Return to the list of transcripts

Full Hearings

Hearing: 18th June 2008, day 37

Click here to download the LiveNote version
















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

on Wednesday, 18th June 2008
commencing at 2.00 pm

Day 37









1 Wednesday, 18th June 2008

2 (2.00 pm)

3 (Proceedings delayed)

4 (2.05 pm)

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

6 with you, please, before the witness comes in. Is the

7 public area screen fully in place, locked and the key

8 secured?

9 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

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

11 screen closed?

12 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Are the technical support screens in place

14 and securely fastened?

15 MR CURRANS: Yes, sir.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Is anyone other than Inquiry personnel and

17 participants' legal representatives seated in the body

18 of this chamber?

19 MR CURRANS: No, sir.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr [name redacted], can you confirm, please, that

21 the two witness cameras have been switched off and

22 shrouded?

23 MR [name redacted]: Yes, sir, they have.

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

25 switched off?





1 MR [name redacted]: Yes, sir, they have.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Bring the witness in, please.

3 Yes.

4 MR SAVILL: I am afraid I have moved.

5 P135 (sworn)

6 Questions by MR SAVILL

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Savill.

8 MR SAVILL: Thank you, sir.

9 I am going to ask you some questions over the next

10 hour or so that I hope won't prove to be too much of an

11 ordeal. If at any time you would like a break, would

12 you please let me know?

13 Could we please call on to the screen RNI-842-052

14 (displayed)? I am just showing you there the first page

15 of what I believe is your witness statement to the

16 Inquiry, and if we could call up RNI-842-055

17 (displayed), I hope we can see the final page with your

18 ciphered signature at the bottom and a date, 29th May

19 last year. Do you have that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Thank you. In 1997, how long had you been a serving

22 officer in the Royal Ulster Constabulary?

23 A. About 18 years.

24 Q. Could I ask you --

25 A. I joined 1970.





1 Q. Thank you. Could you just move forward a little bit

2 closer to the microphone?

3 THE CHAIRMAN: If the microphone was moved perhaps in line

4 between yourself, Mr Savill, and the witness, it might

5 be easier.

6 MR SAVILL: Thank you. So I think I am right in saying that

7 you joined in 1970?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. And you spent some time in Belfast and Donegal Pass for

10 about three years?

11 A. That's correct, yes.

12 Q. You were then in the Special Patrol Group?

13 A. That's correct, yes.

14 Q. Which provided support to operational police officers at

15 Castlereagh?

16 A. That's correct, yes.

17 Q. That was for about four years?

18 A. Yes, that's right.

19 Q. So that makes seven years after 1970, and then I think

20 you joined the CID in Lurgan?

21 A. That's correct, yes.

22 Q. And I think I am right in saying that -- and it is

23 something of an achievement -- from that time onwards

24 until your retirement, you were a serving member that of

25 department?





1 A. That's correct, yes.

2 Q. Yes. Could you tell us, please, were you always based

3 out of Lurgan police station when you were working for

4 CID?

5 A. Pardon?

6 Q. Were you always based out of Lurgan police station when

7 you were working for CID?

8 A. Yes, all the time, yes.

9 Q. When you were working for CID -- help me with this --

10 were you investigating all types of crime?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. Just as a rough estimate, over the years, are you able

13 to tell us what percentage of that was

14 terrorist-related? It is very difficult, I know.

15 A. It could be 25 per cent.

16 Q. So albeit perhaps more serious, it was the minority of

17 the work that you did?

18 A. That's correct.

19 Q. How much time did you spend on average, say, in a month

20 at any of the holding centres?

21 A. Pardon?

22 Q. How many time on average in a month did you spend at any

23 holding centres?

24 A. It's hard to say. Sometimes you may have been there for

25 two weeks, other months you wouldn't be there at all.





1 Other times you could be there for three weeks. Just

2 whenever -- what happened at the time.

3 Q. Whatever cases you had on your books at the time?

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

5 Q. Thank you. And again, just to try and help me and the

6 Panel understand the position, in 1997 could you

7 describe the atmosphere and the context in which you

8 were working, bearing in mind paramilitary activity?

9 A. Yes. It was very active in Lurgan at that particular

10 time. I mean, there are certain things you could do and

11 certain things you can't do. Certain places you can go

12 and certain places you can't go. That type of thing.

13 Q. When you say "you", do you mean as a police officer?

14 A. Police and generally, yes.

15 Q. So you had to exercise great caution?

16 A. Yes, that's correct.

17 Q. At all times?

18 A. At all times.

19 Q. Both on and off duty?

20 A. Pardon?

21 Q. Both on and off duty?

22 A. That's correct, yes.

23 Q. And obviously we have the benefit of many years'

24 experience in hearing you as a witness, but in 1997,

25 looking at the years before that and after that, how





1 would you describe the tension and the activity of

2 paramilitary organisations?

3 A. Well, up to the end -- up to the end it was very -- they

4 were very active around Lurgan. It was really a hot

5 spot for the police around Lurgan.

6 Q. And compared to the years prior to that and after that?

7 A. Well, prior to that it was much the same. Lurgan has

8 always been a hot spot throughout the years.

9 Q. And would you say that the activity was from both sides

10 of the sectarian divide or from one more than the other?

11 A. Yes, both sides.

12 Q. I think I am right in saying that in 1997, when you

13 interviewed a suspect, there were no audio recordings

14 made?

15 A. That's correct.

16 Q. Were you concerned by that position?

17 A. What do you mean, like, concerned?

18 Q. As a form of protection that it may have offered you or,

19 indeed, the suspect?

20 A. I never really thought about it, to be honest.

21 Q. They were video-recorded?

22 A. Sorry?

23 Q. The interviews were video-recorded, were they not?

24 A. Video'd?

25 Q. Yes. There was a camera.





1 A. Yes. In the holding centres, you mean?

2 Q. Yes.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. That's right. And in addition to that, those officers

5 present in the interview, I think I am right in saying,

6 kept or prepared a summary of the interview?

7 A. Yes, that's correct.

8 Q. And again, you will correct me if I am wrong, but it was

9 customary for one officer to be preparing the summary?

10 A. That's correct, yes.

11 Q. Whilst the other asked most of the questions?

12 A. That's correct.

13 Q. Sorry, I interrupted you.

14 A. That didn't mean to say that the person who was writing

15 down couldn't ask questions too at the same time.

16 Q. No. But obviously it is difficult to do two things at

17 once?

18 A. That's right.

19 Q. So the person writing would be concentrating on doing

20 that?

21 A. Yes, that's correct.

22 Q. When you decided who wrote and who asked the questions,

23 presumably there was no science to that, just an

24 agreement between the officers?

25 A. That's correct.





1 Q. I think I am also right in saying that there wasn't

2 particularly any great science to the division of the

3 pairs of officers who would interview a suspect?

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. Is that fair?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. So some suspects, it would be decided certain officers

8 might be better at interviewing, first of all?

9 A. That's correct.

10 Q. Have first crack at them, as it were?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. But then they would alternate between the differing

13 pairs of officers?

14 A. Yes, that's right.

15 Q. Am I also right in saying that those officers

16 interviewing the person in detention would identify

17 themselves at the beginning the interview, introduce

18 themselves by name to the suspect?

19 A. That's correct, yes.

20 Q. As regards the strategy for interviews, was that

21 something that was laid down and discussed with you by

22 the detective inspector in charge?

23 A. Yes, the detective inspector in charge, yes. They would

24 discuss the --

25 Q. And I presume --





1 A. They would discuss it with you before you went in; tell

2 us what it was all about.

3 Q. And I was going to say that I presume it was discussed

4 before you started?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And presumably also during?

7 A. Yes, and at the end.

8 Q. And at the end?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And presumably that was a means by which all officers

11 involved in the interviews would share with one another

12 the information that may or may not have been coming out

13 during the interviews?

14 A. That's correct, yes.

15 Q. Was it your practice to read or allow the suspect to

16 read the note of the interview at the conclusion?

17 A. That's correct, yes.

18 Q. And they were offered, were they not, the opportunity to

19 sign that interview?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. And again, I think I am right in saying that it was

22 quite frequently the case that there would be a refusal?

23 A. They refused to sign, that's correct.

24 Q. Would that be more likely in a terrorist-related

25 allegation?





1 A. Pardon?

2 Q. Would that be more likely -- to refuse to sign -- in

3 a terrorist-related allegation as opposed to a burglary

4 or a rape?

5 A. That's correct, yes.

6 Q. Now, when you had finished the interview that you had

7 been in, did you then hand on the notes to the next

8 interviewing officer?

9 A. Yes, that is correct, yes.

10 Q. And presumably you gave them a mini briefing about what

11 had gone on in the interview that you had just had?

12 A. That's correct, yes.

13 Q. Dealing with the legal representative of a suspect --

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. -- would you have any contact or dealings with that

16 representative whilst you were in the process of

17 interviewing a suspect, or not?

18 A. No, not while we were interviewing, no. We wouldn't

19 have any contact.

20 Q. So, for example, you wouldn't see the solicitor and say

21 to the solicitor, "We are asking your client about X, Y

22 and Z"?

23 A. No.

24 Q. That just wasn't done?

25 A. No, not unless at the start maybe -- I don't think so,





1 but no.

2 Q. Please understand, I'm not making a criticism. I am

3 trying to understand how it worked.

4 But of course you would be aware, first of all, if

5 the suspect said to you, "I want a solicitor" and named

6 them?

7 A. Yes, that's right.

8 Q. And presumably you would also be aware from the custody

9 record if a suspect had requested a solicitor?

10 A. That's correct, yes.

11 Q. And very often you would be aware of the name of the

12 solicitor?

13 A. That's correct, yes.

14 Q. Now, in February 1997 --

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. -- which is the date that we are focusing on in your

17 evidence, how well did you know Rosemary Nelson?

18 A. Well, I knew Rosemary just through my work, just through

19 work. I knew her to speak to and once or twice I went

20 over to her office and had tea with her and, I mean, it

21 was okay. And my daughter was at school. She was

22 thinking about going into the law and Rosemary said to

23 me tell her to come down and have a week or two with

24 her, you know? So, I mean, that was it.

25 Q. Just let me try and ask a little bit of detail about





1 that very helpful answer, please.

2 A. Pardon?

3 Q. Let me ask some detail about that very helpful answer,

4 please, some detail.

5 In February 1997, how often were you encountering

6 Mrs Nelson professionally, coming to represent clients?

7 A. Maybe I would meet her at court or something like that,

8 you know. I can't really say how many times.

9 Q. Can you use a word to describe it: infrequently,

10 regularly, frequently?

11 A. Frequently, I would say. I wasn't meaning all the time.

12 Maybe at court.

13 Q. Yes. As far as you were concerned, did she represent

14 any particular category or type of client?

15 A. When I knew her at the start, it was sort of anybody,

16 sort of normal clients. Then she started to take over

17 clients who were Provisional IRA in Lurgan and that was

18 a time, you know, if I met Rosemary, she would say hello

19 but Rosemary would have just walked on. She would want

20 no contact with us. Just really anti towards the police

21 then.

22 Q. I am going to be a nuisance and ask you for some dates,

23 I am afraid, so feel free to say you can't remember.

24 But you have used the expression "at the start". So

25 when did you first encounter Mrs Nelson as a solicitor,





1 roughly?

2 A. Middle of 1990s, maybe, you know, yes.

3 Q. And you described a change in her client base?

4 A. Yes. Oh, yes, yes.

5 Q. When was that?

6 A. That was around that time too.

7 Q. So you first encountered her in the mid 1990s?

8 A. I think so now, yes, if I can remember.

9 Q. And quite shortly after you first encountered her, the

10 type --

11 A. It could have been the early 1990s, it could have been

12 1992. I'm not really sure, to be honest.

13 Q. That is entirely fair of you to say that. Let me try

14 and help. How long after you first met her did her

15 client base start to change in your opinion?

16 A. I honestly can't say. I just can't say, but maybe two

17 or three years. I'm not sure.

18 Q. What was your view of her as a solicitor,

19 professionally?

20 A. She was a very nice person, very nice.

21 Q. If we could call up, please, on to the screen

22 RNI-224-223 (displayed), we can see a document which is

23 part of an interview that you gave as part of

24 Mr Mulvihill's investigation. And if we look at the

25 third paragraph, you said:





1 "Well, I have known Rosemary since she arrived in

2 Lurgan and she knows me well. I know her well. There

3 is no hassle with me at all. In fact, I used to go over

4 and have a cup of tea with her and things like that

5 earlier on, you know, so I mean."

6 Could we just get rid of the highlight and highlight

7 the rest of the page, please? You are asked.

8 "Question: Do you still do that?

9 "Answer: No, not now.

10 "Question: Why not?

11 "Answer: Well, the way things are at the moment.

12 "Question: What's your view of Rosemary Nelson?

13 "Answer: She's a job to do, like everybody else,

14 same as ourselves."

15 So you can recollect saying that?

16 A. I just can't recollect, but I see it now.

17 Q. And it is very similar to what you have just told me,

18 and in fact I think you mentioned that you were able to

19 discuss with Mrs Nelson some work experience for your

20 daughter?

21 A. That's correct, yes.

22 Q. And did your daughter in fact go on some work experience

23 with Mrs Nelson?

24 A. No, she didn't go. Work experience with Rosemary? No.

25 Q. But that wasn't because of any problem between the two





1 of you, it just didn't happen?

2 A. Oh, yes.

3 Q. Could we call up on the screen, please, RNI-842-054

4 (displayed) and highlight, please, paragraph 10. This

5 is your statement to the Inquiry, and you say this:

6 "As Rosemary started to take on work for more high

7 profile clients, I think she changed a bit towards us in

8 the police. For example, I would see Rosemary in court

9 and would say hello to her, but she would not be as

10 chatty as she used to be. I cannot remember exactly

11 when things changed though."

12 Yes?

13 A. Yes, that's correct.

14 Q. If we look at paragraph 11, please, highlighted:

15 "I have been asked whether it was when Rosemary took

16 on clients such as Colin Duffy and C138 that changed

17 things between us. I would certainly say that clients

18 such as these raised her profile somewhat. I would

19 still say hello and so on to her, although I did no

20 longer have cause to see her socially."

21 A. That's correct.

22 Q. You stand by that?

23 A. It was never socially with her.

24 Q. No. I think, from what you said to us, that amounted to

25 a cup of tea at her office?





1 A. Yes, okay.

2 Q. And when you went for a cup of tea, would you, as they

3 put it, talk shop?

4 A. Mostly.

5 Q. Yes. Now, I will choose my words with care but when

6 things changed between yourself and Mrs Nelson --

7 A. That's correct, yes.

8 Q. -- I think you have said, or I think what you are saying

9 is that there wasn't any active hostility. There was no

10 active hostility?

11 A. Oh, no, no.

12 Q. It was just a fact that she wasn't as friendly as she

13 had been?

14 A. That's correct, yes.

15 Q. Is that a fair way of me putting it?

16 A. Yes, that's right.

17 Q. There wasn't anything in particular that happened. This

18 just took place gradually, did it?

19 A. Yes, that's correct.

20 Q. When you said to me -- or to Mr Mulvihill in your

21 interview, when you were asked why you do not see her,

22 you say:

23 "Well, the way things are at the moment."

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. You said that in your interview?





1 A. Right.

2 Q. "At the moment", that was in November 1998?

3 A. Right.

4 Q. Were you meaning the situation generally in Lurgan?

5 A. Yes, that's correct.

6 Q. And just help me: what did you mean by that?

7 A. Well, there was still a very active unit working in

8 Lurgan at that particular time and it was -- you had to

9 watch yourself. I mean, they were very active at that

10 time, the Provisional IRA.

11 Q. So are you saying that the clients that Mrs Nelson had

12 started to represent made the previously more relaxed

13 relationship you had had with her impossible?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Is that fair?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Obviously, as you know, we are dealing with an

18 allegation that remarks were made in interview to

19 a suspect?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Now, at that time, February 1997, you have told us

22 a little bit about the context of Lurgan and what was

23 going on. It was a hot spot, I think you said?

24 A. Yes, that's correct.

25 Q. Colin Duffy had been acquitted of the murder of





1 Mr Lyness?

2 A. Right.

3 Q. At that time what was your view of Mrs Nelson

4 professionally?

5 A. I mean, she has her job to do. She is a solicitor and

6 it was up to her. I mean, what can you say? She had

7 just her job to do like everybody else, but it was high

8 profile.

9 Q. You presumably socialised with fellow officers, either

10 at work in the canteen, for example, or after work?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Yes?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And presumably, again, as I have already suggested, you

15 talked shop, to use that expression, did you?

16 A. Yes, that's right.

17 Q. You talked about your work, you talked about your cases?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Not exclusively?

20 A. No, it is normal. Yes, that's right.

21 Q. And in those conversations with fellow officers, did

22 Mrs Nelson's name arise?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Never?

25 A. I might have said -- no, not that I can remember, no.





1 Q. Never?

2 A. I can't say for definite, like, but I mean, I can't --

3 it wouldn't come up as far as I am concerned.

4 Q. Let me narrow it down. Did her name ever come up in an

5 unpleasant context?

6 A. Oh, no, definitely not.

7 Q. For example, that woman has represented so and so or

8 that woman has represented so and so and he has been

9 acquitted, for example. I did a case last week,

10 Mrs Nelson was in it and if it wasn't for her, we would

11 have got a result. You understand the sort of thing I

12 am suggesting?

13 A. No.

14 Q. So in your presence no remarks of that kind were ever

15 made amongst the police officers?

16 A. No, definitely not, no.

17 Q. Did anyone ever report to you that such remarks had been

18 made?

19 A. Sorry?

20 Q. Did anyone ever report to you that such remarks had in

21 fact been made?

22 A. No, no.

23 Q. So as far as you were concerned, at this time there was

24 no adverse comment being made in police circles about

25 Mrs Nelson?





1 A. That's correct, that's right.

2 Q. And to be absolutely clear, were you ever given the

3 impression from higher ranking officers -- not just

4 those, for example, based at Lurgan; management level,

5 if you like -- were you ever given the impression that

6 defendant solicitors or indeed Mrs Nelson were to be

7 viewed with some disdain, if I can use that word?

8 A. No, no.

9 Q. No impression of that sort was ever conveyed to you?

10 A. No, no.

11 Q. So is it your evidence to us that defence solicitors,

12 including Mrs Nelson, at this time were accorded the

13 appropriate respect for the job that they were doing?

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

15 Q. Did you ever hear anyone make any adverse comments about

16 Mrs Nelson?

17 A. No.

18 Q. If I can now just move gear slightly towards the actual

19 allegations. Concerning the interview, I expect -- and

20 I want to be fair -- that you would say to me, "Unless

21 you show me some documents, I can't remember anything

22 about this interview"?

23 A. That's correct.

24 Q. So we will proceed on that basis.

25 A. All right.





1 Q. Is that fair?

2 A. Okay.

3 Q. Is that fair?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. You have told us that you don't remember, in your

6 statement to the Inquiry, the individual that you were

7 interviewing, but if I can just have called up, please,

8 RNI 204-035, could you, please, have a look at that?

9 Now, you may or may not recognise the handwriting.

10 Do you recognise the handwriting?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Is it yours?

13 A. Yes, that's right.

14 Q. Which is why you recognise it. And we can see that C138

15 is being interviewed on 7th February by yourself and

16 a colleague; yes?

17 A. That's right.

18 Q. You can see that C138 is being interviewed by yourself

19 and a colleague on 7th February?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. I won't turn over all the pages but this interview

22 lasted for about an hour and 10 minutes?

23 A. Right.

24 Q. And there are four pages of notes?

25 A. Right.





1 Q. Would you say that that was about right for an hour's

2 worth of interview more or less, or did it depend?

3 A. More or less, you know. It all depends during the

4 interview, you know. It could be more, it could be

5 less, you know.

6 Q. And I presume --

7 A. It all depends.

8 Q. -- you will forgive me for saying so, some people were

9 better at making a summary of an interview than others?

10 A. Yes, I would say so, yes.

11 Q. Would you say you were good at doing it?

12 A. Sorry?

13 Q. Would you say that you were good at making such

14 a summary?

15 A. Was I good?

16 Q. Yes.

17 A. At interviewing?

18 Q. No, at making a summary?

19 A. No, I wasn't good, no.

20 Q. What I am saying to you is some officers were better at

21 writing out a summary than others.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Were you one of those better ones, or not?

24 A. I would say average.

25 Q. That is very diplomatic. Somewhere in the middle?





1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Could we turn over the page, please, to RNI-204-036

3 (displayed)? We can see at the top, if we could just

4 highlight the top half of the page:

5 "Question: Did you see your solicitor?

6 "Answer: Yes, my solicitor, Rosemary Nelson, wrote

7 out a statement for me telling what happened. I have

8 signed it and hand it over to you.

9 "Question: We have read the statement and [P135]

10 then labelled and bagged the statement, marking it

11 a certain number. Do you understand?

12 "Answer: Yes."

13 Do you see that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Do you remember now, or not really --

16 A. No, not really.

17 Q. So I can tell you, because we have heard this and we can

18 see this, that this was -- and these are my words --

19 essentially a statement setting out an explanation for

20 movements and for events that the suspect wished to give

21 to you?

22 A. Right, yes.

23 Q. And was that quite commonplace for a suspect to produce

24 a written statement?

25 A. Yes.





1 Q. And as a policeman interviewing a suspect, did that

2 raise an inward groan when such a document was produced?

3 A. That's right.

4 Q. Why was that?

5 A. I mean, he was helped with it, with the statement. He

6 didn't make it himself, you know.

7 Q. He made it, because you have said:

8 "Did you see your solicitor."

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. He made it in consultation with his solicitor.

11 A. That's right.

12 Q. So are you suggesting that it was in any way improper,

13 the way the statement had been produced?

14 A. No, nothing improper, no.

15 Q. But would you be saying that you would have preferred to

16 have a free run at the suspect?

17 A. That's correct, yes.

18 Q. Without him having had the opportunity to, as it were,

19 be assisted -- and I don't mean that in an improper

20 way -- to put his thoughts down on to paper, or his

21 account?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Is that what you are saying?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Because once that account was down on paper, it made it





1 easier, did it not, for the suspect to make no reply?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. Or say to you, "It is down there on paper"?

4 A. Yes, that's correct.

5 Q. "Read it for yourself. I have nothing more to say"?

6 A. Yes, that's right.

7 Q. So it was a source of frustration to you in your

8 endeavours to interview the suspect?

9 A. That's correct.

10 Q. Because either in the interview you were hoping to

11 secure a confession?

12 A. That's right, that's correct.

13 Q. Or an account, or differing accounts that could be used

14 to unpick a guilty suspect's story?

15 A. That's correct, yes.

16 Q. The reason I'm showing this little bit of history, which

17 you don't obviously remember, is that C138, at this

18 point in his interviewing process, alleges that once he

19 had produced this statement --

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. -- things took a turn for the worse, and it was at that

22 point that allegations were made, or abuse was levelled

23 about Mrs Nelson?

24 A. Okay, yes.

25 Q. Just so you understand, that is the context of what I am





1 saying.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. You will also forgive me that I understand you deny all

4 suggestions that you or anybody else made any derogatory

5 remarks about Mrs Nelson?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. But you will bear with me, I need to go through them

8 with you. I need to go through them with you.

9 A. Right.

10 Q. Okay? Now, if we could call up on to the screen,

11 RNI-114-111, please (displayed) and if we could

12 highlight it, we have got here a statement from C138

13 dated 27th October; yes?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And I will just read it:

16 "On Thursday, 2nd February 1997 ..."

17 Now, we have agreed that that should be the 7th:

18 "... 7th February 1997, the police started to

19 question me. I refused to answer the questions and

20 requested my solicitor, Rosemary Nelson. I made my

21 statement to Rosemary who recorded same in writing and

22 handed this to the police. Rosemary then left me at the

23 station (Gough). After Rosemary left, the following

24 incidents occurred:

25 "The police, namely P162 and another grey-haired





1 policeman (I would know their faces if I seen them

2 again), started to fire abuse at me in relation to my

3 solicitor (Rosemary Nelson)."

4 Now, forgive me, were you a grey-haired policeman --

5 A. No.

6 Q. In February 1997?

7 A. Definitely not.

8 Q. "They said she was a money grabbing bitch. She is only

9 in it for the money, she got him off (Colin Duffy), he

10 is a Provo bastard, and suggesting Rosemary Nelson was

11 as bad as Colin Duffy, saying that she was a Provo

12 solicitor. They told me I would have got out a lot

13 sooner if I had not requested Rosemary Nelson because of

14 her firm, and that the only people who requested

15 Rosemary are the Provos.

16 "They also made fun of the marks on Rosemary's face,

17 saying 'How did that happen, is that a fucking

18 birthmark?' They called her a bastard, fucker and said I

19 wouldn't 'be in this place only for the fucking

20 bastard', meanings Rosemary. Each time I was questioned

21 they seemed more interested in Rosemary Nelson. They

22 stated that Sharon was not too bad, but Rosemary, she

23 was the bastard of the lot. They kept going on to me

24 about Rosemary getting Colin Duffy off. They said they

25 knew Duffy shot Lyness and she knew it too."





1 I am sorry to have gone through that again.

2 A. That's okay.

3 Q. But just in fairness to you, have you ever heard any

4 remarks of that nature being made to a suspect?

5 A. No.

6 Q. And have you yourself ever made any remarks such as

7 that?

8 A. Definitely not.

9 Q. Were you ever tempted to make such remarks to try and

10 make the suspect lose his cool?

11 A. Did I -- sorry?

12 Q. Were you ever tempted to make remarks such as this --

13 A. No.

14 Q. -- as a tactic --

15 A. No.

16 Q. -- to try and make the suspect lose his cool?

17 A. Not using that language, no.

18 Q. Was it ever discussed between yourself and colleagues

19 whether or not you should try something like this in an

20 interview?

21 A. Pardon?

22 Q. Was it ever discussed between you and colleagues that

23 you should try something like that in an interview?

24 A. No, never.

25 Q. And then didn't in fact go on to do it?





1 A. No, never.

2 Q. You make, in fairness to you, a comment I think a moment

3 ago about the language used here. I presume you mean

4 the bad language?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Why, if I understand you, are you saying particularly

7 you wouldn't have used that language?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. Why do you say that?

10 A. Because I don't use that language.

11 Q. Not even --

12 A. No.

13 Q. Not even under pressure?

14 A. No.

15 Q. When frustrated by a suspect?

16 A. I don't use that sort of language.

17 Q. When frustrated by a suspect charged with a serious

18 offence effectively bringing the shutters down on the

19 interview by giving you a pre-written statement?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Would you say that had happened many, many times to you

22 before?

23 A. It has, yes, a couple of times, yes.

24 Q. Is it possible that this may have been said in your

25 absence at any time?





1 A. It could have. I don't know.

2 Q. But it was never discussed afterwards by any of the

3 police involved?

4 A. Oh, no, definitely not.

5 Q. Now, C138 goes on to say that further allegations were

6 made, not only in this interview, but afterwards in

7 other interviews, by yourself and your colleague and by

8 other officers. But again, I think you will say you

9 know nothing about that?

10 A. Definitely not.

11 Q. And you deny that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. What would you have done if one of your colleagues had

14 in fact made remarks of this nature?

15 A. During the interview?

16 Q. Yes. If this was true but it wasn't you?

17 A. It has never happened to me, so I don't really know

18 what -- I probably -- stopped the interview and go and

19 see a DI.

20 Q. So that had never happened?

21 A. No.

22 Q. But you would have reported your colleague?

23 A. It never happened.

24 Q. But you would have reported your colleague --

25 A. Yes.





1 Q. -- if something had been said like that, would you?

2 A. They would know not to say it. It didn't happen. It

3 never happened, you know, even in any other interviews.

4 Q. But was there not a bond stronger between fellow police

5 officers at this time that might have made you hesitate

6 before reporting a colleague?

7 A. It never happened. It never happened. I can't really

8 say, you know.

9 Q. Do you think that the acquittal of Mr Duffy for the

10 murder of Mr Lyness changed the police's view of

11 Mrs Nelson in Lurgan at that time?

12 A. Changed the police -- sorry, what did you say, sorry?

13 Q. That is all right. Mr Duffy, Colin Duffy, acquitted of

14 the Lyness murder?

15 A. Right.

16 Q. Represented by Mrs Nelson?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do you think that that result, that acquittal, changed

19 the view of Mrs Nelson held by the police in Lurgan?

20 A. I don't think so. I mean, there is other solicitors who

21 represented the Provos too. I mean, it is hard for me

22 to say.

23 Q. Just moving back one pace, did you in fact ever report

24 a colleague for any misdemeanour during an interview?

25 A. No.





1 Q. At the end of interviews with suspects, I think one of

2 the things that is said or was said traditionally was,

3 "Would you like to read it through and sign it"?

4 A. That's correct, yes, that's right.

5 Q. Do you ever recollect a suspect saying, "Yes, please, I

6 would like you to insert words" at some point in

7 a transcript?

8 A. Yes, that has happened before, yes.

9 Q. And did you always agree to do that?

10 A. Oh, yes, yes.

11 Q. Even if you disagreed, you would agree to do that, would

12 you?

13 A. You would have to if he said, "I didn't say that, I said

14 this", yes, I would have to put it down.

15 Q. Quite. But on this occasion there was a refusal to sign

16 the note of interview by C138?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Would you have taken that as to be an indication that he

19 did not agree with the content?

20 A. No, because no matter what you write down, they won't

21 sign anyway. No matter what you write down, they won't

22 sign anyway.

23 Q. And forgive me just for going back a step again, you say

24 that the representation by Mrs Nelson of Mr Duffy didn't

25 change things?





1 A. Yes.

2 Q. How did you know that Mrs Nelson represented Mr Duffy?

3 A. It was well known. It is well known. Everybody, like,

4 in Lurgan, there at that particular time, knew. It

5 wasn't a secret.

6 Q. But you didn't, you say, discuss it at all with

7 colleagues?

8 A. Oh, no.

9 Q. Or hear it discussed?

10 A. I would head home, I wouldn't stay. I wouldn't have

11 socialised around Lurgan.

12 Q. But in the canteen over a cup of tea, for example?

13 A. Not really.

14 Q. Not really?

15 A. It is hard -- I just can't remember, you know, that

16 particular thing.

17 Q. But your view at the time was that solicitors were

18 simply doing their job, was it?

19 A. Oh, yes.

20 Q. You didn't think that they were at any time being

21 deliberately obstructive --

22 A. No, definitely not, no.

23 Q. -- in the face of pressure on you to obtain evidence to

24 put people on trial?

25 A. That is the way it was here.





1 Q. Did you feel under pressure at the time? Was there

2 a lot of pressure on you to get results?

3 A. No, definitely not.

4 Q. Even in serious terrorist-related offences?

5 A. That's right.

6 Q. Would you like to pour some more water? (Pause)

7 Time moves on about a year or so to January 1998,

8 and again, you will be looking at me saying I can't

9 remember this, but bear with me because I will try and

10 help you with the documents. But time moves on about

11 a year and then you are told a complaint has been made?

12 A. Okay.

13 Q. Okay?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Prior to you receiving, as it were, official

16 notification, had you thought to yourself, "Oh, dear,

17 there could well be a complaint coming out of this one"?

18 A. No. There is complaints made regular, like.

19 Q. Just expand on that for me, please?

20 A. Well, during interviews at one particular time they

21 would have complained about anything and everything.

22 Q. I am sorry, "they" means?

23 A. Provisional IRA seemed to have a -- no matter what

24 interview you had with them, there was always

25 a complaint came with them.





1 Q. We will return to that in due course, but this came as

2 a bolt out of the blue to you, did it?

3 A. Right.

4 Q. Yes?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And if we could call up on to the screen, please,

7 RNI-203-063 (displayed), I don't know if we can

8 highlight the whole page. That may be asking too much.

9 But if we look and highlight the top half of the page,

10 perhaps, we can see that this is to you, P135:

11 "Notice of report. C138, on behalf of

12 Rosemary Nelson. Details of report ... Allegation or

13 Complaint ..."

14 And I'm not going to read it, but the text under

15 "Details of Report" replicates the allegations that

16 I have read out earlier?

17 A. Right.

18 Q. Okay? Could we remove the highlight, please, and

19 highlight the bottom half of the page? We can see there

20 that there are various formalities with which, no doubt,

21 you will be familiar, and you can see that you

22 acknowledge being served with the notice on

23 19th January, and you signed it; yes?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And could we turn the page, please, to RNI-203-064





1 (displayed)? We can see there -- probably no need to

2 highlight it -- that you have a chance to say anything

3 you want to, and you have said, "I have no knowledge of

4 the allegations"?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. So whilst you may not remember this, it jogs your

7 memory, I hope, that on 19th January 1998 this was the

8 position. Could we call up RNI-203-65 (displayed).

9 Could we highlight the text, please. Again, this is

10 a statement after service of form 17, I think known

11 colloquially as a 17/3?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. P135 on 4th March 1998:

14 "I have been served with a form 17/3 by

15 Detective Sergeant D Carson on 19th January 1998. I have

16 read the details of the complaints and I understand all

17 matters contained in the form 17/3. I do not require

18 time to think the matter over and I wish to make

19 a statement. I agree to my previously made statements

20 regarding this matter to be tendered for use in any

21 related disciplinary enquiry."

22 A. That's correct, yes.

23 Q. So this was par for the course, nothing out of the

24 ordinary here. This is you dealing with the

25 allegations.





1 Could we call up, please, RNI-203-076 (displayed)?

2 There is a lot of information on this page, but could we

3 again just highlight the top half? We have got personal

4 details and what you are told:

5 "The above was informed of the identity of the

6 officer and that he was investigating a complaint

7 against police made by C138 ..."

8 Then we have got:

9 "... relating to alleged attempts to pervert the

10 course of justice."

11 It goes on to explain threatening and abusive

12 language regarding Rosemary Nelson, and there is

13 a caution and a reply box; yes? Do you see that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And could we just highlight the bottom half of the page?

16 Again, we can read part of a document which, whilst all

17 of us may not be familiar with this document, we have

18 all probably seen it; it is a pro forma with the

19 signature of yourself and the interviewer at the bottom

20 of the page.

21 Now, could we call up, please, on the left-hand side

22 of the screen RNI-203-077 (displayed), which is the next

23 page, and on the right-hand side of the screen,

24 RNI-206-088 (displayed)?

25 Let me just explain to you what we have got going on





1 here.

2 A. Right.

3 Q. On the left, we have the next page of this form,

4 handwritten.

5 A. Right.

6 Q. And on the right-hand side of the screen, we have

7 a statement from the investigating officer, and the

8 reason I have put that on to the screen is very simply

9 this: if you look on the right-hand side, two thirds of

10 the way down, the Q and A bit, if we could highlight

11 that, that, I hope -- and I think -- is a typed version

12 of what is handwritten on the left. And because the

13 handwriting is pretty awful, I think it is easier if we

14 look at the typed version; all right?

15 A. Pardon?

16 Q. I think the handwriting is pretty awful on the left.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. So I am just highlighting a typed version of it.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. So this is you speaking in response to the allegations:

21 "I totally deny these allegations. The interviews

22 took place as recorded in the interview notes. Nothing

23 irregular was said about Rosemary Nelson by myself or

24 any of my colleagues. I have known Mrs Nelson for

25 several years now and I was always on good terms with





1 her. I would not say those things about her and I would

2 not tolerate any of my colleagues saying anything about

3 her."

4 Yes?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. So I am just trying to be of assistance to you,

7 following through your denials, which accord with what

8 you are saying to us today.

9 This is what you told the Complaints and Discipline

10 Department of the RUC?

11 A. Right.

12 Q. Before I move on a little bit, what was your opinion of

13 the Complaints and Discipline Department and process of

14 the Royal Ulster Constabulary at this time?

15 A. What do you mean?

16 Q. Well, what did you think of them? Were they any good?

17 A. They had their job to do like everybody else, I suppose.

18 Q. Again, if I may say so, a diplomatic answer. Were they

19 viewed with suspicion?

20 A. At times, yes, I would say so.

21 Q. But I think I am right in saying that there were

22 disciplinary issues involved were you not to have

23 cooperated?

24 A. Yes, that's right.

25 Q. I'm not suggesting that is why you did cooperate.





1 A. I know, yes.

2 Q. But you cooperated with this to the extent that you met

3 them when you were meant to, you replied in the way that

4 we have seen?

5 A. That's correct, yes.

6 Q. Now, as I think you probably do remember, that wasn't

7 the end of it?

8 A. That's right.

9 Q. Because Mr Mulvihill then --

10 A. Yes, that's correct.

11 Q. -- came on the scene, and we have already touched on

12 this at the very outset of your evidence.

13 Could we call up again, please, just quickly,

14 RNI-224-211 (displayed)? Thank you. No need to

15 highlight it. This is the interview with yourself on

16 11th November 1998. So again, we are nearly two years

17 after the interview which you and I have talked about.

18 I'm not going to go through this with you, but in

19 that interview you denied again all the allegations that

20 were being made against you and, indeed, against other

21 officers?

22 A. That's correct, yes.

23 Q. But if we could call up, please, RNI-224-223

24 (displayed), I think we have had a little look at this

25 already, but if we could highlight the bottom half of





1 the page, you say:

2 "She'd a job to do like everybody else, same as

3 yourselves."

4 Then you say:

5 "Is it usual for suspects to make complaints about

6 their treatment or how they were interviewed? There is

7 an ongoing -- what way can I say it? -- but there's --

8 to discredit the RUC, discredit especially the CID.

9 There has been reports made, allegations made, which are

10 totally false, my own opinion."

11 And if we could just turn over the page, please, to

12 RNI-224-224 (displayed) and highlight the top half:

13 "Is that why you think these allegations have been

14 made?

15 "Answer: Yes, definitely.

16 "Question: Personally, how do you feel about this

17 complaint?

18 "Answer: There is no grounds to it at all. It

19 didn't happen in my presence anyway."

20 So this is what you have said to Mr Mulvihill. And

21 if you remember, a few moments or minutes ago I promised

22 you that we would come back to this area of your

23 evidence.

24 So just to look at this in a little more detail, are

25 you saying that this was -- I will use my own word -- a





1 conspiracy to make unfounded allegations against the

2 Royal Ulster Constabulary?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. Are you saying that this was a pre-arranged strategy?

5 A. Yes, that's right.

6 Q. Prior to people being arrested for terrorist offences?

7 A. Yes, I would say so.

8 Q. They would have arranged or have it straight in their

9 mind that a tactic would be to make an allegation?

10 A. That's correct. Yes.

11 Q. So you are not saying that it was something they thought

12 of afterwards, after they had been released?

13 A. No, before, that's right.

14 Q. You see what I am saying?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Are you saying that this was applicable to all terrorist

17 groups?

18 A. That's correct, yes.

19 Q. So not just one side?

20 A. Yes, the other side too, yes.

21 Q. Was Mrs Nelson the only solicitor in Lurgan who

22 represented PIRA suspects?

23 A. No, I don't think so, there was other ones.

24 Q. Was it only, if I use the word, I hope, advisedly,

25 Republicans who made complaints about treatment in





1 interview?

2 A. Sorry?

3 Q. Was it only Republicans who made complaints about --

4 A. Oh, no, both sides made complaints.

5 Q. So it was a strategy adopted by paramilitaries?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Did Loyalist paramilitaries make complaints that their

8 solicitors had been abused?

9 A. That's correct, yes.

10 Q. Now, you have told us that you deny these allegations?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. That it was essentially a pre-ordained tactic?

13 A. Okay.

14 Q. A pre-ordained tactic; yes?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. It wouldn't have helped any defence, would it, making

17 these allegations?

18 A. Sorry?

19 Q. It wouldn't have helped any defence to the criminal

20 charges, would it, to have said the police are abusive

21 about my solicitor?

22 A. That's right, yes.

23 Q. That wouldn't have helped, would it?

24 A. That's right.

25 Q. Let me just be clear, what I am suggesting is were





1 someone who was being interviewed to say, "The police

2 physically abused me and that is why I admitted to doing

3 X, Y and Z", that is something that could be seen as

4 a tactic to help them later on down the line in the

5 court?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. But what I am suggesting to you -- and please feel free

8 to disagree -- comments and abuse about a solicitor --

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. -- I suggest to you that wouldn't help later on in the

11 court process with their acquittal or conviction,

12 would it?

13 A. That's right.

14 Q. So on your account, your opinion, this was done as

15 a tactic simply to discredit the RUC; is that right?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. And as far as you are concerned, it was also presumably

18 to tie up resources in investigating it?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. Is that right? Because --

21 A. Yes, that's right, yes.

22 Q. Because you cooperating with the enquiry would either

23 take you off duty or presumably even a rest day?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Now, you would say, I think, that it was very easy to





1 make these types of allegations?

2 A. That's correct, yes.

3 Q. But it was also very difficult to disprove them?

4 A. That's correct, yes.

5 Q. I want to perhaps just suggest another view to you, so

6 again give us your comments on this: the suspects being

7 questioned by yourself and other officers, they did not

8 have a solicitor present?

9 A. That's correct.

10 Q. There was no audio record?

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

12 Q. And the allegations that we are talking about this

13 afternoon concern words, not actions?

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

15 Q. Not "He hit me over the head and cut me"?

16 A. That's right, yes.

17 Q. So would you accept from me that it is equally true that

18 it, in theory, would have been easy for police officers

19 to make these comments and not be caught --

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. -- saying it?

22 A. Yes, that's right.

23 Q. Yes. You say that this was a pre-ordained strategy, it

24 was a conspiracy -- that was my word?

25 A. Yes, that's right.





1 Q. Why do you say that? Is that just your opinion?

2 A. I mean -- yes, I mean -- it was well known at the time,

3 you know. If you interview a terrorist suspect, you are

4 going to get a complaint against you, no matter what,

5 you know.

6 Q. But you were not in a position, were you, to adjudicate

7 whether or not these complaints were true?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. I mean, if somebody said to you, "You will never believe

10 it, so and so has made a complaint about me and so and

11 so interviewing him", you might be deeply sympathetic

12 and you might say, "That has happened to me and I didn't

13 do anything", but you wouldn't actually know whether it

14 was true or not, would you?

15 A. Sorry?

16 Q. My fault, a long question. What I am saying to you is:

17 you were not in a position to know whether complaints

18 made against other officers were true or not?

19 A. That I wouldn't know if they were true or not?

20 Q. No, you wouldn't be in a position to know that, would

21 you?

22 A. No.

23 Q. You might have your views.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. You might say, "I know this officer, he is a good chap





1 and I can't believe he would ever do that", but you

2 would never know for certain, would you, one way or the

3 other?

4 A. No.

5 Q. So was it discussed between officers that these

6 complaints were being made?

7 A. Sorry?

8 Q. Was it discussed between officers that --

9 A. Oh, yes, you'd say, "I've got a complaint, I've got a

10 complaint".

11 Q. Another one?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And it is a paramilitary organisation or it is PIRA?

14 A. Yes, or UVF or whatever, Loyalist.

15 Q. Why would the Loyalist paramilitaries want to undermine

16 the RUC?

17 A. I don't know.

18 Q. But you say that it was a tactic of theirs?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. So when you say this was what was going on, this was

21 what was behind these complaints, you say that because

22 that was, first of all, your opinion?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Because you say, "Well, I wasn't guilty of it, I didn't

25 do this"?





1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Secondly, because you knew other officers who had had

3 complaints made against them who also denied it?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And thirdly, it was the generally held view of the

6 police in Lurgan or elsewhere?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. In Lurgan or elsewhere, that this was happening?

9 A. Yes, that's right.

10 Q. Which was it? Was it the view of the police in Lurgan

11 or all over Northern Ireland?

12 A. All over. It wasn't just Lurgan, it was all over.

13 Q. That is what I wanted to ask. To be very careful about

14 this, and in fairness to you, are you suggesting that

15 defence solicitors, and in particular Mrs Nelson, played

16 any active role in this tactic?

17 A. Oh, no, no, not at all.

18 Q. Would you say -- and again, you may disagree -- that she

19 and others were being used unwittingly?

20 A. Sorry?

21 Q. She and others were being manipulated, being used as

22 pawns?

23 A. Right.

24 Q. To serve --

25 A. Yes.





1 Q. -- the purposes of the paramilitaries?

2 A. Yes, right.

3 Q. Is that a better way of putting it?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. You understand that question?

6 A. Pardon?

7 Q. You understand that question, do you?

8 A. No. Say it again, please? Sorry.

9 Q. My fault again.

10 A. Sorry.

11 Q. No, no, not at all. We have agreed, you and I, that you

12 are not saying defence solicitors or Mrs Nelson were

13 deliberately involved in these sort of tactics?

14 A. No.

15 Q. You are not saying that?

16 A. No.

17 Q. What I am asking you is: are you saying that defence

18 solicitors and Mrs Nelson were being used as pawns by

19 the paramilitaries to further this tactic?

20 A. That's correct, yes.

21 Q. But you were nevertheless frustrated, were you not, by

22 the quite legitimate way in which Mrs Nelson and other

23 defence solicitors --

24 A. Yes, that's right.

25 Q. -- represented their clients? Putting it another way,





1 you would rather they didn't, or hadn't, done quite such

2 a good job?

3 A. That's right.

4 Q. That would be fair? Now, I just want to deal finally

5 with a slightly different area and I think I can do it

6 very quickly.

7 There is a suggestion by a Mr Colm Toman --

8 A. Right.

9 Q. -- that when he had been arrested, a certain comment was

10 made to him. And if we could just call up on to the

11 screen, RNI-205-306 (displayed), if we can just

12 highlight the bottom of the page, please. Now, this

13 concerned a part after rocket attack involving what I

14 think was known as a “Prig”. Is that right? A rocket

15 known as a “Prig”?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. If we look at the bottom:

18 "P135 interview room and produced [I think it says]

19 “AF4 1 x Prig A2."

20 Yes?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. On the screen, and if we could turn over the page,

23 please to RNI-205-307:

24 "rocket ..."

25 And then it is the date, and Mr Toman was asked,





1 "Question: Have you seen that before?

2 "Answer: No.

3 "Question: Have you touched it before?

4 "Answer: I have never seen one before. What is

5 it?"

6 Then:

7 "P135 out of interview room."

8 Can you see that on the screen?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. All I am going to ask you is that Mr Toman has alleged

11 that a comment was made during his interview along the

12 lines of:

13 "I suppose Rosemary Nelson showed you how to make

14 that."

15 Referring to the device. And you will appreciate I

16 am just giving you an opportunity to deal with that,

17 because you were the one that brought it into the room.

18 So did you say anything like that?

19 A. Not at all.

20 Q. Do you remember anyone ever saying anything like that?

21 A. I can't really remember this particular ...

22 Q. It was in February 1997.

23 A. Right.

24 Q. But I just wanted, as a matter of completeness, to show

25 you that.





1 A. Okay.

2 Q. Now, just the last thing I want to say to you -- and

3 this is said to all witnesses who come to the Inquiry --

4 this is said to all witnesses who come to the Inquiry

5 after they have been asked questions, is: is there

6 anything else that you would like to tell the Panel or

7 the Inquiry -- this is your opportunity -- that you

8 don't think I have covered with you, or that you came

9 here wanting to say that has been covered in your

10 statement or your evidence today?

11 A. No, I think I have covered it quite well.

12 Q. I appreciate we have had one or two difficulties, which

13 have been entirely my fault, so, so long as you are happy

14 that you understand all the questions and you have said

15 all that you would like to, then thank you very much and

16 I do not have any more questions for you.

17 I don't know if the Panel have any questions?

18 DAME VALERIE STRACHAN: I just wanted to clarify one point

19 where I thought that possibly Mr Savill and you might

20 have got at cross purposes.

21 At one point early this afternoon, Mr Savill read

22 out to you one of the allegations which was:

23 "The police, namely P162, and another grey-haired

24 policeman started to fire abuse at me in relation to my

25 solicitor."





1 He went on to say:

2 "Now, forgive me, were you a grey-haired policeman?"

3 And you said:

4 "No.

5 "Question: In February 1997?"

6 And you said:

7 "Definitely not."

8 I suspect that what you were saying "definitely not"

9 to was the allegation that you had fired abuse, not to

10 having been a grey-haired policeman?

11 A. That's correct.

12 DAME VALERIE STRACHAN: Have I got that right?

13 A. Yes.

14 DAME VALERIE STRACHAN: I just wanted to be sure.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: You did have grey hair, did you, in 1997?

16 MR SAVILL: I wonder if it would help. What is being asked

17 of you is: did you have grey hair in 1997?

18 A. I don't think so.

19 MR SAVILL: Along with many of us, I think that is probably

20 wishful thinking.

21 DAME VALERIE STRACHAN: I asked because I already had grey

22 hair in 1997. Thank you.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr [name redacted], before the witness leaves, would

24 you, please, confirm that all the cameras have been

25 switched off?





1 MR [name redacted]: Yes, sir, they have.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming today to give

3 evidence before us. You may leave now, thank you.

4 A. Okay.

5 (Witness leaves)

6 THE CHAIRMAN: The witness has been escorted out. Is there

7 anything else you wish to say, Mr Savill?

8 MR SAVILL: Sir, yes, just a very brief administrative

9 announcement.


11 MR SAVILL: It has been a long time in coming, but I am

12 given to understand that yesterday that Part 2 of this

13 Inquiry's work, the bundle, was released. I use that

14 expression -- and I am not making any criticism, but I

15 don't think all participants have either collected it or

16 received it. But I know that it is my learned friend

17 Mr Phillips's intention to open this part of the case,

18 the Inquiry's work, on Tuesday of next week. So as

19 a matter of information for all present, I'm just

20 delivering that news now.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Savill. We will adjourn now

22 until 10.15 tomorrow morning.

23 (3.21 pm)

24 (The Inquiry adjourned until 10.15 am the following day)





1 I N D E X

P135 (sworn) ..................................... 2
Questions by MR SAVILL ....................... 2