Transcripts

Return to the list of transcripts

Full Hearings

Hearing: 4th September 2008, day 45

Click here to download the LiveNote version

 

 

 

 

 

 


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

 

 

ROSEMARY NELSON

PUBLIC INQUIRY

 

 

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

 

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


on Thursday, 4th September 2008
commencing at 10.20 am


Day 45

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

1 Thursday, 4 September 2008

2 (10.20 am)

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

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

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

6 the key secured?

7 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

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

9 screen closed?

10 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Are the technical support screens in place

12 and securely fastened?

13 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

14 THE CHAIRMAN: Is anyone other than Inquiry personnel and

15 Participants' legal representatives seated in the body

16 of this chamber?

17 MR CURRANS: No, sir.

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr (redacted), can you confirm, please, that

19 the two witness cameras have been switched off and

20 shrouded?

21 MR (REDACTED): Yes, sir, they have.

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

23 switched off?

24 MR (REDACTED): Yes, sir, they have.

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

 

 

2

 

1 The cameras on the Panel, Inquiry personnel and the

2 Full Participants' legal representatives may now be

3 switched back on.

4 Please would the witness take the oath?

5 P117 (sworn)

6 Questions by MR PHILLIPS

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you please sit down.

8 Yes, Mr Phillips?

9 MR PHILLIPS: Before we start, can I just remind you that

10 you are giving evidence anonymously and that in front of

11 you you have a list of other ciphered names. If at any

12 stage of your evidence you are uncertain as to whether

13 a name in fact should have a cipher, please don't

14 hesitate to raise that point with me.

15 I think it is right that you have made a statement

16 to the Inquiry; is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And I think we can display that for you now at

19 RNI-841-084 (displayed).

20 Is that your witness statement?

21 A. Yes, it is.

22 Q. Do we see at RNI-841-093 (displayed) your signature and

23 the date of 10 July last year?

24 A. That's right, yes.

25 Q. Can I start by asking you about your career? How long

 

 

3

 

1 had you been a serving police officer by 1997?

2 A. I commenced -- I joined the police in 1979.

3 Q. So about 18 years?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. When did you join the CID?

6 A. 1988.

7 Q. Thank you. At the time with which we are concerned this

8 morning, in 1997 and 1998, can you estimate for us how

9 much of your time you spent interviewing at the holding

10 centres?

11 A. It was hard to put a specific time on it, but from when

12 I joined CID in 1988 I was in the holding centres as

13 a divisional detective. When I went to the Regional

14 Crime Squad in 1992, my work would have been both

15 interviewing at the holding centre and out on the ground

16 conducting enquiries in relation to different incidents.

17 Q. Let us focus in on this specific period, 1997/1998.

18 Would you be there interviewing every week or every

19 month? How did it work?

20 A. It was possible you could have been there for maybe

21 a month every day, and possibly then you could have been

22 out on the ground doing enquiries, you know, for another

23 month. So you were in and out, just depending when the

24 prisoners were coming in to the holding centre. There

25 was nothing set, no. It just depended what was

 

 

4

 

1 happening --

2 Q. No set pattern?

3 A. No.

4 Q. You mentioned that you were with the Regional Crime

5 Squad and you tell us in your statement that you joined

6 them in 1993. Now, from that point on how did the work

7 divide between, if I can put it that way, terrorist

8 offences under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and, if I

9 can again put it that way, ordinary crime?

10 A. The Regional Crime Squad, it was mainly terrorist crime

11 we were investigating at that particular time.

12 Q. So most of your time -- is that correct? -- would be on

13 terrorist offences?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. Can I ask you something about the conditions with that

16 in mind, with the question of terrorists in mind, that

17 pertained in and around Lurgan at the time we are

18 concerned with, in other words 1997/1998?

19 You had been a police officer, I think you said, for

20 about 18 years?

21 A. I was at the start of my service in Lurgan around about

22 1979. From that period right through, Lurgan would have

23 been quite an active area from a terrorist point of

24 view, both Loyalist and Republican.

25 Q. Was there any change in the pattern at the time we are

 

 

5

 

1 thinking of, 1997 and 1998?

2 A. The pattern followed right through, I think, the

3 Troubles. Lurgan was quite active.

4 Q. You didn't notice any increase or decrease?

5 A. No, it was quite static, as such. It was more or less

6 quite an active area, as I say, for terrorist incidents.

7 Q. In terms of terrorism, are we talking one side or both,

8 if I can put it that way?

9 A. Both sides, right across the Lurgan/Portadown area.

10 That particular area, it was quite active from both

11 sides.

12 Q. To be clear, so far as Republican terrorism is

13 concerned, can I take it then that from your perception

14 the Provisional IRA were active in that area at that

15 time, in 1997 and 1998?

16 A. Very much so.

17 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you something about memory and

18 recollection?

19 In the course of preparing your statement, it is

20 obvious -- and I say this with feeling -- that you had

21 to look at a large number of documents, records of

22 interviews, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

23 A. That's correct.

24 Q. If you had been asked questions about what happened in

25 these particular complaints in 1997 and 1998 without the

 

 

6

 

1 documents, do you think you would have been able to

2 recall any of the detail?

3 A. I am afraid not, not in any great detail.

4 Q. So can I take it, then, that what you've done is to look

5 at the material that has been provided and in effect to

6 refresh your memory, to reconstruct what happened from

7 the documents?

8 A. That would be a fair assessment, yes.

9 Q. Thank you. Now, moving down in your statement to

10 paragraph 3, you begin to tell us something of the

11 process of interviewing, and we have heard a good deal

12 of evidence already about that so I hope you will

13 forgive me for just picking up a few specific points.

14 Do you see in the last sentence of this page there

15 is a reference to feedback? Do you see that?

16 A. Yes, I do, yes.

17 Q. Can I ask you: during the course of interviewing, how

18 would information be shared amongst the interviewing

19 officers?

20 A. Well, the normal procedure would be at the start of any

21 interviews, when a prisoner would have been arrested,

22 there would have been an initial briefing would take

23 place by, usually, the investigating officer, which was

24 normally the detective inspector, and then, as the

25 interviews would progress, there were set times, usually

 

 

7

 

1 at 2 o'clock, after lunch, and about seven in the

2 evening, for formal briefings or conferences, as they

3 were called. And over and above that, obviously, there

4 was always four detectives usually, sometimes six

5 detectives, on one particular prisoner and before you

6 would go into an interview, if you were going in after

7 somebody else, you would obviously maybe speak to them

8 briefly just to see how it was going, have a look at the

9 notes possibly, and that is more or less how the process

10 worked.

11 Q. Thank you. Can you take a look at this schedule, which

12 you've been provided with and which I hope everybody

13 else has? Because there, what we have tried to do in

14 order to shorten this is to put in table form the

15 interviews that you took part in in the three cases with

16 which we are concerned. So just picking up the answer

17 you have given, if we look at the first case at the top

18 of the first page, which is Anthony Simmons, do you see

19 that?

20 A. I do, yes.

21 Q. We will see in the second column on the left "Interview

22 Number". Those are the relevant interviews of the 16 in

23 all with which you were concerned.

24 Just to help the Panel, looking at those interviews

25 and the times of them over the various days, from 12 to

 

 

8

 

1 14 February, where would these briefings, this sharing

2 of information fit into that pattern?

3 A. As I've already said, the set pattern normally would

4 have been 9 am in the morning before the interviews

5 would have commenced.

6 Q. So before the first one on that table, for example?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 A. Then usually at 2 o'clock again just after lunch.

10 Q. So before the second one on the table?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Yes?

13 A. Yes. And then 7 o'clock was another set time.

14 Q. So in fact it looks as though, if you had complied with

15 that set time, then there would have been one before

16 each of those first three interviews; is that right?

17 A. That would be fair.

18 Q. That was the general pattern through the day?

19 A. That was the normal pattern, yes.

20 Q. And was there any other way of sharing information

21 between the interviewing teams other than what you have

22 just described?

23 A. Well, on some occasions there would have been cases --

24 I'm not talking about this, I'm talking about

25 generally -- where maybe the interviewing team -- there

 

 

9

 

1 might have been four or five prisoners at that

2 particular time, but the interviewing team on one

3 particular prisoner may have had a separate meeting or

4 briefing or conference with maybe an SIO or a more

5 senior officer. That may have taken place as well.

6 Q. So that might happen in individual cases, but the

7 general pattern --

8 A. The general pattern is what I have just discussed.

9 Q. Thank you. Now, picking up the comments you were making

10 earlier about your experience, as at February 1997, when

11 the first of these incidents is said to have taken

12 place, how much experience had you had of interviewing

13 suspects for terrorist offences?

14 A. Well, probably, all through my CID experience, from

15 about 1998, I would have been involved in interviewing

16 terrorists at the holding centres.

17 Q. So about nine years?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you about your interview partner?

20 If you look at this table -- and it goes over on to the

21 second page -- you will see that certainly in this trio

22 of cases you appear always to have had the same

23 interviewing partner?

24 A. Yes, that was the case. We normally interviewed

25 together from -- we went to the Regional Crime Squad,

 

 

10

 

1 the same part.

2 Q. So you had been interviewing with that officer, P149,

3 for a number of years before these events?

4 A. Yes, that's right.

5 Q. Thank you. Was he the same rank or more senior than

6 you?

7 A. The same rank with a bit more CID service.

8 Q. Okay. And as between the two of you, would any one of

9 you usually take the lead in an interview?

10 A. No, there was nothing set really, not really.

11 Q. So far as the approach that you developed as a pair, if

12 I can put it that way, did you adopt the same style or

13 approach to the interviews or did you have contrasting

14 styles?

15 A. We interviewed -- it depended on the prisoner obviously,

16 how the interview would have been going, but the normal

17 process for the interviews would have been one taking

18 notes and one doing a lot of the questioning, but that

19 didn't prevent the other person who was taking the notes

20 from asking questions as well.

21 Q. Yes. We can see that the role of note-taker shifts from

22 one to the other through the process?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. What of the position where, as happened in a number of

25 these cases, the suspect remained silent? Did your

 

 

11

 

1 approach change in such cases?

2 A. Well, there was a case -- in a lot of these interviews

3 the suspects never spoke for the whole time they were

4 there, so it was really a matter of -- you would have

5 probably used a tactic of trying to engage him in

6 general conversation and sometimes the suspects would

7 have responded and talked about anything other than the

8 subject in hand. So that is how it worked.

9 Q. Can we look at the relevant part of your statement on

10 that? It is paragraph 5 at RNI-841-085 (displayed). Do

11 you see that on the screen?

12 A. Yes, I do.

13 Q. Thank you. Now, the second sentence contains the

14 statement:

15 "We would make a verbatim note of specific questions

16 and answers."

17 Do you see then two sentences down, this sentence:

18 "We would attempt to engage the detainee in general

19 conversation."

20 And later you explain -- and please correct me if

21 this is wrong -- that when you were dealing with general

22 conversation, you did not always record every word that

23 was said?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. But as I understand it from this part of your statement,

 

 

12

 

1 what you are saying is if you were asking specific

2 questions about the alleged offence, you would make

3 a verbatim note or your colleague would?

4 A. It is fair to say as well initially, if you are

5 interviewing in relation to specific offences, you would

6 go down a line of asking specific questions and answers,

7 or questions and no responses to cover the elements of

8 the crime. And as the interviews would progress, rather

9 than being repetitive, you would just make general notes

10 to say that you questioned him in relation to previous

11 interviews without asking -- putting down the actual

12 questions and answers.

13 Q. Can we just look at one example of that in practice to

14 see how the system worked? It is an interview at

15 RNI-207-334 (displayed).

16 This is an interview of Anthony Simmons, and just to

17 give you the context before I start asking detailed

18 questions, the date you see, 12 February -- I think he

19 was in fact arrested the previous day, but we will come

20 back to that -- and the two ciphered names, you and your

21 colleague.

22 What I would like to ask you about is the passage we

23 see further in the notes at RNI-207-341. Can we turn to

24 that, please (displayed)?

25 Just while we have this page on the screen, can

 

 

13

 

1 I ask you: is this your handwriting or your colleague's?

2 A. It is mine.

3 Q. Thank you. Do you see halfway down, I think it says in

4 your handwriting:

5 "We attempted to engage him in general conversation.

6 He failed to respond"?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. So that is the point you have made for us in your

9 statement?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Thank you. Then this:

12 "Continued to question him about the hide. He

13 refused to answer any of our questions."

14 Now, at that point what are you noting there in

15 terms of the way the interview continued?

16 A. More or less more questions would have been put to him

17 at that stage.

18 Q. About the offence?

19 A. In relation to the offence, yes, in relation to the

20 particular -- in this case was it a hide was found and

21 he failed to answer any of the questions that were put

22 to him.

23 Q. So those answers, indeed the questions which preceded

24 them, were not written down verbatim?

25 A. No.

 

 

14

 

1 Q. No. So looking back to your statement, paragraph 5 at

2 RNI-841-085 (displayed), it looks as though the pattern

3 we have just seen consists of specific questions and

4 answers at the start written down, an attempt at general

5 conversation, but then more specific questions and

6 answers, not written down but summarised?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. How would you, as the scribe, which you were in this

9 case, decide when the moment had come to stop writing,

10 as you put it, a verbatim note of specific questions and

11 answers?

12 A. It would have been whenever you would have decided that

13 the relevant questions had been committed to paper for

14 probably the purposes of a future trial, that you did

15 actually ask those specific questions and give -- you

16 had given the suspect an opportunity to answer the

17 relevant questions to the offences.

18 Q. So was that a decision made in each case by the

19 note-taker?

20 A. Yes, it would be.

21 Q. Yes. Thank you.

22 Can I now ask you to look at a later interview in

23 this same series of Anthony Simmons interviews to see

24 where this fits into the pattern? It is at RNI-208-086

25 (displayed). Again, is that your handwriting?

 

 

15

 

1 A. It is, yes.

2 Q. This is now 13 February, the same interviewing pair.

3 Could you look, please, at the time in the fourth line?

4 It says it began at 10.08 and ended at 11.15.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. If we turn over these pages -- and you may find it easer

7 to do it in any hard copy you have -- if you go to

8 RNI-208-087 (displayed) first, having dealt with his

9 request for a solicitor and your authorisation to carry

10 on interviewing, you recite, do you see in the fifth

11 line, a request for a cigarette. Would you prefer to

12 look at it --

13 A. No, it is okay. I'll watch the screen here. He

14 requests a cigarette, yes.

15 Q. Then you see it says in the seventh line:

16 "We continued to question him about the hide found

17 in the garden of ..."

18 Then there is a redacted address:

19 "... and his involvement with PIRA in the Lurgan

20 area. He refused to answer any of our questions."

21 Then a reference to an attempt to engage him in

22 general conversation:

23 "He answered a number of the questions but generally

24 remained silent."

25 Then:

 

 

16

 

1 "We continued to question him in relation to the

2 present enquiry. He refused to answer any more

3 questions."

4 Then you move into the final part of the interview,

5 which is the showing of the notes -- do you see? -- and

6 he declined the offer?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. In fact, the note ends at RNI-208-088. Can we look at

9 that, please (displayed)? So the total written down for

10 this period of just over an hour consists of just over

11 two pages?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Would you accept that this is not an example of the

14 pattern you have set out in your statement for us

15 because in fact there is really no verbatim question and

16 answer recorded in these notes?

17 A. Yes, well, he didn't answer any questions in that

18 particular interview. So it was just kept -- the notes

19 on that particular interview were just kept general.

20 There were no specific questions put down on them.

21 Q. Does that mean that you wrote the notes down after the

22 whole of the interview had ended?

23 A. No, you would have been writing your notes down as you

24 went along, showing the different stages of the

25 interview that you tried to engage him with the subject

 

 

17

 

1 in hand, you tried to engage him with general

2 conversation and return him to the subject in hand. It

3 was just more or less to give a general outline of how

4 the interview progressed.

5 Q. Can I ask: do you have any specific recollection of this

6 interview on 13 February 1997?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Right. So given what we have been through together and

9 the other ways in which you describe in your

10 statement -- and we have seen the other interview -- of

11 writing and recording how the interview progressed, can

12 you think now why it is that this interview of an hour

13 was summarised in this way, in just two pages?

14 A. Well, that's the way I decided to write the notes in

15 that particular interview, and it was acceptable by my

16 line managers, my detective inspector.

17 Q. Who signs at the end?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. So we are clear about that, at RNI-208-088 (displayed)?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Thank you. I should say, by the way -- and I should

22 have said before -- that it may well be, if you look

23 back to RNI-208-086 (displayed), that this interview in

24 fact took place on 14 February because that appears to

25 be the date on the stamp; in other words, that the date

 

 

18

 

1 is wrongly written down as the 13th.

2 If you look back in fact at RNI-208-084 (displayed),

3 you can see -- this is the standard front sheet for the

4 notes issued to you at the beginning -- the date stamp

5 there is in fact the 14th. So I think that may just

6 have been an error by the scribe?

7 A. It would have been.

8 Q. So, so far as anything that the suspect said in this

9 interview, if you look at RNI-208-087 (displayed) again,

10 you say there, a few lines from the bottom:

11 "He answered a number of the questions ..."

12 This is during the general conversation, as you

13 describe it, and those answers are not recorded. And

14 can you just clarify for me why that would not be?

15 A. Well, any answers to those type of questions weren't

16 relevant to an investigation, probably. So there

17 wasn't -- I didn't feel it was relevant --

18 Q. What sort of topics would they cover then, those

19 questions?

20 A. I can't remember in this particular instance, but it

21 would have been general things like sport and the Lurgan

22 area, wherever they come from, things like that, family.

23 Q. Presumably the hope was that you would get the suspect

24 talking about those matters and then he would be more

25 forthcoming when the real interview began again?

 

 

19

 

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Thank you. Now, so far as this way of recording an

3 interview is concerned, the way we have still on the

4 screen at RNI-208-087 (displayed), was that a regular

5 practice of yours: to summarise the questions and

6 answers in this relatively short way?

7 A. It would have been in a case like this when the

8 interviewee was making no replies, and as I have already

9 said, there would have been stages during the interview

10 of the suspect where you would have committed to paper

11 specific questions, as I say, to cover whatever offence

12 we were investigating.

13 Q. We know that this was -- you can check this on your

14 sheet -- I think the fourteenth of 16 interviews.

15 Now, was there, for example, a stage in the long

16 interview, a long succession of interviews with no

17 response from the suspect, where this sort of approach

18 was sanctioned by your superior officer?

19 A. Well, I think it was an acceptable practice that, you

20 know, that we would try to engage somebody in general

21 conversation if they aren't speaking to you at all.

22 Q. Yes, I didn't mean that so much as the way the interview

23 was recorded; in other words, without actually writing

24 down the questions and recording that no reply had been

25 given to the answer?

 

 

20

 

1 A. Yes, that was acceptable and other detectives also used

2 this method for recording notes as well.

3 Q. Right. You see, the next interview that you conducted

4 with this suspect that day, at 20 past or 19 minutes

5 past two, we can see at RNI-208-102 (displayed). This

6 has got the right day, the 14th, the same pair of

7 interviewers. This is a shorter interview, if you look

8 at the time, but if you turn over to RNI-208-103

9 (displayed), there you have the specific questions and

10 the recording of no reply?

11 A. That's right.

12 Q. So it looks as though you have reverted during the same

13 day to the verbatim approach that you set out for us in

14 your statement in the slightly later, and it turned out

15 in fact to be the last, interview of this suspect,

16 Anthony Simmons.

17 Again, can you assist us, not with any specific

18 recollection, I appreciate, but based on your

19 experience, why you might have recorded or your

20 colleague might have recorded this interview in

21 a different way?

22 A. That was my colleague, I think, who -- it is his

23 writing. So it was his decision.

24 As I say, it was really down to the particular

25 person making the notes what style they would have

 

 

21

 

1 written the notes in; should it be a summary or specific

2 questions. But probably, as you point out, this was the

3 last interview and there were specific questions put to

4 this particular suspect.

5 Q. Yes.

6 A. And I think it was in relation to the caution, do you

7 understand the caution, that you give us your -- I can't

8 make his writing out. Yes, there were just specific

9 questions in relation to caution, if he wanted to tell

10 us anything else and if he had any questions. More or

11 less that would have been standard, wrapping up the

12 interview at the very end up.

13 Q. It looks like something of a round-up interview?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Can I ask you to turn over to RNI-208-104 (displayed),

16 where we see something that occurs in a number of the

17 notes of interviews, which is where the question of the

18 notes themselves is raised. Do you see at the top of

19 the page he says:

20 "The notes were read over to him and he declined the

21 offer to read them himself or sign them."

22 Now, can I ask you this question: based on your

23 experience, was that a regular occurrence in this type

24 of interview, that the suspect would choose not to look

25 at the notes or sign them?

 

 

22

 

1 A. Yes, there were some suspects who totally ignored the

2 whole interview process and obviously didn't take part

3 in it, where other suspects would have taken the notes

4 and read them and refused to sign them and, on other

5 occasions, would have read them and signed them. So it

6 was down to the particular suspect.

7 Q. Yes, if there was a point raised by a suspect about

8 something in the notes, something he didn't like, took

9 objection to, what would happen then?

10 A. It happened on various rare occasions, but no doubt we

11 will cover one occasion during this interview.

12 Normally, they never had an issue with the notes. That

13 was general.

14 Q. But in general what was the system? What was the

15 procedure if an objection was made to part of the notes?

16 A. Well, the procedure would have been that you would have

17 addressed whatever the concern was. But, as I say, it

18 never -- it was very, very seldom it ever would have

19 happened.

20 Q. Did it ever happen in your experience other than the

21 specific case we will come on to in a minute?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Now, can I ask you something about the question of the

24 involvement of lawyers in these sorts of cases? As an

25 interviewing officer in a terrorist case, would you have

 

 

23

 

1 any contact with the suspect's lawyer?

2 A. No, generally no.

3 Q. Did you in general know, as an interviewing officer, who

4 was representing each suspect?

5 A. Normally we would have because, as I say, at the initial

6 conferences it may have been discussed that interviews

7 were -- that the suspects were not ready for interview

8 because they were consulting with their solicitor and

9 the solicitor may have been named or not named. But

10 normally you would have known who was representing the

11 suspect.

12 Q. We see a number of references in these notes to requests

13 for a legal meeting or a legal visit and you deal with

14 this topic in general in paragraph 9 of your statement.

15 If you could see have a look at that, please, at

16 RNI-841-086 (displayed).

17 Now, you pick up the point in the specific context

18 of one of the Anthony Simmons interviews, but the

19 question I would like to ask you about concerns your

20 comments about the tactic. Do you see those, about four

21 lines from the end of the paragraph?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Can you just explain to us how, in your view, this

24 tactic was deployed?

25 A. It was the belief that this would have been a disruptive

 

 

24

 

1 tactic by people who were in custody. For example,

2 a suspect may have had a consultation with

3 their solicitor immediately prior to you interviewing

4 them and they would have been making further requests to

5 see their solicitor after having already consulted just

6 a short time ago, maybe even before questions would have

7 been asked. And my view, and everybody else's view

8 probably, at that time was that this was just

9 a disruptive tactic that suspects used to avoid being

10 interviewed because sometimes the interviews had to be

11 suspended again and go through the process which, as we

12 have already mentioned there, where you would have got

13 authority from a chief superintendent to continue

14 interviewing pending the consultation with the

15 solicitor.

16 Q. So we have understood this, once the request was made,

17 you had to get authority to continue?

18 A. Yes, that would have been the case.

19 Q. And in your experience, again, in most cases was the

20 authority forthcoming?

21 A. It would have been -- not just generally because

22 obviously there would have been occasions -- I'm not

23 speaking about this, I'm speaking generally -- where

24 a solicitor was en route to the holding centre and,

25 therefore, there was no point in starting an interview

 

 

25

 

1 then if the solicitor was on the way and you were going

2 to have to suspend the interview in a short space of

3 time. So authority wouldn't just have been handed out

4 as a matter of form as such.

5 Q. But in terms of the way you describe it as a disruption

6 tactic, if a request of that kind was made during an

7 interview, so we have all understood it, what would then

8 happen?

9 A. The process would normally have been then you would have

10 to suspend the interview and make the police office

11 staff aware of what had taken place and, if necessary,

12 the process may have been to contact the solicitor or

13 else seek authority to continue to interview.

14 There may have been the occasion when you already

15 had the authority, the request would have been made for

16 a solicitor and it was pointed out to the suspect that

17 authority had been given by a police officer for you to

18 continue with the interview and then a consultation --

19 they would be getting a further consultation when their

20 solicitor would arrive, or whatever the case was.

21 Q. Presumably as an interviewer this sort of request was an

22 irritation?

23 A. Well, I wouldn't say it was an irritation, it was just

24 part of what we had to deal with as detectives. It was

25 just part of the job.

 

 

26

 

1 Q. But the view you expressed there, that it was a tactic

2 used to disrupt, that was a view, was it, that you held

3 at the time we are talking about, 1997/1998?

4 A. Yes, both from Loyalist and Republican, I may add. It

5 just appeared to be a tactic that these people used.

6 Q. And it was a general view?

7 A. It certainly was my view and I'm sure other people

8 shared the same view.

9 Q. But as far as you were aware, it was a generally shared

10 view, was it?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Now, so far as the origin of the tactic was concerned,

13 was it generally believed that this was a tactic

14 deployed by the suspect or one advised and deployed by

15 the solicitor him or herself?

16 A. Well, I wouldn't -- I'm not in a position to answer that

17 really. It may have been either or both.

18 Q. Do you have a view on it?

19 A. I don't know, so I can't really comment.

20 Q. So far as Rosemary Nelson herself is concerned -- and,

21 again, I appreciate it is difficult now many years

22 ago -- what did you know about her, do you think, in,

23 let's say, 1997, when this interview in February of that

24 year of Anthony Simmons took place?

25 A. In what context?

 

 

27

 

1 Q. Had you come across her before in the course of your

2 work?

3 A. I had never had any personal dealings with

4 Rosemary Nelson, but I was aware obviously that she was

5 representing Republicans from the Lurgan area. And

6 there was no big deal about that because different

7 solicitors represented different people from different

8 areas and, as I say, either Loyalist or Republican. The

9 same solicitors seemed to be used by these people.

10 Q. So you hadn't met her yourself?

11 A. No.

12 Q. But what you had heard about her was that she was

13 representing Republicans in that area, in the Lurgan

14 area?

15 A. Yes, I was aware of that from the line of my work.

16 Q. Again, so far as you knew, that was a generally held

17 view of her, was it?

18 A. Sorry?

19 Q. From discussions with your colleagues, if her name came

20 up, was that a generally held belief, that she

21 represented Republicans in the Lurgan area?

22 A. It wasn't from discussions with anybody really. I was

23 just aware of that from conducting interviews at Gough

24 that Rosemary Nelson represented mainly the Republican

25 people from Lurgan.

 

 

28

 

1 Q. So you had interviewed clients of hers before, had you?

2 A. Yes, in this series of interviews here, yes.

3 Q. But before this, before February 1997?

4 A. I can't recall exactly who, but I interviewed a right

5 few suspects from the Lurgan area, from the Republican

6 side.

7 Q. Now, at that stage, did she, as far as you were aware,

8 have a reputation as a lawyer who was prone to make

9 complaints about the conduct of the police?

10 A. I don't know if it is fair to say that she had

11 a reputation.

12 Q. What was the reputation?

13 A. I don't think it is fair to say she had a reputation. I

14 didn't think she had a reputation for making complaints

15 against the police.

16 Q. So far as that's concerned, in your experience did it

17 happen often that a solicitor made a complaint on behalf

18 of a client?

19 A. I think it happened, yes, in the past.

20 Q. We know there is one in this -- so far as the Inquiry is

21 concerned, in particular in relation to Colin Duffy,

22 which we will come on to in a minute. Have you ever

23 been personally involved in such a complaint before?

24 A. Yes, there was complaints made against me in the past,

25 yes.

 

 

29

 

1 Q. Did they take this form; in other words, where the

2 solicitor him or herself would become the complainant?

3 A. No, generally it would have been the suspects making the

4 complaint, yes.

5 Q. Can you think of another case in which the solicitor him

6 or herself made the complaint, i.e. was the complainant?

7 A. There may have been cases, but I can't personally think

8 of any, no.

9 Q. So no example that you were involved in and none that

10 you knew about at the time?

11 A. No, any complaints made against me previously would have

12 been by the suspects themselves probably, yes.

13 Q. And did you, either through your being involved in

14 a complaint or hearing about one to do with your

15 colleagues, ever come across a case where the complaint

16 was that derogatory remarks were made about the lawyer,

17 the suspect's lawyer, in the course of the interview?

18 A. There may have been occasions in the past. I'm not

19 going to mention the specific case, but I think there

20 was maybe one occasion in the past where a solicitor

21 made that type of complaint, okay.

22 Q. In terms of your experience, your knowledge of these

23 matters, you have said there may one specific example.

24 Was it a common phenomenon or an uncommon one?

25 A. It wasn't common.

 

 

30

 

1 Q. No. Now, in your statement, at paragraph 35 -- and this

2 is in fact at RNI-841-093 (displayed), the very top of

3 the page, the last part of your statement -- you refer

4 a rumour. You say:

5 "There was a rumour that Rosemary Nelson had

6 a personal relationship with Colin Duffy."

7 I'm going to ask you some questions about that. Do

8 you recall when this rumour was circulating?

9 A. It was obviously around that time.

10 Q. Are you able to say now when you think you first

11 heard it?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Can I ask you another question about timing by reference

14 to the Colin Duffy complaint?

15 Do you think you heard the rumour before or after

16 his arrest for the murder of the two police officers in

17 Lurgan in June 1997?

18 A. I couldn't be certain.

19 Q. But doing the best you can for us, do you think it was

20 before or after?

21 A. I would say probably after.

22 Q. Yes. Can you recall anything of the context or the

23 circumstances in which you heard the rumour?

24 A. No, not really, it was just in general conversation

25 probably.

 

 

31

 

1 Q. Amongst your colleagues?

2 A. Yes, it was within police circles.

3 Q. Yes. Can you remember now specifically from whom you

4 heard it?

5 A. No. As I have already said, I didn't pay much attention

6 to it. It didn't matter to me.

7 Q. Coming to the point of all of this, what was the general

8 rumour amongst your colleagues about the nature of the

9 relationship between them?

10 A. Just more or less as it says there, they had a personal

11 relationship. No more detail. That was it. It's as

12 general as that there.

13 Q. Something more than just a solicitor/client

14 relationship?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Was that question, that issue, ever mentioned at

17 a briefing before or during interviews?

18 A. No.

19 Q. In relation to Rosemary Nelson herself, was her name

20 mentioned, so far as you can recall, at any such

21 briefing?

22 A. Other than as I already stated, her name may have been

23 mentioned to say that she was the solicitor representing

24 the client, but other than that, no other discussions

25 would have taken place in relation to the solicitor at

 

 

32

 

1 any of the conferences we would have had.

2 Q. Was it ever mentioned at a briefing you attended that

3 she represented Republicans in and around Lurgan?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Was it ever suggested at such a briefing that she was

6 unduly sympathetic to or supportive of Republican

7 paramilitaries?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Are you sure of that?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. When you heard your colleagues discussing this, or the

12 rumour came to your attention, what was their view?

13 What did they believe or what did they think about the

14 alleged relationship?

15 A. Well, what I have referred to here would have been

16 something as in a passing comment. It wouldn't have

17 been anything that was discussed in any great detail.

18 It may have been something that was mentioned in passing

19 basically.

20 Q. As far as you could tell, did they believe it to be

21 true?

22 A. A rumour is a rumour so ...

23 Q. Did you believe it to be true?

24 A. I didn't pay any attention to it. It didn't really

25 matter to me.

 

 

33

 

1 Q. Did it affect your view of her?

2 A. No, not at all.

3 Q. Do you think it affected your colleagues' views of her?

4 A. I can't really speak for my colleagues.

5 Q. Had you ever heard such a rumour about another solicitor

6 and client?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Was there, as far as you were aware, any resentment at

9 the role Rosemary Nelson had played in securing

10 Colin Duffy's release on appeal in relation to the

11 Lyness murder?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Now, did your view of her change in any way when she

14 came to represent Colin Duffy in relation to the Lurgan

15 policemen murders in June 1997?

16 A. No.

17 Q. What of your colleagues?

18 A. As I say, I can't speak for my colleagues, I can only

19 speak for myself.

20 Q. Can I ask you the same question, please: did your view

21 change in any way at the time later that year, in

22 October, when the Director of Public Prosecutions

23 directed that there should be no further prosecution in

24 that case?

25 A. No.

 

 

34

 

1 Q. Now, those murders clearly had a very substantial

2 impact -- they must have done -- on you and your

3 colleagues; is that right?

4 A. Not specifically because unfortunately I attended many

5 inquiries of this type, where colleagues were murdered

6 and members of the public, of course.

7 Q. But the time we are talking about, in June 1997, the

8 incidence of violence, we know, was not perhaps quite as

9 great as it had been in previous years. Did not that

10 make a particular impact, when those murders took place,

11 in Lurgan?

12 A. Of course. Murder is murder and you don't like to see

13 anybody being murdered, of course. So you are losing

14 a colleague, or colleagues in this case. But you were

15 professional and you had to carry on with your

16 investigations.

17 Q. There was a very considerable public reaction by way of

18 condemnation of the murders, wasn't there?

19 A. That was always the case with most murders in

20 Northern Ireland. They were always condemned.

21 Q. Were these murders not condemned on all sides?

22 A. They were, yes.

23 Q. Now, I would like you to look, please, at a passage of

24 an interview that you conducted with Colin Duffy at this

25 time. It is at RNI-212. The interview begins at

 

 

35

 

1 RNI-212-140 (displayed). Again, just to put it in

2 context for you, there is his name at the top and the

3 date, 24 June, the time of the interview and you and

4 your familiar colleague.

5 I would like to show you, please, a passage later in

6 the interview at RNI-212-146 (displayed). This is in

7 your handwriting --

8 A. It is, yes.

9 Q. Thank you. Do you see the question at the bottom of the

10 page, please?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. "The people of Lurgan, both Catholics and Protestant,

13 are disgusted by these murders; do you understand that?"

14 Over the page:

15 "No reply."

16 Were you there giving in the interview a fair

17 summary, as you saw it, of the reaction locally to the

18 murders?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Sir, would that be a convenient moment?

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. Thank you. Please escort the

22 witness out.

23 MR CURRANS: Can we check first in the cameras have been

24 switched off?

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes. Before the witness leaves, would

 

 

36

 

1 you please confirm that all the cameras have been

2 switched off? Thank you, Mr Currans.

3 MR (REDACTED): Yes, sir, they have.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Escort the witness out, please.

5 We will adjourn for a quarter of an hour.

6 (11.15 am)

7 (Short break)

8 (11.30 am)

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

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

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

12 the key secured?

13 MR CURRANS: Yes.

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

15 screen closed?

16 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Are the technical support screens in place

18 and securely fastened?

19 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Is anyone other than Inquiry personnel and

21 Full Participants' legal representatives seated in the

22 body of the chamber?

23 MR CURRANS: No, sir.

24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr (redacted), can you confirm, please, that

25 the two witness cameras have been switched off and

 

 

37

 

1 shrouded?

2 MR (REDACTED): Yes, sir, they have.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: All the other cameras been switched off?

4 MR (REDACTED): Yes, sir, they have.

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

6 Please, sit down.

7 The cameras on the Panel, Inquiry personnel and Full

8 Participants' legal representatives may now be switched

9 back on.

10 Yes, Mr Phillips?

11 MR PHILLIPS: Can we now look at the first of the three

12 complaints I want to ask you about this morning? That

13 is Anthony Simmons.

14 We have already looked at some of the material.

15 Just to set the context for you, he was arrested, I

16 think, on 11 February on suspicion of building a hide

17 for weapons in, I think, his girlfriend's garden. And

18 we have looked together at your involvement in the

19 interviews in the schedule and I'm not going to go over

20 that again.

21 Can I ask you to look, please, at your paragraph 6

22 where you start to talk about this case? That is at

23 RNI-841-085 (displayed). Do you see you say in the

24 fourth sentence, I think it is:

25 "I think he was new on the scene at the time so

 

 

38

 

1 I may have heard his name before interviewing him."

2 Can you remember in what context you may have heard

3 his name?

4 A. It may have been through our intelligence systems which

5 we had access to, or some type of intelligence

6 briefings, but I can't really remember now.

7 Q. No specific recollection?

8 A. No.

9 Q. And, again, it may be that you can't now remember, but

10 in general, through these interviews that you conducted,

11 eight in all, half of the total number, what was his

12 demeanour? How did he behave?

13 A. I can't remember now at all.

14 Q. Now, we touched on this topic a little earlier but one

15 can see from the notes that he said very little during

16 the course of any of the interviews that you conducted.

17 Was this a tactic or an approach to interviews with

18 which you were familiar by that stage?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And how would you yourself characterise that approach to

21 interviews?

22 A. Well, it was a stance normally taken by people who were

23 involved in terrorism.

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. They didn't take part in the interview process and on

 

 

39

 

1 occasions will have ignored the interviewer, sat with

2 their backs to us, or whatever.

3 Q. Was that the way you characterised that sort of conduct

4 at the time?

5 A. That's the way it would have been, yes.

6 Q. Can we look at that in action, please? If you look at

7 one of your interviews. It is the first interview, in

8 fact, that you conducted with him. We have looked at

9 it, I think, briefly before. It begins at RNI-207-334

10 (displayed) and there you see the date, 12 February, the

11 two familiar ciphers and the start time, 09.56.

12 Can I ask you to look, please, at a passage later in

13 the interview? That is at RNI-RNI-207-340 (displayed).

14 Without turning through the previous pages, all of the

15 questions had been met with "no reply". Do you see the

16 question at the top of the page in your handwriting:

17 "Your actions in this interview room, refusing to

18 answer our questions and generally -- ignoring, I think

19 that is. Is that right?

20 A. Yes, "ignoring us".

21 Q. "... would suggest you are a terrorist. Is this the

22 case?"

23 Just so we are clear about this, that was you

24 expressing the opinion you've just mentioned to the

25 suspect during the interview, was it?

 

 

40

 

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And that was something with which you were familiar in

3 other interviews which you conducted?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Thank you. Were you aware, at any point during the days

6 of Mr Simmons' detention, that he intended to or had

7 made a complaint against you?

8 A. I may have been aware at the time, but I can't remember

9 now.

10 Q. There is certainly no record of it in all the many,

11 many, many pages of contemporaneous material. Do you

12 have any recollection one way or the other now?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Can you remember him saying anything to you during the

15 course of interviews by way of complaint about the

16 behaviour of other interviewing officers?

17 A. From recollection, I don't believe he spoke.

18 Q. Now, can we look, please, together at the details of the

19 complaint as it emerged? And the best way to do that, I

20 think, is to look at the statement that he gave to the

21 Mulvihill team, and that is at RNI-224-053 (displayed).

22 Here, you see his statement. I think this is

23 a document you have seen in the course of the interview

24 process for the Inquiry, isn't it?

25 A. I think so, yes.

 

 

41

 

1 Q. Yes. Now, I should make clear at this point that

2 Mr Simmons has not provided a statement to this Inquiry.

3 It is important that that's recorded on the transcript

4 and that you are aware of it before we begin.

5 What I would like you to do, please, is to look at

6 the second page, and the meat of the complaint begins in

7 the fifth line with the sentence beginning:

8 "At some time on the second day ..."

9 Do you see that?

10 A. I do, yes.

11 Q. And what is then set out is a series of derogatory

12 comments made by a pair of interviewing officers on that

13 day and then repeated on the third day of the detention.

14 Now, if we look at this suspect's custody record

15 together -- and we can see that beginning at RNI-204-230

16 (displayed) -- it looks from the custody record and from

17 the interview notes that we have seen that there were

18 two pairs of interviewing officers in this case. Is

19 that something that you can now recall?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Thank you. Now, one pair was the pair with which we are

22 now familiar, you and P149, and the other pair of

23 interviewers, also ciphered, P164 and P154. Again, does

24 that accord with your recollection?

25 A. I don't see 154 on the cipher list.

 

 

42

 

1 THE CHAIRMAN: Not on our list.

2 MR PHILLIPS: Sir, I think we have come across rather an

3 important technical problem. It looks as though there

4 has been an error. It may be that this is a cipher

5 which should have been on the list but isn't, or it is

6 one that --

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you like a five-minute --

8 MR PHILLIPS: The difficulty is in these conditions is that

9 Mr Currans can't simply leave the chamber in a hurry and

10 go and check the position. I think in fairness, because

11 we are going to come on to questions of specific

12 identity -- if fairness to the witness -- I'm very sorry

13 about this -- we should clear this up. I'm sorry about

14 that disruption.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Not at all.

16 Mr (redacted), before the witness leaves, would you,

17 please, confirm that all the cameras have been

18 switched off?

19 MR (REDACTED): Yes, sir, they have.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Please escort the witness out.

21 (11.45 am)

22 (Short adjournment)

23 (11.50 am)

24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Currans, may I go through the checklist

25 with you, before the witness comes in?

 

 

43

 

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

2 the key secured?

3 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

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

5 screen closed?

6 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Are the technical support screens in place

8 and securely fastened?

9 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Is anyone other than Inquiry personnel and

11 Full Participants' legal representatives seated in the

12 body of this chamber?

13 MR CURRANS: No, sir.

14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr (redacted), can you confirm that the two

15 witness cameras have been switched off and shrouded?

16 MR (REDACTED): Yes, sir, they have.

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

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

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

20 Yes, Mr Phillips?

21 MR CURRANS: Sir, we haven't said that the remaining cameras

22 can be switched back on.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Quite right, Mr Currans, thank you.

24 The cameras on the Panel, the Inquiry personnel and

25 Full Participants' legal represents may now be switched

 

 

44

 

1 back on. Thank you.

2 MR PHILLIPS: Could we have on the screen, please,

3 RNI-204-230 (displayed).

4 Now, to try and clarify what caused the disruption

5 earlier, can I ask you to look, please, at the notes

6 made of the interviews on this sheet from the custody

7 record? Do you see the first interview on the 12th at

8 09.55 is you and your interviewing partner? Then

9 further down the confusion occurred on the next

10 interview, 11.33, the entry there. The first

11 interviewing officer in that pair is P164 and the second

12 is Detective Constable Campbell?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Thank you. And so, just to get us back on track, do you

15 remember this, as it were, pair of pairs dealing with

16 this particular case?

17 A. Not at this point in time.

18 Q. In the statement that we were looking at a little

19 earlier, the statement made by Mr Simmons, there are

20 various descriptions and I would like to draw your

21 attention to them and see whether you can assist us as

22 to whether, at the time we are talking about --

23 obviously quite a long time ago now -- you think any of

24 the four of you match the descriptions.

25 So can we have on the screen, please, RNI-224-053

 

 

45

 

1 (displayed)?

2 Now, the descriptions relate to two pairs of

3 interviewing officers and you will see the description

4 of the first pair begins about seven lines from the

5 bottom of the page. Yes, thank you very much.

6 So the first description:

7 "Stocky, overweight, age late 40s with short black

8 hair with a side parting. He was wearing a tweed check

9 suit and was smart."

10 Does that, as far as you can recall, describe any of

11 the four of you at that point in 1997?

12 A. I don't think so, no.

13 Q. Now, the second of that first pair:

14 "6 foot 1, tall, late 40s, fair hair, short, combed

15 back, wearing a smart grey check suit"?

16 A. No.

17 Q. How tall are you?

18 A. I am six foot. But the late 40s wouldn't be right.

19 Q. No. How old were you at that point?

20 A. In my mid 30s, probably.

21 Q. Does the rest of the description fit you as you were

22 then in 1997?

23 A. Well, I never had my hair combed back, for a start, and

24 I was always blond.

25 Q. Then the second pair are described as follows:

 

 

46

 

1 "The first, white, 5 foot 8, slim build, grey hair,

2 combed back, mid 50s, heavy stubble, glasses, wore

3 a suit and smoked"?

4 A. Out of the four interviewers mentioned, I can't recall

5 anybody who wore glasses.

6 Q. Thank you. And then the last, a much more general

7 description, is:

8 "Male, white, clean shaven, mid 40s"?

9 A. That is very general.

10 Q. Indeed. Could it, given that generality, apply to any

11 of the four of you?

12 A. Well, the mid 40s would be a problem with me. It is

13 very general really. It is white male, clean shaven,

14 mid 40s.

15 Q. Can I ask you this: at this stage, as far as you can

16 recall, early 1997, did any of the four of you sport

17 a beard or a moustache?

18 A. Detective Constable Campbell would have had a growth --

19 yes, a beard.

20 Q. Do you think he is about 5 foot 8 or was, as it were,

21 about 5 foot 8 in February 1997?

22 A. Yes, he would be average height.

23 Q. With grey hair?

24 A. Maybe slightly smaller, in fact. His hair was dark and

25 he wouldn't have been in his mid 50s either. He

 

 

47

 

1 probably would have been in his 40s, I think, at that

2 stage.

3 DAME VALERIE STRACHAN: Sorry to interrupt, but does any of

4 us know how old Mr Simmons was at that time?

5 MR PHILLIPS: I don't.

6 DAME VALERIE STRACHAN: I was just thinking if he was in his

7 early 20s one always finds it very difficult to identify

8 the age of people who are older than oneself.

9 MR PHILLIPS: The experts are telling me that it will be in

10 his custody record.

11 DAME VALERIE STRACHAN: It could be checked afterwards.

12 MR PHILLIPS: We will see if we can find out the answer.

13 Just keeping, if we may, with this statement, moving

14 to the next page, RNI-224-054 (displayed). We looked at

15 this passage earlier when I was showing you -- as I say,

16 to put the questions in context -- the allegations being

17 made. But can I ask you to look now specifically at the

18 fifth line:

19 "At some time on the second day, whilst I was being

20 interviewed by the pair of police officers I first

21 described ..."

22 So in other words, his description of the first

23 pair, which I went through with you, the first:

24 "Stocky, overweight, age late 40s, short black hair,

25 side parting."

 

 

48

 

1 And:

2 "6 foot 1, late 40s, fair hair, short, combed

3 back...

4 "I requested a solicitor. I made this request to

5 them."

6 Then he describes what was said by the stocky police

7 officer and the details are then set out, which we have

8 looked at already.

9 So the trigger, it would appear, in his mind was the

10 request to see his solicitor. Do you recall any such

11 request being made to you by Anthony Simmons?

12 A. If it was made, it would have been recorded.

13 Q. Yes. Now, lets look at the custody record in relation

14 to that at RNI-204-230 first of all (displayed).

15 At the very bottom of this page, at 16.06,

16 immediately below an interview which you and your

17 partner had conducted, it says, I think:

18 "Escorted to cell with ..."

19 Then your cipher. Then it says that he requested a

20 legal visit at the end of the interview. Do you see

21 that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So given your earlier answer -- if it had happened, it

24 would have been recorded -- it looks as though it was

25 made, that request, at the end of an interview with you?

 

 

49

 

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now, can I ask you to look, please, at 207 --

3 A. If I can just say, that request would have been made to

4 the uniformed officer, not to the interviewing officer.

5 Q. Okay, thank you. Can we look, please, at the relevant

6 interview, and that is at RNI-207-354 (displayed).

7 This is the interview on that day, which ended

8 immediately before the custody record note that we have

9 just looked at. You see it begins on this page, and the

10 page I would like to show you, please, is at the very

11 end of the notes, at RNI-207-359 (displayed).

12 So do you see the very last sentence on the page is:

13 "He requested to see his solicitor"?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. So it looks, doesn't it -- this is in your partner's

16 handwriting, isn't it?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. It looks, therefore, doesn't it, as though the request

19 to see the solicitor took place in an interview in which

20 you were involved?

21 A. Yes, that was terminated then.

22 Q. Thank you. It looks also, doesn't it, as though the

23 request was made not to a uniformed officer but in the

24 context of the interview?

25 A. Yes.

 

 

50

 

1 Q. Thank you.

2 Now, turning, therefore, back to the statement made

3 by Mr Simmons at RNI-224-054 (displayed), if his

4 recollection is right, then it was in the context of

5 that interview that these derogatory remarks were made.

6 Do you at least accept that on the basis of his

7 statement?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And, therefore, again, on the basis of his statement,

10 what we are talking about is -- if you read the

11 sentence:

12 "At some time on the second day while I was being

13 interviewed by the pair of police officers I first

14 described, I requested a solicitor ..."

15 We are looking at the first pair as set out by him

16 with the descriptions that I went through with you.

17 Now, is it likely, therefore, that when, in describing

18 that first pair, he described the man, "6 foot 1,

19 late 40s, fair hair, short, combed back", he was in fact

20 describing you?

21 A. It may have been, but ...

22 Q. Because, you see, what he alleges is that this request

23 to see his solicitor, Rosemary Nelson, triggered the

24 derogatory remarks that followed. Do you see that is

25 what he is saying?

 

 

51

 

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And they are that her name was frequently brought up

3 thereafter on that day, that she was a terrorist with

4 a deformed face and that the suspect, Mr Simmons, was

5 asked whether he was "seeing" Rosemary Nelson and that

6 the comment was made that he was a "game bastard" and

7 she "had a face like a man's ball bag".

8 Those are the allegations made by Mr Simmons.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. So you understand, his statement suggests that those

11 remarks were made after the request to see

12 Rosemary Nelson.

13 A. Yes. Of course, those remarks were never made during

14 the interview.

15 Q. Were they made within your hearing?

16 A. They were never made during an interview.

17 Q. Did you make them?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Did your interviewing partner make them?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Were there rumours that Rosemary Nelson was having

22 personal relationships with clients of hers other than

23 Colin Duffy?

24 A. I wasn't aware of any other rumours, other than the one

25 mentioned in my statement.

 

 

52

 

1 Q. Do you think that the rumour itself served to link

2 Rosemary Nelson to the terrorist cause in the minds of

3 some of your colleagues?

4 A. I don't know.

5 Q. Might that have been an explanation for derogatory

6 remarks of this kind?

7 A. Well, certainly, as I have already said, there were no

8 remarks made by me or anybody in my presence.

9 Q. Did you ever hear, in the course of interviewing or at

10 any other time, colleagues of yours making derogatory

11 remarks about her facial appearance?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Or about the fact that she was a terrorist?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Did you ask Mr Simmons whether he was "seeing"

16 Rosemary Nelson?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Did you call him a "game bastard"?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Were words used which could have been understood or

21 misinterpreted in these ways?

22 A. No.

23 Q. What was the response when he asked to see his

24 solicitor?

25 A. Well, the interview, going by the notes, obviously, was

 

 

53

 

1 terminated.

2 Q. In the notes nothing is written at all at that point,

3 is it?

4 A. Well, it ended with the request being made for

5 a solicitor and that appears to be the end of the

6 interview.

7 Q. Yes. Let's look together at the page, please,

8 RNI-207-359 (displayed). Starting halfway down, we see

9 the familiar thing where you summarise the questions,

10 where he remains silent. Then the question of the notes

11 being read over:

12 "Made no response to the offer to read or sign them

13 himself. At termination of interview he requested to

14 see his solicitor."

15 What I'm asking you is would it not be usual to

16 record the officer's response to that request?

17 A. No.

18 Q. No. Because if you look at the next page, RNI-207-360

19 (displayed), it is completely blank?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Why is that?

22 A. I didn't record those notes, but it is nothing abnormal

23 about it.

24 Q. Lets have a look at it together. Have a look at the

25 next page, RNI-207-361 (displayed). It is completely

 

 

54

 

1 blank?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And the next one, RNI-207-362 (displayed)?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And the signature appears at the bottom of that page.

6 Now, was there a standard amount of pages handed out to

7 you?

8 A. Yes, there was a booklet.

9 Q. What of the interview we have looked at together, which

10 was just over two pages?

11 A. Sorry?

12 Q. Do you remember the interview --

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. -- we looked at together was just over two pages?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Do you remember seeing the inspector's signature there

17 on the third page?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Is there any particular reason why the inspector's

20 signature appears after two full blank pages in this

21 case?

22 A. Well, I can't answer that. The normally procedure there

23 was those unused pages had a line put through them, but

24 obviously at the end of the interview, the notes were

25 handed to the custody sergeant, the uniformed sergeant

 

 

55

 

1 who date and time-stamped them and signed them.

2 Q. Had you or your colleague made any answer to his request

3 to see a solicitor, would you have written it down?

4 A. Say that again?

5 Q. Had you or your colleague made any verbal response to

6 the suspect's request for a solicitor, would you have

7 written it down?

8 A. I don't think it was necessary -- he made a request -- I

9 can't remember exactly what happened on this occasion,

10 but it looks like he has made a request for a solicitor

11 and the interview is terminated with that note being

12 made.

13 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Mr Phillips, this is page 9, I see.

14 MR PHILLIPS: Yes.

15 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: What we have seen and the blank pages,

16 does that account for all the pages?

17 MR PHILLIPS: I believe it does, yes. The book or the notes

18 begin at RNI-207-354 (displayed). We can see that on

19 the screen. This is another of the moments where one

20 wishes that everybody had the hard copies. But

21 RNI-207-354, please, is the start and the text appears,

22 sir, all the way through to the bottom of RNI-207-359 --

23 RNI-207-359, please (displayed) -- with the words:

24 "He requested to see his solicitor."

25 Turning the page, RNI-207-360 (displayed) is blank.

 

 

56

 

1 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Were there varying sized books?

2 A. No, they were a standard size and they come stapled

3 together in a booklet form.

4 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Okay, thank you.

5 MR PHILLIPS: Now, can we go back, please, to RNI-224-054

6 (displayed)? Further down the statement it is alleged

7 that at one point the stocky officer -- and that, to be

8 clear, is the one with black hair -- said:

9 "It should have been Rosemary in here instead of

10 youse."

11 Then it is further suggested, two lines down from

12 that, that this pair of officers made these comments

13 several times during the interview and repeated them on

14 the third day.

15 Can I ask you whether comments of this kind were

16 made at any stage of subsequent interviews by you or

17 your interviewing partner?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Looking at the comment made by Mr Simmons there, do you

20 see the words:

21 "They made these comments several times during that

22 interview"?

23 Can you remember when, in terms of the interview we

24 are looking at, the request for the solicitor in fact

25 occurred?

 

 

57

 

1 A. It would have occurred at the end when it was noted.

2 Q. It is not possible that the request was made earlier and

3 noted at the end?

4 A. No.

5 Q. You are sure of that?

6 A. Yes, it would have been.

7 Q. Can you remember a case ever where you would hear the

8 request from the suspect, carry on and note it at the

9 end of your notes?

10 A. No. When a request was made, the normal process was to

11 suspend the interview and inform the uniformed staff.

12 Q. Was Rosemary Nelson's name mentioned at any interview

13 that you were involved in of Anthony Simmons on those

14 days in February 1997?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Can I turn to the case of Colin Duffy? We have touched

17 on the circumstances of his arrest. You were one of

18 a number of interviewing officers when he was in

19 custody, I think, from 23 June that year, 1997. Is that

20 right?

21 A. That's right, yes.

22 Q. Now, this is a complicated story in terms of the

23 complaints. There were a number of complaints made

24 against you and, again, to give you some foundation and

25 context, you deal with them in paragraph 21 of your

 

 

58

 

1 statement at RNI-841-088 (displayed). Can we enlarge

2 that paragraph, please, 21? Thank you.

3 There you say, correctly, in the first sentence that

4 there was an allegation made against another officer who

5 was also, I think -- perhaps you can confirm this --

6 involved in these interviews, although not, I think,

7 with you?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Thank you. So far as you were concerned, there were

10 various complaints about interviews and matters

11 concerning Mr Duffy's detention.

12 Now, so far as the Inquiry is concerned, the

13 Inquiry's focus is not on those but on the issues

14 relating to Rosemary Nelson and, therefore, the specific

15 complaint made against this officer, whose name is

16 ciphered, P121. So I would like to ask you, please,

17 about that rather than the other aspects of the thing.

18 Just to show you what is said there, before I ask

19 you questions about it, RNI-211-134, please (displayed).

20 This is the complaint or the relevant complaint made by

21 Colin Duffy, and you see in the third line:

22 "He ..."

23 That is this particular officer, P121:

24 "... put it to me in question form: was my solicitor

25 proud of what I had done. The detective was referring

 

 

59

 

1 to the murder of two RUC men in Lurgan."

2 That is the allegation. So far as Rosemary Nelson

3 herself is concerned, we discussed earlier the fact that

4 she had made a complaint in her own name. That we can

5 see at RNI-211-128 (displayed). There, you see her name

6 in bold as the complainant. Do you see in the second

7 box on the page?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Thank you. So far as the substance is concerned, if we

10 go over to RNI-211-130, please (displayed), about seven

11 or eight lines down, the complaint is:

12 "This officer had told her client ..."

13 That is Mr Duffy:

14 "... 'I am sure your mother is proud of you and I'm

15 sure your wife is proud of you and I'm sure Rosemary is

16 proud of you as well'.

17 Mrs Nelson believes this is a reference to herself

18 and presents a real danger to herself and her family."

19 That, put in those slightly different ways, is the

20 allegation.

21 Were you involved during these days in June 1997 in

22 any interviews of Colin Duffy with that officer, P121?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Thank you. Now, looking at our schedule together, it is

25 the middle box and we can see that is confirmed by the

 

 

60

 

1 notes we have made, which shows you with your usual

2 partner, P149. Is that correct?

3 A. That's correct, yes.

4 Q. And I should also say that that is confirmed by the

5 many, many pages of custody records.

6 So you were not in the same interviewing pair as

7 P121, but presumably, based on what you told us earlier,

8 you would have been in the same briefings as him during

9 the course of the interviews?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And do you remember discussing the case and its progress

12 with him during those days in June?

13 A. I can't remember now, but I'm sure it was the case that

14 obviously he was part of the other interviewing team.

15 We would have discussed the progress of the interviews.

16 Q. We have touched already on the question of the impact or

17 not of these particular murders on you and your

18 colleagues and, indeed, on the local population. Did

19 you feel any sense of pressure in this case to get, if I

20 can put it that way, a result?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Why was that?

23 A. Well, it was just another investigation and of course

24 you are going to conduct that investigation to the best

25 of your ability, but there was no pressure as such

 

 

61

 

1 from -- I assume you mean line management. There was no

2 such pressure at any stage or in any investigation,

3 in fact.

4 Q. You talk briefly about Mr Duffy in paragraph 19 of your

5 statement at RNI-841-088, if we can have that on the

6 screen, please (displayed). You tell us that he was

7 a ruthless terrorist in your view and was well-known.

8 Can I ask you, as far as you can judge, was that

9 a perception of him or a view of him shared by your

10 colleagues in the CID?

11 A. Well, I would say the police in general, never mind the

12 CID. Certainly the police in Lurgan were well aware of

13 Mr Duffy.

14 Q. On the basis of that understanding or view of him and of

15 the rumours that you mentioned earlier when we were

16 discussing that aspect, the rumour of the relationship

17 between him and Rosemary Nelson, is it not possible that

18 remarks such as those alleged to have been made --

19 "Rosemary would be proud of you" -- I'm summarising --

20 would or could have been made in the course of

21 interviewing such a man?

22 A. I certainly wouldn't have made any comments like that.

23 I would have conducted my business of interviewing in

24 a professional manner.

25 Q. Did you ever hear that officer or, indeed, any other

 

 

62

 

1 officer making remarks of that kind?

2 A. No. As we already agree, I wasn't interviewing with

3 that particular officer on this occasion.

4 Q. But outside the interview context, did you ever hear

5 remarks of that kind being made?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Even in an informal context with your colleagues, did

8 you ever hear a derogatory comment about

9 Rosemary Nelson?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Not at all, not at any stage?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Can I ask you this: if you had heard such a comment,

14 what would you have done?

15 A. We are talking hypothetical here now?

16 Q. Yes.

17 A. It would depend how serious the comment was. You could

18 have took it to the extreme and brought it to the

19 attention of your line manager, but, as I say, it didn't

20 happen so I wasn't in that position.

21 Q. So that would be a disciplinary matter?

22 A. It would be, of course. Well, making a comment -- it

23 depends, as I say, on how serious it was.

24 Q. Did you ever have cause to report a colleague for

25 comments of that kind?

 

 

63

 

1 A. No.

2 Q. Now, so far as the third matter I want to ask you about

3 is concerned, that is the case of Gary Marshall -- and

4 to give you the context because it is all a long time

5 ago, this was an arrest that took place

6 in February 1998. You will see that, I hope, from the

7 table?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. It is the last section. There, the arrest was, as we

10 understand it at any rate, on the basis of alleged

11 membership of the Provisional IRA and in relation to the

12 murder of Kevin Conway.

13 If we look at the table together, it seems, as far

14 as we can see, that there were as many as 32 interviews

15 of this suspect over about a week and you were involved

16 in maybe 12, certainly 10 or 12 of them. Do you see

17 that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Now, so far as this client is concerned, were you aware

20 at the time that the client of Rosemary Nelson, this

21 suspect, Gary Marshall, was making a complaint about

22 you?

23 A. I can't remember now. It is possible that I may have

24 been aware that a complaint was made.

25 Q. But, again, is your answer that if it was, we will find

 

 

64

 

1 it recorded?

2 A. Yes, it should be recorded he made a complaint, yes.

3 Q. When you talk about this case in your statement, which

4 you do very briefly -- you deal with it in paragraph 32,

5 which is at the top of RNI-841-092 (displayed) -- you

6 say that you were served with the discipline form --

7 that is the 17/3 form -- on 28 February. So looking

8 back at the interview schedule, it looks as though that

9 was the day after the interviews came to an end?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Thank you. And we can look at that together, please, at

12 RNI-217-063 (displayed). This is the specific notice

13 served on you because we can see your cipher at the

14 bottom of the page and, indeed, you are referred to at

15 the top. But we can see there the allegation relates to

16 events on 26 February and is a matter of how the

17 interview questions and answers were recorded?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. That is indeed the complaint that went through the

20 system and we will see how it went through in a moment,

21 as with the other complaints. But you are aware, I

22 think, I hope, that other allegations were made

23 subsequently by this suspect, Gary Marshall, to the CAJ.

24 Are you aware of that?

25 A. I need my memory refreshed in relation to those.

 

 

65

 

1 Q. Let's look together, please, at RNI-115-152 (displayed).

2 This is a statement, unsigned -- and I think

3 undated -- by that suspect, Gary Marshall, given, as

4 I say, to the CAJ and the statement deals with the

5 various days of his detention. The part that concerns

6 this Inquiry specifically is at the bottom of

7 page RNI-115-153 -- if we could have that on the screen,

8 please (displayed) -- under the heading "Friday".

9 Now, I should be absolutely clear with you that

10 these matters, the matters I'm looking at with you now,

11 were not put through the complaint and discipline

12 system. You received no Form 17/3 about them; they were

13 matters contained in this statement.

14 Can you look with me, please, at this part of it

15 under that heading "Friday", and really it is the

16 penultimate paragraph of the page which is relevant to

17 the Inquiry. Do you see the one under the heading

18 "Friday"? In the fourth line, it says:

19 "Then they started talking about Rosemary."

20 Do you see that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Thank you. In summary, what is alleged to have been

23 said in interview to Gary Marshall is the IRA had given

24 Rosemary Nelson the statement he had put in to the

25 police officers. The IRA were pulling her strings. Do

 

 

66

 

1 you see that in the next sentence?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. That there was a law passed in 1989 which meant they

4 could do away with solicitors who concocted stories, and

5 when the interviewing officer heard that a complaint had

6 been made by this suspect, Gary Marshall said this had

7 been going on for 30 years and it wasn't going to change

8 now:

9 "Tell half-face that."

10 That is at the top of the next page, I should say,

11 by the way, RNI-115-154. (displayed). Do you see that

12 in the third sentence?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And then finally, two lines down:

15 "They said I made the statement and Rosemary got the

16 witnesses and told them what to say."

17 So I put the same questions to you: did you or your

18 interviewing partner make these, or similar remarks to

19 these, in the course of the interviews that you

20 conducted with Gary Marshall?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Looking back earlier in the statement, I'm going to show

23 you the final paragraph of 153 again, the bottom of the

24 page, please, RNI-115-153 (displayed). Can we enlarge

25 the bottom paragraph, please (displayed)? Because this

 

 

67

 

1 is important:

2 "The two detectives that were doing this interview,

3 i.e. the interview about which complaint was made, had

4 gone right through since the day I was arrested."

5 Do you see that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Now, if we look at the table that we have prepared in

8 relation to this matter, you can see that you began to

9 interview this suspect on 23 February, which, as far as

10 we can see, wasn't the first day of interview. I'm not

11 going to take you through every single page, but please

12 take it from me that that is also confirmed by the

13 custody records. Your first interview is, in fact, as

14 late as number 12.

15 A. Okay.

16 Q. So, again, having shown you the allegations and asked

17 you the direct questions, I now must ask you, please,

18 for some help about descriptions of other police

19 officers.

20 The first is -- the other pair, the pair that fit

21 the suggestion that they were present from the

22 beginning, are P170 and P156, and your cipher key will

23 help you. Do you see?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Thank you. The two descriptions are as follows. The

 

 

68

 

1 first officer:

2 "6 foot, 40s, grey/black hair, receding and brushed

3 back."

4 Does that description fit, as far as you are

5 concerned, the appearance of either of those officers at

6 this time?

7 A. No.

8 Q. The second:

9 "Fattish, moustache and brown hair in a side shade."

10 I am afraid that is the word used.

11 A. There's no age, is there? No.

12 Q. Now, during the course of your interviewing of this

13 suspect, Gary Marshall, did he ever complain to you that

14 such comments, or comments like them, had been made to

15 him in other interviews?

16 A. No.

17 Q. You are sure about that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Thank you. Now, finally can I ask you to look at

20 a statement that he made to another organisation, the

21 Pat Finucane Centre, and that's at RNI-835-157

22 (displayed).

23 This, you will see, is a statement made -- I am

24 afraid you will have to take it from me that it is his

25 statement. It is made a year later, on 24 March 1999.

 

 

69

 

1 But for completeness, I'm showing it to you because it

2 contains other allegations about this period of

3 detention and interview at the bottom of

4 page RNI-835-157.

5 Do you see there the allegations made in the last

6 paragraphs of the page? Again, to summarise for you:

7 again, derogatory remarks about Rosemary Nelson's facial

8 scar and her facial appearance, continuous disparaging

9 of her professional advice and insults and, as it says:

10 "... on a number of occasions even threatening her

11 life."

12 Again, I ask you: did you make or did you hear being

13 made remarks of that kind during the course of these

14 interviews?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Or at any other point in your hearing and in relation to

17 Mr Marshall?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Can I ask you, looking at all three of these cases, this

20 question in the light of the denials you have given,

21 which you gave at the time and have continued ever

22 since: are you able to assist the Inquiry with why, in

23 your view, these allegations were made?

24 A. Well, as I already said, I think initially this was

25 a tactic used by terrorists to discredit the police at

 

 

70

 

1 every opportunity that they could.

2 Q. Well, the tactic we talked about earlier, which you

3 mention in your statement, was the one of disrupting

4 interviews by asking for lawyers?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. What we are talking here is the business of making what

7 on your account are false allegations, false complaints.

8 Now, are you saying that that was also a tactic?

9 A. It was also part of it, yes.

10 Q. Can I ask you to look at a couple of passages in your

11 statement? The first is RNI-841-087 (displayed). You

12 say there:

13 "My view is that this is again ..."

14 In other words, making a complaint:

15 "... a way of attempting to disrupt the process. It

16 was almost a matter of form to make complaints to

17 discredit the police. Complaints were coming in on

18 a regular basis."

19 So, so I have understood this, it was your view

20 then, was it, that these were fabricated allegations

21 intended to undermine the police force?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So does it follow that they were not directed at any

24 individual officer but rather at the institution as

25 a whole, in your view?

 

 

71

 

1 A. Sorry, say that again?

2 Q. Does it follow from what you have said that they were

3 not directed at any individual officer, as intended to

4 undermine the institution, the RUC, as a whole?

5 A. They obviously were directed at individual officers in

6 this case here, but it was to discredit the police

7 generally.

8 Q. And that was a view you held at the time?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And again, in fairness, can I show you a similar passage

11 in one of your Mulvihill interviews, this one at

12 RNI-227-225 (displayed)?

13 Do you see the interview begins on this page,

14 12 November 1998. In fact, it is in relation to one of

15 the earlier matters, the Simmons complaint. You will

16 see the interviewing officers present and

17 Commander Mulvihill and, indeed, Geralyn McNally also

18 present. But the passage I would like to show you --

19 because I have got no intention of going through the

20 whole thing with you -- is at the bottom of RNI-227-238

21 (displayed), where you are asked a specific question:

22 "Is it usual for suspects to make complaints about

23 their treatment or how they are interviewed?"

24 And that is your response continuing over the page:

25 "Terrorists do tend to make complaints and obviously

 

 

72

 

1 feel it is just part of their tactics, probably to

2 discredit the police and also just throughout the whole

3 system generally. That is my opinion and I think a lot

4 of people share that opinion."

5 So that was clearly your opinion, at least in

6 November 1998?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Do you think it was your view in early 1997 as well?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. So far as your colleagues are concerned, to the extent

11 that you are aware of it, do you think it was a view

12 widely shared?

13 A. I would agree, yes, most people shared that view.

14 Q. Were you aware of the view that complaints were

15 sometimes made in order to obtain an advantage in either

16 criminal or civil proceedings?

17 A. No.

18 Q. No. And that wasn't a perception that you yourself had

19 at the time?

20 A. Sorry, just say that again?

21 Q. What I asked you was were you aware of the view that

22 complaints were sometimes used to obtain an advantage in

23 either criminal or civil proceedings?

24 A. Yes, obviously that was a possibility.

25 Q. Did you hold that view yourself?

 

 

73

 

1 A. No, I had really no view on that.

2 Q. Okay. Now, to take the complaints matters on, you, I

3 think, had the Simmons complaint taken up with you by

4 the Complaints and Discipline Department, and we can see

5 that at RNI-203-182 (displayed). We can see your name

6 there and this is the notice in relation to the

7 allegations we looked at a little earlier, and your

8 response came at 184, RNI-203-184 (displayed):

9 "These allegations are totally untrue. The remarks

10 were never made by me or anyone else within my hearing."

11 As I understand it, this was the first time that the

12 Simmons allegations were put to you; is that correct?

13 A. That'll be correct, yes.

14 Q. And we see the denial there. This is 28 January 1998.

15 Do you see that at the bottom of the page?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. That is some 10 months, possibly actually 11 months

18 after the relevant interviews had taken place. Had you

19 had any idea that a complaint was being made against you

20 in relation to this case earlier than that?

21 A. As I have already said, I probably would have knew at

22 the time the complaint was being made, but I just can't

23 remember exactly if this was the case here.

24 Q. So we will have to rely on the documents for that?

25 A. Yes.

 

 

74

 

1 Q. It looks, certainly as far as the Inquiry is concerned,

2 as though the complaint emerged in about November 1997?

3 I should say that in fairness to you.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. So do you think it is possible that your first knowledge

6 of it was indeed in January 1998?

7 A. Yes, that would be fair enough, yes.

8 Q. So far as what then happened is concerned, can I ask you

9 first: presumably at this time, in January 1998, your

10 recollection of the interview in February would have

11 been rather better?

12 A. Possibly.

13 Q. So looking at the more detailed -- and that is

14 a relative term -- interview, which took place under the

15 procedure -- we can see the full text of it, I think, at

16 RNI-203-096 (displayed) -- you are asked:

17 "You have seen the allegations made by the witness

18 on behalf of Rosemary Nelson, the solicitor acting [I

19 think it says] at the time for him. How do you respond?

20 "Answer: I totally deny these allegations. Nothing

21 was said by me or ..."

22 I think that may say -- does it say:

23 "... the other detective during interview about

24 Rosemary Nelson"?

25 A. Yes.

 

 

75

 

1 Q.

2 "Question: Anything else you wish to say?

3 "Answer: No."

4 So that was your answer in -- it looks as though

5 from the previous page, RNI-203-095 (displayed) --

6 24 March 1998.

7 So far as Gary Marshall is concerned, just in

8 summary, my understanding is that you were served with

9 a similar form for that and said at RNI-217-064

10 (displayed):

11 "I am aware of the allegations. I totally deny

12 them."

13 Do you see that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And in summary, that was your position when those

16 matters were put to you for the first time and remains

17 your position today?

18 A. That's correct.

19 Q. Thank you. Now, in relation to Commander Mulvihill, we

20 have already looked at the text of the interview, but,

21 again, in summary, the matters were gone through with

22 you in much greater detail. That's, I think, fair to

23 say, isn't it?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And in several pages of interview, you again rejected

 

 

76

 

1 the allegations made?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Can I ask you a couple of questions about the murder

4 investigation, the Rosemary Nelson murder investigation

5 itself, because you touch on this in paragraph 34 of

6 your witness statement, and we can see that on

7 RNI-841-092 (displayed).

8 Now, it is clear from that statement that you were

9 involved in the early stages, very early stages, I

10 should say, actually, of the investigation, but because

11 of the complaints we have been looking at made against

12 you by clients of hers, you were removed from the

13 allegation. Is that correct?

14 A. Removed from the investigation? Yes.

15 Q. Yes.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. How did you feel about that decision?

18 A. Well, it was a management decision which was taken and

19 you had to comply with it and that was it.

20 Q. It sounds as though you weren't very happy about it from

21 your statement?

22 A. Probably not, no.

23 Q. Now, were you, though, made aware of the reasons why the

24 decision was made?

25 A. Well, the Chief Constable come down and had a meeting

 

 

77

 

1 with us and more or less told us that we were being

2 taken off. It was a management decision. I can't

3 remember the exact content of that briefing and

4 discussion, but there was a decision made by management

5 to remove myself and others from the enquiry.

6 Q. But you can't remember anything of the reasons given to

7 you at that stage?

8 A. No.

9 Q. One final question, as far as I am concerned, we have

10 been through a great deal of material, I am afraid, but

11 if there is anything that I haven't covered with you

12 which you would like to add by way of evidence to the

13 Tribunal, this is your opportunity?

14 A. I have nothing to add.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 Questions by THE CHAIRMAN

17 THE CHAIRMAN: You mentioned earlier in your evidence that

18 you had access to intelligence systems.

19 In 1997 and 1998, as a detective constable, what

20 intelligence systems did you have access to?

21 A. It would have been more or less briefings, you know,

22 from criminal intelligence officers. And within the

23 Crime Squad we would have received briefings, not on

24 a regular basis possibly, maybe at weekly conferences,

25 as to what was going on in relation to threats and

 

 

78

 

1 terrorist activity.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Before interviewing a terrorist suspect, did

3 you regularly access an intelligence system?

4 A. I don't believe in 1997 we had access to the systems

5 that are in place now, as in a computer. It would have

6 been intelligence based on documents, hard copy

7 documents.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Hard copy?

9 A. Yes.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Did you receive intelligence briefings before

11 interviewing a terrorist suspect?

12 A. You would have got briefings from, as I said earlier on,

13 the investigating officer in relation to, obviously, the

14 offences that had been committed, what had taken place,

15 and you may have been given some intelligence as to what

16 this person's involvement was. But obviously you

17 weren't told the full picture, I'm sure. So it varied

18 from case to case what the briefing was in relation to

19 the interviews before you went into them.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Those intelligence briefings, would they

21 normally be made by the SIO?

22 A. Generally, it would have been the SIO who was briefing

23 you before your interviews.

24 THE CHAIRMAN: Were they ever given by officers in

25 Special Branch or not?

 

 

79

 

1 A. Some conferences, yes, there would have been

2 Special Branch officers who would have attended the

3 conferences and may have give a briefing. It wasn't

4 uncommon for that to happen, yes.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

6 Questions by SIR ANTHONY BURDEN

7 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: If I may, can I just pursue one point

8 that Mr Phillips raised with you, please? I'll just ask

9 you to just search your memory, trying to help us.

10 You were asked whether you had ever interviewed any

11 other clients of Rosemary Nelson's other than those who

12 had complained about you. This is an important point --

13 I think it is an important point anyway.

14 You interviewed three of Rosemary Nelson's clients

15 and three complained against you?

16 A. Yes.

17 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Just think again, please, if you will:

18 were there any other occasions when you interviewed

19 suspects for whom Rosemary Nelson was the solicitor?

20 A. I would say it was likely, but as you can appreciate,

21 with the passage of time -- and at that particular time

22 we were interviewing people day in and day out, both

23 Loyalist and Republican and Republicans from different

24 areas of the Province, both at Castlereagh -- so to

25 answer the question, I would say that it was more than

 

 

80

 

1 likely, yes, I did interview other clients of hers.

2 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Just looking at those three suspects

3 that we have heard about who complained about you --

4 Mr Simmons, February 1997; Mr Duffy, June 1997;

5 Mr Marshall, February 1998; so six months or so between

6 each -- different types of offences, not connected with

7 each other in the offences for which they were detained

8 and suspected, so not in the same cell block, not able

9 to confer, but all the complaints of a similar nature,

10 involving Mrs Nelson.

11 You have said that you feel it was a tactic to

12 discredit the police, but could you help us, please: how

13 are you suggesting that this common thread of complaints

14 involving Mrs Nelson actually developed?

15 A. Well, those three individuals would have been considered

16 to be from the same active service unit in Lurgan and

17 would have been working as an active service unit under

18 the control of Colin Duffy, probably.

19 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: So you feel this was a pre-determined

20 ploy, if ever they were arrested, that they would

21 activate?

22 A. I can't honestly answer that. I'm not in their minds.

23 But all I can help the Inquiry with is these people come

24 from Lurgan and were from the same active service unit

25 probably.

 

 

81

 

1 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Okay. Just one final point, a niggling

2 point for me: Mr Simmons. Your memory is not that great

3 in relation to the offence for which he was arrested.

4 After 11 years I can understand that, but you are

5 a detective officer of longstanding with extensive

6 interview experience and, I appreciate, many, many

7 interviews over that period.

8 A. Yes.

9 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: But I'm sure we share the experience

10 that some cases stand out in memory forever, many of

11 them infamous, many of them involved a degree of

12 violence, but some also because of the surprising

13 behaviour by suspects. And here we have a case of an

14 individual who is alleged to have built an arms hide in

15 his girlfriend's garden. Not the most outstanding type

16 of behaviour, I would suggest.

17 During your time over this period as a detective

18 interviewing terrorists, was the building of arms hides

19 a common thing for you to interview suspects over?

20 A. On a regular basis. Not only in Lurgan: south Armagh,

21 east Tyrone, Loyalist, terrorist, they all used the same

22 type of methods. Any type of -- you know, using all

23 sorts of methods to hide their terrorist equipment.

24 So it was a common enough thing to come across.

25 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Thank you very much.

 

 

82

 

1 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to say something, Mr Donaldson?

2 MR DONALDSON: It might perhaps be better if I mention them

3 in the absence of the witness.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly.

5 Before the witness leaves, would you please confirm

6 that all cameras have been switched off, Mr (redacted)?

7 MR (REDACTED): Yes, sir, they have.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please escort the witness out.

9 Mr Donaldson, we were provided, a short time before

10 we came into the chamber, with questions and lines of

11 enquiry, I think, sent in on behalf of your clients.

12 MR DONALDSON: Yes, sir.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: And each member of the Panel has read those

14 questions and lines of enquiry. Is there anything you

15 wish to add in addition before we rise to consider any

16 submission you wish to make?

17 MR DONALDSON: Yes, sir, if I may.

18 Submissions by MR DONALDSON

19 MR DONALDSON: There are a total of 16 questions and lines

20 of enquiry and only four of those have received an

21 affirmative response. So that leaves a total of

22 12 questions and lines of enquiry which we have

23 suggested, which have not been pursued.

24 I would just like, if I may, to mention perhaps not

25 all of them, but a number of the more significant ones

 

 

83

 

1 in a little detail. Firstly, number 2:

2 "Describe in detail your knowledge of the background

3 of C220 ..."

4 That is Mr Simmons:

5 "... of which you are aware."

6 Now, the reason for that is obvious. We have raised

7 this matter before.

8 I may say that the questioning of this witness by my

9 learned friend Mr Phillips was very thorough, very

10 searching and penetrative, and one is left with the

11 impression that what was being pursued -- and rightly

12 so -- was whether or not the officer's account was true

13 and correct.

14 I think by the same token, in order to decide,

15 eventually the Panel will have to form a judgment about

16 the credibility of the allegations made by Mr Simmons,

17 and in order to do that, we feel that the question

18 should have been asked of the witness -- it has already

19 been accepted, I think, and acknowledged through some

20 questioning by the Panel members -- this witness is

21 a very experienced officer who has been in Lurgan a very

22 long time and who would have had a detailed knowledge of

23 what was going on in the area.

24 Now, it is right to say that he has said, when asked

25 by one of your colleagues, Sir Anthony Burden, about

 

 

84

 

1 why, for example, this common thread went through the

2 allegations being made, and the officer responded by

3 saying that Mr Simmons was an active member of a unit

4 headed by Mr Duffy. So that would tend to explain it.

5 But nonetheless, in order to be fully aware of the

6 credibility issue and deal with it, we feel that the

7 Tribunal should not be denied any information which

8 might be of assistance.

9 Coming, then, to question number 5, which relates to

10 paragraph 11 of the witness's statement, we have asked

11 that:

12 "Explain fully the views you express in paragraph 11

13 of your statement."

14 Sorry, that has actually been given a yes, I'm

15 sorry.

16 Yes, I'm sorry, in relation to paragraph 6:

17 "What were your own feelings when having false

18 allegations made against you?"

19 Again, we feel that the witness would have been

20 entitled to express a view about that. He has been

21 asked a number of hypothetical questions, he has been

22 asked to express his views and it would seem to us that

23 it would have been in order for him to answer that

24 question, to be asked that question, and similarly,

25 question number 7, which is in the same vein.

 

 

85

 

1 Question 9:

2 "On what basis did you believe that Colin Duffy was

3 an active member of PIRA?"

4 We feel that although he has expressed the view that

5 he was an active member of PIRA, we feel that in order

6 to properly assess the matter and perhaps even in

7 fairness to Mr Duffy, the witness should have been given

8 an opportunity to give the basis for that.

9 Then quite importantly at paragraph 10, we have

10 asked that a question should be asked of the witness

11 that he should elaborate on paragraph 19 of his

12 statement and give as much detail as possible about the

13 murders in respect of which Colin Duffy was frequently

14 interviewed. And, indeed, we have sent in a further

15 additional question in relation to that, a supplementary

16 question on the MSN, which is in the same vein. And we

17 said with reference to paragraph 19:

18 "He should be asked for the reasons for his

19 perception of Mr Duffy."

20 And we feel that that is perhaps information which

21 might have been of assistance to the Inquiry.

22 In relation to question 11, we have asked that he

23 should be allowed to elaborate and explain the content

24 of paragraph 22 of his Eversheds statement.

25 I might just refer to that fairly quickly. At

 

 

86

 

1 paragraph 22, he refers, for example, to an incident --

2 it is about halfway down the paragraph, sir, or two

3 thirds of the way down:

4 "We heard Colin Duffy say that he was doing this

5 ..."

6 That is making the complaint:

7 "... for court purposes. I briefed Detective

8 Inspector [blank] about what had happened and he signed

9 our notebook. We thought this was a significant

10 incident, so we made a note of it."

11 We feel that he should have been permitted to

12 elaborate on that particular element, which would tend

13 to indicate that Mr Duffy was behaving in quite a subtle

14 and clever way -- or thought he was.

15 We have asked, at question 12:

16 "Were you aware that paramilitaries were trained in

17 anti-interrogation techniques?"

18 I think that probably the witness covered that

19 without being asked to do so. We did ask:

20 "How did Colin Duffy fit into this pattern?"

21 I think possibly that is covered, at least to some

22 extent, but we felt that it should have been

23 specifically dealt with.

24 Question 14:

25 "Had he any knowledge of Barry Toman, Colm Toman,

 

 

87

 

1 Barry Loughran, Shane McCrory, C138, Gary Marshall and

2 C208?"

3 Again, I think you, Mr Chairman, did ask the witness

4 and, with respect, rightly so, what information he may

5 have had from an intelligence source, but I think,

6 having asked the question, it tends to suggest that the

7 answer might have been helpful to the Panel and we

8 believe, indeed, that it would.

9 Likewise, we feel that he should have been permitted

10 to express his own knowledge of these people. Again, he

11 has partly covered it in saying that he was aware that

12 a number of persons were members of Duffy's active

13 service unit in Lurgan and that that would explain the

14 difficulty which Sir Anthony Burden seemed to be having

15 in understanding why allegations of a similar nature

16 would be made against a solicitor on different

17 occasions.

18 THE CHAIRMAN: I wouldn't assume that.

19 MR DONALDSON: One can't assume anything apparently and I'm

20 asking that the Panel enquire into these matters so that

21 proper assumptions might be made or that evidence is

22 obtained.

23 The final question:

24 "Would you wish the Inquiry to make findings of fact

25 in relation to the allegations made against you and

 

 

88

 

1 exonerate you from blame rather than to leave the matter

2 without a determination one way or the other?"

3 Those are our submissions.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: You don't represent this witness, but

5 Mr Robinson, you represent this witness.

6 MR ROBINSON: That is correct, sir.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: I will put this question bluntly to you: do

8 you think the witness that you represent has been fairly

9 and fully questioned by the Panel and Counsel for the

10 Inquiry?

11 MR ROBINSON: Absolutely, sir, yes.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: We will adjourn --

13 MR DONALDSON: May I come back on that, please? We do

14 represent, in fact, all police personnel. In a general

15 way, that is our remit and, therefore -- and he is a

16 witness to the Inquiry, and whether or not we represent

17 him strictly, which I think we do, we feel that

18 nonetheless we are entitled to make these points.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: You are certainly entitled to make the

20 points. We will adjourn and consider your application,

21 Mr Donaldson. Shall we do it at 2 o'clock?

22 Hopefully, we will return to give our decision

23 before half past 1, so everyone will have to remain

24 here, available until that time. We will now break off.

25 (1.02 pm)

 

 

89

 

1 (Short adjournment)

2 (1.25 pm)

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Donaldson, thank you for your submissions.

4 We propose to ask Counsel for the Inquiry to ask

5 such questions as he thinks appropriate in relation to

6 your suggested question or line of enquiry number 11.

7 Apart from that, the Panel are satisfied that this

8 witness has been very fully questioned on all matters

9 that would assist the Inquiry in its deliberations and

10 we do not propose to allow questions except on

11 number 11.

12 MR DONALDSON: Very well, sir. Thank you.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Phillips?

14 We will now ask the witness to --

15 MR ROBINSON: Sir, if I could possibly make a submission?

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Robinson?

17 MR ROBINSON: It would be of great assistance, Mr Chairman,

18 when we represent some clients to have in advance the

19 questions that are proposed from my friend Mr Donaldson.

20 It would assist, from our perspective, in alerting the

21 witness to what issues may arise and it may also,

22 therefore, assist the Inquiry in relation to getting to

23 the bottom of matters.

24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Robinson, I have very considerable

25 sympathy with you and my own view is that in future, if

 

 

90

 

1 a Full Participant wishes questions to be addressed to

2 a witness who has legal representation, normally

3 speaking those questions should be provided to counsel

4 or solicitor for the particular witness. That would, of

5 course, be subject to any submissions that might be made

6 by the Full Participant having considered the matter

7 with Counsel for the Inquiry.

8 MR ROBINSON: I'm very much obliged.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Any submission you wish to make about what

10 I have said?

11 MR DONALDSON: No, sir.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: That will be the procedure in future.

13 Can we have the witness back in, please?

14 MR AIKEN: My Lord, before you do that, something that

15 occurs to me about that suggestion, my Lord, that

16 perhaps we could look at again.

17 My understanding is that the Inquiry team do not

18 provide the witnesses in advance or their legal

19 representatives in advance with the questions.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: That is so.

21 MR AIKEN: It is also the case that the Inquiry team,

22 subject to a correction, do not necessarily ask all of

23 the questions and nor do they intend to ask all of the

24 questions.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: That is why, before it is done, there must be

 

 

91

 

1 a discussion between counsel for the Full Participant

2 and Counsel for the Inquiry before any questions are

3 provided to counsel or solicitor for the witness

4 concerned.

5 MR AIKEN: I accept that, my Lord. The point I'm making is

6 Mr Robinson's point applies equally, in fact, more so,

7 to the Inquiry Counsel's questions than to

8 Mr Donaldson's or anyone else's questions.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Well, you can discuss that with Counsel

10 for the Inquiry and if there should be some formal

11 protocol, it can be determined after a discussion

12 between counsel for all the participants and Counsel for

13 the Inquiry.

14 MR AIKEN: Yes.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Subject to any supervision that may be

16 required by the Panel.

17 MR AIKEN: Yes, and in those circumstances, my Lord, could

18 I perhaps ask that you don't make a formal requirement

19 as yet that participants provide questions until we

20 speak to Mr --

21 THE CHAIRMAN: I think I have said enough and I think

22 probably you have, bearing in mind the time, Mr Aiken.

23 MR AIKEN: Indeed, my Lord.

24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

25 Mr Currans, is it right that if we go through the

 

 

92

 

1 checklist -- there has been no change, but we will

2 formally go through it for the record.

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

4 the key secured?

5 MR CURRANS: Yes sir.

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

7 screen closed?

8 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Are the technical support screens in place

10 and securely fastened?

11 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Is anyone other than the Inquiry personnel

13 and Participants' legal representatives seated in the

14 body of this chamber?

15 MR CURRANS: No, sir.

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

17 two witness cameras have been switched off and shrouded?

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

19 THE CHAIRMAN: And all the other cameras are switched off?

20 MR (REDACTED): Yes, sir, they are.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Bring the witness in, please.

22 The cameras on the Panel, Inquiry personnel and the

23 Full Participants' legal representatives may now be

24 switched back on.

25 MR PHILLIPS: Can I ask you to look, please, at paragraph 22

 

 

93

 

1 of your statement, which is at RNI 841-089 (displayed).

2 Now, here you describe an incident in one of the

3 interviews you conducted with Colin Duffy, where he hit

4 the buzzer to attract the attention of the custody

5 sergeant. Do you see that?

6 A. Yes. Paragraph 22?

7 Q. Exactly.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. We can see that incident recorded in the interview

10 notes -- I think they are your notes -- at RNI-212-212

11 (displayed).

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Do you see there, about ten lines down, it says:

14 "At this stage, Sergeant [blank] entered the

15 interview room, summoned by the bell which subject

16 rang."

17 That is the incident, isn't it?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. If we go back to RNI-212-206 (displayed), you will see

20 the beginning of the interview, which gives us the time

21 of it. It began at about half past nine in the evening

22 on 24 June?

23 A. That's correct.

24 Q. Thank you. I would like to show you an entry in

25 a notebook, please, and that is at RNI-212-024

 

 

94

 

1 (displayed). Again, you refer to this -- if you have

2 still got it open -- in paragraph 22 of your statement.

3 If you look at the right-hand side of the page -- if

4 we can enlarge the bottom half of the right-hand side,

5 please -- is this your handwriting?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. I think it says:

8 "At the conclusion of the interview, when he was

9 leaving the room, he was asked what all the fuss was

10 about. He stated, 'It's for court purposes'. Duffy

11 watched until the custody sergeant stamped his notes."

12 I think that says?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, I think this is the incident, isn't it, that you

15 refer to later in the same paragraph, 22, and where you

16 say:

17 "We heard Colin Duffy say that he was doing this,

18 making the complaint, for court purposes"?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. So we have understood this, the interview ends in this

21 unexpected way, the bell is pressed. As you are waiting

22 for him to be escorted back to his cell, somebody says:

23 "What is all the fuss about?"

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Who is that?

 

 

95

 

1 A. That is the other detective constable who was with me.

2 Q. P149?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Thank you. This is the response that you say was given?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. As you explain later in your paragraph, there was in

7 fact a further complaint in relation to that expression

8 and some alleged misstatement in interview notes. Do

9 you see, that is your last two sentences of the

10 paragraph? Do you see that there:

11 "Colin Duffy's further complaint ..."?

12 A. I do not have it on my screen.

13 Q. I'm so sorry, it is RNI-841-089 (displayed),

14 paragraph 22, the last two sentences. Can we enlarge

15 them, please? Do you see:

16 "Colin Duffy's further complaint ... states that in

17 an interview it had been put to him that he said the

18 words 'it is for Court purposes' and he denied this."

19 In other words, he was suggesting that those words

20 had been introduced when he hadn't said them and that

21 became the subject of the complaint?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So that gives us the context for all of this. We

24 discussed a little earlier your perception of the

25 reasons why complaints were made --

 

 

96

 

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. -- is that right? I don't want to go over that again.

3 But I suggested to you that another view was that they

4 were sometimes made to get an advantage in the course of

5 criminal or civil proceedings?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Now, looking at this incident, is that how you would

8 characterise what was going on here?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And as you understood the remark that you say was made,

11 was he indicating to you and your colleague that he was

12 making the complaint for that purpose?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, in relation to the further complaint, just to

15 complete this -- that is the matter referred to in the

16 last two sentences:

17 "As a matter of fact, as I understand it, that was

18 also put through the disciplinary system"?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. You denied the allegations and at the end of the day the

21 result was the same as it had been in relation to all

22 the other complaints, namely the complaint was not

23 upheld. Is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Thank you very much.

 

 

97

 

1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming to give

2 evidence before us today.

3 Before the witness leaves, Mr (redacted), would you,

4 please, confirm that all cameras have been switched off?

5 MR (REDACTED): Yes, sir, they have.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please escort the witness out.

7 We shall adjourn until 1 o'clock on Monday.

8 MR PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. I am afraid that we haven't got any

9 evidence for you tomorrow morning.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: No.

11 MR PHILLIPS: We have issued a timetable for next week. We

12 begin in the afternoon with Mr Nairn and follow with

13 Mr McKee, and just so everybody is aware, there is going

14 to be a period where we have a mixture of complaints

15 witnesses and witnesses relating to the incident on the

16 Garvaghy Road in 1997.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

18 (1.42 pm)

19 (The Inquiry adjourned until 1.00 pm on

20 Monday, 8 September 2008)

21

22

23

24

25

 

 


 

1 I N D E X

2
P117 (sworn) ..................................... 2
3
Questions by MR PHILLIPS ..................... 2
4
Questions by THE CHAIRMAN .................... 77
5
Questions by SIR ANTHONY BURDEN .............. 79
6
Submissions by MR DONALDSON ..................... 82
7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25