 were put into Command Secretariat were put in there for

21 a reason, because they were people who could all make

22 decisions, people who were not afraid to make decisions.

23 But there were occasions when you did need to consult

24 with somebody, simply -- either because your level of

25 knowledge wasn't good enough or because there were wider




1 implications for the organisation. And on those

2 occasions, I would have spoken to P157, who was my chief

3 superintendent, or indeed I would have spoken to P136,

4 who was the Chief Inspector, but an extremely capable

5 person with a really good mind.

6 Q. And, again, can I ask you: when you received a letter on

7 a new topic for answer, would it be for you to consider

8 whether the importance of the issue or some other aspect

9 of the letter required the Chief Constable himself to be

10 briefed about it?

11 A. If I had any doubt at all about whether or not the

12 Chief Constable should be briefed, I would have gone to

13 157 and talked it through with him and taken his view as

14 to whether the Chief needed to be aware of it.

15 Q. And if, in this hypothetical example, he had agreed with

16 you that the Chief Constable did need to be made aware

17 of it, how would the briefing of the Chief Constable

18 about the issue take place?

19 A. Normally, the Chief Superintendent would have taken the

20 correspondence off me and he would have briefed the

21 Chief Constable personally about it.

22 Q. So that was the usual situation, was it?

23 A. That was the usual situation, yes.

24 Q. And the briefing would be in a face-to-face meeting?

25 A. Yes, it would have been a face-to-face meeting with the




1 Chief Constable.

2 Q. So there wasn't, as it were, a further office stage,

3 where the Chief Superintendent would go and talk to

4 somebody on the other side perhaps of the diagram? Do

5 you remember, the private office, if I can put it that

6 way, didn't work like that?

7 A. No, absolutely not. The Chief Superintendent had direct

8 access to the Chief Constable, indeed both

9 Chief Constables because Sir Hugh Annesley was

10 Chief Constable up until, I think, October 1996 when

11 Sir Ronnie took over.

12 Q. And the same applied to both of them?

13 A. Yes, although it was perhaps more structured under

14 Sir Hugh Annesley than it would have been under

15 Sir Ronnie. Sir Hugh Annesley ran his day in a much

16 more structured way. He knew exactly what time he would

17 start in the morning, what time he would have lunch and

18 what time he would finish in the evening. Sir Ronnie

19 was perhaps a bit more fluid than that.

20 Q. Did that mean in turn that it would be possible during

21 that more fluid day for the Chief Superintendent to ask

22 him about a particular issue about correspondence at any

23 point in the day, provided he was free?

24 A. Yes. I have to say that in my 26 years in the police,

25 I never worked with anybody who worked harder than




1 Sir Ronnie Flanagan, and his day was very, very full

2 from early morning until right through to late at night.

3 And I know that it was difficult on occasions for the

4 Chief Superintendent or, in his absence, for me to

5 actually get access to the Chief Constable because he

6 had so many other things on.

7 Q. But although running a very busy diary, the impression

8 one gets from your statement is that you also found him

9 to be very well informed about issues?

10 A. Yes, he knew everything about everything.

11 Q. So was it your experience then that you would raise

12 a topic with him only to discover that he already knew

13 about it?

14 A. Yes, invariably that was the case.

15 Q. Again, in your experience, based on the years you spent

16 working in Command Secretariat for him, did he acquire

17 that information, that grasp, by being a rather hands-on

18 leader?

19 A. He was an excellent leader. He had lots of sources of

20 information both inside and outside the force, both

21 formal and informal. He was incredibly well connected

22 and he was -- he made sure that he himself was very well

23 briefed.

24 Q. So, again, so I'm clear about this, you set it out

25 vividly in your statement at paragraph 90 and I would




1 like you to have that in front of you, please, at

2 RNI-841-022 (displayed). Do you see at the end of that

3 paragraph, 19, you say:

4 "Invariably, the Chief Constable already knew

5 everything anyway since he was very well connected"?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. So did you have experience of an issue coming fresh to

8 you and then discovering that in fact the

9 Chief Constable was already briefed about it?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So far as the briefing of the Chief Constable himself is

12 concerned -- we were talking about that a little earlier

13 and you mentioned that usually -- I think this is

14 right -- that would be done by the Chief Superintendent,

15 157?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Can I take it that there were some occasions where you

18 yourself did the briefing?

19 A. Yes, that's correct. On occasions, when 157 was

20 on leave, I would have taken on his role effectively and

21 one of those jobs would have been to brief the

22 Chief Constable to make sure that he was aware of the

23 various issues that were arising.

24 Q. Can I ask you, based on your own experience, therefore,

25 of doing that, how would it be conducted, the briefing?




1 What would you do? What would you take in with you?

2 What would be said?

3 A. It was usually rather informal. I would have taken in

4 the correspondence or the papers, regardless of what

5 they were. I would have had the documentation with me

6 and I would have carried out that briefing in his

7 office.

8 That was the normal practice, but there were

9 occasions when he was incredibly busy and I would have

10 briefed him, for example, in the car travelling to

11 another meeting, and that happened more than once.

12 Q. And you would have with you, wherever it took place,

13 presumably the file, the correspondence file?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Would you have a draft of a letter to go or would you be

16 discussing it before any draft was prepared?

17 A. It would depend very much on what the issue was.

18 Occasionally there would be a draft, but more often I

19 was simply telling him -- just explaining what the issue

20 was. I needed the papers with me because, to be quite

21 honest, my mind wasn't as sharp as his. He seemed to be

22 able to take things in without having the papers in

23 front of him.

24 Q. We all know that bosses differ. Assume you had a draft

25 with you and you showed it to him, was it your




1 experience that he usually had some amendments to make?

2 A. Occasionally, he would have taken the draft off you and

3 say, "Roger, leave that with me and I will do it

4 myself." On other occasions, he would be content with

5 the draft as prepared.

6 Q. And am I right then, from what you have said, in taking

7 it that when you had a matter to take in to him, to

8 brief him about, you would not usually generate

9 a memorandum, a note about the issue for the purpose of

10 the briefing?

11 A. No, I usually wouldn't, no.

12 Q. As far as you were aware, was the same practice, ie no

13 minute or note for the briefing, followed by P157?

14 A. I believe so, yes. I believe that would be the case. I

15 had -- to be fair to him, I have seen him on occasions

16 prepare on a piece of paper what he was going to say

17 exactly to the Chief Constable, but I would imagine that

18 more often than not he would have just taken the raw

19 correspondence in.

20 Q. What about the decisions, if any, made in the course of

21 those meetings as to how issues were to be dealt with?

22 Were his views, the Chief Constable's views, noted on

23 the file?

24 A. Yes, I would have gone back to the office -- if it was

25 me briefing the Chief, I would have gone back to the




1 office and simply drawn up a small note for file just to

2 say I briefed the Chief Constable on such and such

3 a date about such and such a thing and he directed me to

4 do A, B and C.

5 Q. We will see one or two examples that of in a moment.

6 So on the correspondence files, where correspondence

7 of that sort had gone up to the Chief Constable, can we

8 expect then to find something which indicates his

9 involvement, his approval, perhaps "approved CC", for

10 example, that sort of terminology?

11 A. Certainly, when I spoke to him, on the occasions I spoke

12 to him, I would always try to put a note to that effect

13 on it, but I couldn't honestly answer for 157.

14 Q. No. Can I ask you about a specific feature of some of

15 the documents which we have noticed and we would like

16 your help with, please? It is the appearance on

17 a number of pieces of correspondence of the simple

18 initial "C".

19 Now, because we are coming to these documents many,

20 many years after the event without the benefit of having

21 worked in Command Secretariat, they are somewhat

22 puzzling. Can I ask you to look at an example? It

23 doesn't involve you, I am afraid, but just drawing on

24 your experience, see if you can help. It is RNI-101-350

25 (displayed).




1 This is a memo going out to G Department, the

2 department you mentioned a little earlier. It is after

3 your time at Command Secretariat had ended and by now

4 the Chief Inspector has been promoted. Do you see?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Now, the "C" appears at the bottom of the page. Are you

7 able to assist us with what that signifies?

8 A. I think that is something put on by the administrative

9 staff simply to indicate that that particular piece of

10 paper is a copy.

11 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you to look at another example, at

12 RNI-101-348 (displayed)? There is a "C" and then, I

13 think that is "RS"?

14 A. Yes, those are the initials of the EO1, the Executive

15 Officer 1, who worked within Command Secretariat.

16 Q. So, again, these are initials, are they, put on to

17 facilitate the filing of correspondence?

18 A. That's correct, yes.

19 Q. Is it right, therefore, that references to the

20 Chief Constable by way of initials or anything else,

21 tend to be "CC", in your experience?

22 A. Yes, it would never be "C" for the Chief Constable. It

23 would always be "CC".

24 Q. Thank you very much. Now, can I ask you just one more

25 question about dealings with the NIO? You have




1 helpfully explained that the NIO ought at least to

2 correspond with Command Secretariat if the systems were

3 working properly. Was there any division or part of the

4 NIO which was in regular contact with the Command

5 Secretariat?

6 A. Yes, the Security Policy and Operations Branch was

7 probably the part of the NIO that corresponded most

8 regularly. For a period of a year during my time in

9 Command Secretariat, I acted as liaison officer for the

10 Security Policy and Operations Branch based up at

11 Stormont. Indeed, I had an office there which

12 I visited. And because of the nature of their role and

13 because of the nature of policing and the activities

14 that were going on, they were in regular correspondence

15 with Command Sec either informally through me or,

16 formally, writing to the Chief Superintendent.

17 Q. So while you were, as I understand it, within Command

18 Secretariat, you also took on this liaison role; is that

19 right?

20 A. Yes, that's correct.

21 Q. That would be in 1997/1998?

22 A. I started it, I think, in April 1996 and it continued

23 more or less until I actually finished in Command

24 Secretariat.

25 Q. So some two years later?




1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And you had a desk, did you or ...?

3 A. Yes, I had a desk.

4 Q. Within that department?

5 A. Up in their offices, yes.

6 Q. What was the particular role of the liaison officer?

7 A. As the name suggests, it was to act as a liaison officer

8 between the NIO and the police. It was to deal with any

9 operational matters that came up that might impact on

10 what was going on effectively, talks and so forth, so

11 that if participants in the talk raised a policing

12 issue, an operational policing issue, then the NIO could

13 get some indication of how accurate that was.

14 It was no more than that. It was not for the NIO to

15 give advice to the police; it was simply a convenient

16 conduit whereby the police could keep the NIO informed

17 and deal with any queries they might have.

18 Q. Did it mean in turn that you intended to be the

19 recipient, the addressee of correspondence from that

20 same division or department?

21 A. Yes, that would be the case, yes.

22 Q. So that, as we see in a number of the documents you have

23 exhibited to your statement, they come in not just to

24 Command Secretariat but specifically to you?

25 A. Yes.




1 Q. So far as correspondence going out is concerned --

2 again, you will appreciate we are trying to piece

3 together the position from all these documents -- you

4 deal with that in paragraph 7. And there, at

5 RNI-841-018 (displayed), you say that all the

6 correspondence went out under your by-line, and it looks

7 as though this was presumably a convention which was in

8 place when you arrived in 1996?

9 A. Yes. If my recollection of the RUC code is correct, it

10 said at that time that all correspondence at

11 subdivisional level should go out under the title of

12 Subdivisional Commander, North Queen Street or

13 Tenant Street or wherever. And the same convention

14 effectively applied within the Command Secretariat:

15 Everything went out under the name of the Chief

16 Superintendent, Command Secretariat whether or not he or

17 she had actually seen that correspondence.

18 Q. To take an example, we might find a document, mightn't

19 we, which goes out with Superintendent, Command

20 Secretariat at the bottom of it, but where the letter

21 was in fact drafted and possibly signed by one of your

22 colleagues?

23 A. Yes, that's correct, yes. That happens on a very

24 regular basis.

25 Initially, when I took up post, there were two chief




1 inspectors and we each did a similar role. So almost

2 two thirds of the correspondence would have gone out in

3 that way at that time. Later on, when we moved to one

4 chief inspector, obviously half of the correspondence

5 would have gone out like that.

6 Q. Again, we will see some examples in a minute where the

7 Chief Inspector with whom we are concerned, P136,

8 signed, as it were, on top of your by-line?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Was that a common phenomenon?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Can we take it in those cases that she was in fact

13 responsible for preparing the letter?

14 A. Yes, that's correct.

15 Q. And other than that, your by-line on such a letter has

16 no significance?

17 A. Not unless I actually signed it or, indeed, initialled

18 it, initialled the copy.

19 Q. It was no more than a standard form by-line?

20 A. Yes, the point of it was to make sure that everything

21 came back to the one single point of contact, to the

22 Superintendent, Command Secretariat.

23 Q. Now, we also see the same thing, as it were, at the

24 other level, whereby the Chief Superintendent sometimes

25 sends out letters which, again, have the same by-line,




1 but in fact are signed by him.

2 Can I take it that the same applies: that this was

3 simply a letter that he had prepared, drafted and sent

4 out?

5 A. Yes, that's correct. The number of letters he would

6 have sent out would have been relatively small compared

7 to the number that the Chief Inspector and I would have

8 sent out. He would normally have been the author of

9 letters to government departments about the matters of

10 considerable interest.

11 Q. So that means, doesn't it, that the vast bulk of the

12 correspondence went out from you and your more junior

13 colleague?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you about another phenomenon

16 within the types of letters we have considered, and that

17 is where the Chief Inspector signs and adds above the

18 by-line the word "for".

19 Can we just look at that at RNI-101-096 (displayed)?

20 It is a letter of 26 September. Do you see at the

21 bottom the Chief Inspector's signature and then the word

22 "for"? "RB Maxwell, Superintendent for

23 Chief Constable."

24 Was there any significance at all in the use of that

25 word?




1 A. No, I don't believe so. I think -- I'm not sure why she

2 put the "for" in, but to me it doesn't change the fact

3 that she signed the letter.

4 Q. It doesn't suggest, for example, a letter that had

5 earlier been discussed as a draft with you?

6 A. No.

7 Q. So far as you are aware, there is no particular

8 significance to the use of that word?

9 A. I don't believe there is any significance at all.

10 Q. Thank you. Now, can I just deal with another general

11 matter before we turn to the specific issues you deal

12 with in your statement? It is in paragraph 10 and that

13 is at RNI-841-019 (displayed).

14 Here, under the heading of "Complaints", you set out

15 how complaints would be forwarded by you to G Department

16 in the way that you have described to us.

17 But you then say in the very last sentence of this

18 paragraph something about your experience as an

19 operational commander. Do you see that sentence?

20 A. Yes, I do, yes.

21 Q. I can take it, can I, that that refers to your

22 experience after leaving Command Secretariat, when you

23 were moving on to, I think it was the Subdivisional

24 Command at North Queen Street?

25 A. Yes, I was trying to make the point there that everybody




1 in command, whether it be at superintendent level or

2 Chief Constable level, took complaints really, really

3 seriously. And I was making the point there as an

4 operational commander, I knew that I had 200 or 300

5 people working for me. They are people, some with

6 particular strengths in some areas, some with strengths

7 in other areas, and as an operational commander you have

8 got to know where your people's strengths are so that

9 you don't put them in situations which they will find

10 difficult and too challenging for them.

11 The use of the phrase "problem children" is

12 unfortunate. It means nothing other than that.

13 Q. I just wanted to see about that, if I may. Can I ask

14 you first: am I right in thinking that, as subdivisional

15 commander, you would be notified of all complaints

16 against officers under your command?

17 A. Yes, I would have received a copy of each of the

18 complaints. I would have known on a daily basis how

19 many complaints were made against my officers when they

20 were made in the police station.

21 Say, for example, somebody had made a complaint at

22 North Queen Street against Constable A, I would have

23 known that day that that complaint had been made. If

24 somebody wrote to Assistant Chief Constable,

25 G Department with a complaint, then I would have been




1 notified by Assistant Chief Constable, G Department that

2 a complaint had been made against Constable A by such

3 and such a person.

4 Q. So that enabled you as commander to see whether, for

5 example, there was a pattern of complaint building up

6 against individual officers or groups of officers?

7 A. Absolutely, yes.

8 Q. So in addition to what was going on with the formal

9 complaints procedure under the aegis of G Department,

10 there was the whole question of management and your

11 being able to take whatever management decisions had to

12 be made in relation to officers or groups of officers;

13 is that right?

14 A. Yes. I mean, if I noticed a pattern emerging, then it

15 was up to me -- I mean, as a responsible commander, to

16 make sure -- to take some action to stop it, whatever it

17 might be, whatever action that -- that might be

18 required.

19 Q. That was quite irrespective of what was going on or not

20 going on with the complaints?

21 A. Yes, indeed.

22 Q. Can I just ask you one final thing about correspondence

23 and the Chief Constable's involvement in it? You said

24 there might be some occasions on which he would ask you

25 to leave, say, a draft letter with him in order to give




1 it some attention of his own?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. Just so we have followed the pattern through -- and

4 I should have asked you this before, I'm sorry -- when

5 there was an amendment to a draft made, would it

6 generally be made by him in handwriting?

7 A. It generally would. I have seen occasions when the

8 Chief Constable has actually written out an entire

9 response. Then he would pass that to his PA, who would

10 type it, and presumably the handwritten response then

11 would have been shredded.

12 Q. But were there some occasions when you would receive

13 back the correspondence file with the draft with various

14 changes in handwriting made by him?

15 A. I can't think of an occasion when that would be the

16 case. I'm sorry, I just can't say.

17 Q. But whatever form it took then, if the matter was left

18 with him for his attention, the specific piece of

19 correspondence, it would come back in whatever form to

20 you on this hypothesis because you were the person who

21 had to send it out; is that correct?

22 A. Sometimes, occasionally, the Chief Constable would have

23 signed it himself and a copy would have come back and

24 been placed on the file.

25 Q. Thank you very much.




1 Now, can I ask you some questions about

2 Rosemary Nelson herself and ask you to look, please, at

3 your statement, paragraph 14, at RNI-841-020

4 (displayed)?

5 Again, I appreciate this is a long time ago now, but

6 in order to help us put the matters with which the

7 Inquiry is concerned in context, can I ask you this:

8 looking back on it now, in your time in Command

9 Secretariat, from January 1996 to April 1998, how

10 prominently did Rosemary Nelson feature in your own

11 workload?

12 A. I have to say that she did not feature prominently at

13 all in my own particular workload. I can't really

14 elaborate any more than that.

15 There was so much going on. It was a time of huge

16 change. When I started there, the IRA ceasefire broke

17 down with all the operational matters attached to that.

18 There were political moves behind the scenes which we

19 knew were going to involve policing, and we had to look

20 at the big issues there.

21 So I have to say that the whole business of

22 Rosemary Nelson did not feature hugely within my

23 particular workload.

24 Q. So far as the involvement of the office more generally

25 is concerned -- that is Command Secretariat; you, but of




1 course also your colleagues -- during the time you were

2 there, up until April 1998, is it fair to say that

3 Rosemary Nelson and the issues concerning her of various

4 different kinds became a more important part of Command

5 Secretariat's work?

6 A. Clearly they did. Reviewing the correspondence that I

7 have been provided with, clearly Rosemary Nelson and her

8 clients and the dealings with the police with her

9 clients, it certainly did increase in importance as time

10 went on.

11 Q. Do you think you were aware, for example, even though

12 you weren't specifically dealing with the

13 correspondence, of her complaints? For example, the

14 complaints of her clients?

15 A. Yes, I think it is fair to say that I was aware in

16 general terms of the complaints of her clients, indeed

17 the various complaints that were made specifically by

18 her clients in respect of the behaviour of the -- the

19 alleged behaviour of police officers towards her.

20 Q. Were you aware also, do you think -- at the time,

21 I mean, not what you have learnt since -- of her

22 involvement as Colin Duffy's legal representative in

23 relation to the Church Walk murders in 1997 in Lurgan?

24 A. Only, I think, in very general terms. I wasn't aware of

25 the specifics. I knew that she was the solicitor for




1 Colin Duffy, but that's really as much as I know. I

2 didn't know any of the detail of the case or, indeed,

3 any of the detail of her involvement as representative

4 of Colin Duffy.

5 Q. Can you remember what impact those murders made in 1997

6 in June?

7 A. They were horrendous. They were a shock, I think, to

8 everybody in Northern Ireland and particularly people

9 within the RUC. I think we thought those days had gone

10 and it was a shock to everyone when they happened.

11 Q. Can I ask you, please -- to see how far this goes -- to

12 look at a letter which came in later that year, on

13 18 September, it is dated, and that is at RNI-101-100

14 (displayed).

15 This is a letter from Amnesty International, as you

16 see. Now, you will see in particular on this page that

17 in the third paragraph it refers to Mr Duffy's arrest

18 for those murders and sets out concerns and complaints

19 about those and other issues concerning Rosemary Nelson.

20 If you look, for example, at RNI-101-101 -- if we

21 can turn the page there, RNI-101-101 (displayed) -- and

22 the final paragraph of that page, in the fourth line it

23 said:

24 "As you may be aware, since Colin Duffy's acquittal

25 in July 1996, Rosemary Nelson has been informed by other




1 clients that while detained under emergency legislation

2 and questioned in Gough Barracks, they heard police

3 refer to her in derogatory terms, accuse her of holding

4 Republican political sympathies and utter death threats

5 against her."

6 I am using this letter, to be clear, not suggesting

7 that you were particularly involved in dealing with it,

8 but rather as a summary of some of the issues as

9 at September 1997 that were being raised with the

10 Chief Constable and your office at that time.

11 Were you aware of that sort of range of issues

12 concerning Rosemary Nelson at that time?

13 A. In general terms, yes, I was. I wasn't aware of the

14 exact specifics, but I was certainly aware of -- that

15 allegations had been made about the behaviour of certain

16 police officers.

17 Q. And were those questions, those allegations, issues

18 concerning Rosemary Nelson, a topic of discussion that

19 you can recall with your colleagues in Command

20 Secretariat?

21 A. I'm not sure that they were. My recollection is that

22 the allegations were being investigated. Indeed, in and

23 around that time a chief inspector had been appointed to

24 carry out an investigation into those very allegations.

25 I think it is 146, is the particular individual.




1 As such, as the investigation is going on, it would

2 not have been -- we would not have been looking for any

3 updates on the investigation. We would have let the

4 investigation, as it was, take its course.

5 Q. Now, in your interface with the NIO, as liaison officer

6 and as an officer of Command Secretariat, were you made

7 aware of the political importance of these issues

8 concerning Rosemary Nelson?

9 A. I'm not sure -- I'm not sure I actually understand what

10 you mean by the political importance of ...

11 Q. In political terms these were high profile matters,

12 weren't they? Do you agree?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Were you made aware of that as a result of your contact

15 with the NIO?

16 A. I don't think so. I don't think anybody specifically

17 said to me anything about the political implications or

18 anything else of these allegations.

19 Q. Now, we can see -- and we will look at some examples in

20 a moment -- that during the course of the summer of

21 1997 -- up to September is the passage you have looked

22 at in your own statement -- were a number of letters

23 coming in from the NIO, either letters of their own, as

24 it were, or letters enclosing other people's

25 correspondence, raising these issues.




1 So you were aware, weren't you, from those that

2 these were matters which, so far as the NIO were

3 concerned, had a high profile?

4 A. Yes, that would be fair to say, yes.

5 Q. If we can look at an example, please, in July,

6 28 July 1997. This is at RNI-101-043 (displayed).

7 This is addressed to your superior, but the reason

8 I'm showing it under a familiar heading with your

9 existing reference number, reference to previous

10 correspondence, is to show you the next page,

11 RNI-101-044 (displayed), where the civil servant at the

12 NIO who is writing from the police division, says:

13 "I would be most grateful if you could provide as

14 much background information on the above issues, namely

15 the alleged death threats and matters of that kind, as

16 soon as possible as the case has a high profile and

17 needs careful handling."

18 You were aware of that view of these matters in the

19 summer of 1997?

20 A. Yes, I would have been aware, yes.

21 Q. We can see this coming to something of a head if we look

22 a little further on in the bundle at RNI-101-081

23 (displayed), where, under your by-line, a letter dated

24 10 September goes out. I think you tell us in your

25 statement that you believe this not to have been drafted




1 by you but by your chief superintendent. But here in

2 the first paragraph, we see:

3 "I refer to your letter of 1 September, one of four

4 letters received recently concerning Miss R Nelson,

5 solicitor, and Mr C Duffy."

6 So it looks, doesn't it, as though, during this

7 period there was a good deal of material coming in to

8 you from the NIO on these issues?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Now, one of the documents that you helpfully deal with

11 in your statement is a letter which comes in, again,

12 from the NIO, written by a senator in the United States

13 of America. I would like to show you that, please. It

14 is at RNI-101-027 (displayed).

15 As I say, we will look at how you dealt with this in

16 a moment. But can I just ask you this question: one of

17 the features of the correspondence which came your way

18 in relation to Rosemary Nelson was that it originated in

19 the United States of America?

20 A. Certainly in this case, yes.

21 Q. Yes. And do you remember the LAJI organisation, which

22 you refer to in your statement: Mr Lynch and the Lawyers

23 Alliance for Justice in Ireland?

24 A. Indeed.

25 Q. It was another organisation based in the United States,




1 wasn't it?

2 A. Yes, that's correct.

3 Q. You have set out a vivid picture for us of the vast

4 range of correspondence that Command Secretariat had.

5 Would you have been in receipt regularly of

6 correspondence from the United States of America within

7 Command Secretariat?

8 A. It would have been very much the exception rather than

9 the rule. I can't really recall a great deal of

10 correspondence from the United States at all.

11 Q. Can you recall another example of correspondence being

12 passed to you written by a senator?

13 A. I can't, I don't believe so.

14 Q. Now, you mentioned a little earlier, in relation to your

15 knowledge of the issues about Rosemary Nelson, the

16 investigation of complaints?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And you referred to P146, the investigating officer?

19 A. Yes, that's correct.

20 Q. Was that something you were aware of at this time, do

21 you think, in 1997 and 1998?

22 A. I was aware that there was an investigation going on and

23 that Chief Inspector 146 was the person who was leading

24 that investigation.

25 Q. Can I just ask you some questions about timing, and




1 I quite understand if you can't now help us. But when

2 do you think it was that you first were aware that

3 complaints were being investigated under the RUC system

4 in relation to Rosemary Nelson, threats allegedly made

5 to her via her clients?

6 A. Goodness, I would imagine at some stage in 1997, but I

7 couldn't put my hand on my heart and say that that was

8 correct.

9 Q. Can I ask you another question about timing? When and

10 how did you first become aware that Rosemary Nelson was

11 representing Colin Duffy in relation to the two

12 policemen murders?

13 A. I don't honestly know. I must have either have seen it

14 on a piece of correspondence or it must have been

15 mentioned to me in -- at work or, indeed, I may have

16 picked it up in the press. I don't honestly know.

17 Q. I asked you those questions by way of introduction to

18 this general question before we get into any of the

19 detail of the documents you have looked at in your

20 statement and dealt with. Can I ask you: had you not

21 been provided with copies of the letters and of the

22 memoranda and documents, would you in fact have had

23 a recollection of the detail of any of the matters you

24 deal with in your statement?

25 A. Probably not.




1 Q. Is this fair also to ask you, because it is important to

2 understand the range of your evidence: in relation to

3 a number of points, you say in your statement, "Well, I

4 haven't been shown X, I have seen Y". And you have now,

5 I think, seen a number of other documents which might

6 fill in some of the gaps. But does it follow that what

7 you have done in your evidence is to try, helpfully,

8 I know, to reconstruct what you think happened in

9 relation to an issue from such documents as you were

10 shown in interview?

11 A. I think that is very fair comment. This all happened

12 a long time ago. I think I was interviewed nine years

13 after I left Command Secretariat, so my recollections,

14 my direct recollections of what exactly happened are

15 probably quite vague. Not deliberately so, but simply

16 through passage of time.

17 Q. We looked a little earlier at the letter from

18 Amnesty International and I would like to test one of

19 the things you have been saying to us about how

20 correspondence was dealt with by looking at the response

21 which came from your office, and we can see it at

22 RNI-101-197 (displayed).

23 I am afraid that is actually not the right

24 reference. It is entirely my fault. Let me see if I

25 can find you the right letter and if I can't find it




1 immediately, we will move on. (Pause)

2 Yes. Can you look, please, at RNI-101-097

3 (displayed)? There, dated 26 September, addressed to

4 Amnesty International, referring to the letter of the

5 18th. That is the one we looked at a little earlier.

6 Looking at the bottom of the page, this is the example

7 I showed you where the word "for" is used, and we see

8 there the signature of your junior colleague, the Chief

9 Inspector.

10 Now, can we take it that by this stage, in the light

11 of the material I have shown you, by the end

12 of September 1997, the Chief Inspector had become, as it

13 were, the specialist within the department in relation

14 to all of these Rosemary Nelson questions?

15 A. Yes, my recollection is that she had been dealing with

16 this from quite early on during her time in Command

17 Secretariat. So it would have been convention that she

18 would have followed through with that particular topic.

19 Q. Thank you very much.

20 Now, I would like to ask you, please, about some

21 events in May 1997 next, please. And in order to put my

22 questions in context, can I ask you to look, please, at

23 RNI-101-26 (displayed)?

24 This is, as you will see, a memo from the NIO, the

25 police division, 22 May, addressed not to you but to




1 a colleague -- whose name has been redacted, so you are

2 aware -- at Command Secretariat.

3 There is a reference there to correspondence from

4 Senator Torricelli. Do you see that?

5 A. Yes, I do.

6 Q. And we can see the letter for ourselves again at

7 RNI-101-027 (displayed). That is the Senator's letter.

8 Just looking at the letter together, please, do you see

9 in the second paragraph in the third line a reference to

10 clients stating that:

11 "During the course of their interrogation,

12 Ms Nelson's life was threatened. Although these threats

13 were not made directly to Mrs Nelson, they had been

14 terrifying nonetheless. Initially, Ms Nelson believed

15 these threats had been an attempt to intimidate her from

16 working on behalf of various clients. As a result, she

17 dismissed them as trivial matters which would not be

18 acted upon. However, these threats have recently become

19 more insistent and ominous, causing Ms Nelson to fear

20 for her safety."

21 If you would look now, please, at RNI-101-021

22 (displayed), we can see a fax coming in to you -- do you

23 see?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. From the NIO, a total of three pages. Again, the




1 relevant official's name has been redacted, but one can

2 see the heading there.

3 On the next page -- and, again, I am afraid on the

4 screen it is rather cumbersome -- at RNI-101-022

5 (displayed) is another copy of the same letter.

6 If you look at RNI-101-024 (displayed), we will see

7 your response and that is dated 2 May and it looks to

8 me -- please confirm if this is right or not -- as

9 though this is actually your letter; is that correct?

10 A. I'm not sure that it is.

11 Q. Right.

12 A. I'm not sure that is my initials.

13 Q. You think this is something which, again, has gone under

14 your by-line, do you?

15 A. Yes, I do, yes.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 A. It doesn't look like "RM" to me, but I could be wrong.

18 Q. Thank you. But you see the text there:

19 "I refer to your fax correspondence on 1 May and can

20 confirm that a complaint against police has been made by

21 Ms Nelson and is presently under investigation by police

22 supervised by the ICPC. Accordingly, it would not be

23 appropriate to comment further at this stage."

24 Could we just have on the screen, on the right-hand

25 side, please, RNI-101-022 (displayed)? That was the




1 letter from which I read you various passages earlier,

2 which referred to threats. So it looks as though, in

3 response to the NIO's request for an answer to that

4 letter, the original response, whether from you or from

5 a colleague in Command Secretariat, was to refer to the

6 complaints that were being made. Do you see?

7 A. Yes, do you.

8 Q. If we return to RNI-101-026 (displayed), we see the NIO

9 returning to the same topic because it is the same

10 heading, "Correspondence from Senator Torricelli", and

11 asking in the second paragraph this specific question:

12 "Can you please let me know if the police have

13 discussed with Ms Nelson anything to do with her

14 personal protection in light of what the Senator refers

15 to as threats which 'have recently become more insistent

16 and ominous causing Mrs Nelson to fear for her safety.'"

17 Can you now recall dealing with this memorandum from

18 the NIO of 22 May 1997?

19 A. I'm sorry, I honestly can't. I'm not trying to avoid

20 it, but I honestly can't.

21 Q. Let me help you with a document, and it is at

22 RNI-101-025 (displayed). It is under the heading

23 "Ms Rosemary Nelson, alleged death threats by RUC", and

24 this is, I think, your memorandum, isn't it?

25 A. Yes, that is definitely my minute.




1 Q. Thank you. That is your squiggle, if I can put it that

2 way?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. Thank you very much. And you are addressing it, aren't

5 you, to the complaints department?

6 A. Yes. Does that -- are you aware whether that particular

7 minute refers to the previous correspondence?

8 Q. We believe that it does because of its place in the

9 file, amongst other reasons, yes?

10 A. Does it have the same Command Secretariat number at the

11 top right-hand corner?

12 Q. Yes, it does. I can show that you if it will help you.

13 If we can get up on the screen RNI-101-026 (displayed)

14 and RNI-101-025 (displayed), please, at the same time?

15 Otherwise we can't compare them. Thank you.

16 One is handwritten, do you see, and the other is in

17 type at the top right, "97-195/21"; do you see?

18 A. Yes, I do.

19 Q. Thank you very much. Now, keeping those two documents

20 on the screen, please, you will see the opening of the

21 memorandum is:

22 "Further to my telephone call of last week, this is

23 written confirmation of my request for further

24 information in relation to the above treat official

25 correspondence."




1 Can you recall whether it was you that spoke to Anne

2 Colville of the NIO shortly before this minute appeared

3 on 22 May?

4 A. No, I can't. I can't honestly say.

5 Q. Is it likely that it was you who dealt with it, given

6 that it was you who sent out the memorandum to

7 G Department the next day?

8 A. It could have been me or it could have been the Chief

9 Inspector or, indeed, the Chief Superintendent, but

10 I just don't know.

11 Q. So I am clear about this, if it hadn't been you who had

12 spoken to Anne Colville, how would the matter have

13 reached you for your disposal, the next day, 23 May?

14 A. The only way it could have reached me is if the intended

15 recipient had been on leave or had been in some other

16 way indisposed.

17 Q. Frankly, doesn't that make it more likely than not that

18 it was you who spoke to Anne Colville?

19 A. Sorry, I'm not sure. If the person who Anne Colville

20 spoke to had not been there to receive this fax message,

21 then I probably would have sent it on to G Department.

22 I have no recollection of it, I'm sorry.

23 Q. Looking again at the second paragraph of the memorandum,

24 it asks a specific question in relation to personal

25 protection in the light of what the Senator had referred




1 to as threats. Do you see that?

2 A. I do, yes.

3 Q. Can you explain, then, for us why it was that this

4 matter was sent to the complaints department within the

5 RUC?

6 A. I can give no explanation. The only thing I would say

7 is that although they are the same reference numbers,

8 the subject matters are different. One is

9 "Rosemary Nelson alleged death threats by RUC", the

10 other is "Correspondence from Senator Torricelli".

11 I have absolutely no recollection of that at all.

12 Q. If you just look back -- again, I apologise for the

13 limitation of the screen here -- at RNI-101-024

14 (displayed), you will see the previous letter I showed

15 you in response to the Torricelli letter has the same

16 Command Secretariat reference and the same heading

17 "Alleged death threats by RUC". Do you see that?

18 A. Yes, I do.

19 Q. It is obvious, isn't it, that the NIO were following up

20 for a substantive response to the Torricelli letter,

21 weren't they?

22 A. Yes, it would seem so.

23 Q. Sir, would that be a convenient moment?

24 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. We will adjourn now until

25 2 o'clock. Would you mind being back at 2 o'clock,




1 Mr Maxwell? Thank you.

2 (1.03 pm)

3 (The short adjournment)

4 (2.00 pm)

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Phillips?

6 MR PHILLIPS: Mr Maxwell, can we have another look, please,

7 at RNI-101-026 (displayed)? This is the memorandum from

8 the NIO.

9 Do you remember, before lunch I had asked you

10 whether you could explain why it was that that was sent

11 on to G Department, as we saw together, the next day by

12 you? Just to be absolutely clear about this, there is

13 no reference in the text of this memorandum to any

14 complaints, is there?

15 A. No, in this, certainly. No, there isn't, although there

16 is, I think, in the letter from Senator Torricelli.

17 Q. Yes. Let's look at that together at RNI-101-027, please

18 (displayed).

19 It begins by saying that she and a number of other

20 solicitors have been the victims of discrimination and

21 harassment:

22 "I urge you to consider the charges being made by

23 Mrs Nelson. Report to Sir Nicholas Lyell."

24 Then reference to threats. We went over this

25 before. Allegation:




1 "The client is saying that her life was threatened

2 and that, although they weren't made directly, these

3 threats were terrifying nonetheless. Initially, she

4 believed they had been an attempt to intimidate her. As

5 a result, she dismissed them as trivial. However, they

6 have recently become more insistent and ominous. In the

7 interests of -- I think, "legal practice", is that?

8 I can't quite read that:

9 "... in Northern Ireland, I hope that the Attorney

10 General will consider instituting a criminal

11 investigation of Ms Nelson's charges as well as the

12 threats received by other solicitors in similar

13 situations. In this case, it may not be appropriate to

14 rely upon the RUC to investigate one of its own

15 members."

16 Certainly in relation to this letter there is no

17 specific reference to complaints, is there?

18 A. I thought about this over lunchtime and the only thing I

19 can say is I must have taken this letter as a reference

20 to the complaint investigation which was already

21 ongoing.

22 Q. Well, that's of course what your colleague had done as

23 well, and we saw that letter together at RNI-101-024.

24 If we can just look at that (displayed) and, again,

25 I apologise that it is so cumbersome, this way of




1 doing it.

2 Do you see the letter we saw earlier? You said it

3 wasn't yours. It's 2 May dealing with exactly the same

4 correspondence, and what you see there is:

5 "I can confirm that a complaint against police has

6 been made".

7 And the point that had obviously occurred since

8 then, if we go back to RNI-101-026 (displayed), is that

9 the NIO civil servant had telephoned Command Secretariat

10 and said effectively, "That is not what we want. We

11 need a response to Mr Torricelli."

12 That's right, isn't it?

13 A. It is, yes.

14 Q. And the specific reference is not about complaints, it

15 is about personal protection?

16 A. That's correct, yes.

17 Q. And you weren't going to get any assistance on that

18 topic, were you, from the complaints department,

19 G Department?

20 A. This is mere supposition on my part. I may have sent

21 them mistakenly or I may have sent it to them perhaps

22 with -- I don't honestly know. I can't honestly give an

23 explanation for why it was sent to G Department.

24 Q. No. If there had been an issue about a threat,

25 presumably the right people to whom the issue should be




1 directed were either Special Branch or the

2 Security Branch; is that right?

3 A. That was the -- if I remember rightly, that was the

4 policy at the time.

5 Q. We can look at it together, at the force order,

6 RNI-101-001 (displayed).

7 At the top of the page, the first paragraph, this

8 was the force order in force at the time:

9 "When a member of the RUC or reserve learns of a

10 threat to the life of any person, details of the threat

11 will be passed forthwith to the local Special Branch."

12 So that would be one way of dealing with a threat to

13 life, wouldn't it?

14 A. Yes, that would be one way, yes.

15 Q. What's specifically raised in the memorandum is the

16 question of personal protection and presumably that was

17 something that could have been dealt with by crime

18 prevention advice, and that would be dealt with

19 presumably locally --

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. -- wouldn't it?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So that would require you, in your funnelling and

24 forwarding function in Command Secretariat, surely to

25 forward it to the local commander or subdivisional




1 commander for him to action; isn't that right?

2 A. Normally that would be, in the circumstances where there

3 is a threat, it would have been sent to the local -- the

4 regional Assistant Chief Constable and then he would

5 have sent it down through the chain of command, that's

6 correct.

7 Q. And those were the ways in which either threats or, in

8 this case, what is referred to by the civil servant as

9 the issue of personal protection, could actually be

10 dealt with?

11 A. Yes, that's correct.

12 Q. So with hindsight, it looks as though the funnelling or

13 filtering system that Command Secretariat operated went

14 wrong in this particular case, didn't it?

15 A. It certainly looks that way, but I can give no

16 explanation for that.

17 Q. Let us follow it a little further on because there is

18 another stage in the material in the file. Could I ask

19 you to look, please at RNI-101-130 (displayed)? Here we

20 have a memorandum addressed, in fact, to the Chief

21 Superintendent in Command Secretariat. But you see your

22 reference is exactly the same at the top right-hand

23 side?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. The same as that on your own memorandum of 23 May. It




1 says at paragraph 1 -- I would just like to read this to

2 you:

3 "Subsequent to the receipt of your letter of 23 May

4 ..."

5 The letter we looked at:

6 "... and the accompanying Northern Ireland Office

7 letter of 22 May ..."

8 Again, the one we looked at:

9 "I forwarded the attached report to Subdivisional

10 Commander, Lurgan together with copies of the

11 following."

12 Then we have a LAJI letter, the Senator Torricelli

13 letter and the memorandum from the

14 Northern Ireland Office we looked at together earlier.

15 Do you see that?

16 A. Yes, I do, yes.

17 Q. There then follow two paragraphs in relation to the

18 complaints department's perception of the matter, the

19 fact that Rosemary Nelson had not come forward for

20 interview and so far as they were concerned, therefore,

21 they said it appears the authors of the letter seem to

22 be reading more into the alleged threats than Mrs Nelson

23 or ourselves. And the suggestion is made, if you see in

24 the next paragraph:

25 "I suggest that the Northern Ireland Office be made




1 aware of the fact that ..."

2 Then these words:

3 "... Mrs Nelson has to date ignored requests to come

4 forward for interview in this ICPC-supervised

5 investigation."

6 Then the further point, or rather the point is

7 repeated that:

8 "Apart from what has been stated in the Senator's

9 letter, we presently have no evidence to support the

10 contention that the threats have recently become more

11 insistent and ominous, causing Mrs Nelson to fear for

12 her safety."

13 So that was the report that presumably came back to

14 you, given the way you have told us that correspondence

15 worked in the Command Secretariat from G Department?

16 A. Yes, it certainly would have come back to Command

17 Secretariat. Whether I would have dealt with it I'm not

18 sure.

19 Q. Presumably on the basis of what you told us earlier,

20 you, having taken on the NIO's memorandum, would then be

21 the allocated person to deal with correspondence on this

22 issue?

23 A. I think by this stage the Chief Inspector, 136, had

24 probably taken the lead on all the correspondence in

25 respect of Rosemary Nelson.




1 Q. Right. Let us look together, if we may, at the enclosed

2 report or attached report, as it is put in the second

3 line of the first paragraph there, and that is at

4 RNI-101-031 (displayed).

5 Again, the heading is exactly the same,

6 "Rosemary Nelson alleged death threats by RUC". Same

7 Command Secretariat reference. This is addressed to the

8 Subdivisional Commander at Lurgan:

9 "I refer to my telephone conversation with your

10 Deputy Chief Inspector. As agreed, I forward herewith

11 copy letters to enable you to consider what action, if

12 any, is required regarding the security or safety of

13 Ms Nelson. It would seem that the murder of

14 Pat Finucane, solicitor, has prompted others to

15 specifically raise the security aspect."

16 Then there is a reference to the ongoing

17 investigation then being conduct by that investigating

18 officer, Chief Inspector Gamble. ICPC are supervising:

19 "To date, Ms Nelson has ignored correspondence. We

20 in G Department presently have no information over and

21 above that contained in the letters. The investigating

22 officers has again written to Ms Nelson seeking an

23 interview on 13 June."

24 Then these words:

25 "The investigating officer is available to provide




1 any information to enable Special Branch or others to

2 assess the threat."

3 So it looks, doesn't it, from the correspondence as

4 though G Department had taken their own initiative, in

5 fact, to refer this matter across or down, however you

6 want to put it, to the Subdivisional Commander at Lurgan

7 for him to consider what action, if any, was required

8 regarding the security or safety of Mrs Nelson?

9 A. That's correct, yes.

10 Q. And that is in fact what should have happened at the

11 start, isn't it?

12 A. It is, yes.

13 Q. Thank you. So far as the response which goes back to

14 the NIO is concerned, we can see that together at

15 RNI-101-036 (displayed), under the same heading and with

16 the same reference number, dated 6 June. This is an

17 example, I think, isn't it, where the signature is from

18 the Chief Inspector under your standard by-line?

19 A. Yes, that's correct.

20 Q. Over your by-line, I'm sorry. Thank you.

21 There is a reference to a letter of 30 April and

22 that is another letter in this long chain. We can see

23 it on the left-hand side of the screen, please, at

24 RNI-101-018 (displayed). Thank you.

25 A familiar heading: "Treat official correspondence",




1 and there you see one of the documents enclosed is the

2 famous Torricelli letter.

3 In the next two paragraphs, the writer says:

4 "I can now advise you that Ms Nelson has to date

5 ignored requests to come forward for interview in this

6 ICPC-supervised investigation. Apart from what has been

7 stated in the USA senator's letter, we presently have no

8 evidence to support the contention that the threats have

9 recently become more insistent and ominous, causing

10 Mrs Nelson to fear for her safety."

11 Then a suggestion is made, do you see, that the

12 Senator should ask Rosemary Nelson to make contacts with

13 Complaints and Discipline? So that's a letter, isn't

14 it, that limits itself to dealing with the complaint

15 aspect of the matter?

16 A. Well, it does mention -- I mean, that second paragraph

17 does mention the threat issue.

18 Q. But it doesn't deal, does it, at all with the question

19 of personal protection?

20 A. No, it doesn't, no. Then that would be a matter

21 presumably for the local police, the local subdivisional

22 commander.

23 Q. But the NIO had specifically raised with your

24 department, hadn't they, the question of personal

25 protection?




1 A. Yes, they had.

2 Q. And they didn't get an answer, did they, in this reply

3 of 6 June?

4 A. No.

5 Q. As at that time -- are you able to assist us? -- had any

6 answer been received from Lurgan as to what had been

7 done in relation to Rosemary Nelson's personal

8 protection?

9 A. I'm unaware. I just honestly couldn't say.

10 Q. Do you know what action, if any, was taken on the

11 ground?

12 A. I don't.

13 Q. Presumably, in order to give a proper response to the

14 memorandum -- which we should have on the screen,

15 please, at RNI-101-026 (displayed) -- you needed, didn't

16 you, to hear from the Subdivisional Commander as to what

17 action he had actually taken?

18 A. Yes, there should have been a response -- there should

19 have been a request to the Subdivisional Commander

20 asking what action had been taken.

21 Q. Yes. So in that sense, the letter on the left-hand side

22 was rather premature, was it not?

23 A. It was, yes.

24 Q. Thank you. And do you think it may well be that the

25 mismatch here occurred as a result of the original




1 decision, made, I think, by you, to filter or push the

2 correspondence in the direction of the complaints

3 department rather than, in the first instance, from

4 Command Secretariat to the Subdivisional Commander?

5 A. Well, certainly that was a mistake on my part. Having

6 said that, the correspondence should still be on file

7 from the NIO and the responses that went back to the NIO

8 should have answered the question that they

9 originally set.

10 Q. So you think if there was a response on that issue, it

11 will be in the file?

12 A. I would have thought it would have been, yes. I would

13 have thought it would have actually been part of that

14 letter, the letter dated 6 June.

15 Q. Yes, but it is notable that it isn't; do you agree?

16 A. I do, yes.

17 Q. Can I ask you about a completely different topic now,

18 and this is something you deal with in your statement in

19 paragraphs 25 and following, where you set out some of

20 your dealings over the years with the Lawyers Alliance

21 for Justice in Ireland.

22 Now, paragraph 25 we can see on the screen at

23 RNI-841-024 (displayed). The leading light in that

24 organisation was Mr Edmund Lynch and you tell us first

25 of all in this paragraph that a request was made as




1 a result of your exchanges with him, I think, for

2 a meeting between a delegation from the Alliance and the

3 Chief Constable; is that right?

4 A. My recollection, having seen my letter, is that Ed Lynch

5 wrote to, I believe, Chief Inspector 146 and enclosed

6 a report into the policing of the parades issue during

7 the mid 1990s. And Chief Inspector 146 sent the report

8 to me as the Superintendent, Command Secretariat and

9 I took it upon myself to reply to Ed Lynch in the letter

10 which you have, which is included in the documents.

11 Q. Can I show you the letter?

12 A. You certainly can.

13 Q. It is at RNI-103-009.514 (displayed). Thank you.

14 You will see confirmation of what you have just said

15 there in this letter of 19 December 1997 in the very

16 first paragraph?

17 A. That's right, yes.

18 Q. So it was passed to you by the investigating officer?

19 A. Hm-mm.

20 Q. And with it came the report on the parades.

21 Now, it looks to me as though you took some time in

22 the course of your work to study the report from the

23 Lawyers Alliance. Is that a fair comment?

24 A. Yes, it is. They appeared to me to be people of

25 influence in the United States and certainly I think




1 attached to the report was a list of their membership

2 which I thought quite impressive. But it was my view

3 that the report that they had produced did not match up

4 to their impressive membership, and I more or less told

5 them what I thought of it. I thought it was poor.

6 I thought it was poorly researched, poorly presented,

7 lacked any degree of objectivity and any degree of

8 balance.

9 Q. Did you think that it reflected -- the report -- what

10 you describe in your statement as their particular view

11 of Ireland?

12 A. Yes, I believe it did, yes.

13 Q. So that it was in that sense slanted or one-sided?

14 A. People are entitled to their own political views and

15 each of us has our own political views. That, to me, is

16 not an issue. The issue was that I thought their report

17 was grossly unfair and grossly one-sided. It did not

18 try to achieve any form of balance or, indeed, to

19 appreciate the difficulties of the police in policing

20 a hugely difficult situation.

21 Q. So you took it upon yourself in this case to deal with

22 your comments in this relatively long letter, which we

23 see in fact -- we have on the screen, please,

24 RNI-515-103.009 -- goes over the page. Can I ask you to

25 look in particular at the last paragraph?




1 I appreciate of course that you were writing this as

2 an official within the Command Secretariat, but can you

3 help me: Was this also your own personal view?

4 A. Yes, absolutely, yes. My view that the police will do

5 everything in its power to provide an absolutely

6 impartial service. Absolutely that would be my view.

7 Q. And so you took it upon yourself to explain your own

8 reaction to the report, and in response, Mr Lynch came

9 back with a letter, didn't he, at the start of the

10 following year?

11 A. Yes, he did, yes.

12 Q. And can I look at that with you, please? It is at

13 RNI-114-120 (displayed). After a little passage of

14 compliment at the start, he then says:

15 "You seem to have taken personal affront at the

16 detailed factual findings and conclusion drawn in that

17 report."

18 Was that a fair comment, do you think?

19 A. No, I don't think so. I mean, my view would be that for

20 many years the police responded to criticism with

21 stoical silence in the belief that the truth would come

22 out, the truth would conquer all, and that manifestly

23 was not the case over the years and I felt that this was

24 an opportunity to explain to Mr Lynch what the police

25 were trying to do.




1 There is nothing in that letter which is not totally

2 in accordance with RUC policy at that time. It was

3 absolutely -- there is nothing at all there that anybody

4 could take -- could say was not the policy of the

5 Chief Constable or of the RUC.

6 Q. As I understand it, your approach to matters where there

7 were concerns or criticisms expressed of the police was

8 just that: in other words, to be open and to set out

9 things as you understood them?

10 A. Yes, that's correct.

11 Q. And there is an example of that, isn't there, in

12 paragraph 30 of your statement at the bottom of

13 page 026, RNI-841-026 (displayed), in relation to the

14 parades issue?

15 You are talking about another organisation, the CAJ,

16 and the question of whether they could come along and

17 observe. Do you see that?

18 A. Yes, I do.

19 Q. And you make the point in the penultimate sentence:

20 "In my view, the police should not have been

21 concerned about public scrutiny. If one is doing

22 nothing wrong, there is no reason the whole world cannot

23 come along."

24 A. Yes, that's correct. I fully believe that.

25 Q. As I understand it, your view was that the best way to




1 deal with these matters was to deal with them openly and

2 to come out and set out the case very clearly?

3 A. That would be my view, yes.

4 Q. Just returning to the Lynch letter that we were looking

5 at a little earlier, RNI-114-120 (displayed), can I ask

6 you to look, please, at the third paragraph, the second

7 of the full paragraphs, as it were? You mention you

8 have received a copy of "our letter to ..." then the

9 investigating officer:

10 "Perhaps you would choose to follow up directly with

11 the Chief Inspector concerning harassment by members of

12 the RUC of Lurgan solicitor, Rosemary Nelson."

13 Then there is further reference to that before he

14 moves on to another topic. You deal with this in your

15 statement. Did you take that to be an invitation to

16 involve yourself in the ongoing complaints process?

17 A. I have to say no, that I didn't. I didn't take this as

18 an invitation at all. The Chief Inspector who was

19 investigating that was not working in a vacuum. He had

20 line managers whose responsibility it was to make sure

21 that the investigation was carried out thoroughly and

22 impartially.

23 Q. So it wasn't part of your function at Command

24 Secretariat to become involved in that process?

25 A. No, I didn't see that it was.




1 Q. In your statement, you deal with a point that emerged as

2 a result of this after the murder, and I would like you

3 to look at that paragraph, please, RNI-841-028; it is

4 paragraph 36 (displayed).

5 Do you see you begin by referring to some

6 correspondence, a chronology in fact it is, received

7 from Mr Lynch a few days after Rosemary Nelson's death?

8 Just to ask you this, please: by that stage, in other

9 words in 1999, of course you had moved from Command

10 Secretariat. That's right, isn't it?

11 A. Yes, that's correct, yes.

12 Q. And what I wanted to ask you is how you came to know of

13 this correspondence and the attached chronology?

14 A. My recollection is that I was shown this during my

15 interview with Eversheds and not -- I don't believe

16 I saw is before.

17 Q. It wasn't something you were aware of at the time?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Well, the point you raise, having been shown it, is in

20 relation to the letter we have just looked at together,

21 and we can see that in his chronology at RNI-107-145

22 (displayed). I'm not proposing to show you the earlier

23 parts of the chronology, but if you would like to see

24 more of the document, just say so. You see under the

25 heading "5 January 1998"?




1 A. Yes.

2 Q. This is his document:

3 "Correspondence from Lynch to Maxwell requesting

4 follow-up concerning harassment of Lurgan solicitor,

5 Rosemary Nelson ..."

6 That characterises the letter we looked at together

7 as exactly that: as a specific request to you to follow

8 up on the question of harassment.

9 Did you understand it in that way when you received

10 it in January 1998?

11 A. No, it was -- to me -- I certainly didn't see it in that

12 way when I initially received it.

13 Q. Were you surprised then to read the characterisation

14 which appears in the chronology?

15 A. Well, I was. I thought that he had taken a sentence or

16 a couple of sentences in quite a long response and he

17 had taken them totally out of context.

18 Q. Now, if we go back to the letter and see its context --

19 RNI-114-120 (displayed) -- there is another aspect that

20 I would like to ask you about, please. The follow-up

21 paragraph, if I can put it that way, the third one, we

22 looked at that. Then he refers to the Garvaghy Road in

23 1996 and 1997. Then he says that he has passed your

24 letter to the authors of the report and then he makes

25 a suggestion that in February he was going to be




1 bringing a delegation to Northern Ireland and wanted to

2 meet you, in fact, is what he says.

3 As I understand it, what actually happened was

4 a meeting between the delegation and the

5 Chief Constable; is that correct?

6 A. Yes, it is. When I got that letter, I wasn't sure what

7 to do with it, so I spoke to the Chief Constable and he

8 said that he was more than happy to meet them and

9 I organised a meeting between the Chief and Mr Lynch's

10 group.

11 Q. And you were not, I think, present at the meeting; is

12 that correct?

13 A. I arranged for them to arrive at police headquarters

14 I met them outside, brought them into the room, got them

15 settled. I then went round to the Chief Constable's

16 office and told them that they were there and went back

17 to the room and poured tea and coffee for people.

18 I asked the Chief Constable if he wanted me to stay and

19 he said no, so I left.

20 Q. If you look at your statement at RNI-841-025,

21 paragraph 25 (displayed), you deal with it, and you say

22 that it was -- I think it was scheduled for an hour, it

23 took two:

24 "... and Sir Ronnie Flanagan seemed to have wowed

25 the socks off them."




1 What is that impression based on, please?

2 A. Because I was responsible for bringing them into police

3 headquarters, I obviously had to make sure that

4 everybody left. So I hung about outside the room until

5 the meeting finished and then I took the opportunity to

6 speak to people as they left, and they told me that they

7 were very impressed -- those to whom I spoke said they

8 were very impressed with the Chief Constable and what he

9 had told them and that it had given them a different

10 perspective on policing in Northern Ireland.

11 Q. Did you get any expression from those exchanges with the

12 delegation after the meeting that it had been in any way

13 a difficult or unsatisfactory meeting?

14 A. No, exactly the opposite. The impression that I got

15 from them was that it had been a very positive meeting

16 and they saw things in a new light.

17 Q. Did you discuss the meeting and what had happened during

18 it with the Chief Constable, can you remember?

19 A. No, I didn't.

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

21 different topic which you deal with in your statement

22 starting at paragraph 32, and this is the issue of

23 Mr Cumaraswamy's draft report.

24 I would like to repeat a question I asked in a very

25 general way about your memory, if I may. Looking at




1 this part of your statement, which, as I say, begins at

2 paragraph 32, which is at RNI-841-027, (displayed), the

3 issue arises to what extent now you have a clear

4 recollection of these events, the events particularly to

5 do with this draft report absent looking at

6 contemporaneous documents.

7 A. I hadn't seen the documents until this morning and there

8 are a number of notes were filed which are clearly mine,

9 and they are at variance at some degree with my memory.

10 Q. Yes. Can I just interrupt you? This was an example of

11 your statement, was it, where in the interview with

12 Eversheds you were not shown the documents to base your

13 recollection or to support your recollection and, as it

14 were, did the best you could without them?

15 A. Yes, that's correct. And, indeed, there were a number

16 of other cases -- and the issue that you alluded to

17 immediately before and after lunch is another example.

18 Q. Yes. Now, I ask you that because I think it is right,

19 isn't it, that when one looks back at the

20 contemporaneous material, some of the chronology that

21 you set out in the following paragraphs -- it is really

22 32 to 34 of your statement -- has clearly gone rather

23 awry?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Can I, without taking you to all of the documents




1 because there is a huge number, suggest that you see in

2 your statement that the first document you refer to,

3 paragraph 32, is at RNI-101-246. We will just look at

4 that briefly together (displayed).

5 This is a memo to you from the NIO police division.

6 We can see that at the top of the page. Do you see?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And the date, which you can probably just see there, is

9 27 March 1998. And that is also the date of your own

10 note for file, which we can see -- and have, again,

11 referred to -- at RNI-101-243 (displayed). Can you have

12 a look at that, please? Do you see, that is your note,

13 I think, isn't it?

14 A. Yes, that's correct.

15 Q. And the date there, 27 March that year.

16 Having looked back at some further material, can

17 I ask you this: it is right, isn't it, that this

18 question of the contents of Mr Cumaraswamy's draft

19 report had in fact first emerged some weeks before this,

20 in fact I think in about the middle of February 1998?

21 A. Yes, I believe that's correct, yes.

22 Q. What happened -- and I'll try and be as neutral as I can

23 about it -- is at that stage two specific questions of

24 amending the draft were raised with the Rapporteur:

25 firstly, the disputed remarks to which you refer in your




1 statement about working with paramilitaries; and

2 secondly, the reference by name to a number of

3 solicitors working in Northern Ireland, including

4 Rosemary Nelson.

5 Now, can I ask you: were you involved in those

6 issues at that earlier stage, as far as you can recall,

7 in February 1998?

8 A. Do you mean the actual meeting between Mr Cumaraswamy

9 and the Chief Constable?

10 Q. I didn't, but were you involved in that meeting?

11 A. No, I wasn't, no.

12 Q. Did you have an involvement in the specific question --

13 you see, the meeting was in October, we know, in 1997.

14 So in relation to the draft report and the issues I have

15 just mentioned, did you at Command Secretariat have an

16 involvement in dealing with those issues in the middle

17 of February 1998?

18 A. I believe that Command Secretariat had an involvement,

19 but I cannot recollect exactly the nature of that, to be

20 honest with you. I don't think I had any personal

21 involvement. I can't recollect that -- I would

22 remember, I think, if I had.

23 Q. Do you remember that there was to-ing and fro-ing

24 between Command Secretariat, the NIO, the Foreign and

25 Commonwealth Office and the Special Rapporteur? Again,




1 I'm trying to be neutral in my terminology on this

2 question of specific passages of the draft report.

3 A. Yes, I'm aware that there were discussions and concerns,

4 but I had no direct involvement in it. I think that

5 Chief Superintendent 157 was involved that time.

6 Q. Now, so far as that was concerned, were you aware that

7 after some exchanges culminating at the beginning of

8 March, it was agreed that certain changes to the draft

9 would in fact be made by the Special Rapporteur?

10 A. No, I wasn't. I can't say I was aware of that.

11 Q. Were you aware of the issue, for example, of the draft

12 RUC press release, which was released by mistake?

13 A. Yes, I do have some knowledge of the press release. My

14 recollection there is that the late Dave Hanna had

15 prepared a response to the draft report, but that the

16 Chief Constable had said that that should not be

17 released. I think he intended perhaps to draft

18 something himself. But by mistake, it was released to

19 a journalist. I'm digging deep into my memory here, but

20 I think perhaps it was David McKittrick of the Guardian

21 perhaps.

22 Q. Can I show you the press release? That might assist

23 you. It is RNI-106-178.500 (displayed).

24 Do you see in the second paragraph it actually

25 referred to this controversial expression "working for




1 paramilitaries"? Do you see that?

2 A. Yes, I do, yes.

3 Q. Now, the issue here was this, wasn't it: that in fact by

4 the time it was released, as it were, by mistake,

5 actually the issue had been resolved and that passage of

6 the draft report had been amended by the Special

7 Rapporteur?

8 A. I can't honestly say. I just don't know.

9 Q. Because the reason I wanted to ask you is because the

10 matters you raise in your statement and in particular

11 your reference to the British Irish Rights Watch

12 letter -- the issue there -- this is now at the end

13 of March when the report was about to be published --

14 was that the journalist and the NGO, British Irish

15 Rights Watch, had discovered, hadn't they, that there

16 had been this change to the draft with the deletion,

17 amongst other things, of that expression and the

18 specific names of the solicitors in Northern Ireland?

19 That was the issue?

20 A. Yes, I believe that's correct, yes.

21 Q. So the reason for all the panic and tearing around and

22 communications between NIO and Command Secretariat was

23 not to do with whether these words had been used, but

24 rather that the journalist and the NGO had discovered

25 that the draft had been amended in the way that




1 I described?

2 A. I think from the police perspective the draft press

3 release was given to the journalist in error, and if my

4 recollection is right, then he reproduced it almost

5 verbatim in the paper, in the newspaper. So I'm not

6 sure that there was any opportunity to -- I mean, once,

7 effectively, it had been released, it had been released.

8 Q. So this was a damage limitation exercise, was it?

9 A. I think it must have been by that stage, yes.

10 Q. Can we see together the extent of the damage and see

11 whether that puts the remarks in your statement in some

12 context?

13 The British Irish Rights Watch letter is at

14 RNI-101-247 (displayed), dated 10 March. In fact, it is

15 a letter to the Secretary of State, as you can see?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. We will see in a moment how it came into the Command

18 Secretariat and to the Chief Constable, and it sets out,

19 you will see -- I know you have seen this earlier --

20 what is said to have happened at the meeting, where it

21 says that:

22 "A senior police officer, possibly

23 Assistant Chief Constable Raymond White, commented that

24 ..."

25 Then those famous words are used. Do you see that?




1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And then there is the issue of whether the notes

3 supported it. And at the fourth paragraph is the

4 question of changes to the draft and the fact that, in

5 the third line, the Chief Constable, when he saw the

6 draft report:

7 "He was reported by the UK Mission in Geneva as

8 insisting that they be excluded ..."

9 That's the words:

10 "... from the report because if they appeared in the

11 same report as allegations about abuse against herself

12 made by Mrs Nelson ..."

13 Whom he names specifically:

14 "... it might lay her open to Loyalist attack."

15 Then the letter then continues for more than a page,

16 over to RNI-101-248 (displayed), please, and you will

17 see the first full paragraph:

18 "I do not for a moment suggest ..."

19 Various further comments about the conduct of the

20 Chief Constable are made there, a reference in the

21 penultimate paragraph to the Chief Constable's

22 insensitivity, further problems, allegations made by

23 Rosemary Nelson's clients, and it continues in very much

24 the same vein and tone, if I can put it that way, in the

25 last paragraph. Do you see?




1 A. Yes, I do.

2 Q. Now, in paragraph 33 of your statement at RNI-841-027

3 (displayed), you describe an occasion as being one of

4 the very few times that you ever saw Sir Ronnie Flanagan

5 irritated. And you say that he had said:

6 "I didn't say that and I don't believe any lawyers

7 are working for paramilitaries."

8 The irritation is about the remark attributed to

9 him?

10 A. That's correct, yes.

11 Q. I would like to ask you this, please: if you are sure in

12 your mind that his irritation was with the allegations

13 that he had made those comments, then presumably it

14 follows from what we have agreed earlier that you

15 witnessed that irritation being displayed considerably

16 earlier, in other words, in about the middle

17 of February 1998; is that right?

18 A. No, the irritation refers to my discussion with him on

19 that date, towards the end of March.

20 Q. Right.

21 A. 1998.

22 Q. On 27 March?

23 A. 27 March.

24 Q. Okay. We will look at the relevant documents.

25 It was on 27 March, wasn't it, that on the eve of




1 the publication of this report you were informed, I

2 think by the NIO, that the journalist had the

3 information about the earlier amendment to the text of

4 the draft report; is that right?

5 A. No -- my recollection of events were that I had come

6 back from leave and I had spoken to Chief

7 Superintendent 157 and he had mentioned to me that

8 a draft press release had been prepared, but the Chief

9 Constable said that it should not go out. And I think I

10 had read -- I had read the draft press release because

11 several days later when the Chief Superintendent was on

12 leave, I remember hearing a report on the radio where

13 they cover what was in the press and this issue arose.

14 The wording was discussed in the radio programme as

15 effectively the wording in the police press statement,

16 and that is how I think I became aware of it.

17 Q. So are you sure then in your own mind that the first you

18 knew that the Chief Constable was denying making these

19 remarks was at the end of March 1998?

20 A. As far as I can remember, yes, as far as I can remember.

21 Q. You don't think you heard that when the issue first came

22 up, as we have agreed, in mid-February?

23 A. It is not the sort of thing that the Chief Constable

24 would have discussed with me. I can't think of a set of

25 circumstances where it would have come round that he




1 would have mentioned it to me.

2 Q. Let's look at the documents together, shall we; first at

3 RNI-101-243 again (displayed). Now, here in your

4 memorandum, which we looked at earlier, you say that you

5 spoke to Christine Collins and she was at the police

6 division?

7 A. Yes, that's correct.

8 Q. I think she may have been the head of the police

9 division?

10 A. She was at that time, yes.

11 Q. "... who advised that FCO were suggesting lines as per

12 attached letter."

13 Again, I am afraid with the screen all I can do is

14 to hope that RNI-101-244 can come up on the other side

15 of the screen (displayed). Thank you.

16 And you will see the lines:

17 "(a) provided there is no knowledge of reference to

18 the alleged content of the Chief Constable's remarks,

19 the line is as follows."

20 Then (b):

21 "If Guardian, anyone refers to the alleged remarks

22 ..."

23 Is what you do at that point. And the lines

24 continue for the rest of the page. But going back to

25 your memorandum:




1 "... but that she felt that the lines as per the

2 ..."

3 Does that say "final"?

4 A. "Final page", yes.

5 Q. "... were more appropriate."

6 That would appear to be the only page of lines we

7 have in the file at this stage.

8 A. I notice from the top of the document that that is

9 page 4 of 4. So assuming there is a covering sheet,

10 there must have been two other pages.

11 Q. Yes, thank you. But so far as your memorandum is

12 concerned, can we just continue down that, please? It

13 says:

14 "Showed lines to Chief Constable ..."

15 I assume?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. "... who rang Christine Collins."

18 So he, as it were, stepped in and made the telephone

19 call direct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. It then says:

22 "He directed ..."

23 Is that right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. "... the RUC line would be that it would be




1 inappropriate to make any comment until the report was

2 published."

3 A. Published, yes.

4 Q. Can you tell us what the next line says?

5 A. "CIO informed accordingly by the Chief Constable."

6 CIO being the chief information officer.

7 Q. This is back to the question of the press and dealing

8 with the press?

9 A. Back to Dave Hanna, yes.

10 Q. Certainly, so far as you were concerned then, was it in

11 the context of this conversation between you and the

12 Chief Constable about the lines that he made the

13 comments you quote for us in paragraph 33 of your

14 statement?

15 A. Yes, that's correct.

16 Q. Thank you. Was it characteristic of him to do as you

17 record there, namely to pick up the telephone and deal

18 with the issue himself?

19 A. Yes, he would do that, yes.

20 Q. Can we take it that this was an issue, therefore, that

21 he regarded as being of some importance?

22 A. Yes, I'm sure that he would. Certain comments had been

23 attributed to him and he felt -- clearly felt very

24 strongly that he did not make those comments and they

25 had been attributed to him wrongly.




1 Q. It looks as though on the same day there was a further

2 exchange in relation to the British Irish Rights Watch

3 letter that we looked at together. Can you look,

4 please, at RNI-101-249 (displayed)? Again, I think this

5 is your memorandum, isn't it?

6 A. Yes, this is my writing once again.

7 Q. On the same day?

8 A. On the same day.

9 Q. A busy day as these events unfolded, no doubt?

10 A. Certainly.

11 Q. "CC has asked for a copy of the letter from Jane Winter

12 of British Irish Rights Watch to NIO. I have spoken to

13 ..."

14 Then there is a redacted name:

15 "... of the police division who is to speak to

16 Simon Rogers to have a copy forwarded to RUC:"

17 Then at the bottom somebody -- I suspect an official

18 in your department; is that right?

19 A. Yes, that's the EO1 that I mentioned earlier on.

20 Q. Thank you:

21 "... has said copy of letter passed to CC by

22 Superintendent Maxwell."

23 So you had given him the letter we looked at

24 together yourself?

25 A. Yes, I am assuming that the note from the female in the




1 NIO was the covering note that went along with the

2 Jane Winter letter.

3 Q. We can look at that just to complete the picture. It is

4 RNI-101-246 (displayed). It is addressed to you and

5 that is the note we looked at at the start.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And there it is:

8 "I attach a copy of the letter. Simon hopes to have

9 a draft down to the Chief Inspector some time on

10 Monday."

11 Then reference to a proposed meeting with senior

12 officials at the NIO and the Chief Constable and that

13 Christine Collins was going to ring the Chief

14 Superintendent on Monday.

15 Then at the end, we see, as it were, a farewell note

16 is struck. This was just before you left Command

17 Secretariat, wasn't it?

18 A. Yes, it was several days before I moved on, yes.

19 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you this: in the British Irish

20 Rights Watch letter we looked at -- again,

21 RNI-101-247 -- I showed you a passage in which it

22 suggested that the Chief Constable had named

23 Rosemary Nelson specifically. Do you see in the bottom

24 of the fourth paragraph?

25 A. Yes, I do, yes.




1 Q. Now, did he evince, as far as you were aware, a reaction

2 to that suggestion, namely the suggestion that he had

3 mentioned Rosemary Nelson by name?

4 A. No, I don't recall any reaction by the Chief Constable

5 to the British Irish Rights letter or, indeed,

6 Rosemary Nelson being mentioned. It was -- what

7 irritated the Chief, I think, was the fact that anybody

8 would say that he believed that lawyers were working for

9 paramilitary organisations, not specifically -- not

10 particularly the naming of any individual. I think he

11 certainly didn't believe that at all and the fact that

12 it was attributed to him, I think, irritated him more

13 than anything.

14 Q. So his irritation was confined then to that attribution?

15 A. His irritation, to my mind, was in relation to the

16 general assertion that he believed that lawyers were

17 working for paramilitary organisations.

18 Q. Can I ask you to look at your statement on this point --

19 it is at RNI-841-028 (displayed) -- because you go on to

20 say, having made the comment at the beginning of the

21 paragraph about his irritation, at the very top of the

22 page:

23 "Sir Ronnie Flanagan indicated ..."

24 Do you see that?

25 A. Yes.




1 Q. So was that an issue that you discussed with him?

2 A. Yes. I mean, it was part of his comment that I didn't

3 ask for anything -- sorry, I didn't say that

4 paramilitaries -- sorry, solicitors are working for

5 paramilitaries and I haven't asked for anything to be

6 removed from any report.

7 Q. And again, as far as you are concerned, those were

8 denials or comments made to you in the context of your

9 conversation with him on 27 March?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Now, so far as the allegations which are set out in the

12 British Irish Rights Watch letter of 10 March, which we

13 looked at together -- could we look, please, again at

14 RNI-101-247 (displayed), the very, very detailed

15 treatment of what is said to have happened in the

16 meeting in the third paragraph.

17 Did you have any discussion with him about that

18 account of events, other than the comment you have told

19 us about already?

20 A. No, I didn't, no. I had no discussion with him.

21 Q. Did you have any discussions with anybody else in

22 Command Secretariat about that whole issue of what had

23 been said in the meeting with the Rapporteur

24 in October 1997?

25 A. No, I'm absolutely sure that I had no discussion with




1 anybody else about it.

2 Q. Did the Chief Constable make any suggestion to you as to

3 where this version of events set out in Ms Winter's

4 letter might have come from?

5 A. No, I mean -- but to be fair to the Chief Constable, I

6 was a pretty junior superintendent. It is not something

7 that he would have discussed with me.

8 Q. Had you had any dealings yourself with the question of

9 changes to the draft report?

10 A. Absolutely not, no.

11 Q. Were you aware of whether anybody else in the Command

12 Secretariat or elsewhere at the RUC had had any dealings

13 or attempts to contact others in relation to changes to

14 the draft report?

15 A. I'm not aware of any attempts by anybody within the

16 police to have any changes made.

17 Q. Thank you. Now, you pick up this point in paragraph 34

18 of your statement on the left-hand side of the screen,

19 as we have it now, RNI-841-028. Can we enlarge that,

20 please (displayed)? And you talk about the Panorama

21 programme where he was interviewed, was he not?

22 A. Yes, he was interviewed, indeed.

23 Q. You had left the Command Secretariat by that stage

24 because it took place after the murder?

25 A. I had, yes.




1 Q. And you offer your view as to whether anybody in the

2 police would have done it and repeat what you have just

3 told me, that you didn't, and what had been done about

4 the phone records. Can I just understand what you are

5 saying to us in the penultimate sentence where you say:

6 "Whether you take from that ..."

7 A reference to the British Embassy in Geneva:

8 "... that the request came from the NIO, I don't

9 know."

10 Is that something that you believed?

11 A. No, it is not. I'm not sure whether that was in

12 response to a question put to me during interview or

13 not. From Jane Winter's letter, it seems clear that

14 somebody may have asked for something to be removed, but

15 it wasn't the police and it wasn't the police -- it

16 wasn't the NIO. I honestly don't know.

17 Q. You weren't given any indication at the time as to who

18 might have been responsible for trying to get those

19 changes made?

20 A. Absolutely not. If I had known, I would have rung

21 Sir Ronnie Flanagan and told him.

22 Q. Right. The final topic I want to ask you about, please,

23 is again something that happened shortly before your

24 departure from Command Secretariat, and that relates to

25 the threat assessment on Rosemary Nelson in February




1 and March 1998.

2 Can I ask you to look first, please, at RNI-101-198

3 (displayed)? This is a letter from the NIO to Command

4 Secretariat, but to the Chief Superintendent and

5 addressed to him by name. Do you see?

6 A. Yes, I do, yes.

7 Q. I know you have had a chance to look at some of the

8 correspondence which follows this. Can I ask you

9 a general question: is this an issue of which you have

10 any actual recollection today?

11 A. I have no recollection of this at all.

12 Q. Do you recall whether you yourself had any dealings with

13 the matter at the time?

14 A. I don't believe so, no. No, I don't believe that I did

15 have any involvement.

16 Q. I'm not going to take you through the passage of the

17 documents, but I just want to show you the end of the

18 matter so far as Command Secretariat is concerned. That

19 comes at RNI-101-206 (displayed).

20 Here, underneath a memo or a comment from the ACC

21 for the South Region of 17 March, you see a handwritten

22 comment by the Chief Inspector. Do you see that?

23 A. I do, yes.

24 Q. "Discuss with CC on 1 April 1998."

25 Then a reference to the Chief Superintendent:




1 "Nothing further can be done by police at this

2 time."

3 Then in another copy of the document, we can see at

4 RNI-101-207 (displayed) there is one addition. Do you

5 see there, it looks as though it may have been

6 a Post-It, in handwriting:

7 "Need to offer her a crime ..."

8 Is that "prevention order"?

9 A. It looks like:

10 "Need to offer a crime prevention [something]."

11 Q. Yes. Is that the handwriting of the Chief

12 Superintendent?

13 A. I believe that it is, yes.

14 Q. All I wanted to ask you about these notes, which

15 obviously appear to evidence exchanges with others, the

16 Chief Constable, the Chief Superintendent and the Chief

17 Inspector, do you recall being involved in discussions

18 of this kind at that time, at the beginning

19 of April 1998?

20 A. No, I have absolutely no recollection of any

21 discussions.

22 Q. Mr Maxwell, that is all I want to ask you, but if there

23 is any matter which we have missed out which you would

24 like to raise with the Tribunal, then this is your

25 opportunity to do so.




1 A. No, I have nothing.

2 Q. Thank you very much.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Maxwell, thank you very much for coming to

4 us to give evidence. We are very grateful.

5 A. Thank you, sir.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: We will adjourn now for a quarter of an hour.

7 (3.01 pm)

8 (Short break)

9 (3.15 pm)

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you take the oath, please?


12 Questions by MR PHILLIPS

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Would you sit down.

14 Yes, Mr Phillips?

15 MR PHILLIPS: Mr McMullen, can you give us your full names,

16 please?

17 A. Henry Gabriel McMullen.

18 Q. I think you have made two statements to the Inquiry,

19 haven't you?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. Can we look at the first one, please, at RNI-841-133

22 (displayed). Do we see your signature at RNI-841-142

23 (displayed) and the date of 27 June 2007?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And then the second statement, RNI-481-142.500. (Pause)




1 Right, we have a technical hitch with the second

2 statement, I very much regret to say. What I'm hoping

3 to find out is how long it will take to get it on the

4 screen and whether I can carry on with the questions in

5 the meanwhile. Can I ask: is this something that can be

6 cured in the next few minutes, about five minutes?

7 I shall he press on and see how we get on.


9 MR PHILLIPS: You did make a second statement, didn't you,

10 Mr McMullen?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. Let us go back to the beginning and the safety of the

13 first statement. Can we go to RNI-841-133 (displayed),

14 please, and look at your career history?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. We are concerned today particularly with the years 1997

17 to 1999. What was your position within the force during

18 those years?

19 A. I was a chief inspector, then Deputy Subdivisional

20 Commander in both Portadown and Lurgan.

21 Q. And so I'm clear about this, at that stage, 1997 to

22 1999, were the subdivisions still divided?

23 A. That's correct, they were.

24 Q. And were you at Lurgan in those years or at Portadown?

25 A. 1997 and 1999, it was Lurgan.




1 Q. Thank you very much. Presumably, as a deputy

2 subdivisional commander you reported to the

3 Subdivisional Commander?

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. And who in those years, 1997 to 1999, was your

6 commander?

7 A. As I recall, there were two. There was -- one was

8 Cyril Donnan and the other was Ian Chapman.

9 Q. Physically, where were you based?

10 A. In Lurgan.

11 Q. In the police station there?

12 A. In the police station in Church Place in Lurgan.

13 Q. Thank you very much. Now, in terms of your duties, you

14 deal with this in the second paragraph of your statement

15 at RNI-841-134 (displayed) in this rather awe-inspiring

16 sentence:

17 "Generally I would be responsible for everything

18 that happened within the subdivision, no matter what it

19 was."

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. That was the remit of your job, was it?

22 A. Well, it was very wide. It covered, for example, deaths

23 on the road, traffic matters, covering such things as,

24 you know, the basic concepts of policing, the protection

25 of life and roads and public order. Then you can take




1 another division of crime -- for the numbers of crimes

2 in the area, the investigation of crime, the result of

3 police work to ensure that we were operating effectively

4 and efficiently. So all over the whole wide range of

5 policing really is what I was responsible for.

6 Q. Can we take it from the fact that you were the deputy

7 that the same would apply to your boss, to the

8 Subdivisional Commander?

9 A. It was exactly the same. I was deputy to him. He had

10 overall responsibility and I was deputy to him.

11 Q. So everything that went on in policing terms within that

12 subdivision was in your remit?

13 A. That's right.

14 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you some questions straight away

15 about Rosemary Nelson? Did you ever meet her?

16 A. I can't recall specific incidents of meeting her, but

17 I'm bound to have met her because I was an inspector in

18 Armagh and Newry and prosecuting in the courts there.

19 So no doubt she has been a defence solicitor at some

20 time I was the police prosecutor.

21 Q. But can you now recall any specific occasions when you

22 came across her?

23 A. No, not specific occasions and speaking to her, no.

24 Q. So what did you know of her at the time of her death

25 in March 1999?




1 A. Well, I knew where her offices were and that she

2 operated from her offices and she had a high profile in

3 the press. Her name appeared in the press and on

4 television quite frequently, but other than that I had

5 no personal knowledge of her.

6 Q. You say in your statement -- and this is paragraph 26 at

7 RNI-841-142 (displayed) -- do you see the third

8 sentence:

9 "To begin with ..."

10 You say:

11 "To begin with, I believe that Mrs Nelson's

12 relationship with the police generally was friendly and

13 she was on good terms."

14 That is something you can remember now, is it?

15 A. Yes -- as I recall it, I think police officers

16 recommended people who were in domestic violence cases

17 to her. That is my recollection. And I think that

18 probably comes from being a prosecutor at the court.

19 Q. So that would reflect what you had heard about her, what

20 you knew about her?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. What, in the early 1990s, the mid 1990s? What sort of

23 period are we talking about?

24 A. It would probably be from the mid 80s to the mid 90s.

25 Q. Then you say in paragraph 27, just further down the




1 page, if we could see have that on the screen, please

2 (displayed):

3 "At some later stage ..."

4 You say that her relationship with the police

5 changed and you became aware of it after it had already

6 taken place.

7 Doing the best you can now, can you recall for us

8 when you think you were aware that that change had taken

9 place?

10 A. I think it probably was when I arrived -- some time

11 after I arrived as the deputy in Lurgan because my

12 impression of her was that she was on friendly terms

13 with police officers and that police officers were in

14 the habit of recommending clients to her. And my

15 recollection is that, you know, there has been a change

16 here.

17 Q. And you think that you were aware of that, is that what

18 you are saying, when you came to Lurgan as the Deputy

19 Subdivisional Commander?

20 A. I think that is when I became aware of it.

21 Q. Now, can you remember when that was? When did you

22 arrive in Lurgan in that post?

23 A. Some time in the mid 90s, I think.

24 Q. If you look at paragraph 1 of your statement, we will

25 see if there is any help there. This is where you set




1 out how your career went, and it is at RNI-841-133

2 (displayed). What you say in the fifth line is:

3 "I worked at Portadown as Deputy Subdivisional

4 Commander from approximately 1990 for two to three

5 years. I then transferred to Lurgan."

6 Do you see that?

7 A. Yes, that's right.

8 Q. So that would put it, what, 1992, 1993?

9 A. Yes, that's right -- it would have been 1993, I think it

10 would have been.

11 Q. You say you think you became aware of the change as

12 early as 1993; is that right?

13 A. Probably. Some time around then, yes.

14 Q. I'm going to ask a quite general question about memory

15 and recollection, if I may.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Because you have dealt in your statement with a whole

18 series of topics and you have been referred clearly in

19 the interview to a whole series of documents.

20 A. That's right.

21 Q. If you hadn't had the documents, do you think you would

22 have had any actual recollection of any of the events

23 you deal with in your statement?

24 A. No. Actually, while I was looking at the documents,

25 I thought, goodness, if I hadn't have seen these, I




1 wouldn't have had any knowledge whatsoever of them. But

2 whenever they were put in front of me, yes -- I said,

3 "Oh, yes, I do recognise this." But had I been asked

4 about it without being shown them, I wouldn't have been

5 able to recall it.

6 Q. So when I asked you, for instance, to fix on a date,

7 such as the date when you think you first were aware of

8 the change, do you think, on reflection, that you may be

9 a year or two or maybe more out when you say that you

10 think it may have been in 1993?

11 A. No, my dates wouldn't be reliable.

12 Q. No. Can I take that as a general comment?

13 A. Yes, I do have a little difficulty with dates, yes.

14 Q. Thank you. But returning to paragraph 27 and forgetting

15 about the date for a moment and just looking at the

16 substance of what you are saying, which is that you

17 perceived there to be a change in the relationship with

18 the police, how did you learn about it on your return or

19 when you were at Lurgan?

20 A. Well, probably -- I don't exactly remember precisely how

21 it came, but I suspect it was from newspaper articles

22 and TV and that sort of thing, and perhaps even the tone

23 of letters of complaints and so on. I'm not absolutely

24 sure, but what I do know is I did get that impression

25 that attitudes had changed.




1 Q. And -- I mean, you have said to us very fairly that you

2 didn't yourself -- you can't remember any direct

3 dealings with her. So when you say, for instance, in

4 the second line of paragraph 27, which is at RNI-841-142

5 (displayed):

6 "I believe that Mrs Nelson became very anti-police."

7 First of all. That is the first thing you say. Was

8 that belief based on what you were told by colleagues at

9 Lurgan?

10 A. Well, it would -- it probably would include that.

11 Q. And you go on to say that she was instead the type of

12 solicitor who did not communicate freely with the

13 police?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Can you just help me with that? What do you mean by

16 that?

17 A. Well, other solicitors seemed to have no difficulty in

18 lifting the phone and ringing me to ask me about

19 something, but she never rang me to ask me about

20 anything. Anything ever I got from her was by letter.

21 Q. So the communication was much more formal; is that the

22 point?

23 A. Yes, that's right.

24 Q. Was it in general your experience that solicitors who

25 you dealt with were prepared to pick up the phone and




1 talk to you?

2 A. Very much so, yes.

3 Q. In a less formal way?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Now, you have said earlier that one of the things which

6 may have contributed to your belief that she became very

7 anti-police was comments made by colleagues. What were

8 the other things, do you think, that led to you holding

9 that belief?

10 A. The main thing would have been the newspaper articles.

11 Q. Can you describe them for us?

12 A. No, I don't recall the content of them now, but

13 I know -- I remember -- there have been articles -- from

14 when I arrived in Lurgan right on until I retired, there

15 were newspaper articles about Rosemary Nelson in

16 newspapers commenting on controversies, and it was

17 always controversial.

18 Q. And just to press you a bit on this, what was it about

19 the controversial newspaper articles that made you think

20 she was anti-police?

21 A. Well, the insinuations seemed to be from it that police

22 were either -- who weren't acting in a proper manner or

23 who were committing some offences or something of that

24 nature. But yet she didn't come up and say to you,

25 "What is going on here?" Why didn't she come and --




1 even come in and see any police officer, any senior

2 police officer and say, "Look, I have a problem"? But

3 I have no knowledge of her doing any of that.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 You say in your statement that you think this may

6 have begun -- and I assume by that, but just tell me if

7 I'm right, that you mean the change?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Began after Rosemary Nelson undertook a number of high

10 profile cases?

11 A. That may have been, I'm not sure. But it would seem

12 that's a good probability.

13 Q. And you refer there to one of them, the Colin Duffy

14 case. You say:

15 "I'm sure there were plenty more cases she was

16 involved in."

17 Are you actually aware of any others that she was

18 involved in?

19 A. I couldn't name any off the top of my head now.

20 Q. What you are describing for us in this paragraph is in

21 contrast to the earlier paragraph: a change, as you saw

22 it anyway, in her attitude towards the police. That's

23 right, isn't it?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Was there, as a result of that change, also a change in




1 the police's attitude towards her?

2 A. Well, what a police officer thinks and what he actually

3 does is two different things. She would have been

4 treated in a professional manner, but I'm not aware of

5 any police officers who had any, you know, dealings with

6 her, other than simply in a professional manner.

7 I don't know of any who would meet her socially or

8 meet her at any functions or anything that of nature,

9 where they would meet other solicitors at functions,

10 civic functions and so on.

11 Q. Can I just ask you about the distinction you drew in

12 that answer between thinking and the way you behave, the

13 way you carry on?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Are you saying that they may have had views, perhaps

16 strong views, about her, but that you expect that they

17 would have continued to behave professionally?

18 A. If they had strong views about her, they certainly would

19 behave in a professional manner.

20 Q. Did you ever hear strong views about her expressed in

21 your time at Lurgan?

22 A. No, I didn't.

23 Q. You did not?

24 A. No.

25 Q. On that, your recollection is clear?




1 A. It is absolutely clear on that because that is something

2 that you would note.

3 Q. So it wouldn't be true to say that she was unpopular at

4 Lurgan police station?

5 A. Well, there was certainly nobody talking about her being

6 unpopular.

7 Q. At this point I think -- I'm nervous to suggest this,

8 but I think that the second statement has magically

9 appeared on the system. Can we just get the formalities

10 out of the way? Can we have RNI-841-142.500

11 (displayed)? That is your second statement, is it?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And the signature at RNI-841-142.503 (displayed) is your

14 signature and the date, 11 March 2008?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. In fact, I would like to start with some questions about

17 a matter you deal with in that second statement, so

18 perhaps we can have it back on the screen, the first

19 page, please (displayed). Thank you.

20 You will see in the second paragraph you are

21 referred to a memo dated 17 February 1998. Do you see

22 that?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Can we have on the screen, please, the document you

25 refer to, which is RNI-835-205 (displayed)?




1 Now, we see your signature at the bottom of this

2 document, the date of 17 February at the top right-hand

3 corner, the subdivision is Lurgan?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And this is in fact, as you see, a letter to her as

6 a solicitor in relation to a threat said to have been

7 made to one of her clients. Do you see that, the

8 heading there?

9 A. Oh, yes. Yes, I do.

10 Q. Thank you very much. It looks as though you were

11 seeking guidance from the Superintendent, superintendent

12 at C2 there, in relation to this matter and asking for,

13 effectively, his advice. Do you see that there?

14 A. Erm.

15 Q. The last sentence:

16 "I would appreciate --

17 A. Yes, I do.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 In the light of the comments you have been making,

20 the answers you have been giving me, the passage in this

21 note of yours that I would like to ask you about is at

22 the beginning of the fourth paragraph, where you say:

23 "In view of the involvement Rosemary Nelson has with

24 Republican elements in the Lurgan area and her

25 involvement in publicity on behalf of a number of




1 individuals alleging harassment by security forces, I

2 would appreciate guidance on what information should be

3 revealed to her."

4 Can I ask you this: what involvement in your view

5 did Rosemary Nelson have with Republican elements in

6 Lurgan?

7 A. Well, first she represented a number of Republicans who

8 were charged with terrorist offences. She was also

9 involved in speaking at -- it must have been rallies or

10 meetings or something of that nature, and the amount of

11 publicity there was in the press about it.

12 Q. So by "involvement" then, you meant first her work for

13 Republican clients, if I can put it that way?

14 A. Yes, that's right.

15 Q. And then her involvement in meetings. Is that right?

16 Is that what you are saying?

17 A. Involvement in representing people involved in the

18 Republican movement.

19 Q. But the use of the word "involvement", does that suggest

20 that you believe that she was doing more than just

21 representing Republican elements?

22 A. Absolutely not. It may be unfortunate the way it is

23 worded there. "Involvement" means "working for" as

24 "representing".

25 Q. Now, if that had been your intention, to say that she




1 represents a number of Republican clients, why did you

2 not say so?

3 A. Well, I don't know why I said it. I was sitting at

4 a desk writing a memo and that is how I wrote it.

5 Q. But were you intending to get across the point that

6 there was more to this than a purely professional

7 involvement with Republican elements in the Lurgan area?

8 A. No, I wasn't, and if I had been, I would have said so.

9 Q. Did you mean, for example, that she was, in your view,

10 aligned with the Republican cause politically?

11 A. I don't know what she was aligned with and I wasn't

12 suggesting that. What I was suggesting was that she

13 was -- and I was about to say the word "heavily involved

14 in representing".

15 Q. Can you think of a reason why you didn't use that word

16 in the memorandum?

17 A. Which word?

18 Q. "representing"?

19 A. I don't.

20 Q. No. What did you mean by her:

21 "... involvement in publicity on behalf of a number

22 of individuals alleging harassment by security forces"?

23 A. Well, that was in relation to all the newspaper articles

24 there were.

25 Q. And you saw that involvement, did you, as an attempt to




1 generate publicity on her part?

2 A. Publicity not for her, for her clients.

3 Q. Indeed. So, again, that is not something you would

4 normally expect a solicitor to be doing in the ordinary

5 course of his or her work, is it?

6 A. Well, I don't know of that. It may well be.

7 Q. Were you aware of other solicitors in the town or in

8 Northern Ireland who did that sort of publicity on

9 behalf of their clients?

10 A. Well, it is -- it is difficult to say where to draw the

11 line: is this publicity or not? Is it work for them?

12 Is it making a case for them? It is difficult to say

13 what is in a solicitor's mind when they are doing that,

14 what the ultimate purpose is.

15 Q. But the word you used -- and, again, it is your

16 memorandum -- was that she was "involved" in publicity

17 and presumably in attracting attention to these

18 individuals, presumably also being what you describe as

19 Republican elements?

20 A. Yes. Well, what I'm saying there is she was involved in

21 publicity in a number of cases and why she was doing

22 that, well, that is open for interpretation.

23 Q. Now, looking at that paragraph as a whole and seeing the

24 way it ends:

25 "I would appreciate guidance on what information




1 should be revealed to her."

2 Can I ask you, why were you writing to this senior

3 officer, the superintendent in C2?

4 A. Well, because, I didn't know what to tell her was the

5 first thing. You know, I needed some guidance on what

6 to say to her because what I would write could well have

7 ended up in the newspapers as well.

8 Q. That was your concern, wasn't it, that you believe there

9 was a danger that there would be further publicity in

10 relation to whatever you told her?

11 A. What I wanted to do was to make sure that what I told

12 her was absolutely accurate and correct.

13 Q. Can we look back at your statement at RNI-841-142.501

14 (displayed)? Can we enlarge paragraph 4, please? Now,

15 that is what you said in your statement?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And that is the reason you gave: that you are writing to

18 the Superintendent for guidance because Mrs Nelson would

19 take every opportunity to use what was said to her in

20 publicity which was negative to the RUC.

21 A. There is a possibility of that certainly, yes.

22 Q. But that was clearly your view at the time you made this

23 witness statement, wasn't it?

24 A. That wasn't my only thing. I had forgotten -- what was

25 the original letter about?





1 Q. The original letter -- in relation to the client?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Was the suggestion that there had been a threat to

4 a client of Rosemary Nelson's. I'll show you the

5 original letter.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Shall I do that?

8 A. If you would, please.

9 Q. I think it is at RNI-835-210 (displayed). Now, the

10 client's name and address have been redacted, which

11 I agree makes these documents rather difficult to

12 digest, but this is a letter from Rosemary Nelson of

13 28 January. Do you see?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Addressed in fact to the Chief Superintendent at Lurgan?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And about the client, saying that he, the client, has

18 been notified by police that a death threat had been

19 issued and asking for what she describes there, do you

20 see, as "full details"? Do you see that?

21 A. Yes, I do.

22 Q. And it looks, doesn't it -- I know you have had a chance

23 to look at these papers -- as though this is what

24 prompted your seeking advice on 17 February from the

25 Superintendent?

1 Q. The original letter -- in relation to the client?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Was the suggestion that there had been a threat to

4 a client of Rosemary Nelson's. I'll show you the

5 original letter.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Shall I do that?

8 A. If you would, please.

9 Q. I think it is at RNI-835-210 (displayed). Now, the

10 client's name and address have been redacted, which

11 I agree makes these documents rather difficult to

12 digest, but this is a letter from Rosemary Nelson of

13 28 January. Do you see?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Addressed in fact to the Chief Superintendent at Lurgan?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And about the client, saying that he, the client, has

18 been notified by police that a death threat had been

19 issued and asking for what she describes there, do you

20 see, as "full details"? Do you see that?

21 A. Yes, I do.

22 Q. And it looks, doesn't it -- I know you have had a chance

23 to look at these papers -- as though this is what

24 prompted your seeking advice on 17 February from the

25 Superintendent?





1 A. Yes.

2 Q. So that is the context.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Just going back to your witness statement again,

5 paragraph 4, RNI-142-501 (displayed) -- thank you --

6 what you say there is you were writing to get his

7 guidance because:

8 "She would take every opportunity to use what was

9 said to her in publicity which was negative to the RUC."

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. That must presumably have been your belief and your

12 motivation at the time you wrote the memorandum?

13 A. Yes, there was certainly a danger of that. What is --

14 in a case like that, for someone to have a death threat

15 against them, it is a very traumatic experience. And to

16 go to speak to someone or tell them about that, you need

17 to know what you are talking about. And to pass it on

18 second-hand to a solicitor, to go to their client to

19 tell them -- you haven't got the full information. And

20 to do -- to deliver a death threat or any sort of

21 threat, you have got to know exactly what the nature of

22 it is, how reliable it is, should it be taken seriously,

23 is this an imminent threat that you should move house or

24 move away from the area or is it just drunken talk in

25 a public house?






1 So when you tell somebody something, you have got to

2 know exactly what your facts are and spell it out

3 correctly. The letter from Mrs Nelson asks for full

4 details. I didn't know the full details. I had to find

5 the full details. And perhaps the full details couldn't

6 be given to her because, depending on where the

7 information came from -- I don't know.

8 So I was really in the dark, and there were all

9 these things and there was also the possibility that

10 anything that I said would be published in a negative

11 way.

12 Q. So she was seen by you at this time, was

13 she, February 1998, as someone who would use every

14 opportunity she could get to make negative publicity for

15 the police force?

16 A. That was a distinct possibility.

17 Q. Was that a view, as far as you know, shared by your

18 colleagues in Lurgan?

19 A. Well, there probably were some -- I don't really know.

20 Q. But it was certainly your view?

21 A. It was my fear.

22 Q. And again, in this same paragraph you come back to the

23 point we discussed a little earlier about the

24 distinction between some solicitors who would speak to

25 you and discuss this type of matter over the telephone,






1 whereas, by contrast, Rosemary Nelson would, as you put

2 it, want everything to be set down in writing?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. So in your mind was this a sign of the sort of solicitor

5 you were dealing with, this unwillingness to ring you

6 up, to do anything other than in a very formal written

7 way?

8 A. Well, I wondered why would one do that. When I think of

9 other, you know, solicitors who would ring up and say,

10 "Could I come in and have a word with you?" and arrive

11 in my office with a file under their arm and spread it

12 out on my coffee table and say off the record, "What do

13 you think?" So open about it.

14 Q. Can you remember whether there was another local

15 solicitor who behaved towards you and the police in the

16 way that she did at this time?

17 A. Well, there was one who may be approaching that sort of

18 thing.

19 Q. But what I'm getting at, do you see, is did she stand

20 out in this particular way?

21 A. She wasn't alone, but there was -- there is only one

22 other one that I could think of who would be anything

23 like that.

24 Q. Was she unique at least in this: In the combination of

25 doing everything in this formal way and, in your view at






1 any rate, of generating negative publicity for the

2 police force? Was she unique in those two

3 characteristics in your view?

4 A. No, she wouldn't be unique, no. She wouldn't be unique.

5 Q. But again, can you think of another example of a

6 solicitor who had those two characteristics?

7 A. Well, yes, I could.

8 Q. Whom you dealt with in Lurgan?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. But was it, again, an unusual experience to deal with

11 a solicitor of that kind?

12 A. Well, the world is made up of -- everyone is different.

13 You get some like that, you get some very formal dealing

14 with things in a very formal way and you get others who

15 simply spread their cards and say, "What do you think?

16 Tell me how it is."

17 Q. Can I just ask you something on this question of

18 publicity and the press coverage that you mentioned

19 earlier because there is a comment in your statement

20 that I wanted to ask you to clarify for me. This is in

21 the first statement, RNI-841-137, paragraph 15

22 (displayed). Do you see there in the penultimate

23 sentence at 15, you say:

24 "However, there would commonly have been newspaper

25 articles at the time ..."





1 And you mentioned some of them earlier:

2 "... which related to her."

3 Then you say:

4 "For example, there was a Sunday Times article

5 published on 29 April 2007 which concerned her."

6 The statement was signed in June 2007, this

7 statement. We have looked high and low for an article

8 of 29 April 2007. Do you think there is a wrong date

9 there?

10 A. There probably is. I recall shortly -- it was a time

11 shortly before I made that statement.

12 Q. So some time, you think, in 2007?

13 A. Oh, yes.

14 Q. Yes. Thank you. Well, perhaps we will have a look for

15 that. Thank you very much.

16 Can I take you back to the question that we were

17 discussing a little earlier about the purpose of this

18 memorandum that you sent to the Superintendent, and that

19 is the reference RNI 835-205 (displayed)? It is the

20 same paragraph, the last paragraph, that we have looked

21 at together because you see the words you use at the

22 end:

23 "I would appreciate guidance on what information

24 should be revealed to her."

25 And if we put that to the left-hand side of the





1 page, please, and have up your second statement at

2 RNI-841-142.501, paragraph 6 (displayed), we will see

3 that you deal with this word in turn, in other words,

4 the expression "should be revealed to her".

5 So do we have RNI-841-142.501? We can't see that at

6 the same time. Let's try and remember the words of that

7 sentence, please, on the left-hand side and have on the

8 screen, please, RNI-841-142.501 (displayed).

9 Now, paragraph 6, you say:

10 "In the final line, I say I want guidance on what

11 should be revealed to her. I'm not sure that this word

12 'revealed' is correct. I would not be aiming to mislead

13 Mrs Nelson or her clients. I would simply be concerned

14 to make sure that everything was done properly."

15 Can I just ask you -- because we have already had

16 a discussion about your use of the word "involvement",

17 this is another of your words -- what word do you think

18 you should have used instead of the word "revealed"?

19 A. Well, "told".

20 Q. "Told"? So you weren't suggesting that things should be

21 kept from her or covered up?

22 A. That's correct, I wasn't suggesting that. The word

23 "revealed" might -- one might read into it that one was

24 hiding something.

25 Q. You see, in your statement, on a number of occasions





1 when you are looking at letters and trying to work out

2 whether you drafted them or someone else did, you talk

3 about your style of English, your way of writing.

4 Now, we can be sure, can't we, because we have seen

5 it already with your signature, that this was your

6 document? You wrote it, you signed it?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. So the question now -- and it is for the second time in

9 relation to this short paragraph -- is why you used that

10 word if you actually meant something else?

11 A. Well, there is nothing really wrong with the word. It

12 is the interpretation people bring from it. "Reveal"

13 means to show, told, let them see, but one could --

14 I agree, one could think, "Oh, well, what they are

15 meaning -- and reading between the lines -- is we are

16 going to hide something." That is not right, that is

17 totally wrong.

18 Q. Presumably your concern was rather more to make sure

19 that you didn't tell her anything which she could use to

20 generate negative publicity for the force?

21 A. To make sure that what I told her was absolutely correct

22 and, therefore, couldn't be used to generate negative

23 publicity.

24 Q. Thank you. Now, can I ask you to look at another of

25 your notes or memoranda of about the same time? This is





1 about a month later, in March 1998, and I hope we can

2 see it at RNI-101-242.500 (displayed). Again, we see

3 your signature at the bottom?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And this was a note to the Superintendent. I think it

6 is the same officer, isn't it?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. Thank you. 26 March, posters displayed in relation to

9 Colin Duffy. So, again, we have got the context. We

10 can see the poster at RNI-101-242.501 (displayed).

11 There we are. Not much text, but a photograph:

12 "If you see him in Loyalist area, contact the

13 security forces or a leading Loyalist immediately."

14 Going back to the memorandum, please,

15 RNI-101-242.500 (displayed). Now, you introduce the

16 fact that these posters have been displayed on lamp

17 posts in the first paragraph. You say in the second

18 paragraph that:

19 "No threat is made."

20 And you say:

21 "It simply asks that if you see him in a Loyalist

22 area, contact security forces or a leading Loyalist

23 immediately."

24 And then moving on, this comment:

25 "Colin Duffy and his solicitor, Rosemary Nelson,





1 have been vocal in making allegations of military and

2 police harassment and seize every opportunity of making

3 political capital for their cause. I feel that they

4 will use this matter to make further allegations."

5 Just looking at the memo in general first of all, it

6 is right, isn't it, that you were again seeking guidance

7 as to what information should be released, in this case

8 to Colin Duffy?

9 A. Yes, I was.

10 Q. And so you were considering whether there was a threat

11 because you refer specifically to the force order, the

12 relevant force order in relation to threats in the first

13 paragraph. That's right, isn't it?

14 A. Yes, that's right.

15 Q. And the question is whether the nature of the poster,

16 what it said, what it didn't say, made it necessary to

17 inform him, as you say at the end of the memorandum, of

18 the display of the poster and what advice should be

19 given to him by the police?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. The concern once more was that whatever you said would

22 be taken up by him and his solicitor, Rosemary Nelson,

23 to use in order to make political capital for their

24 cause. That was your concern, wasn't it?

25 A. That was one of the concerns, yes.





1 Q. Were there any other concerns motivating you in sending

2 this memorandum?

3 A. Yes. That was a piece of information I had, but

4 Special Branch could well have had further information

5 and further knowledge to go with this that could throw

6 a completely different light on it.

7 As I said, and as can be seen from the posters,

8 there is no specific threat -- I said no threat made

9 against the life of Colin Duffy. It simply asks that --

10 but that poster, combined with other information that

11 Special Branch may have had in their possession, could

12 have thrown a completely different light on it.

13 Q. Can I just ask you, which department is C2?

14 A. C2 was the department at the time that were coordinating

15 and dealing with threats against people.

16 Q. So you weren't sending it to Special Branch?

17 A. No, I didn't send it. C2 would have liaised with

18 Special Branch.

19 Q. So if anybody was going to refer it to them, it would

20 have been C2 and not you?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Thank you. But looking at paragraph 3 in particular,

23 did that state your view at the time about

24 Rosemary Nelson, namely that she had been vocal in

25 making allegations of harassment and seizing every





1 opportunity of making political capital --

2 A. Yes, that is what it seemed to me at the time, yes.

3 Q. What was the basis for that view?

4 A. All the newspaper things.

5 Q. And things that you heard and discussed with your

6 colleagues?

7 A. No, not what I would have heard and discussed with my

8 colleagues, no. It would have been from the newspaper

9 articles and even TV interviews and that sort of thing.

10 I have no recollection of discussing that with officers,

11 no, I don't.

12 Q. What was the cause?

13 A. Sorry?

14 Q. What was the cause?

15 A. The cause of?

16 Q. What was the cause you refer to in the third line?

17 A. Oh, sorry. I just can't find that. The third line of

18 which paragraph?

19 Q. Of the third paragraph.

20 A. Oh, yes. Well, their cause, whatever it was, in

21 relation to all the allegations of misconduct of police

22 officers. Whatever that cause was, why were they doing

23 it; whatever that cause was, the purpose of it. The

24 cause may well have been to discredit police officers,

25 to discredit the police in general, whatever.





1 Q. Presumably you meant some form of political cause, did

2 you?

3 A. Well, I suppose one could call that -- discrediting the

4 RUC was a political cause. Yes, you could say that.

5 Q. Was it a Republican cause that you had in mind?

6 A. Well, I hadn't in mind that it was a cause to go out to

7 commit acts of terrorism, but I did have in mind that it

8 was to further that part of it which discredited the

9 RUC, discredited the military.

10 Q. But as far as you were concerned then, it was a cause

11 shared by Colin Duffy and Rosemary Nelson?

12 A. Well, I don't know, but I suspect it could well have

13 been, yes.

14 Q. So that is not the sort of thing you normally say about

15 a solicitor representing a client, is it?

16 A. No, it is not.

17 Q. No. So you didn't regard her in the normal way you

18 would regard a solicitor representing a client, did you?

19 A. I didn't -- the honest answer is I didn't know and

20 I still don't know, but it seemed peculiar to me that --

21 why work so hard for their clients and -- for example,

22 in those threats, why not come and ask me? Why not

23 come -- why not go to any senior police officer and say,

24 "Look, what is the position here?" like other solicitors

25 did. So, yes, there was suspicion on my mind: why is





1 she taking this course?

2 Q. So the suspicion was that she did indeed share the cause

3 of Colin Duffy --

4 A. What you are saying is that I have made up my opinion

5 absolutely that she was in collusion or whatever with

6 Republicans. No, I'm not saying that. But what I'm

7 saying is that it seems strange that she couldn't be

8 open and come and say to either me or any senior police

9 officer, "What is going on here?"

10 Q. Do you think she was generally seen by your colleagues

11 as having a cause, a shared cause with Colin Duffy?

12 A. I don't know.

13 Q. You don't know? You didn't discuss it with them?

14 A. No, I didn't discuss is with them.

15 Q. You deal with this in your statement at paragraph 9, the

16 second statement, at RNI-841-142.502 (displayed), and

17 here in relation to this very phrase you say in the

18 second sentence:

19 "I wouldn't know whether or not this was

20 Mrs Nelson's personal cause."

21 Ie the cause of Republicans?

22 A. No, I don't really know. That was right.

23 Q. Then you go on to say:

24 "I viewed her as a solicitor only, acting on behalf

25 of people like Colin Duffy."





1 A. Yes, that is the way I treated her, yes.

2 Q. That is not the way you put it in the memorandum, is it?

3 A. In dealing with her, she was dealt with in

4 a professional manner. In the memorandum, I was

5 speaking freely: tell me what to say, give me some

6 guidance. And these are the things that I had in mind.

7 I needed guidance on it.

8 Q. When you say in your statement:

9 "What her personal causes were, if any, I do not

10 know."

11 It is clear, isn't it, from the memo you wrote

12 in March 1998 that you had a view, you had a view that

13 she had the same cause as her client Colin Duffy because

14 that is what you said in your memorandum?

15 A. No, I didn't say she had -- I was a police officer,

16 suspicious of quite a lot of things and this was

17 a possibility; it is a possibility. It was

18 a possibility. I don't know, but I had to -- I had to

19 be completely open and covered to make sure that I got

20 the right advice and guidance and that nobody was led

21 astray.

22 Q. Thank you. Now, I would like to ask you about a topic

23 that you yourself mentioned helpfully earlier and that

24 is the question of threat assessments. You deal with it

25 in a passage of your statement beginning at RNI-841-135





1 and it is paragraph 8 (displayed).

2 You there deal with various specific examples of

3 dealing with this topic. Can I just ask you some quite

4 general questions about it first?

5 If, as a serving police officer, in this case as the

6 Deputy Subdivisional Commander at Lurgan, you received

7 notification that somebody had received a threat to

8 their life, what would you then do with that

9 information?

10 A. Is that the question?

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. It would depend on the nature of the threat, where it

13 came from. If you take a clear example: if someone

14 comes in and tells me, "I have information that I know

15 is true that someone is going to be murdered going to

16 work this morning", then I would send police patrols out

17 to get the person and get him away out of the danger.

18 If it was vague, I would refer it to the Special Branch.

19 You know, I would need to be given an example of a type

20 of threat.

21 Q. Well, let's take a couple of examples?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. What would your reaction have been if somebody had told

24 you they had received a bullet in the post?

25 A. I would have brought it to the attention immediately of





1 Special Branch.

2 Q. And do anything else?

3 A. I would send it up through the normal channels to the

4 department who are -- C2, it would have been at that

5 time.

6 Q. Let's take another example. What would you have done,

7 what would your reaction have been if somebody had told

8 you they had received an anonymous telephone call with

9 a death threat on the telephone?

10 A. It would depend on what the death threat was. If it was

11 imminent, well, then I would have to take immediate

12 action of averting it.

13 If it was something, "You are going to be got", the

14 usual type of thing is -- it doesn't seem -- on the face

15 of it it is not imminent. Again, through the normal

16 channels, reporting to the local Special Branch as well,

17 and the point in reporting to the local Special Branch

18 is they may already know or have information and this is

19 yet another piece that changes or puts new light on the

20 information they already have.

21 Q. So to be clear then, your reaction, perhaps

22 unsurprisingly, would depend on the precise nature of

23 the threat and what -- I think the word you used is how

24 "imminent" you perceived it to be; is that fair?

25 A. Yes, that's right.





1 Q. There was, at all times with which we are concerned,

2 also a force order in place, wasn't there?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Dealing with the procedures to be followed?

5 A. Yes, which changed from time to time.

6 Q. Yes. Can we just look at the force order that was in

7 place at the beginning of the period with which we are

8 concerned, and that we can see at RNI-101-001

9 (displayed).

10 This is the force order 60/91, dated 3 July 1991 and

11 in fact you can see there that somebody has written

12 in -- do you see just above the line:

13 "Cancelled by ..."

14 Then there is a later order we will look at in

15 a moment:

16 "Threats against the lives of members of the

17 security forces, VIPs or other individual."

18 Presumably this was a document of which you were

19 aware at all the times we are concerned with, in other

20 words, between 1997 and 1998, March, when it was

21 replaced?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. It was the force order which prescribed what should be

24 done in the case of a threat, wasn't it?

25 A. That's right.





1 Q. And looking at the first paragraph, it looks as though

2 the first thing you do when you learn of a threat to the

3 life of any person, whatever the nature of the person,

4 however high or low he or she may be, is you pass

5 details of the threat forthwith to the local

6 Special Branch. Do you see that?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. And then there are all sorts of categories of person --

9 VIPs, RUC, RUCR members -- over the next few pages,

10 RNI-101-002, RNI-101-003, and at RNI-101-004

11 (displayed), we finally get as far down as "other

12 persons", subparagraph 7, and do you see that there:

13 "Local Special Branch concerned will inform the

14 Subdivisional Commander ..."

15 Do you see that?

16 A. Yes, I have got it now.

17 Q. I'm sorry, it is rather confusing when it is suddenly

18 enlarged on the screen:

19 "... in whose area the subject resides and works and

20 the Subdivisional Commander will take whatever action he

21 considers necessary."

22 So that was the part of this that specifically

23 related to you, or rather your boss, at the time we are

24 concerned with, wasn't it?

25 A. Yes.





1 Q. Thank you. For, as it were, local action to be taken

2 and that action to be whatever action he, the

3 Subdivisional Commander, considers necessary.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Before we move on, we will have a 20-minute

5 break now.

6 (4.15 pm)

7 (Short break)

8 (4.35 pm)

9 THE CHAIRMAN: We shall rise promptly at five to.

10 MR PHILLIPS: Yes. Mr McMullen, we were talking about the

11 force order and we had got to the passage involving your

12 subdivisional part of the force.

13 Can I just take you to a couple of further passages

14 in this order because they relate to the points we are

15 going to come on to deal with. So can we have

16 RNI-101-004, please (displayed)?

17 The first passage I want to show you is at the

18 bottom of the page, paragraph 4, "General

19 considerations":

20 "Where it is considered appropriate by

21 a subdivisional commander after consultation with the

22 divisional head of Special Branch, crime prevention

23 officers will be tasked ..."

24 Et cetera, et cetera. So within the discretion of

25 the Subdivisional Commander then is the delivery in





1 appropriate cases of such advice by crime prevention

2 officers -- do you see? -- advice about personal

3 security surveys of their homes or businesses,

4 et cetera?

5 A. Hm-mm.

6 Q. Can I ask you to look at this next paragraph, please,

7 with me:

8 "Service of written security advice ..."

9 That is the sort of advice in the previous

10 paragraph:

11 "... should be by personal service in the presence

12 of a witness, if necessary, or where security conditions

13 dictate, by registered post. Refusal to accept advice

14 should also be noted in writing and kept by the

15 Subdivisional Commander, Crime Prevention, on file."

16 Just pausing there, as you can see the paragraph

17 continues -- this contemplates the situation where

18 advice is given, but it is not, if I can put it that

19 way, welcome.

20 Did you encounter in your career cases where

21 security advice in writing was tendered but the person

22 concerned refused to accept service of the written

23 advice?

24 A. No, I haven't -- no, I haven't. I have experience of

25 them not acting on it, but not on not accepting it.





1 Q. So in other words that your experience is where the

2 advice is indeed given, delivered, as it were, but not

3 followed?

4 A. On rare occasions, yes.

5 Q. Yes. Now, we can see how it continues:

6 "In the event of subsequent criminal attacks on the

7 person so advised, the crime prevention officer will

8 establish what recommendation or other security

9 precautions, if any, had been taken ..."

10 So that is very much the point you are making:

11 "... by the aggrieved party to prevent or minimise

12 injury or damage."

13 The final paragraph I wanted to show you is 5,

14 "Threat log":

15 "As a result of a large number of threats received,

16 subdivisional commanders should bring into operation

17 a threat log, which will contain brief details of any

18 threat to individuals in their areas passed to them by

19 local Special Branch together with any action taken as

20 a consequence. This log by its very nature will contain

21 restricted information and subdivisional commanders will

22 therefore ensure safeguards are introduced for its

23 security and access by interested parties."

24 Now, can I ask you a number of questions arising out

25 of that paragraph, please?





1 A. Yes.

2 Q. First of all -- and for our benefit -- is the reference

3 to the large number of threats received. Were large

4 numbers of threats brought to your attention, as the

5 Deputy Subdivisional Commander in Lurgan, during the

6 years with which we are concerned, 1997 to 1999?

7 A. I'm not sure what you would call large numbers, but

8 there certainly were -- I just can't specifically

9 recall. A dozen, 20, maybe more.

10 Q. Would that be a week, a month, a year?

11 A. It wouldn't be a week. Probably over -- 20 might be

12 a small number for a year. I just don't recall, but we

13 had a threat log and there were many threats in it.

14 Some of them then dropped off because they were no

15 longer a threat.

16 You had to look at what was current and I'm not --

17 it would be impossible for me to quote numbers really,

18 but there was a log with quite a number of threats in

19 it, some of them current, some of them already past.

20 Q. But the phenomenon of people receiving threats was

21 something that you had to deal with, and your boss no

22 doubt, while you were in Lurgan?

23 A. That's right.

24 Q. In your statement in paragraph 19, you say -- I'll just

25 read it to you so we don't have to lose this paragraph





1 from the screen:

2 "Of course, many people were under threat in Lurgan

3 at that time. I had numerous people in my office, some

4 asking, some pleading with me to advise them as to what

5 they could do in relation to a threat. They would come

6 in, put their cards on the table and ask me what I could

7 do to help them."

8 Then you give an example.

9 But just looking at that general thing, it sounds as

10 though this was something you were very used to having

11 to deal with?

12 A. Oh, yes. I was used to having to deal with it.

13 Q. In the course of your working week, month, year?

14 A. Sometimes it was very prevalent, other times there was

15 a slack period on it.

16 Q. Are you able to help with whether, in the period we are

17 concerned with, 1997, we were in a busy period, if I can

18 put it that way, or a slack period?

19 A. I don't recall, but I do recall on occasions tremendous

20 police effort put into dealing with the threat.

21 Q. In terms of the sort of individuals, presumably some of

22 the threats were made to police officers; is that right?

23 A. That's right.

24 Q. And police reservists?

25 A. That's right.





1 Q. Other members of the security forces resident in your

2 area?

3 A. That's right.

4 Q. But presumably also other members of the public?

5 A. That's right.

6 Q. And threats, did they come from one side or the other or

7 both?

8 A. Both.

9 Q. Again, it may be impossible for you to say, but in

10 Lurgan were there more from one side or the other? Is

11 it possible to say that?

12 A. My recollection is there were plenty from both sides. I

13 couldn't compare them, but I can assure you there were

14 plenty on both sides.

15 Q. You don't recall a significant majority on one side or

16 the other?

17 A. No, I can't say that I do actually, no.

18 Q. As you have mentioned earlier, the business of notifying

19 somebody that they were under threat of attack could be,

20 as you put it in your statement, a shattering

21 experience?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So presumably it was something that required

24 considerable care --

25 A. That's right.





1 Q. -- and thought before you took such an important step?

2 A. That's right.

3 Q. We talked before the break about how threats might come

4 to your attention and we looked at one or two examples

5 and tried to see in those hypothetical cases how you

6 would have dealt with them.

7 Now, so far as you were concerned, is it possible

8 for you to say to us now what the most common way for

9 you to learn about a threat to another person's life

10 was?

11 A. The most common way was a Special Branch officer

12 bringing me the piece of paper.

13 Q. So in accordance with the force order we have looked at,

14 once the matter came to the attention of Special Branch,

15 it would then come down to the subdivision?

16 A. That's right.

17 Q. And to you or, presumably, your superior?

18 A. That's right.

19 Q. Under the force order so that you could take whatever

20 steps were appropriate or necessary?

21 A. That's right.

22 Q. Now, we know in the particular examples that you deal

23 with in your statement, where you tell us about your

24 involvement in threat assessment in relation to

25 Rosemary Nelson in early 1998, that the threat entered





1 the system, as it were, not via Special Branch but via

2 the NIO, via American NGOs, bodies of that kind. Was

3 that a common way of finding out about a threat, in your

4 experience?

5 A. No, it is not. It is the only one I know of.

6 Q. It is unique in your experience?

7 A. In my experience, yes.

8 Q. Yes, thank you.

9 Now, can we look, please, first at some slightly

10 earlier events and those are events in May 1997? I

11 would like to start, please, by showing you a document

12 at RNI-101-03 -- actually, before I could do -- I'm

13 sorry -- I would like to ask you a couple more questions

14 about the paragraphs we have on the page. I'm sorry

15 about that. Because what I didn't ask you about is the

16 threat log itself. That sets out the force order in

17 relation to a threat log:

18 "Brief details of any threat to individuals in their

19 areas passed to them by local Special Branch together

20 with any action."

21 Was there a threat log maintained in Lurgan?

22 A. There was.

23 Q. Who was responsible for maintaining it?

24 A. The criminal intelligence officer.

25 Q. What rank was he?





1 A. At that time it was a constable.

2 Q. So he was not a member of Special Branch?

3 A. No.

4 Q. He was a uniformed officer?

5 A. He was.

6 Q. And can you describe the log to us? What did it look

7 like?

8 A. It is difficult to recall because I have seen one in

9 Portadown and the one in Lurgan. As I recall, it wasn't

10 a specific book made for threats as, for example, the

11 occurrence book is, with ruled out pages. It was a book

12 adapted for that and drawn out by the criminal

13 intelligence officer, ruled out and name and date. And,

14 as I recall it, on some occasions, the threat was

15 written in by hand, but there were a lot of them,

16 perhaps most of them, where the actual typed piece of

17 paper was stuck in with Sellotape on to the book. So it

18 was an exact copy of what Special Branch had reported.

19 Q. So, as it were, the ordinary book was taken and various

20 entries were put into it?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Some were written and some were pasted in, pieces of

23 type?

24 A. That's right.

25 Q. What were the matters that were covered? Presumably the





1 name of the person against whom the threat had been

2 received?

3 A. I can't recall, you know, the headings of it, but

4 I believe it was probably the date it was received or

5 who received it, name of the person, the address and

6 details of the threat.

7 As I recall it, trying to imagine it now, I think it

8 was over a two-page spread with the name and the

9 address, and as I recall it -- I seem to recall that the

10 stuck-on piece of paper was on the right-hand page.

11 Q. And did it also contain details, as it says here in the

12 force order, of any action taken as a consequence?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. So would that have been, for instance, the last column?

15 A. It could well have been. I don't like to say when I'm

16 not absolutely sure. I'm not absolutely sure, but that

17 is probably right.

18 Q. You say it was maintained by the criminal intelligence

19 officer?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Does that mean that he physically kept it?

22 A. Yes, he physically kept it in his office.

23 Q. Once a threat had been entered there and any action

24 taken recorded, would it thereafter be consulted or

25 called for or looked at by other police officers?





1 A. It would, yes.

2 Q. In what circumstances?

3 A. Well, each new shift coming on would be briefed and it

4 would be the duty of the duty inspector or the duty

5 sergeant to speak to the criminal intelligence officer,

6 get from him anything, no matter what it was, in his

7 possession that a patrol going out on duty should know

8 about, and threats against individuals in the area was

9 one of them.

10 Q. So if, as it were, before a new shift came on, a new

11 threat had been received, details had appeared, the book

12 would be checked and the relevant information would be

13 passed on to the new shift?

14 A. It would.

15 Q. Just so we have got a feel for this, clearly there were

16 cases where the threat continued for some period and

17 then was judged to have dissipated or disappeared?

18 A. That's right.

19 Q. Who was responsible for making that sort of decision?

20 A. That would be, again -- it would be reviewed all the

21 time and the final -- it would come from advice from

22 Special Branch.

23 Q. So the criminal intelligence officer, is he the person

24 who would seek that advice?

25 A. Well, it would be -- it could be, it could be. The





1 circumstances would vary immensely because it might be,

2 for example, somebody was threatened and it related to

3 their motor car or being in a certain area at a certain

4 time. That person would change their motor car, move to

5 a different location to work, all sorts of things like

6 that. It might even be that the person would move away

7 to a different area.

8 Threats against an individual who -- say if it was

9 a farmer in a local area, well, he is not going to move.

10 So it could be -- with the like of that, it could

11 continue for years. So every case varied tremendously.

12 Q. In the end, who was responsible for deciding what

13 threats were current, as it were, and which had lapsed?

14 A. Well, it would be -- the ultimate decision on it would

15 come from Special Branch.

16 Q. And how would the Special Branch comment or input be

17 made?

18 A. I'm trying to think of an example of it. What I do

19 recall is that many of them lasted for years and it

20 simply meant that the threat against them sort of went

21 down but was never actually removed.

22 The only ones I can think of being removed are

23 people who moved away from the area. I can think of

24 examples of people using offices in Lurgan who ceased to

25 use them there. The other example of a threat relating





1 to their motor car, they had changed their motor car,

2 they had changed shift. With police officers, changing

3 shift was an easy one, that sort of thing.

4 The numbers -- if you are looking for an example of

5 a threat being removed against somebody who was still

6 living in the area and continuing with their work, I

7 can't think of one like that. Those went on for years.

8 Q. So in cases where there wasn't a move or a shift in

9 working patterns or living patterns, they would remain,

10 as it were, live and on the books?

11 A. Yes, that would be right.

12 Q. Can I ask you, what did that actually mean? Did they

13 continue to be referred to in all of the briefings, for

14 example?

15 A. No, they wouldn't because you couldn't do that. There

16 were so many of them. It would be, you already have the

17 briefing on numbers of people under threat, here is

18 a new one. Something new might come in about somebody

19 and would say, "We remind you again about so and so."

20 Q. But how did police officers check for themselves about

21 the nature of longstanding threats of the kind we have

22 just been discussing?

23 A. That would be at briefings.

24 Q. So it was very much up to the briefer, as it were, to

25 make sure that reminders were given?





1 A. That's right, and the criminal intelligence officer was

2 there as a full-time job. He would be reviewing all

3 those and any more information coming in, he would draw

4 up -- would do a reminder on X or Y or whatever.

5 Q. And finally, to ask you about this: The description of

6 the log here in the paragraph on the page or, rather, on

7 the screen is that it contains:

8 "... restricted information and the subdivisional

9 commanders will therefore ensure safeguards are

10 introduced for its security and access by interested

11 parties."

12 In the case of Lurgan, in the case with which you

13 are familiar, what were they?

14 A. It was kept in the criminal intelligence officer's

15 office and it was under lock and key. There were

16 special arrangements for everything in the criminal

17 intelligence officer's office. If anybody wanted to see

18 it, if any police officer wanted to see it for some

19 particular reason, if he was late coming on duty or

20 whatever, he would have to go to the criminal

21 intelligence officer, he would ask the criminal

22 intelligence officer, "Show it to me", but he couldn't

23 take it away or anything.

24 Q. Imagine that situation. I go to the criminal

25 intelligence officer and I am allowed to see the book





1 and I pick up the book and hold it in my hand. From

2 what you've said, it might contain years' worth of

3 reports of threats; is that right?

4 A. Yes, it could do, yes.

5 Q. All within the same physical book?

6 A. Oh, yes.

7 Q. So I might pick up a book and it might deal, for

8 instance, if I was picking it up in 1999, it might go

9 back as far as the early 1990s?

10 A. I don't know that it would go back that far. I just

11 don't know. You would need to look at, say, the force

12 order and see when the book was brought out. But it

13 was -- we will spread out the writing in it, it was on

14 double pages, so I suspect that those books would have

15 been filled -- one book probably wouldn't last for

16 years.

17 Q. Finally, can I ask you: what happened when you got to

18 the end of a book and what did you do with the old book,

19 which was no longer the current book?

20 A. They would be kept in the criminal intelligence

21 officer's office.

22 Q. In the same place?

23 A. In the same place.

24 Q. Thank you very much.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: We will adjourn now until quarter past ten in





1 the morning. You will be back then, please.

2 Thank you.

3 (4.55 pm)

4 (The Inquiry adjourned until 10.15 am the following day)

























1 I N D E X

MR TREVOR SARGENT (sworn) ....................... 1
Questions by MR SKELTON ...................... 1
Questions by SIR ANTHONY BURDEN .............. 31
Questions by DAME VALERIE STRACHAN ........... 35
MR ROGER MAXWELL (sworn) ......................... 37
Questions by MR PHILLIPS ..................... 37
MR HENRY MCMULLEN (sworn) ........................ 129
Questions by MR PHILLIPS ..................... 129