Return to the list of transcripts

Full Hearings

Hearing: 21st April 2008, day 5

Click here to download the LiveNote version















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

on Monday, 21st April 2008
commencing at 1.00 pm

Day 5









1 Monday, 21st April 2008

2 (1.00 pm)

3 Opening submissions by MR PHILLIPS (continued)

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Phillips.

5 MR PHILLIPS: Sir, before returning to the Mulvihill

6 complaints, may I just mention by way of housekeeping

7 that we have handed out to the Full Participants a short

8 list of the complaints that we are particularly focusing

9 on, mostly against the police, but also a couple against

10 the Army, and the dates on which the events occurred,

11 some details in relation to whether or not they formed

12 part of the Mulvihill collection and an indication of

13 which are likely to give evidence in some cases that is

14 still an issue to be decided by you.

15 Sir, that may, I hope, help. Then, more

16 substantially, I mentioned that I would be outlining the

17 Garvaghy Road complaint matter and we have produced two

18 tables. The first is an attempt to set out in

19 a chronology the very complicated events of

20 5th/6th July 1997, and I will introduce these in due

21 course, and secondly, a chronology of the investigation,

22 itself a long and another complicated history, in the

23 hope that that will assist everybody and save time in

24 introducing it later.

25 So, sir, I will come back to those, but if we could




1 resume the Mulvihill history where we were and have,

2 please, RNI-209-271. We left the history at this point,

3 if you remember, where the Chairman of the Commission

4 had written two letters in very similar, if not

5 identical terms, the first to the Chief Constable and

6 the second to the Secretary of State, expressing the

7 concerns of the Commission and the supervising member

8 about the conduct of the investigation and flagging up

9 the Commission's intention not to issue a statement of

10 satisfaction. That is the third paragraph, we can see

11 in the middle of it under the framework that we looked

12 at last week.

13 Now, as with all aspects of this investigation, what

14 I am trying to do at this stage is to outline what

15 happened, rather than to go into detail, and this is

16 a very good example. In the evidence that you will see

17 and hear, it emerges that there was some considerable

18 background to the writing of this letter. It emerges,

19 for example, that the Commission were not all at one so

20 far as the decision to take this position, namely that

21 they would not agree to issue a certificate, was

22 concerned. There was, in short, some dissent in the

23 ranks, but for our purposes and for the moment this is

24 the letter which went out from the Commission to the

25 Chief Constable and Secretary of State.




1 Could we turn over, please, to RNI-209-273, and the

2 last paragraph. That was the way it was put:

3 "Along with the supervising Commission member, I am

4 certain that this investigation has been irreparably

5 undermined and that the facts of this case, whatever

6 they might be, cannot now be established."

7 And one can see, therefore, that the way it was put,

8 both to the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable,

9 was to present them with a very bleak picture on the

10 face of it, namely that damage had occurred to the

11 investigation which could not be repaired, and also that

12 the underlying point of the investigation, namely to

13 establish the facts, could not now be achieved.

14 Now, sir, I have said before that, unsurprisingly,

15 you may think, this caused something of a flurry and we

16 can see part of that at RNI-209-274, the same file.

17 This is a letter going out from the police division of

18 the NIO to the Command Secretariat, in other words to

19 the Chief Constable's office, asking for an urgent

20 update on the complaints made by Rosemary Nelson. The

21 last information which we have on file dates back

22 to March and reads as follows and then a summary. Then

23 a summary, the first being threats against her life and

24 what is there set out is clearly what the police

25 division had recorded as being the latest position on




1 each of the three matters: first, threats against her

2 life -- and I interpret that to be the LAJI matters --

3 secondly, the Colin Duffy complaint; and then thirdly,

4 the Garvaghy Road matter, which I mentioned just

5 a moment ago. And you will see in handwriting at the

6 bottom right, somebody, one infers, within the Command

7 Secretariat had spoken to the author of this letter and

8 it says:

9 "Spoke to the author and in light of other

10 developments, no reply needed at this time."

11 Now, sir, back in response to the Chairman's letter

12 came the Chief Constable's on 24th June, and this is at

13 RNI-209-277. This is in fact addressed not to

14 Mr Donnelly, the Chairman, but rather -- and in his

15 absence -- to the -- I think it is the Deputy Chairman:

16 "Complaints against officers of the RUC in respect

17 of alleged threats to Rosemary Nelson, solicitor. On

18 22nd June 1998, I received a letter from your chairman

19 boldly titled and referred to in the body of the letter

20 as being 'in confidence'. Despite taking a most serious

21 view of the content of the letter, I felt constrained by

22 the indicated confidentiality from taking any action

23 other than arranging an appointment with the Chairman to

24 discuss the letter's contents. The Chairman being

25 currently abroad, this appointment has been arranged




1 for, what I am told by your office is the earliest

2 opportunity, on Wednesday, 1st July.

3 "On the early evening of 24th June 1998, I was

4 visited by Mr John Steele of the NIO who had what

5 appeared to be an exactly similar letter addressed,

6 I believe, to the Secretary of State. Beyond the

7 contents of the letter, Mr Steele intimated to me that

8 the ICPC intended, on Friday, 26th June 1998, to issue

9 letters to Rosemary Nelson, solicitor, and to

10 Mr Colin Duffy indicating that the ICPC would not be

11 issuing a statement indicating their satisfaction with

12 the conduct of the investigation under the terms of

13 Article 8 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.

14 "I would be astounded if this should happen before

15 my meeting with the Chairman. There has certainly been

16 no such indication given to me either in the letter or

17 by any other means. The idea that such an outcome

18 should arise of course gives me the greatest cause for

19 concern, so too must the question of how we arrived at

20 this point without the matter being brought to my

21 earlier attention or to my head of Complaints and

22 Discipline Department.

23 "I would like in my meeting with the Chairman to

24 address a number of issues including:

25 "1. Was any objection to the investigating officer




1 expressed by the Commission either on his appointment or

2 subsequently?

3 "2. If not, is this a departure from the course

4 taken by the Commission in thankfully a very small

5 number of earlier cases where objection was taken to an

6 investigating officer?

7 "3. Were any directions given in writing to the

8 investigating officer as has been the case in other

9 investigations?

10 "4. I will also want to discuss the appointment of

11 an appropriate officer to investigate what I interpret

12 as a complaint by the Commission. I will have to

13 consider further what supervisory mechanisms are put in

14 place in relation to such an investigation, the ICPC

15 being the actual complainant.

16 "5. In relation to the ongoing investigation which

17 is the specific subject of this correspondence, I will

18 want to discuss further investigative steps, including

19 the possible appointment of an external officer to

20 conclude this investigation.

21 "The matters raised in the letter received by me

22 certainly mean we are not 'at the end after

23 investigation' within the terms of Article 7 of the

24 Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. I therefore

25 request that the file be returned to me for completion,




1 that no statement be issued until I have been given the

2 opportunity of a meeting the Chairman. In the public

3 interest, I feel we must discuss this matter in detail,

4 including how best the investigation can be completed so

5 that the DPP can give due consideration to the criminal

6 dimension of the matter and subsequently how proper

7 consideration can be given to the disciplinary

8 dimension."

9 That response was also sent by the Chief Constable

10 to the police division at the NIO.

11 Now, sir, it is a statement of the obvious that this

12 letter reveals the very considerable concern felt by the

13 Chief Constable upon receipt of that letter of 19th June

14 and, as he put it, the most serious view that he took of

15 it. And he identifies his specific concerns and raises

16 five matters to be resolved, in his view.

17 But you can see the start of it all is the point

18 that the letter, having been expressed to be in

19 confidence, was in fact repeated, as far as he could

20 tell anyway, in a letter to the Secretary of State,

21 which seems to have come as a surprise to him,

22 a surprise revealed when Mr Steele, who, as we will

23 hear, is a very senior civil servant within the NIO,

24 came to see him bearing a copy of the letter.

25 Above all, running through the letter, you may




1 think, is the concern or the complaint on the part of

2 the Chief Constable that he should have been consulted,

3 that a letter of that kind should not simply have been

4 dispatched without prior discussion, without prior

5 warning.

6 Now, sir, can I just draw to your attention another

7 aspect of this, which is at 4 on the page we still have

8 up on the screen, RNI-209-278, because this turns out to

9 be a significant point in the days and weeks to follow;

10 the suggestion that the letter indicates another

11 complaint, namely a complaint this time by the

12 Commission, and presumably with all of the consequences

13 of a complaint, albeit a very unusual one indeed,

14 entering the system that we looked at last week.

15 Now, what we will see is that this procedural point,

16 as it were, looms large in the anxious consideration of

17 the matter, which goes on in particular at the NIO.

18 Now, we can look, please, now at the other side of

19 it, as it were, and at RNI-106-218. Now, this is the

20 letter that comes to the Chief Constable from the

21 Secretary of State herself, and you will see right at

22 the outset reference to the meeting that he himself

23 described in his letter to the Deputy Chairman of the

24 Commission, ie with Mr Steele and another civil servant.

25 "The letter you and I have received from Paul Donnelly"




1 is the way it is put:

2 "I know that we both regard the allegations as

3 serious ones. I understand you are considering how best

4 to address the points made by Paul Donnelly about the

5 quality of the investigation. I should be particularly

6 grateful for a report on this case, because this will be

7 important to me in considering what action I should

8 take."

9 So here is another shot, as it were, going across

10 the bows, where the Secretary of State is setting out

11 that she also has a role in the matter, she also may

12 have to take decisions about what action she should

13 take, and that shows one, I would suggest, that in

14 response to the letter from Chief Constable, the wider,

15 the political, dimensions of the matter are brought

16 firmly into focus by the Secretary of State:

17 "I am very conscious of the need not to prejudice

18 current or possible criminal investigations and I will

19 keep in touch with you about the way forward when I have

20 your views. I am enclosing for your information the

21 copy of the lines to take I have approved for defensive

22 use. I would welcome sight of your own lines in due

23 course.

24 "Finally, I am contacting Paul Donnelly to let them

25 know what I am doing."




1 We will see the lines at the next page, RNI-106-219,

2 and see also that various eventualities are being

3 catered for:

4 "Is this the Rosemary Nelson case [goes the

5 question] where complaints of intimidation and death

6 threats by police officers are under investigation?"

7 Answer:

8 "NB Only use if it is public that this is the case.

9 Yes."

10 Bear in mind please, that the regime, the police

11 complaints regime, has, as its underpinning principle,

12 confidentiality. This is on the basis that it is too

13 late, the horse has bolted, the matter has been made

14 public; the concern, therefore, being that the stance

15 taken by the Commission would, by the time the questions

16 were posed have become public knowledge:

17 "I can confirm that the Chairman of the ICPC has

18 written to me, the Secretary of State, expressing

19 concerns about the conduct of investigation. He has

20 also written to the Chief Constable. I cannot comment

21 on the specifics of the case, it is still sub judice, it

22 is under investigation. Officials have spoken to the

23 Chief Constable. I have asked for his views on the

24 ICPC's concerns about the quality of the investigation.

25 When I have received this, I will consider what further




1 steps are appropriate. I am not prepared to speculate

2 what these might be."

3 Then various other questions about what is the ICPC

4 concerned about, the quality of the police

5 investigation, and the sentence which follows:

6 "I cannot comment further on this as it may be the

7 subject of investigation."

8 In other words, an investigation of the

9 investigation:

10 "NB Say no more as it may prejudice an

11 investigation.

12 "Question: This shows Mr Cumaraswamy, the

13 UN Special Rapporteur, is right: the RUC do harass,

14 threaten, intimidate defence lawyers.

15 "Answer: It does not show this. The ICPC's

16 concerns are about the quality of an investigation

17 carried out under their supervision. The complaints

18 themselves are still the subject of investigation. When

19 the independent DPP receives the file, he may, of

20 course, request that further enquiries are conducted and

21 the Chief Constable must do these.

22 "Question: What is the Chief Constable doing?

23 "Answer: I know he regards this, as I do, as a very

24 serious matter. Better you get detail of what he is

25 doing from the RUC."




1 So one imagines that the provision of these lines to

2 the RUC was a part of an effort to make sure that

3 everybody was singing from the same hymn sheet as this

4 potentially very troubling matter appeared to be about

5 to get into the public domain.

6 Sir, we can see earlier in this file at

7 RNI-106-217.500 what work had produced the letter, in

8 very simple terms, a short letter, from the Secretary of

9 State that I have just shown you. Here is the

10 memorandum going to Mr Steele, remember the official who

11 was at the meeting with the Chief Constable, and it sets

12 out the various options; and we will see in due course

13 a table. Can I draw to your attention in particular the

14 third bullet under 2, under the question of issues to

15 consider:

16 "The need or otherwise to act on the cumulative

17 total of material suggesting problems in the RUC

18 handling of defence lawyers. The fact that the latest

19 piece of material is from our 'own' Independent

20 Commission for Police Complaints cannot be discounted

21 lightly."

22 And then a comment about the preparation of a draft

23 submission to the Secretary of State. We will see the

24 options at the next page, RNI-106-217.501, and in three

25 columns: 1, "Complaint Case"; 2, "Action by IO" -- that




1 is the investigating officer -- and 3, the third column,

2 "Wider Issues".

3 The note takes all the various points across the

4 columns, and you will see under "Wider Issues" the very

5 point I have highlighted in the second mark there:

6 "We have a body of criticism RUC treatment of

7 defence lawyers, eg Mr Cumaraswamy, the ICPC letter adds

8 to this."

9 And various ways are suggested, three options there,

10 (a), (b) and (c), dealing with this. Similarly, various

11 questions, considerations to be taken into account are

12 set out for the other two columns.

13 Now, the matter then progressed the next day to the

14 briefing prepared in relation to the ICPC letter, and we

15 can see that at RNI-106-217.504 (displayed):

16 "To provide advice and lines to take on a letter

17 from the ICPC about Rosemary Nelson's complaints against

18 the police."

19 This is a briefing note with a number of points of

20 interest not only for us in relation to these complaints

21 but also much more widely, because, as I have observed

22 in relation to other documents, the civil servants in

23 the NIO see the implications, see the wider possible

24 ramifications of these events and that is why it is

25 treated with such seriousness:




1 "Timescale: for immediate consideration, please.

2 "Recommendation: that the Secretary of State write

3 to the Chief Constable as soon as possible.

4 "Background: Rosemary Nelson is a high profile

5 solicitor who has inter alia represented Colin Duffy and

6 the Hamill family. It has been alleged by Ms Nelson,

7 Colin Duffy and the Lawyers Alliance for Justice that

8 during the interview of her clients, the police had made

9 death threats against her as well as derogatory remarks

10 about her. The complaints have been the subject of

11 police investigations, under the supervision of the

12 ICPC. Brief details of all current complaints involving

13 Ms Nelson are given at annex A."

14 Sir, I don't want to take time on that at this

15 stage, but we will just have a quick look at annex A in

16 a minute:

17 "Human rights organisations, such as ..."

18 And then a list of them:

19 "... and most high profile of all Mr Cumaraswamy, in

20 his report on the independence of judges and lawyers,

21 have all commented either specifically on threats to

22 Rosemary Nelson or alleged intimidation of defence

23 lawyers generally by the RUC. An extract from

24 Mr Cumaraswamy's report is attached at annex E. The

25 line the Government has taken in response to these




1 concerns is that these allegations are taken seriously;

2 are under investigation under existing proper

3 procedures; and that these procedures must be allowed to

4 take their course."

5 Then this in paragraph 3:

6 "In light of the specific concerns expressed about

7 Ms Nelson's security, officials wrote to police asking

8 them to confirm that they had considered the issue of

9 her safety and were doing everything they thought

10 appropriate. The police replied saying that there was

11 no specific threat."

12 Now, sir, just pausing there, no dates are given for

13 those events in paragraph 3, but when we look at the

14 material in due course, it will become clear, I think,

15 that this is a reference to what occurred

16 in February/March of this year, ie the year we are

17 looking at now. This is written in June, ie 1998, and

18 there is the confirmation of the result of that exercise

19 which I mentioned earlier, namely no specific threat.

20 Now, after setting out the relevant provisions of

21 the order, which we have looked at, there are then

22 quotations from Mr Donnelly's letter at 5 and further

23 summary of the letter at 6 and then at 7:

24 "The ICPC had intended to send their qualified

25 statement to the police on Friday. Normally, it would




1 then be passed, together with the police investigation

2 file, to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The ICPC

3 would, also in the usual way, simultaneously, send the

4 qualified statement to Rosemary Nelson, Colin Duffy and

5 Lawyers Alliance for Justice (all of whom are

6 complainants).

7 "However, the Chief Constable has discussed the case

8 with the Deputy Chairman of the ICPC (the Chairman is

9 overseas) and has asked that the ICPC should not issue

10 the statement of satisfaction until after a meeting

11 between himself and the Chairman on Wednesday,

12 1st July."

13 Just pausing there, sir, this then is an indication

14 that in this respect also these complaints were not

15 proceeding in accordance with the norm. We have seen

16 that, as it were, from the very, very outset of the LAJI

17 complaints. And here again, things are being dealt with

18 differently, because, you may think, of the importance

19 of the issues and its political dimension:

20 "The Deputy Chairman is trying to contact the

21 Chairman for authority to do this, but in the meantime

22 has decided that it will not issue before Monday."

23 Which again, if I may interpose, explains the sense

24 of urgency about this note:

25 "The Chief Constable is concerned that the ICPC had




1 not brought their concerns about these investigations to

2 his attention at an early stage. He commented that

3 there appeared to have been no written contact between

4 the Commission member and the interviewing officer,

5 which he saw as odd in circumstances where such concerns

6 were developing. He is looking into the matter and (in

7 spite of the ICPC view that the case was 'irreparably

8 damaged') intends to order another investigation by

9 a GB officer, again under ICPC supervision."

10 Now, sir, as far as I can see, that is the first

11 reference to what turned out to be the solution to the

12 problem, namely the involvement of an officer from

13 outside the RUC:

14 "Further, the Chief Constable regards the ICPC's

15 concerns about the conduct of the investigation as

16 constituting an allegation of conspiracy to pervert the

17 course of justice. This is a serious matter. The

18 Chief Constable considers that it should be investigated

19 by the outside officer under supervision by someone not

20 currently involved in the ICPC."

21 So looking at the dynamics of that, if that is

22 correct, then the Chief Constable was apparently saying

23 not just that it was itself a complaint, a complaint

24 made by the Commission and consistent perhaps with the

25 way the complaints system dealt with both criminal and




1 disciplinary matters, it was an allegation of criminal

2 conduct, ie of conspiracy to pervert the course of

3 justice. So in that sense, the stakes have been raised

4 even higher on receipt of the Commission's letter:

5 "If the ICPC agree to defer issuing their statement

6 to Wednesday and then agree to the Chief Constable's

7 proposed handling, the issue becomes manageable. If

8 not, the bald circumstances could become public,

9 possibly over the weekend and handling would be more

10 difficult. We are putting arrangements in place to

11 ensure we know what is happening."

12 Then coming to the nub of it for ministers:

13 "10. Having received the letter from the ICPC and

14 bearing in mind the numerous claims of harassment of

15 Mrs Nelson, ministers will have to consider carefully

16 what action can be taken. John Steele met the DPP and,

17 separately, the Chief Constable yesterday ..."

18 So Mr Steele was conducting a series, it appears, of

19 high level meetings to:

20 "... discuss the position and the options. The DPP

21 pointed out the essential matter is a criminal

22 investigation which is still uncompleted since both the

23 Chief Constable and the DPP could, if they saw fit,

24 order further enquiries to be held. Specific comment

25 must be avoided as the case sub-judice."




1 Then:

2 "Against this background there are three aspects to

3 consider: current allegations against the officers,

4 which we have been investigating; the actions or

5 otherwise of the police interviewing officer in that

6 investigation; and thirdly, whether wider aspects need

7 to be examined."

8 That takes us back to the phrase used in the table:

9 "From this and in the light of the conversations

10 with the DPP and Chief Constable, it is recommended that

11 the Secretary of State:

12 "Should leave the handling of the original

13 complaints to the Chief Constable and DPP, at least

14 until their conclusion. To do otherwise would be to

15 prejudice them.

16 "Seek the Chief Constable's comments on the letter.

17 He wants a separate investigation into the alleged

18 inadequacies of the original investigation.

19 "Leave any wider decisions until the

20 Chief Constable's comments have been received and

21 studied."

22 Then under, "Briefings":

23 "Contingent arrangements are being made to brief

24 PANI [that's the Police Authority for Northern Ireland]

25 and the Irish, if and when the ICPC issue their




1 statement. Officials will also brief the Commission

2 ..."

3 Sorry, that is the Patten Commission, I should say;

4 that is not the ICPC. That is the Patten Commission,

5 which had very recently been established, and the CAJ:

6 "In addition, careful briefing will be required for

7 overseas posts, especially the USA and Geneva, and for

8 the press. We will also brief the Legal Secretariat to

9 the Law Officers."

10 In a sense, if one wanted proof, as it were, of the

11 way in which this matter was regarded, this paragraph,

12 14, provides it, you may think, because the civil

13 servants are making arrangements to brief not only the

14 authority but also the Irish Government, the

15 Patten Commission, which had only just begun its work,

16 the NGO and then the wider dimension in its geographical

17 sense, namely briefing overseas posts in the USA and

18 Geneva, as well as the press and the Attorney General's

19 office.

20 And the conclusion comes at 16:

21 "Note the current position on the Rosemary Nelson

22 case. Write to the Chief Constable ... send a letter to

23 the Chairman of ICPC ... and approve the lines to take

24 ..."

25 Briefing looking at annex A, which is the next page,




1 RNI-106-217.510, you will see here a version, a more

2 detailed version of the letter from the police division

3 recording what they had on file, which, if you remember,

4 was dated 23rd June, just a couple of days before. And

5 they set them out:

6 "(a), threats against Mrs Nelson's life; (b),

7 irregularities in procedures in the investigation of the

8 case of Colin Duffy:"

9 Case two is the Garvaghy Road matter and then

10 another allegation, which is one concerned with another

11 allegation of a threat, and it is Shane McGrory.

12 I mentioned that on Friday, I think, and we will come to

13 that in due course. The salient part of what was being

14 alleged is quoted:

15 "Nelson won't help you this time, she won't be here

16 much longer."

17 Sir, just trying to keep up with the story and also

18 to give what is necessary at this stage rather than the

19 full detail, there was in due course the meeting we have

20 seen reference to between the Chief Constable and

21 Mr Donnelly, which took place, as we have seen it was

22 going to, on 1st July, presumably after Mr Donnelly had

23 returned from overseas. We can see what I think is

24 probably the briefing material for that at RNI-209-281.

25 (Displayed)




1 This is, as I say, we think, from the Complaints and

2 Discipline Department, if you look at the fax header at

3 the top, to the Command Secretariat; in other words to

4 the Chief Constable's office. It deals with what is

5 understood to be the complaints or concerns of the

6 Commission. I don't want to go into too much detail on

7 this, but then the matter continues at RNI-209-282,

8 dealing with, under "Procedural", the issue, if you

9 remember, about handing in statements, and a suggestion

10 or proposal is put forward -- in the second paragraph

11 under "Procedural" -- namely:

12 "For an investigating officer appointed from outside

13 the RUC and approved by the Commission should come in

14 and review [and I think that must be] where necessary

15 reinvestigate aspects of the complaints to the

16 satisfaction of the supervising member."

17 If you turn on to RNI-209-283, we see there

18 a summary, with the Complaints and Discipline Department

19 reference numbers on the left-hand side, of the various

20 matters, the various complaints and it goes on for

21 several pages, RNI-209-284, RNI-209-285, RNI-209-286. There is then

22 further briefing, which takes us to RNI-209-289, as I say, as

23 far as we can see, prepared for the purpose of meeting.

24 Now, as to what happened at the meeting, I think the

25 clearest way to see that and the shortest is at




1 RNI-106-221. This is another NIO note under "Summary":

2 "To update the Secretary of State on the

3 Rosemary Nelson case.

4 "Background: The Chief Constable met the Chairman

5 of the ICPC, Paul Donnelly, yesterday, to discuss the

6 latter's concerns about the investigation into the

7 Rosemary Nelson case. Our read-out from the meeting is

8 that the ICPC stood by their guns: that they had given

9 the police opportunity to put things right and that the

10 file was completed the best it could be. The

11 Chief Constable, however, disagreed. He said that

12 further investigation was required and he would be

13 appointing an outside GB police officer to do this. The

14 ICPC ultimately agreed to the case being reopened under

15 the supervision of the original ICPC member."

16 So one gets just from that paragraph a sense of the

17 two parties manoeuvring in the meeting, and ground being

18 given perhaps on both sides in an entirely unsurprising

19 way. There was in fact still further procedural

20 wrangling that went on, but broadly speaking you will

21 see from the remainder of this note that we are moving

22 towards the, as it were, Mulvihill solution:

23 "3. The Chief Constable will appoint the same GB

24 investigating officer to conduct an investigation into

25 the allegation that the original investigating team




1 failed to perform its duty. The Chief Constable saw

2 this as a complaint of conspiracy to pervert the course

3 of justice. The ICPC said that they did not raise the

4 matter for it to be seen as a complaint; it was

5 a statement. They felt it would be more appropriate for

6 the Chief Constable to call them in to supervise the

7 investigation.

8 "There are difficulties with the ICPC supervising

9 the case. Some of the members and staff will be

10 witnesses in the investigation and it would not be fair

11 to those being investigated to have them involved in the

12 supervision as well. We are, therefore, looking

13 urgently at what other options are available."

14 Then at 4:

15 "The complainants will become aware, probably in the

16 week following 12th July, that a new investigating

17 officer has been appointed. Both the Chief Constable

18 and the Commission will be writing to them. It is

19 likely, therefore, that media interest in the case will

20 follow. Although the police and the Commission would

21 have to manage the specific questions, more general ones

22 are likely to be aimed at ministers and contingent lines

23 to take are attached."

24 We can see those at the next page RNI-106-222. I don't wish to

25 dwell on them. They are a development of the lines that




1 we saw just a little while ago.

2 So, sir, what eventually happened, therefore, is

3 that the outside officer would be appointed to deal with

4 the investigation, and also that the supervising member

5 who had dealt with the matter to that point,

6 Miss McNally, would continue in that role. We can see

7 the conclusion of that at RNI-106-247. This is a letter

8 from the Commission to Rosemary Nelson, 9th July:

9 "Dear Mrs Nelson, complaints by ..."

10 This deals with the LAJI complaint, the first few

11 lines, and then her complaint and Colin Duffy's

12 complaint.

13 Now, remember, therefore, that at this stage,

14 9th July, of what came to be the Mulvihill matters, two

15 of the three groups of complaints were in place:

16 "A stage has now been reached in relation to the

17 investigation of the above complaints where I've drawn

18 a number of serious concerns to the attention of both

19 the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable of the

20 Royal Ulster Constabulary. These relate to the

21 investigation to date, and as a result, it has been

22 decided that further investigative steps be undertaken

23 by Commander N Mulvihill, Specialist Operations

24 Department, Metropolitan Police at my direction and

25 under my immediate supervision.




1 "The Commission has a statutory and ethical

2 obligation to seek to ensure that all complaints are

3 thoroughly and satisfactorily investigated. To this

4 end, I would urge your continued cooperation with these

5 investigations, as your contribution is central to the

6 investigation's ultimate outcome."

7 That is signed by the supervising member.

8 Sir, in the evidence you will see that the

9 appointment of Commander Mulvihill came after

10 discussions, I think, and a meeting also, involving

11 Miss McNally.

12 Now, just to move the story on, briefly, can we

13 look, please, at RNI-106-251 in the same file.

14 (Displayed) July 1998, 14th July; this is a letter to

15 Jane Winter of British Irish Rights Watch from the

16 Secretary of State herself. The subject matter of it is

17 a different subject matter, namely, as you see there,

18 the case of Rosemary Nelson and the Special Rapporteur's

19 report:

20 "Very sorry for the delay in replying."

21 Indeed, it looks as though it has taken four months

22 to respond. This takes us back to the Cumaraswamy

23 episode. I don't wish to dwell on that part of it, but

24 to ask you to look, please, at the next page,

25 RNI-106-252, and the first full paragraph:




1 "The question you quite reasonably raise as to the

2 origins of threats against lawyers is a very serious and

3 important one. What I can say in response is that where

4 complaints are made, they are investigated, and the

5 Independent Commission for Police Complaints has a role

6 in this.

7 "In respect of Rosemary Nelson specifically, various

8 complaints have been made, including ones from

9 27th February to which you refer. These are being

10 investigated, and given this, it would not be

11 appropriate for me to comment on this. The Government

12 believes that the processes in place are capable of

13 establishing the facts surrounding the types of serious

14 allegations you refer to. Neither the Government, nor

15 the Chief Constable for that matter, will tolerate

16 harassment or intimidation of lawyers or anyone else by

17 police officers. Where allegations of such behaviour

18 are made, they will be investigated. There are

19 independent elements of these processes, including the

20 involvement of the Director of Public Prosecutions and,

21 as I have mentioned, the Independent Commission for

22 Police Complaints."

23 Then this important section:

24 "I recognise, as does Adam Ingram, that the public

25 do not have as much confidence in the current system as




1 I would like. Until the new Police Ombudsman

2 arrangement is set in place, however, this is the system

3 and we hope people will use it. Certainly we encourage

4 them to do so. Mr Cumaraswamy also encouraged

5 solicitors to use it.

6 "Finally, I can understand your concern over

7 Rosemary Nelson's safety. Although, clearly, this is

8 not a matter which it would be appropriate for me to

9 discuss with you or anyone else, I can say that the

10 police are aware of concerns such as yours, and take

11 their responsibility for the safety of individuals very

12 seriously."

13 Sir, I have highlighted those passages, because in

14 the middle of the procedural wrangling and after the

15 solution appeared to have been agreed upon, that

16 Commander Mulvihill should step in, one mustn't lose

17 sight of these broader issues, and they were certainly

18 not ignored by those who were dealing day-to-day with

19 the Mulvihill points, including the Secretary of State.

20 I said to you, when I was outlining the Hayes Report

21 and its recommendations, that one of the points in issue

22 is that at this stage in the last year of

23 Rosemary Nelson's life, it had been agreed that the

24 current system had to be changed, that the Hayes

25 recommendations should be accepted and were being




1 implemented. And the Police (Northern Ireland) Act

2 received the Royal Assent, I think, just ten days after

3 this letter, which put the Police Ombudsman system on

4 a statutory footing.

5 However, of course, while it was there,

6 Government -- in this case, the Secretary of State --

7 wished to encourage people to use it, because it was the

8 only available system unless and until the Ombudsman

9 Office could start to operate which, as we know, didn't

10 in fact occur until the year 2000.

11 Then finally, that the Secretary of State at any

12 rate puts the concerns expressed, the points about the

13 complaints system, in the context of concern over

14 Rosemary Nelson's safety and reiterates that the police

15 are aware of concerns such as yours.

16 Now, sir, if we follow the procedural side of things

17 a step further, we will see that on 16th July there were

18 still unresolved matters, concerns, anxieties within the

19 NIO about the next steps. And at RNI-106-253.500, we

20 see another note to Mr Steele from the head of the

21 police division. This note, which contains a great deal

22 of underlining, as we will see, shows that although we

23 are moving towards a solution at this point, problems --

24 in the view of this civil servant at any rate --

25 remained. And you will see at 2, the introductory




1 sentence:

2 "I understand that the Chief Constable is

3 understandably very sensitive about the issue. However,

4 the facts remain as follows."

5 And it is then pointed out that:

6 "The ICPC's view remained ..."

7 In other words, the second sentence of that letter

8 reiterated the ICPC's view of the conduct of the

9 investigation was unaltered. And then the next

10 sentence:

11 "The letter also stated that whatever the eventual

12 outcome of the reinvestigation, the ICPC's final

13 statement on the case will reflect the serious concerns

14 which 'events to date have brought about'."

15 Then there is a reference to a press release which I

16 haven't taken to you, but again, a quotation that the

17 Commission was obliged to bring a number of serious

18 concerns to the attention of both the Secretary of State

19 and the Chief Constable. Then further concerns are

20 expressed in the bullet points, which take us to the end

21 of this paragraph on the next page, RNI-106-253.501.

22 That leads the writer to express a view about what

23 should be done and, in particular, about the need to

24 consider and safeguard, as it is put, the Secretary of

25 State's and indeed the Government's position. This is




1 at paragraph 4 on page RNI-106-253.501 at the bottom:

2 "Though I have every sympathy with the

3 Chief Constable's sensitivity, I also think that the

4 Secretary of State's, and indeed the Government's

5 position must be considered and safeguarded. The

6 allegations of threats and intimidation by police

7 officers against defence solicitors are longstanding and

8 have been the subject of repeated expressions of

9 concern, both within Northern Ireland and by various

10 independent foreign bodies and organisations, most

11 notably, perhaps, by the UN Special Rapporteur whose

12 report and whose comments in the draft report on this

13 particular case have underlined the serious nature of

14 these concerns.

15 "Ministers' cases continue to flow in, including

16 this morning from the National Committee on American

17 Foreign Policy. Given the terms in which the ICPC have

18 expressed their concerns and the way in which they have

19 done so, it is difficult for the Secretary of State to

20 accept reassurances, even from the Chief Constable and

21 the ICPC in public concert, as sufficient to overcome

22 the need for genuinely independent and fresh supervision

23 of this new aspect of the investigation. Accordingly,

24 consideration should be given to appointing a new member

25 to the ICPC for the purposes of supervising this aspect,




1 and if the Chief Constable does not do so and he appears

2 not to have done so, formally call in the ICPC to

3 supervise under Article 8(2) of the Order."

4 Then this paragraph:

5 "Anything else will leave the Secretary of State

6 exposed to criticism both now

7 (Q: What are you doing about the ICPC serious

8 concerns?

9 A: Well, Ronnie's reassured me)

10 and in the long term

11 (Q: (a) What did you do about the ICPC's

12 serious concerns? (b) What independent scrutiny was

13 there of the investigation of the behaviour of the RUC's

14 complaints and discipline personnel? (c) If the ICPC

15 are involved in disciplinary proceedings against those

16 officers, does their declared "prejudice" about that

17 behaviour vitiate any disciplinary action?

18 A: Well, Ronnie reassured me, but, (a)

19 Nothing, (b), None, (c) Yes ...")"

20 So in this particularly vivid way, the continuing

21 concern within the police division, the top of the

22 police division, of the NIO, about the proposed solution

23 was expressed. And you will see there the point

24 I referred to earlier, namely that the Secretary of

25 State and the Government's position was being considered




1 and considered against a much wider range of matters.

2 Reference to foreign interest, to reports over many

3 years and the fact that interest in this and concern

4 about this problem was not only expressed by the Special

5 Rapporteur -- reference there to the draft report -- but

6 continued to be expressed by organisations abroad at the

7 time of writing this note.

8 Then finally, so far as this passage of material is

9 concerned, look at the next page, please, which is

10 RNI-106-253.503. This is from Mr Steele, so within the

11 NIO, the Senior Director, Belfast, the same date,

12 16th July, addressed to the Permanent Undersecretary and

13 copied to the head of the police division:

14 "Following discussion at the security and policy

15 meeting earlier this week, I've had a full discussion

16 with the head of police division. She has also set out

17 her views in a minute."

18 That is the one I have just read to you:

19 "I have also had a discussion with Paul Donnelly.

20 He confirm the ICPC did not wish the matter of the

21 conduct of the investigation to be acted on as

22 a complaint. He believes, however, that it was

23 understood between him and the Chief Constable that the

24 Chief Constable would treat it as a matter of serious

25 concern on which he did not need a complaint as such




1 before initiating an investigation. Like the head of

2 the police division, I believe this is going to be

3 a very hot potato politically.

4 "Only an independent investigation of the conduct of

5 the investigation is likely to meet the case, and

6 I believe the Chief Constable would be wise to get in

7 first before the pressure builds up."

8 We can see the position so far as the

9 Chief Constable is concerned and the RUC. If you just

10 look on to the next page, RNI-106-254:

11 "I refer to your letter of 7th June concerning an

12 update on the investigations into the complaints by

13 Rosemary Nelson.

14 "I can now advise you that Commander Niall Mulvihill

15 of the Metropolitan Police is now in charge of this

16 investigation under the continued supervision of the

17 Independent Commission for Police Complaints."

18 Now, in due course the complaints investigated by

19 Commander Mulvihill expanded from two to three, as

20 I indicated earlier, when the complaint of another

21 client held at Castlereagh, at the very end

22 of June 1998, whom we call C208, was added to the list.

23 And at that point, we have the full set of three groups

24 of complaints, which were investigated by the outside

25 officer, Commander Mulvihill, and his junior officers




1 from the Metropolitan Police.

2 We can see, as it were, the business meeting setting

3 up how it was going to work at RNI-223-033 (displayed).

4 There you have in the attendees the supervising member,

5 Miss McNally, the Commander and

6 Detective Inspector Marshall. You will see the very

7 first of these paragraphs deals with the new complaint

8 that I have just mentioned.

9 Then, moving further down the page to paragraph 2 --

10 you remember I mentioned that in that case, the

11 Rosemary Nelson/Colin Duffy case, there had been

12 a report by Assistant Chief Constable Stewart. Then

13 moving over the page at RNI-223-034, we see at B there

14 the LAJI complaint and how that was to be processed, and

15 then the four clients' ciphers there:

16 "(Not sure about Brian Loughran) ..."

17 Well, that is a complaint, as I explained to you,

18 that didn't come within the Mulvihill ambit. Then at 3,

19 the note continues and you will see, as I should have

20 said already from this, that the note is a note prepared

21 by Miss McNally and she comments in relation to the

22 Mulvihill Terms of Reference about her own concerns

23 regarding the original investigation and what

24 Commander Mulvihill, in the second paragraph, proposed

25 to do. In other words:




1 "... he proposed to carry out a review, as opposed

2 to a formal investigation at this stage, but to leave

3 the review open ended. He wished to come to an

4 agreement with me on this point and to receive written

5 observations, concerns as partly detailed in the

6 statement."

7 Then you will see in the penultimate paragraph on

8 our screens that there was discussion with the relevant

9 people at the Commission and agreement that

10 Commander Mulvihill, his proposal, was acceptable, and

11 he then was to proceed on that basis. And, of course,

12 at the very bottom, in the light of what we have just

13 been looking at, it is unsurprising to see that he was

14 also informed of the substantial interest of

15 international bodies, the NIO, the Secretary of State

16 and others.

17 Sir, I think the final letter in this rather dense

18 passage I wanted to show you is at RNI-106-262. It

19 pre-dates the meeting note that we have just looked at,

20 which was 19th August, but is, as it were, the final

21 word on the point at this level, namely from the

22 Secretary of State on the one hand to the

23 Chief Constable on the other.

24 It sets out what had happened in the intervening

25 period:




1 "I understand you have since discussed the issues

2 with Joe Pilling ..."

3 Who is the permanent secretary. Mr Steele we have

4 already seen reference to:

5 "The next step is for you to agree the Terms of

6 Reference for the Inquiry with Commander Mulvihill and

7 Geralyn McNally. I should be grateful if once that

8 meeting has taken place, and I understand it is planned

9 for the end of this Monday ..."

10 In fact, as you will see, it took place in August:

11 "... you would furnish me with a report upon the

12 outcome.

13 "I understand that John Steele that we share the

14 view that the current members the ICPC, which has

15 already stated firm views, could not supervise an

16 Inquiry into the conduct of the original investigation

17 and that if it is to be supervised, you would prefer

18 a member the Police Complaints Authority to do so. In

19 order for such a person to be appointed, I would have to

20 appoint him or her to the ICPC for that purpose for

21 a finite period. As this might take a little time,

22 a prompt report on your meeting might be helpful."

23 Just pausing there. This letter, again, you may

24 think shows that the Secretary of State was keen to

25 register her interest in and continuing interest in what




1 was going on and in what was agreed and to make it

2 abundantly plain in writing to the Chief Constable that

3 he should continue to keep her informed, even if the

4 negotiations, the fine tuning of the Terms of Reference

5 and the decisions about it, were to be taken by him.

6 At RNI-106-311, if we can just look at that, please,

7 (displayed) the response comes back. As I say, it takes

8 a little longer than had been expected, the meeting we

9 saw on 19th August, and this is a letter on the 26th:

10 "Dear Secretary of State,

11 "Rosemary Nelson, allegations of harassment.

12 "Thank you for your letter of 27th July. I met with

13 Commander Mulvihill on 13th August and provided him with

14 his Terms of Reference for this Inquiry."

15 We will look at those in a minute:

16 "I would draw your attention to number 7 and you

17 will see that the involvement of the Police Complaints

18 Authority is not relevant at present."

19 That matter, that procedural wrinkle had been ironed

20 out:

21 "Should this situation change as a result of his

22 investigation, I will of course be immediately in touch.

23 Commander Mulvihill and Geralyn McNally have met to

24 discuss the Terms of Reference in detail and I am

25 informed that both are content."




1 On the next page, RNI-106-312 -- I am afraid it is

2 not a very good copy at all -- you will see the letter

3 which goes out from the Chief Constable to the

4 Commander, containing his Terms of Reference, and

5 recording the fact that further investigations had been

6 taken on board. If you look at the Terms of Reference

7 in turn, they are:

8 "1. The LAJI complaint.

9 "2. Rosemary Nelson and Colin Duffy.

10 "3. Rosemary Nelson on behalf of Colin Duffy.

11 "4 ..."

12 The one I mentioned just a little while ago, another

13 one by Rosemary Nelson in relation to that. And then

14 over the page at RNI-106-313:

15 "These investigations will be supervised by

16 Miss McNally. Miss McNally has approved your

17 appointment."

18 Then 7:

19 "We will review the original RUC investigations into

20 matters 1, 2 and 3 above. If, at any stage, you

21 conclude this aspect requires separate or independent

22 investigation or should be investigated by another

23 officer, you will draw this to my immediate attention.

24 Alternatively, you will report with any recommendations

25 you feel are appropriate in this regard."




1 Then further requirements about reporting in

2 relation to the DPP, the disciplinary offences,

3 recommendations and a catch-all at the end, giving wide

4 authority in the investigation.

5 Now, sir, what then happened is that -- and I don't

6 think we need look at this -- the Commander sought to

7 make contact with the four LAJI clients and the position

8 was that C215, the first of them we looked at, although

9 he said he would attend for an interview with

10 Commander Mulvihill, he did not. Another interview was

11 arranged for 6th October and again he did not attend.

12 And it must be pointed out that for those interviews, of

13 course, the Mulvihill team travelled to Northern Ireland

14 from London to be available for the interviews.

15 The similar situation applied to C206, and a similar

16 result followed. However, C220 did attend on

17 22nd September 1998 and a statement was recorded by the

18 Mulvihill team, and I should say that both Miss McNally

19 and Mr Lynch of the Lawyers Alliance for Justice in

20 Ireland were present at that interview, and we can see

21 the statement at RNI-227-021 (displayed).

22 I read you on Friday the original client statement

23 provided by this client, and here is the Mulvihill

24 statement and he refers first of all to his initial

25 statement -- this is the one signed and dated




1 6th November, he says -- and he says:

2 "I made this statement as a result of a written

3 request from Rosemary Nelson's office. And the contents

4 of it relate to when I was arrested in March for alleged

5 terrorist matters."

6 I think we established, or I suggested to you, on

7 Friday that in fact the detention dates were

8 in February.

9 Then he goes on to explain being taken to Gough and

10 questions about his solicitor. He then gives

11 descriptions of the interviewers and, over the page, RNI-227-022, we

12 see the relevant material so far as the substance of the

13 complaints is concerned. It is about six lines down:

14 "The stocky police officer with black hair then

15 began to make comments about Rosemary Nelson. He asked

16 me whether I had been seeing her and that I was a game

17 bastard. He said that Rosemary had an face on her like

18 a man's ball bag. He also said she was a terrorist.

19 The other officer, the tall one with combed back, short,

20 fair hair was laughing and agreeing with him. At one

21 point, the stocky officer said it should have been

22 Rosemary in here instead of yous. They made these

23 comments several times during that interview. They

24 repeated these comments on the third day, but on that

25 occasion they only commented about her involvement with




1 terrorists. Again, it was the stocky male who made the

2 comments on the third day. I don't recall any further

3 comments being made on the fourth day."

4 Then he describes on the second day, two lines down,

5 having a consultation with Rosemary Nelson herself,

6 saying it lasted 20 minutes maximum:

7 "During this consultation, I told her that they had

8 been giving had a hard time and they had been running

9 her down about terrorism. I didn't mention the personal

10 stuff until about three weeks later to a representative

11 of her office. The reason for not mentioned the

12 personal comments to Rosemary at the time was because it

13 was embarrassing.

14 "At some point during the fourth day, I was released

15 from custody without charge. I don't recall if I was

16 asked if I had any complaints to make. I did not make

17 a complaint. I have been asked why I didn't make

18 a complaint about these comments at the time. This is

19 because I felt safer talking to someone from Rosemary's

20 office rather than someone from Gough Barracks. I

21 didn't discuss the comments until about three weeks

22 later in a meeting in his office. I left the matter in

23 his hands after that. I made the statement I have

24 referred to in response to a written request from

25 Rosemary Nelson's office ..."




1 Then he says he hasn't been arrested at any time

2 before or since that date.

3 As we will see in due course, Commander Mulvihill in

4 his report has comments to make about the way in which,

5 in his view, this client came across in interview and

6 the way he presented himself so far as the Commander was

7 concerned.

8 Now, the fourth client, C138, also gave a statement,

9 again in the presence of Miss McNally, having been

10 interviewed by the Mulvihill team, and if we look,

11 please, at RNI-227-024, I think we will find it, yes.

12 6th November: He first of all recites the

13 circumstances of his arrest and says, over the page at

14 RNI-227-025, that he arrived at the police station after

15 6 o'clock and was then arrested under the Prevention of

16 Terrorism Act and taken to Gough Barracks. He asked to

17 see his solicitor, Rosemary Nelson, and then refers to

18 various aspects of the interviewing and gives

19 a description of the various interviewing officers, in

20 fact six in all. That is at RNI-227-026. And then

21 turning the page to RNI-227-027, he says:

22 "At lunchtime, I had a consultation with

23 Rosemary Nelson, my solicitor, during which time I made

24 a statement which she wrote down. I handed this

25 statement to the police officers during the interview




1 that afternoon.

2 "During the course of the interviews over the

3 following days, a number of comments were made. I can't

4 remember who said what or when exactly they were said,

5 but I considered them abusive both to myself and to

6 Rosemary Nelson. The remarks regarding me included that

7 I was a bastard, a Fenian fucker who was going down for

8 a long time, that I'd be going away for good, never to

9 be out again or see my child again. They may have said

10 more but I can't remember.

11 "With regards to Rosemary Nelson, they said that she

12 was a money grabber, more or less said that she was

13 a Provo, that I would have been out a couple of days ago

14 if it hadn't been for her and that it was only for her

15 that that bastard Duffy got off. They also made

16 personal comments about Rosemary Nelson's birthmark on

17 her face. They said it was good enough for her, the

18 bastard.

19 "I was released on Sunday, 9th February at around

20 4 pm. I was asked on my release if I had any

21 complaints. I said no. This was because I was just

22 glad to get out of there.

23 "On the following Monday or Tuesday, I saw

24 Rosemary Nelson at her office and told her what had

25 happened and the comments that had been made. I more or




1 less left the matter with her.

2 "In October 1997, Rosemary Nelson asked me if I

3 would make a statement regarding the comments that had

4 been made during my detention in February. I agreed,

5 and on 27th October I went to her office where I made

6 a statement."

7 And he then exhibits the statement, which again,

8 sir, we saw on Friday.

9 Commander Mulvihill, again in his report, has

10 comments -- contrasting comments, it must be said --

11 about his view of this client as a witness.

12 Now, in relation to these matters, the Mulvihill

13 team did not take a further statement from Mrs Nelson,

14 but they did take one, a brief one, from Mr Mageean,

15 simply confirming the accuracy and truthfulness of the

16 one we have already seen, dated 20th October 1997, which

17 had been obtained by the previous investigating officer.

18 I have mentioned already Mr Lynch being present at

19 one of these interviews and he continued to follow the

20 investigation closely, and indeed submitted his own

21 observations about it, and we can see them at

22 RNI-114-143. Addressed to Commander Mulvihill,

23 12th November 1998:

24 "I enclose herein original and three copies of my

25 observations concerning the testimonies and statements




1 of witnesses in support of your ongoing investigation.

2 I was impressed with the professionalism and competence

3 of you and your team. However, the true test of the

4 efficacy of the endeavour will be the product. There is

5 more than enough independent evidence from several

6 witnesses to conclude that there has been a failure of

7 command at the Gough Barracks and the RUC force

8 stationed at Lurgan. If the outcome is simply to

9 recommend discipline to a few low level officers, the

10 Inquiry cannot be considered a success.

11 "The evidence of a persuasive culture of denigration

12 of solicitors and detainees can only exist with the

13 consent of superior officers. Thank you for your

14 willingness to listen to an outside voice. I look

15 forward to receiving the report."

16 There are then observations made by Mr Lynch based

17 upon his own involvement with the investigation, and

18 I have given you an example, at least, of an interview

19 at which he was present. Indeed, it looks, therefore,

20 as though Commander Mulvihill did indeed show his

21 willingness to listen to that particular outside voice.

22 And that is not the only communication of this kind

23 but it shows, sir, that, as it started, the LAJI

24 complaint in March 1997, so it continued in what turned

25 out to be the final phase of investigation, namely that




1 there was, as it were, an outside element observing,

2 watching, contributing in a way not, I think, envisaged

3 within the regulations and not usually to be

4 contemplated, one suspects, in the conduct of such

5 investigations.

6 Now, sir, just moving on in the investigation,

7 between 10th November and the 26th, interviews were

8 conducted by the Mulvihill team of the officers and the

9 officers who had interviewed the four clients; they were

10 conducting those interviews under caution. Miss McNally

11 was present during a number of them and full transcripts

12 of those interviews are part of the Mulvihill report.

13 I don't propose to take you through them, but all of the

14 officers, with the exception of one, P217, who exercised

15 his right to remain silent having established that there

16 were no fresh allegations since the time of his

17 interview by the previous investigating officer, all of

18 the other officers answered all the questions that were

19 put to them and all of them denied the allegations that

20 had been made against them.

21 Sir, I would like now to turn to the report compiled

22 by the Commander in relation to these LAJI allegations,

23 and we can see that at RNI-227-014 (displayed).

24 The report begins at RNI-227-003, just to put this

25 particular passage in context. I don't think we need




1 dwell on these earlier pages, but if you look at

2 RNI-227-003 briefly, please, it reveals that this is the

3 report into the LAJI complaint, and this first page sets

4 out the background and how the various complaints fit

5 together. At RNI-227-004, how the complaints came about

6 under paragraph 3, and the various circumstances of

7 arrest at the bottom of that page, which I have taken

8 you to earlier.

9 On the next page, RNI-227-005 is the fact that there was

10 supervision in relation to the matter. Then turning on

11 to page 7, RNI-227-007, he deals with the original

12 statements by C206 and C215, and then the remaining two

13 clients, and then sets out the history effectively, the

14 non-history, insofar as further steps for 215 and 206

15 are concerned at the bottom of that page and over on to

16 RNI-227-008. And then the comments about C220 that

17 I referred to earlier, he -- that is C220:

18 "... came across as credible, was smartly dressed

19 and was unquestionably the best witness to appear in

20 relation to this complaint. If he was not telling the

21 truth, it would have to be assumed that either his

22 account is a fabrication or he has been pressured in

23 some way to make the allegations subject of the

24 complaint. And there is no evidence to suggest this is

25 case."




1 There he refers to a comment in fact made by one of

2 the interviewers, a comment of surprise that the

3 complaint had been made. He sets out the circumstances

4 in which the Mulvihill statement was made, which we have

5 seen already, and then summarises the contents of the

6 220 statement at RNI-227-009, paragraph beginning:

7 "Mr C220 alleges ..."

8 And there are the various quotations extracted from

9 the statement that I have read to you.

10 Then he sets out the various interviews --

11 interviewed on 16 occasions -- and moves on to the

12 fourth and final client, C138, at the top of the next

13 page, and his comments about that witness at RNI-227-010

14 are, as I say, contrasting:

15 "Despite having a copy of his original statement, it

16 was an unconvincing, confused witness. Difficult to

17 record his statement as he constantly changed his

18 account. At one stage he made a comment to the effect:

19 are you trying to confuse me? You keep asking the same

20 question more than once from a different angle. That's

21 confusing me."

22 Then he sets out with that introduction what is

23 contained in the statement that we have seen. At 11, he

24 records the receipt of Mr Lynch's observations, and

25 again, we have seen all of those. And it looks as




1 though they also made their way into the Commander's

2 report. Then he deals with the various interviews of

3 police officers and they are set out in RNI-227-013 and

4 RNI-227-015 as being a copying mistake in the bundle.

5 That leads him to the conclusion, which is where

6 I wanted to start, at 8 on RNI-227-014. And having

7 referred to a comparison to the C208 case -- that is the

8 final case that joined the Mulvihill group -- he says:

9 "There would appear to be at least three possible

10 explanations for the allegations subject of the

11 complaint:

12 "1. The allegations are true and some or all of the

13 named officers are guilty of the matters alleged.

14 "2. The allegations are malicious and fabricated

15 with the intention of discrediting the reputation of the

16 RUC and the respective officers with the knowledge and

17 cooperation of Mrs Nelson.

18 "3. The allegations are malicious and fabricated by

19 the witnesses, perhaps orchestrated by others, for the

20 above or other reasons with the innocent cooperation and

21 assistance of Mrs Nelson and Mr Lynch who have accepted

22 the hearsay evidence they have heard.

23 "Of interest is the delay in registering these

24 complaints and the cooperation of the witnesses with the

25 subsequent enquiries.




1 "Although some of the witnesses have allegedly

2 expressed their concerns during consultation with their

3 solicitor whilst in detention, there is no statement of

4 early complaint even though each of them on release was

5 specifically asked if they had any complaints regarding

6 their detention. Mr ..."

7 And then the client as name:

8 "... even signed documents to that effect. It would

9 be reasonable to assume that experienced solicitors

10 would have registered any complaint as quickly as

11 possible, if for no other reason than to prevent further

12 inappropriate or unlawful behaviour. This was not done

13 in relation to any of the four main witnesses. None one

14 of the four men complained about the grounds for their

15 detention or actual arrest.

16 "If the officers adopted a course of action as

17 detailed in the allegations that make up the complaint

18 as an interview strategy, it failed miserably. Two of

19 the men refused to answer any questions whilst the other

20 two answered questions but denied the allegations."

21 Then over to RNI-227-016:

22 "Despite having been given numerous opportunities to

23 attend for interview, neither of ..."

24 Then the first two:

25 "... kept appointments, offering no explanation.




1 The only evidence they've provided are unsigned or dated

2 types statements given to Paul Mageean. It is one of

3 these statements that contains the only comment that

4 could amount to a death threat, ie tell Rosemary Nelson

5 she is going to die too."

6 Just pausing there, this is a matter which I will

7 mention later too, but I think I have said to you

8 before, although in the correspondence from the

9 beginning of this LAJI complaint, frankly until the very

10 end, including the letter of Mr Donnelly, the Chairman

11 of the Commission, there are constant references to

12 death threats in the plural. As I hope I have shown

13 you, the situation would appear in fact to be, on the

14 basis of the statements put in by the four clients, that

15 it was only in the 215 statement that it was alleged

16 that comments were made which could amount to a death

17 threat.

18 However, what is not referred to in this analysis by

19 the Commander is the other passage of the same statement

20 I mentioned to you and showed you on Friday, namely

21 a suggestion that Rosemary Nelson was an informer,

22 a tout, which clearly in the context was a very serious

23 thing to say.

24 But in terms of death threats direct, as it were, if

25 I may say so, the Commander is correct to draw




1 a distinction between that case, 215, and the other

2 three:

3 "The complaints appear to be initiated by

4 Mrs Nelson, who has approached the witnesses several

5 months after the event to provide statements. Again

6 if she was so concerned, it would be reasonable to

7 assume that as a solicitor she would have appreciated

8 the significance, importance of information being

9 recorded as soon as reasonably practicable for the

10 weight of its subsequent credibility. Why did she delay

11 for so many months? (March to October)

12 "There is no dispute as to which officers conducted

13 which interviews, as their details are recorded in the

14 interview note booklets. The problem is the inability

15 of the witnesses to attribute specific comments to

16 specific officers. If the complaints had been reported

17 at the time by the men or their solicitor, this

18 conundrum would not have presented itself. The delay in

19 recording the statements may also account for the above

20 or sometimes confused or general descriptions which do

21 not appear to tally with the interview records.

22 "Despite Mr Lynch's comment, there is no independent

23 corroborative evidence to support the allegations

24 subject of his complaint. In fact, at this time there

25 is no evidence admissible in criminal proceedings from




1 either of the first two clients or indeed anything to

2 support their unsigned and undated accounts. All the

3 officers strongly deny the allegations.

4 There appears to be a general consensus amongst them

5 that this was a concerted attempt to undermine the

6 professionalism and credibility of the Royal Ulster

7 Constabulary. Some expressed surprise at Mrs Nelson's

8 affiliation to these complaints, recounting occasions

9 where they had met her socially or had tea with her in

10 her offices, some claiming to be on first name terms

11 with her.

12 "The effect of these complaints certainly has had

13 a detrimental effect on the reputation of the Royal

14 Ulster Constabulary, especially when considering the

15 observations of Mr Lynch, LAJI, and the report from the

16 United Nations Rapporteur, Mr Param Cumaraswamy."

17 Just pausing at that point, whether the Commander is

18 right to draw a direct connection here between

19 Mr Cumaraswamy's report and these particular LAJI

20 complaints is something we will have to look at. You

21 may feel that the way in which that matter is put by

22 Mr Cumaraswamy is rather more broadly and without

23 specific reference to these particular cases, although,

24 as we have already seen, some of the matters which were

25 investigated by Commander Mulvihill were specifically




1 drawn to his attention by British Irish Rights Watch:

2 "If the allegations are true, it is indeed a serious

3 matter. But likewise, if they are malicious, the matter

4 is equally serious and would explain the officers' deep

5 resentment of these complaints."

6 Sir, it is worth standing back from this at this

7 stage and considering exactly that, because the position

8 on both sides being so black and white, this report

9 puts, as it were, the finger on it, because it would

10 appear either that officers had made these disgraceful,

11 and in one case certainly threatening comments or, as it

12 were, on the other side, which is the stance taken up by

13 the officers, that every single one, every single one of

14 the allegations was false, was made up, fabricated,

15 deliberately put together, deliberately pursued as an

16 attempt to undermine the reputation of the force. And

17 of course, if that were the attitude of the officers and

18 indeed the conclusion, then that is in itself a matter

19 of importance when one considers attitudes towards what,

20 on this analysis, would be the orchestrator of those

21 malicious untrue, fabricated allegations:

22 "From a criminal proceedings standpoint, as opposed

23 to a disciplinary angle, the majority of the comments

24 alleged would be unlikely to amount to a strong basis

25 for a charge of attempting to pervert the course of




1 justice. Many of the alleged comments, despite having

2 been made in a very adult environment, have an element

3 of school ground or adolescent name-calling about them.

4 "Also, if the alleged comments regarding

5 Mrs Nelson's alleged political leanings, ie a Provo

6 solicitor, were made to people with Republican ideals,

7 it is difficult to see how they have a detrimental

8 effect on those detained. If, on the other hand, the

9 comments were made to others, particularly Loyalist

10 terrorists, then the danger of such comments would be

11 apparent.

12 "However, in this case there is no suggestion that

13 such comments were ever made or threatened to those

14 having anti-Republican sympathies, and therefore, there

15 is no evidence to support the contention that

16 Mrs Nelson's life was ever put at risk."

17 So in that sense, Commander Mulvihill himself is

18 taking on the broader issue, the broader question, you

19 may think, outside the strict ambit of whether the

20 complaints had been made out:

21 "In complete fairness to Mrs Nelson, despite no

22 clear evidence having emerged that she was referred to

23 as a Provo solicitor, no evidence emerged that she

24 betrayed any Republican affiliations or that she ever

25 pursued her duties in other than a professional way.




1 "As an interview technique, not only would this type

2 of alleged questioning be highly unprofessional, it

3 would also be counter-productive and unlikely to elicit

4 any type of confession. The officers concerned had

5 interviewed suspected terrorists on numerous occasions

6 and would no doubt be quite used to the

7 anti-interrogation strategies adopted by suspects. In

8 fact, they would probably be surprised on the rare

9 occasions when suspects chose not to adopt their legal

10 right of silence.

11 "The only evidence admissible in criminal

12 proceedings which could support a section of the

13 complaints are the two statements of C220 and C138.

14 These do not corroborate each other and, in isolation,

15 provide sufficient evidence."

16 Now, sir, the final point I wish to make on this

17 final section of the Commander's conclusions -- because,

18 as you will see, from the page following, he recommends

19 no prosecution, no disciplinary proceedings against any

20 of the police officers -- is the reference there to

21 anti-interrogation strategies, because it picks up

22 another theme that you will see developed in some of the

23 evidence: that suspects with paramilitary backgrounds

24 had been trained in such techniques, ie in resisting

25 interrogation techniques deployed by police officers.




1 And indeed, in the statement of a senior officer to the

2 Inquiry, you will see what he says is a copy of

3 a booklet, albeit one out of date by this stage, in

4 which detailed training and guidance on these strategies

5 is, he says, set out.

6 Sir, I am going to move on. Would that be

7 a convenient moment?

8 THE CHAIRMAN: It is a very convenient moment. Should we

9 say just before 3 o'clock?

10 (2.41 pm)

11 (Short break)

12 (2.55 pm)

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Phillips.

14 MR PHILLIPS: Sir, I was dealing with the conclusions in the

15 Mulvihill Report on the LAJI complaint. It is in fact

16 not dated, this report, but we think that he completed

17 his work in about January of 1999.

18 What then followed was of course the matter was then

19 handed over to the Commission in accordance with the

20 system, and we can see what they said in file

21 RNI-223-323. (Displayed)

22 This is the formal letter from the Chief Executive

23 to the Assistant Chief Constable, the head of the

24 relevant department. This one, as you can see, deals

25 not only with the complaint they have just been looking




1 at, but the other two that I would like to introduce at

2 this stage, and refers to the statements saying that

3 he -- that is the Chief Executive -- will be writing

4 directly to Mr Lynch, to Colin Duffy and to

5 Rosemary Nelson's husband, because this letter is dated

6 22nd March, just a week after the murder.

7 So it is the fact that the report came in January

8 and that, before the statement could be issued,

9 Rosemary Nelson had been killed. You will see the date

10 of the statement signed by the supervising member on

11 22nd March, just a week after the murder, and the formal

12 statement begins at RNI-223-324. There, there is an

13 introductory paragraph concerning the supervision, and

14 in bold underneath it:

15 "The following statement will confirm that by the

16 conclusion of the investigation it was satisfactory, but

17 that there were aspects of the earlier stages that gave

18 rise to serious concerns as to its proper conduct."

19 So you will see right from the outset, therefore, of

20 several pages of the statement, that it was a statement

21 of satisfaction but with various provisos or

22 qualifications. Then the history of the complaints is

23 set out under "The Complaints", and on the next page RNI-223-325

24 again, the history of the supervision and then that

25 continues to the top of RNI-223-326, where the first, as




1 it were, proviso or qualification about the history is

2 referred to:

3 "Throughout the investigation the supervising member

4 consistently raised concerns about its conduct and the

5 behaviour and attitudes displayed by police officers in

6 the course of interviews. Ultimately, she concluded

7 that the accumulated effect of these shortcomings was

8 such as to be seriously damaging to the credibility of

9 the investigation itself. Equally, the confidence that

10 the complainants and others should rightly expect to

11 have in the investigation of serious allegations

12 concerning threats to a solicitor in the conduct of her

13 professional duties was potentially severely undermined.

14 "The appendix attached to this statement sets out

15 a catalogue of concerning incidents that occurred in the

16 course of this investigation. Each of these incidents

17 taken in isolation would be unacceptable but not

18 calculated to render the overall investigation severely

19 flawed. However, considered accumulatively, they do add

20 up to behaviour and attitudinal pre-dispositions which

21 are both unacceptable and undermining of the rigorous

22 professionalism and professional detachment which the

23 supervising member is by statute required to be

24 satisfied has pertained in any particular case."

25 Now:




1 "In summary, the investigation of the alleged

2 threats to Mrs Nelson by officers the RUC was

3 unacceptable to the supervising member of the ICPC

4 because ..."

5 Then there are various bullet points:

6 "The officer assisting the investigating officer

7 appeared to have difficulty in cooperating productively

8 with the power and authority relationships which are an

9 inherent facet of supervised investigations. The

10 concerns raised by the supervising member were either

11 not addressed or addressed unsatisfactorily. The

12 apparent prompting of the police officers to have ready

13 prepared statements in advance of interview undermined

14 the possibility of full and candid responses to

15 important questions. The ill-disguised hostility to

16 Mrs Nelson on the part of some police officers was

17 indicative of a mindset which could be viewed as

18 bordering on the obstructive."

19 Sir, clearly -- pausing there -- that is

20 a suggestion, recorded in this statement by the

21 supervising member, of wider significance in the

22 Inquiry.

23 Then the new phase, the Metropolitan Police

24 takeover:

25 "The investigation appeared to be close to an




1 outcome ..."

2 Sorry, this is RNI-223-327:

3 "... which would result in it being declared by the

4 supervising member to be unsatisfactory. At the

5 supervising member's request, the Chairman of the

6 Commission conveyed her concerns to the Chief Constable.

7 Because there were issues of public interest and in the

8 light of the United Kingdom's commitments to the

9 United Nations, who had established an interest in the

10 case, the Secretary of State was also communicated with.

11 The concerns surrounding the investigation were

12 discussed in a meeting at the Commission's

13 headquarters on 1st July between the supervising member,

14 the Chief Constable and his staff officer, the Chairman

15 of the Commission and the Commission's Chief Executive.

16 The Chief Constable proposed the complaints

17 investigation be taken over by officers from an outside

18 force."

19 Then it sets out what we have already been through

20 in relation to the appointment of Commander Mulvihill.

21 Then over the page at RNI-223-328, and that sets out in

22 very brief outline the history of that investigation and

23 says what was done by the Mulvihill team. And a note,

24 please, at 4: there was obviously disclosure at that

25 stage, one infers, of various contemporaneous material,




1 including notes from Mrs Nelson which the supervising

2 member described as significant:

3 "The supervising member can now confirm that

4 investigation of these complaints has been conducted to

5 the satisfaction of the Independent Commission for

6 Police Complaints for Northern Ireland."

7 The appendix follows at RNI-223-329. It proved to

8 be a controversial appendix and led to a yet further

9 stage in the issue, which I will mention briefly in

10 a minute. But here are the various concerns that she

11 expressed. I am not going to read them all out, but it

12 begins with:

13 "... observable general hostility, evasiveness and

14 disinterest on the part of the police officers involved

15 in this investigation."

16 Then there are particular examples: people turning

17 up for interview smelling of alcohol, referring to one

18 of the complainants as being the murderer of two police

19 officers and references to an officer being

20 uncooperative. And again, various concerns about not

21 only the interviews, the attitudes of the interviewed,

22 but also the attitudes and the conduct of the

23 investigating officer himself; in particular, the issue

24 of the prepared statements. We will see that at the

25 penultimate paragraph, the penultimate bullet point on




1 this page, which, as I mentioned to you before, was

2 a particular bone of contention between the supervising

3 member and the investigating officer.

4 That continues over the page at RNI-223-330 and there is a third

5 bullet point, a suggestion that in the report, which we

6 have seen drafted by the Chief Inspector -- he makes

7 a number of assertions which constitute judgments on the

8 moral character of Mrs Nelson and others:

9 "Although early in the report the Chief Inspector

10 stated he had no reason to doubt Mrs Nelson's

11 reliability as a witness, he subsequently recorded that

12 he in fact did harbour doubts on her reliability. The

13 change of opinion appears to rest primarily on the

14 difficulties that the Chief Inspector experienced in his

15 efforts to arrange interviews with Mrs Nelson."

16 Then in the penultimate paragraph of relevance to

17 us:

18 "The Chief Inspector cited the volume and timing of

19 correspondence received from various international

20 groups on behalf of Mrs Nelson was giving rise to what

21 he claimed was the reasonable suspicion that the

22 complaints were more to do with generating propaganda

23 against the RUC than establishing the truth."

24 Again, you will remember that passage. And another

25 senior officer reporting on the investigating coupled:




1 "... the quality of the evidence given by

2 Mrs Nelson, a solicitor and officer of the court in good

3 professional standing, with that of her clients, whose

4 reliability was deemed by him to be questionable. The

5 evidence given by Mrs Nelson was seen as being no better

6 than that given by her clients."

7 So in this appendix to the statement of

8 satisfaction, these very considerable concerns, picking

9 up themes with which we are now very familiar, appear,

10 at least to the objective outsider, to cast some doubt

11 upon the overall question of whether the supervising

12 member was satisfied. What is done, as I understand it,

13 in the statement, is to draw a clean line between the

14 original investigation and that subsequently conducted

15 by the Commander, Commander Mulvihill.

16 Now, in accordance with the procedure, the matter

17 then proceeded to the Assistant Chief Constable. We

18 have seen already that he is the addressee of this

19 letter of 22nd March, and it now fell to that side of

20 the system to determine whether a criminal offence had

21 been committed and also to obviously consider in the

22 light of Commander Mulvihill's report whether any

23 disciplinary matters needed to be taken forward.

24 Sir, before we look at that stage, can we go back

25 briefly to the second complaint, Colin Duffy and




1 Rosemary Nelson, because when Commander Mulvihill took

2 over, he met both Mrs Nelson and Mr Duffy and took

3 a further statement from each of them. And we can see

4 Mr Duffy's statement at RNI-226-097 (displayed).

5 Dated 21st September:

6 "Today I have been provided with typed copies of the

7 three statements I made to the RUC."

8 Then he refers to them. You will see. Two of them

9 were at the very time of his detention:

10 "These were provided to me by the ICPC. I confirm

11 the accuracy and the complaints made within them."

12 And he confirms the people I have mentioned "are

13 known to me", that is the officers, and confirms that

14 when he was interviewed:

15 "I mainly said nothing but I do recall asking my

16 solicitor."

17 Then at the bottom of the page, he says:

18 "Now, turning to Rosemary Nelson who has been my

19 solicitor for about six years, she has been my only

20 solicitor throughout this period. Any RUC personnel

21 likely to interview me would be aware that

22 Rosemary Nelson was my solicitor. And furthermore, it

23 is commonly known throughout Northern Ireland and

24 Ireland, for that matter, that Mrs Nelson is my

25 solicitor.




1 "I have no doubt whatsoever that when the RUC

2 officers put to me was my solicitor proud of what I had

3 done, they were referring to Rosemary Nelson. At this

4 time, I cannot recall whether they actually mentioned

5 her by name.

6 "In conclusion, in addition to all the matters

7 I have complained about, my rights as a detained person

8 and as a human being were violated, the integrity of my

9 legal representative was also discredited by these

10 comments of the RUC detectives who had interviewed me."

11 Then he sets what he describes as the violations of

12 his human rights in a broader context:

13 "They should not be taken in isolation but viewed in

14 the light of the RUC's dealings with me over a number of

15 years, varying from harassment to colluding with

16 Loyalists to murder me. Also, over five years of my

17 life has been spent in jail on charges that were never

18 substantiated and subsequently proved to be groundless."

19 So the complainant in that case puts in this broader

20 context the way he saw his treatment at the hands of the

21 police, the way he had been dealt with by police, and in

22 that sense, as I suggested to you earlier, the

23 connection made between the solicitor and the client is

24 of importance to us.

25 The statement from Rosemary Nelson is on the




1 previous page, RNI-226-096, the same file, and this

2 simply confirms the detail of her earlier statement.

3 You will remember, these were matters concerning what

4 she regarded as the improper way in which the arrest or,

5 more specifically, the detention had been handled.

6 Note that she says at the end:

7 "I am willing to supply these records to the

8 investigating officers."

9 And that is the matter picked up by Miss McNally in

10 her statement, if you remember, that Commander Mulvihill

11 had obtained contemporaneous records, including notes by

12 Rosemary Nelson, and as she put it, these proved to be

13 significant.

14 Now, in relation to these complaints, as in the

15 previous ones, the officers were interviewed under

16 caution, transcripts were compiled and, again, they are

17 included with the report. I don't propose to look at

18 them now. Again, each of the officers, with the

19 exception of the same officer I mentioned before, P217,

20 who exercised his right to decline to answer certain

21 questions, answered all the questions, denied having

22 behaved improperly or making the comments as alleged on

23 any occasion. And the report that follows is at

24 RNI-226-080 (displayed).

25 That is the title page, and the text begins at




1 RNI-226-081, and it is constructed in exactly the same

2 way as the one we have just been over. I don't,

3 therefore, wish to do anything other than to move to the

4 concluding section, because it follows in relation to

5 the witnesses for these complaints exactly the same

6 course as happened in the LAJI report that we looked at

7 earlier, including, at RNI-226-089 and following to

8 RNI-226-092, an account of the interviews with the

9 officers in which they denied the allegations put.

10 At paragraph 8, beginning at RNI-226-092, he

11 disposes of the complaints and all the allegations

12 made -- again, I hope I will be forgiven for passing

13 over that -- and reaches the same conclusion in relation

14 to these complaints, namely that there should be no

15 prosecution and no disciplinary proceedings.

16 Sir, effectively at that stage, RNI-226-093, he

17 arrives at the same conclusion as had already been

18 reached by Assistant Chief Constable Stewart. Then,

19 although his report is undated, we believe it was

20 written and signed in January 1999.

21 Now, sir, the third complaint which, if you

22 remember, joined the Mulvihill group very late in the

23 day indeed, relates to Client C208 and I would like to

24 look at that now as briefly as I can.

25 C208 was arrested on 29th June 1998 in the morning.




1 He was arrested under section 14(1)(b) of the Prevention

2 of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 in

3 connection with the alleged throwing of blast bombs in

4 the Garvaghy Road and in relation to his suspected

5 involvement with the Irish National Liberation Army. He

6 was taken to Castlereagh and he was detained there until

7 the afternoon of the next day, 30th June. He was

8 interviewed 11 times in that period and, as I have said

9 before, in relation to these matters, as far as we can

10 tell at any rate, he was released without charge.

11 In his case, as with the other cases, we will

12 produce tables setting out the officers against whom the

13 allegations were made, so that everybody has reach of

14 the complaints we are focusing on, the details, and I

15 will pass over that now.

16 It was not Rosemary Nelson who attended the holding

17 centre at Castlereagh, it was a solicitor who worked for

18 her, Pat Vernon, and it was on the second day -- in

19 other words, the day of his release -- that a letter

20 came through from Rosemary Nelson's office regarding

21 this client. Can we look, please, at RNI-218-001.

22 (Displayed)

23 It is addressed to the investigating officer:

24 "Dear sir,

25 "My client.




1 "I have been made aware of the derogatory remarks

2 made by RUC officers to my above-named client. This is

3 part of an ongoing situation which, quite frankly, is

4 unacceptable. I shall be reporting the full text of

5 remarks to the appropriate authorities in due course and

6 should be obliged if such completely unacceptable

7 behaviour on the part of RUC officers would cease."

8 Sir, so, like the Duffy/Nelson complaints, if I can

9 put it that way, this allegation emerges immediately

10 and, therefore, is in stark contrast to the LAJI

11 complaints, where, if you remember, no such letter was

12 received, indeed nothing from the complainants and their

13 solicitor was received for many months and the

14 statements appear to follow long after the events in

15 question.

16 So that letter came in to the Complaints and

17 Discipline Department and an investigating officer was

18 appointed and the matter went in due course to the

19 Commission, again, in accordance with the system that we

20 have now seen operating in a number of different

21 occasions. The allocation form is at RNI-218-011.

22 (Displayed)

23 You will see the nature of the complaint in there is

24 simply described as "threats", and somebody at some

25 stage has put in a Post-it on top of the page -- you may




1 be able to read this:

2 "Allocate Miss McNally."

3 Now, we can see that working through in this way.

4 Bear in mind that this is a very late arrival on the

5 scene. If you look at RNI-218-015, this is an internal

6 memorandum and the question is raised about what to do

7 with C208 and his complaint.

8 By this time, if you remember, the business of the

9 Mulvihill appointment had come up and had been resolved

10 in relation to the other complaints, and so the

11 suggestion was that it should simply join the group.

12 And you will see that was a suggestion made by the

13 Commission in the second paragraph. And at 3, it was

14 pointed out that Miss McNally would be the supervising

15 member:

16 "Given that the ICPC presently seem to have no

17 desire or expectation that all types of complaints made

18 by R Nelson on behalf of her client will be referred to

19 non-RUC officers for investigation, I strongly recommend

20 that we accede to the ICPC request. It would seem that

21 by do so we will provide the Commission and Mr Mulvihill

22 with an opportunity to see through an investigation from

23 start to finish."

24 Then it sets out that there wasn't much information

25 in the letter, which seems like a fair comment, but that




1 it arose in the circumstances set out there.

2 So that matter then joined the group, and if you

3 remember, when we looked at the Chief Constable's Terms

4 of Reference to the Commander, they included this new

5 complaint. So interviews were set up, and in due course

6 both Rosemary Nelson and the client attended to be

7 interviewed by the Mulvihill team.

8 Could we look, please, at the client's statement at

9 RNI-220-024 (displayed).

10 It is dated 1st September and it is a lengthy

11 statement setting out all of the history of his arrest

12 and detention. I hope I will be forgiven for passing

13 over most of it -- I think it is eight pages long --

14 pausing on RNI-220-025 to say that it includes the

15 normal business of description of the interviewing

16 officers, because again, there are no names known, no

17 names available, and then a reasonably detailed account

18 of the interviews that follow. In RNI-220-027, we can

19 pause, please, to see, about halfway down, a sentence

20 which begins:

21 "On another occasion, the scruffy officer ..."

22 That is one of the descriptions given:

23 "... said my details would be given to ..."

24 Then the name has been redacted:

25 "... and locally that name is believed to be




1 a member of the LVF and a thug. He also asked me if I

2 had a steel cage in my house and that it was about time

3 I got one. I should clarify that a steel cage is

4 a steel security door inside a front door which prevents

5 anyone seeking to attack you from entering your home."

6 Then he explains the context in which the allegation

7 about the man he described as a member of the LVF and

8 a thug was made, and goes on to explain that, in the

9 penultimate line:

10 "I did not throw the bombs."

11 If you remember, that was the allegation that was

12 made. Continuing over the top of the page, he explains

13 how he thinks the false information about the bombs

14 would be passed to that person. It was implied that

15 this could be done in a number of ways. It was

16 implied -- it was also suggested to me that I should

17 change my routine, et cetera.

18 In other words, this is one of the cases in which

19 the specific allegations about the solicitor take their

20 place in a relatively detailed account of the

21 interviews, which include specific and, if the

22 complainant is correct, specific allegations,

23 threatening allegations made in relation to him; in

24 other words, that his details would be passed to a man

25 he described as a Loyalist and a member of the LVF and




1 a thug.

2 Then he deals with further comments in the

3 interview. In the middle of the page, there are

4 references to what he believes was a saying "all Taigs

5 are targets" and reference to the death of

6 Robert Hamill, and the comment:

7 "They said that uniformed police would only see what

8 they wanted to see. I took this to mean the same could

9 happen to me and nothing would happen about it. This

10 supports my view that the RUC are nothing but bigots."

11 We then continue. Again, reference to the term

12 "Taig" and him taking -- this is on RNI-220-029 --

13 a suggestion that:

14 "The UDR may be watching me and that they might be

15 passing their information to all sorts of people,

16 including Loyalists."

17 It is at this point on page 6 of the interview,

18 RNI-220-029 of our bundle, that he says, about ten lines

19 from the bottom:

20 "Whilst I was being interviewed, the same two

21 officers also made comments about the solicitor,

22 Rosemary Nelson, who often acts for Garvaghy Road

23 residents when they are arrested. I should point out

24 that Nelson is not my solicitor, that after my arrest my

25 wife asked for her. I was not aware of this, and on my




1 first day in custody I had a different solicitor, Pat

2 Vernon, as I mentioned. Whilst I was with him, I told

3 him about the threats and I later discovered that he

4 sent faxes to the police station on my behalf."

5 Then he continues:

6 "When on the second day, the 30th, I again asked for my

7 solicitor, the scruffy officer said I see you are having

8 the provi solicitor, Rosemary Nelson. He said this

9 sort of thing twice. I said nothing, and he added

10 something like: Rosemary has got well trained. We have

11 had harder men than you in here.

12 "At this point I had never even met Nelson. Indeed,

13 I only met her recently. She even made the complaint on

14 my behalf before we had met for the first time. I think

15 this was through Vernon who works with her. When the

16 officers were talking about Nelson, I took their words

17 to mean that they thought she was a provi. One

18 thing I found strange was that when they were talking

19 about Nelson, they changed tack and accused me of being

20 a member of the Provisionals and not the INLA. When

21 they accused me of being a provo, they said I was one of

22 [somebody's] men or one of Colly's men. I cannot be

23 certain of either of these spellings, as both names mean

24 nothing to me."

25 That, so far as we are concerned, save his summary




1 at the end, where he says:

2 "I would summarise my complaints as follows:

3 "1. The second pair of interviewing officers made

4 a variety of veiled threats which, if brought to

5 fruition, would endanger may life and that of my family,

6 and

7 "2. The same officers made derogatory remarks about

8 the solicitor, Rosemary Nelson."

9 That is the substance of this client's statement.

10 And it is, you may think, again, if correct, striking

11 that it appears that, if he is correct, the comments

12 about Rosemary Nelson were made before he had met her,

13 before he had instructed her. Indeed, he treated the

14 actual solicitor who came to see him as somebody

15 different, it appears, not knowing that they operated in

16 the same office. It was in fact his wife who had asked

17 for Rosemary Nelson, as he puts it, but it would appear,

18 if his account is correct, that the name, the name

19 Rosemary Nelson, sparked the comments that were

20 thereafter made about her.

21 They fit into a pattern we have seen before, namely

22 the express association of Rosemary Nelson with the

23 Provos, with the Provisional IRA, and therefore with

24 allegations made against her clients, even though,

25 again, in his particular case what he was accused of was




1 not association with the Provisional IRA or membership

2 of the Provisional IRA but in fact of being the INLA

3 member.

4 And it appears at that point also that, as he put

5 it, they changed tack and accused him at that stage of

6 membership of the Provisional IRA, as it were, treating

7 the fact that Rosemary Nelson was his solicitor as being

8 a pointer to membership of that organisation as opposed

9 to membership of the INLA.

10 The investigation continued and at RNI-220-036, we

11 see the solicitor's witness statement and it deals with

12 his involvement with this particular client. The

13 importance of this statement, so far as we are

14 concerned, was that it appears that even at the moment

15 of attending a holding centre, this particular client

16 didn't know the solicitor and, as it explains about

17 eight lines down, initially wouldn't speak to him. He

18 didn't know him either and, therefore, didn't trust him,

19 and after that rather sticky start, his concerns appear

20 to have been assuaged and the matter proceeded.

21 If we look on, please, to RNI-220-020, (displayed)

22 we will see that one of the questions raised in the

23 investigation -- this is an extract from the Commander's

24 report in this case, at the fourth bullet point -- was

25 a request from the solicitor for the contemporaneous




1 notes regarding this client's detention. And this was

2 a case where, despite what the Commander described as

3 a "time framed ultimatum", no reply was received.

4 So in this case at any rate, the discovery of

5 further information or further documentation which was

6 the subject of a compliment by Miss McNally in her

7 statement, I am afraid, did not work.

8 Rosemary Nelson, as I say, also gave a statement on

9 this case and it is of importance to us. Can we look at

10 it, please, at RNI-220-032. (Displayed)

11 Its importance, I would suggest, comes not just from

12 what it says about this particular complaint and case,

13 but more generally. She is interviewed and makes this

14 statement on 1st September 1998. She sets out her

15 qualifications and experience, refers to the solicitor

16 who worked for her and sets out her understanding of

17 what had happened with this client, confirms that the

18 client was being questioned for membership of the INLA

19 and the blast bombs allegation.

20 She confirms that she didn't know him personally but

21 that she represented the Coalition for the last three

22 years and that being a resident, he, the client, would

23 have known her:

24 "My law practice represents all parts of the

25 community and is actively involved in all areas of the




1 law."

2 She then sets out how she came to know of the

3 problem in the case from her colleague, and it is the

4 colleague who tells her at the bottom of the page that

5 the detectives -- over the page at RNI-220-033 --:

6 "Had been making derogatory remarks about me and

7 associating me with the IRA. He also said that the

8 detectives threatened that his details would be passed

9 to Loyalist paramilitary organisations."

10 We have seen that for ourselves:

11 "I was also told the detectives had used words to

12 the effect about me that I was a Provo solicitor and

13 that the client was well briefed to choose you."

14 Now, obviously that is all at second-hand, but there

15 is then a passage which relates to other issues to which

16 the Inquiry is inquiring:

17 "These comments, although having been made

18 previously, particularly concerned me because of the

19 time of year and the tension caused by Drumcree."

20 Remember, this is at the end of June 1998:

21 "I had already received an anonymous letter at the

22 beginning of June, which said 'we have you in our

23 sights, you Republican bastard, we will teach you

24 a lesson, RIP', which terrified me. I am willing to

25 produce this note if necessary and I produce a copy of




1 it as exhibit RN1."

2 If we look over to RNI-220-035, you will see the

3 note (displayed).

4 It is one of what I am afraid is a large number of

5 very bad copies of the note and also of the envelope in

6 which it was delivered to her office address.

7 Now, sir, this interview, by way of a reminder,

8 takes place on 1st September. As I will explain in due

9 course, this is one of two documents -- the other being

10 a pamphlet entitled "Man without a Future", principally

11 concerning Breandan Mac Cionnaith but also referring in

12 terms to Rosemary Nelson and, indeed, Colin Duffy --

13 which were drawn to the attention of the NIO and about

14 which, and indeed the extent to which, this threat note

15 was thereafter passed to the RUC is a controversial

16 issue, but the importance perhaps of this statement that

17 Rosemary Nelson made in a quite different context was

18 that first of all she put the specific complaint about

19 208 in the context of Drumcree and the tensions caused

20 by it, and also drew Commander Mulvihill or his

21 officers' attention to the threat note in that context.

22 Again, if I can stand back, this is an example of

23 what I tried to outline at the very outset of my opening

24 submissions, namely where all of the various strands we

25 are considering come together and interweave. It is not




1 possible, I would suggest, to look at things in distinct

2 compartments, although I am doing so in order to give

3 some shape to the vast amount of material and evidence

4 you have to consider. In fact, one is constantly coming

5 up against these moments of connection, where links are

6 made between the various issues.

7 This is particularly significant, because it is

8 Rosemary Nelson herself who points up these connections.

9 And sir, in the middle of an interview about C208, she

10 produces a copy of the threat note. It cannot, surely,

11 be doubted for a moment that the words:

12 "We have you in our sights, you Republican bastard,

13 we will teach you a lesson, RIP."

14 Are anything other than a threat note.

15 It then returns, the statement, by contrast, to the

16 rather mundane remarks made at second-hand, of course,

17 that she has to make about the remainder of the C208

18 case.

19 What she does say, however, is that when she heard

20 from 208 about the remarks made by the interviewing

21 officers:

22 "As I have already said, I was very frightened and

23 I responded by immediately faxing two written notices of

24 complaint to Castlereagh and one to the complaints and

25 discipline branch at Gough."




1 And she then produces the correspondence, one of the

2 letters certainly that we have seen.

3 Now, sir, the final thing to underline from this

4 statement is about the date of receipt of this note.

5 She puts it at the beginning of June. One of the

6 difficulties with the threat material, which does not

7 form the subject matter of complaints investigations, is

8 that it is difficult to pin it down to dates and times.

9 There is precious little remaining documentary

10 evidence of the various threats referred to by witnesses

11 in their evidence to the Inquiry, and it is exceedingly

12 difficult to establish a reliable chronology: at what

13 point were these threats issued or received during the

14 last two years of Rosemary Nelson's life? So this

15 evidence in Rosemary Nelson's statement is both helpful

16 on that and, in the overall context, unusual.

17 Now, the officers identified as the interviewing

18 officers were interviewed under caution by

19 Commander Mulvihill and his junior officer,

20 Detective Inspector Marshall. Miss McNally was present.

21 Again, they answered all the questions put to them, they

22 denied all the allegations and those interviews, the

23 records of them, are in the bundle. I don't wish to

24 take you to them now, save to say that in the course of

25 both the interviews, comments were made first that one




1 of the officers said he believed the complaints were

2 made as an attempt to discredit the RUC, and by the

3 second that some solicitors have a vendetta against the

4 police and the complaints were, in his view, attempts to

5 discredit the RUC in this political climate.

6 The report is at RNI-220-001. That is the first

7 page (displayed).

8 Again, it is in the usual form or the form that we

9 have come to expect. The substance begins at

10 RNI-220-005, and after reciting at 2 details of the

11 complainants, over the page at RNI-220-006, the brief

12 details of the circumstance, the incident, as he

13 explains it, at 3.2. Then it sets out the allegations

14 at RNI-220-007.

15 You see at (a) two allegations: one, threats to

16 jeopardise his life, the client's life and those of his

17 family, and then derogatory comments directed at

18 Rosemary Nelson and this phrase:

19 "... which, if believed, may have threatened her

20 life."

21 In other words, the Commander is putting the

22 comments about being a Provo lawyer in that way. Just

23 to say that -- "just" is, of course, not the right word

24 but to make that suggestion or allegation about

25 a solicitor may have threatened her life in that




1 indirect way.

2 Then Mrs Nelson's allegations, the interviews, the

3 reference -- then there is a very detailed précis of the

4 client's statement. Reference on RNI-220-011 to

5 Mrs Nelson's statement. And look, please, at the third

6 paragraph under that heading, "Mrs Rosemary Nelson,

7 Solicitor", is this comment:

8 "Purely for information, exhibit RN1 ..."

9 That is the threat note that we have just looked at:

10 "... there is a copy of a letter Mrs Nelson brought

11 to the attention of the officers recording her

12 statement, which she did not attribute to any member of

13 the RUC."

14 One of the interesting questions that arises in

15 this, and those who are present address it in their

16 witness statements, is exactly how this statement was

17 regarded and treated when it appeared unexpectedly in

18 the course of the interview.

19 You will see there, it is put to one side rather

20 firmly because it was not suggested by Mrs Nelson that

21 it was produced or written or sent by a member of the

22 police, which of course was perhaps not the only

23 question raised by the threat note; the more obvious

24 question, the question which perhaps should have been

25 addressed in the threat assessment that followed




1 in August, was whether it amounted to a threat; in other

2 words, whether there were real concerns as a result of

3 it about her safety. But this is very much a complaint

4 report, and you will see that its relevance is dealt

5 with in that rather restricted way.

6 Then comments about the interviews of the officers.

7 Some details given about what was said in the

8 interviews, and the conclusions appear at RNI-220-018 to

9 RNI-220-021.

10 It follows a familiar pattern. In other words,

11 there are three possibilities -- one, two, three -- they

12 are exactly the ones that we saw before with, as it

13 were, relevant name changes. It deals with the

14 interview of 208 and the Commander's views about him,

15 and there is a comment about his memory and it is

16 pointed out that he is mistaken in some of his

17 recollection. And it says in the penultimate bullet

18 point that he or his solicitor could at any stage,

19 particularly on the evening of June, have made

20 a complaint, but both chose not to.

21 It may be that I am misreading that, but it looks to

22 me at any rate from what we have seen as though they

23 made a complaint -- or Rosemary Nelson did -- the next

24 day. So that may not be the Commander's best point.

25 Then there was a comment about the way he conducted




1 himself in the face of these alleged remarks and note,

2 please, on a more general level, the fact that these

3 interviews were being video-recorded. We have now

4 passed the point I mentioned earlier where video

5 recording, silent video recording had been brought in,

6 in this case it is at Castlereagh. We haven't achieved

7 the situation which I think was general by the beginning

8 of the next year, where you have both audio and video

9 recording which, clearly, would have put an end, one

10 imagines, to these sorts of problems, because there

11 would have been an independent verifiable record.

12 Then moving on to RNI-220-019, the Commander deals

13 with various inconsistencies and problems that he has in

14 the account given by client, and in the middle of the

15 page makes the fair point, you may think, that most of

16 Mrs Nelson's statement about those events is, as he puts

17 it, mostly hearsay. Then addresses the officers

18 themselves:

19 "... appeared very professional and competent

20 detectives who readily answered the questions asked of

21 them and strongly denied the allegations made about

22 them."

23 And the fact that the interview notes didn't reflect

24 any comments similar to those alleged, and the videos

25 supporting the accounts of the officers, and there being




1 nothing in the documentary record to support the

2 client's version of events.

3 Then there is some evidence recorded in the second

4 paragraph about the two officers: professional and

5 conscientious, as it were, evidence of good character by

6 a senior officer, and some comment about the client's

7 behaviour. Then an adverse comment about the absence of

8 contemporaneous notes, and this is paragraph follows:

9 "Ultimately, there is no way of knowing whether any

10 derogatory or threatening remarks were made to the

11 client by police officers whilst he was in custody.

12 Every available piece of tangible evidence -- video,

13 contemporaneous notes, other documentation -- tends to

14 indicate that no untoward incident took place.

15 "The officers subject of complaint were entirely

16 cooperative and presented as professional, sensible and

17 honest, answering all questions and refuting all

18 allegations in a comprehensive and believable fashion.

19 "Whether Mrs Nelson or the solicitor, knowingly or

20 unknowingly, were involved in false allegations can only

21 be a matter of conjecture. It was disappointing the

22 promised notebook records, which might have thrown some

23 light on the issue, were never produced despite both

24 promises from him and repeated requests. Equally,

25 whether the client's account is either true, a complete




1 fabrication or somewhere between will also remain

2 a mystery. However, I am satisfied that there is not

3 a shred of evidence against the officers complained of."

4 Again, the recommendation follows that there should

5 be no prosecution and no disciplinary proceedings.

6 So on 19th February, Rosemary Nelson and the client

7 were informed by the Commission that the report had been

8 received and also that the Commission was satisfied that

9 the investigation had been properly carried out, and we

10 can see that at RNI-218-141.

11 It refers to the Commission's letter of 24th August:

12 "Enclosed for your information a copy of the letter

13 the Commission has issued to the client, together with

14 a copy of the related statement."

15 And the letter to the client follows, 19th February,

16 the same date at RNI-218-142. It refers to the

17 statement being enclosed and that a copy of the report

18 has been sent to the Assistant Chief Constable. Then

19 the issues that arose, namely would there be criminal

20 charges and would there be a disciplinary hearing.

21 The statement issued here on the next page,

22 RNI-218-143, is striking in, well, in its brevity, apart

23 from anything else and of course in the absence of any

24 of the qualifications that characterise the one in the

25 other two cases that we saw earlier, because




1 Miss McNally who signs it simply sets out that the

2 matters were referred to the ICPC, that the Commission

3 undertook to supervise the matter, that it was

4 supervised, that the interview took place and that there

5 was a consideration of the interim papers, the

6 investigating officer was directed to submit his report,

7 which he did, and then the final statement:

8 "The investigation of these complaints has been

9 conducted to the satisfaction of the Independent

10 Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland."

11 Now, in that case, after some delay, it was decided

12 that no prosecution and no disciplinary charges would

13 result, and this was accepted by the Commission.

14 Now, so far as, as it were, the review aspect of

15 Mulvihill goes, if you remember, that was point 7 of the

16 Terms of Reference given to him by the Chief Constable.

17 That point said:

18 "You will review the original RUC investigations

19 into matters 1, 2 and 3 above. If at any stage you

20 conclude that this aspect requires separate or

21 independent investigation or should be investigated by

22 another officer, you will draw this to my immediate

23 attention. Alternatively, you will report with any

24 recommendations you feel appropriate in this regard."

25 That was a review in relation to the LAJI and




1 Rosemary Nelson/Colin Duffy matters, obviously, because

2 the other one was, as it were, freshly taken over by

3 Commander Mulvihill and dealt with by him from the

4 start.

5 For everybody's note, that report is at RNI-226-002,

6 but at this stage I don't propose to take you to it.

7 There were, in all, some 20 recommendations made by

8 Commander Mulvihill.

9 So at this point the question arises: what the

10 outcome of all of this was. It had taken about two

11 years by this stage, March 1999, and as I have said,

12 unfortunately by the time of the issue, of the big

13 statement of satisfaction or qualified statement,

14 Rosemary Nelson had been murdered.

15 In essence, the outcome was that the review report

16 maintained that the early investigations were

17 essentially acceptable -- and again, I am summarising --

18 essentially dismissed the concerns which had been

19 expressed, both by the Chairman of the Commission and by

20 the supervising member, Miss McNally, in that appendix

21 in particular to the statement which I showed you

22 earlier.

23 What thereafter happened, as we will see, is that

24 the matter entered the public domain via the media, and

25 there were a series of ancillary disputes which I don't




1 intend to dwell on.

2 After the murder, unsurprisingly, there having been

3 no final statement at that point, there was some

4 speculation as to what the conclusion of the

5 Commission's investigation might be, and comment in the

6 media. Also at the same point -- and this is

7 significant in the events as they developed -- the

8 second of Mr Cumaraswamy's reports was published on

9 19th March, so between the murder and the statement, the

10 qualified statement that I have shown you on the 22nd,

11 which itself referred to the ICPC's concerns as recorded

12 about the original investigation.

13 We can see the NIO side of things at this point at

14 RNI-228-028.500 (displayed).

15 You will see an explanation there, under

16 "Background", of the timing that I have outlined to you.

17 And also that by this stage, the 22nd, the statement has

18 been issued. At 2, it continues:

19 "Whilst there is no intention on the ICPC's part to

20 make the statement public, it seems likely that the

21 statement will be made available to the media by the

22 complainants.

23 "In addition to the investigation into the Nelson

24 complaints, Commander Mulvihill also reviewed the

25 original investigation in the light of the ICPC's




1 concerns. We believe Commander Mulvihill has completed

2 his review into the original investigation and that his

3 report is now with the Chief Constable. We expect to

4 receive a copy of this and will brief ministers on it

5 when we do.

6 "Much of the statement is critical of the RUC and

7 the officers who carried out the original

8 investigations. Reference has been made to concerns

9 being consistently raised by the ICPC's supervising

10 member about the conduct of the investigation and the

11 behaviour and attitude of police officers, concluding

12 that the accumulated effect was such as to be seriously

13 damaging to the credibility of the investigation and

14 that the confidence which would be expected of such

15 investigations was potentially severely undermined."

16 Then there is reference to the appendix before the

17 writer continues:

18 "On the positive side, though this is likely to be

19 lost because of the above, the statement notes that the

20 supervising member was satisfied with the proposal made

21 by the Chief Constable that an officer from outside the

22 force should take over the complaints investigation and

23 subsequently approve the appointment of

24 Commander Mulvihill of the Metropolitan Police Service

25 as the investigating officer."




1 Then it continues, as it were, on the positive side,

2 and then this:

3 "Anyone looking enquiringly at the statement may

4 question how the second part is satisfactory when the

5 first is not. There is also likely to be read-across to

6 the Phillips investigation, ie this shows the RUC should

7 not be involved in this investigation."

8 I should explain that. The Phillips investigation

9 was the Rosemary Nelson murder investigation at this

10 stage, where Sir David Phillips, who was the

11 Chief Constable of Kent at the time, had been brought in

12 from a very early stage by the Chief Constable, as we

13 will hear. And this is indeed a line which emerges in

14 a good deal of comment: how can you trust the RUC to

15 investigate the murder of Rosemary Nelson when they

16 failed, in the view of the supervising member of the

17 Commission, to conduct a decent investigation into the

18 allegations of threats and other matters in relation to

19 Rosemary Nelson at an earlier stage?

20 And the lines to take -- again, I don't want to

21 dwell on them, but they are at RNI-228-028.503. You

22 will see the various matters dealt with there about the

23 ICPC; serious concern. And at the bottom:

24 "Have you seen the report?

25 "Yes, I am pleased to see that the ICPC were




1 satisfied with Commander Mulvihill's investigation."

2 Then at the top of the next page, RNI-228-028.504:

3 "Have the ICPC's serious concerns been examined?"

4 And a suggested answer. Then 1:

5 "If things got a little more difficult:

6 "[If pressed] I expect shortly to receive ..."

7 And then:

8 "[If pressed hard] I want to read the report before

9 deciding what action I might take. I am sure the Chief

10 Constable will also consider what action he should take

11 when he too has read the report."

12 Then the point that I have just raised:

13 "The statement shows that the police cannot be

14 trusted. Not the case. The serious concerns of the

15 ICPC were quickly acted upon by the Chief Constable with

16 the appointment of Commander Mulvihill."

17 Then in the penultimate paragraph:

18 "It is clear that the RUC cannot be trusted to

19 investigate Nelson's murder. I don't accept this.

20 Furthermore, the investigation will be independently

21 overseen by the highest-ranked officer possible.

22 Mr Phillips will have a very wide remit, so he can

23 investigate any aspect that arises. [If pressed] the

24 Chief Constable has informed us that no officer

25 complained about in Rosemary Nelson's complaints will




1 have a role in the investigation."

2 This picks up a point to which we will return,

3 namely that those who had been interviewed in the course

4 of these investigations, who were also local officers,

5 who would otherwise have been working, and indeed in

6 some cases, I think, had started to work on the

7 investigation, were simply taken off it. So a line was

8 drawn between those embroiled one way or another in the

9 complaints and the officers who were conducting the

10 murder investigation.

11 Sir, the next page, RNI-228-029, is the statement

12 released to the media by the Commission on the 23rd, and

13 just setting out that it had issued its statement,

14 second paragraph:

15 "This statement relates solely to the conduct and

16 quality of an investigation. It is not a commentary on

17 the culpability or otherwise of those officers against

18 whom accusations have been made. The Director of Public

19 Prosecutions, who will decide if there are any grounds

20 for criminal prosecution, will now consider this matter

21 and the ICPC plays no part in this process. The

22 complainant and the Chief Constable have been given

23 copies of the ICPC statement."

24 And indeed we can see at RNI-223-322 (displayed)

25 that the letter to one of the complaints -- in this




1 case, Mr Duffy -- goes out, 22nd March. And it says

2 what the next stages are going to be.

3 A similar copy -- we needn't look at it, but for the

4 note it's at RNI-223-320, and that goes to Paul Nelson.

5 The files did indeed go to the Director of Public

6 Prosecutions with a recommendation from the Complaints

7 and Discipline Department, unsurprisingly, given

8 Commander Mulvihill's recommendations, you may think,

9 that there should be no prosecution.

10 Now, that in various different ways was not the end

11 of the story and can I now take you to the next stage of

12 it. At RNI-228-052, you will see at the very top that

13 this is a note in fact compiled by the Commander

14 himself, and he records that on Sunday, 28th March -- so

15 just to few days after these documents we have been

16 looking at -- there was a meeting between him, the

17 Chief Constable and Mr Donnelly, on issues of concern,

18 raised in the appendix to the statement dated

19 22nd March. That is the appendix I showed you earlier,

20 and -- this is the key part:

21 "... which has now entered the public domain."

22 And we will see how that happened in a minute. But

23 he records that he was then asked to prepare for

24 publication:

25 "... a full and accurate account of my report,




1 submitted to the Chief Constable in respect of the

2 review which I conducted of the original

3 investigations."

4 And that is what he then proceeds to do. I don't

5 think we need dwell on that. But can we look, please,

6 at what happened when it did enter the public domain at

7 RNI-401-249. (Displayed)

8 Now, again, I am afraid, these are not very good

9 copies but in a sense once you have read the headline,

10 you have understood what happened when the matter

11 entered the public domain:

12 "Ill-disguised Police Hostility to Nelson Cited in

13 the Report."

14 That is of course a reference to a phrase which

15 comes from the appendix that we saw. Now, if it is

16 possible to blow up the first column or two, that would

17 be helpful:

18 "The report of the RUC's handling of its

19 investigation into alleged death threats by police

20 officers against Rosemary Nelson details ill-disguised

21 police hostility towards the murdered solicitor. The

22 report deals with a catalogue of complaints against RUC

23 officers and unprofessional conduct."

24 It then records that the family was presented with

25 the report and the statement which was then issued, and




1 in that way, as I say, the connection was made between

2 the contents of the appendix, the criticisms there set

3 out, and how the murder investigation itself should

4 properly be conducted.

5 There is then a list in bullet points of the matters

6 set out in the appendix and it says at the bottom, as

7 you will see:

8 "The document will prove highly embarrassing for the

9 RUC."

10 And the 16 complaints then referred to. Can we blow

11 up the next column, please:

12 "Allegations made against 21 officers."

13 Then it sets out in very considerable detail, this

14 article in the Irish Times, with direct quotation from

15 the statement and appendix, what the criticisms were.

16 Sir, I don't want to show you the other coverage, but

17 there was a good deal of similar coverage at the same

18 time.

19 However, that was not the end of the media treatment

20 of this and it is this aspect that I want to draw to

21 your attention, because there was some form of backlash.

22 We can see a good example of it in operation at

23 RNI-401-373, the same file, RNI-401.

24 This is an article which appeared in the Sunday

25 Times and which itself caused a good deal of concern




1 and, I think, in the bundle we will see resulted in

2 a letter from, I think I am right in saying, the then

3 Chairman of the Bar Council, and I think from the

4 Law Society also, because of the comments made in it

5 about the supervising member.

6 If you look at the bottom of the first column, there

7 begins the journalist's comment about her, and it

8 continues by suggesting that this was not an independent

9 supervising member but somebody who was parti pris,

10 somebody who had a particular proven record,

11 a particular number of affiliations, and that there was

12 something wrong or improper about that.

13 If we look at the second column -- and enlarge that,

14 please -- reference there, you will see, to connection

15 with Amnesty International, and the suggestion is made

16 that this was not the right choice to discharge the

17 duties of supervising member in an impartial way.

18 So it would appear, therefore, that the appendix had

19 had a very considerable impact and that steps had been

20 taken to discredit or undermine the position and

21 authority of the supervising member, whose views,

22 crisply expressed in the appendix, had been made known,

23 which is, in the particular circumstances of the

24 investigation, you may think, a very striking

25 development indeed.




1 Now, in order to deal with what was developing, the

2 Chief Constable and the Chairman of the Commission made

3 a joint statement on 30th March. We can see that at

4 RNI-228-051. They explain here, as it were, their

5 separate and joint positions; in other words, the

6 statement which one imagines took a little bit of

7 drafting includes, in the second paragraph,

8 a reaffirmation by the Commission, second sentence, that

9 it would have been failing in its duty to Mrs Nelson,

10 the wider community and the police force had it not

11 highlighted its concerns:

12 "We always knew that the concerns raised would

13 remain a matter of record, no matter how satisfactory

14 the final outcome would prove to be. In this context

15 and given the seriousness of the matters raised,

16 Commander Mulvihill was requested by the Chief Constable

17 to undertake a parallel review of the investigative

18 procedures in this case. There have been public demands

19 for his report in this regard to be published. However,

20 legal difficulties prevent full publication. In this

21 context the Chairman and the Chief Constable, who worked

22 in an agreed way throughout this matter, decided to ask

23 him to prepare for public scrutiny what he considered to

24 be an accurate account of his report in the light of the

25 concerns raised."




1 That, sir, is the statement I showed you earlier,

2 which begins at 052 with the passage about the meeting

3 on Sunday, 28th March. That is, therefore, the

4 published version of the review report, and it goes on

5 in this bundle, for everybody's notes, until 061 and

6 sets out, beginning at page RNI-228-058, his recommendations. I

7 would like to take just a few of them briefly because

8 they fit in with some of the facts we have been looking

9 at.

10 His first recommendation -- and we know that this is

11 a familiar theme:

12 "Audio as well as video recording equipment should

13 be installed to all interviewing facilities where

14 prisoners suspected of involvement in terrorist offences

15 are detained. This recommendation has already been

16 implemented."

17 Don't forget this is now March 1999:

18 "A protocol between the member and the investigating

19 officer.

20 "3: training in relation to the role of the

21 supervising member."

22 4, top of the page:

23 "Furthermore, RUC officers need to be reminded that

24 while they have every right to defend themselves when

25 complaints are made and whilst they may well feel




1 aggrieved at what they perceive to be false or vexatious

2 allegations, a resort to belligerence or hostility is

3 unhelpful."

4 Then a broad policy for effectively non-cooperating

5 witnesses, and then he talks about pre-prepared

6 statements and he suggests that the issue needs to be

7 revisited, with appropriate legal advice, to establish

8 an acceptable policy.

9 And 7:

10 "If the officer turns up with a pre-prepared

11 statement, he must still be subject to comprehensive

12 questioning to establish specific and detailed

13 responses. The fact that such prepared statements must

14 not be actively sought by investigating officers should

15 be brought to the notice of investigators."

16 Then there are further recommendations down the page

17 at the end: neutral venues suggested; looking at 13,

18 a suggestion of pre-agreed areas for questioning with

19 the supervising member; 14, discussion immediately after

20 the interview to prevent the sort of disputes that

21 occurred in the case; agreement on the relevant

22 documentation, 15; and then discussion about the later

23 stages, report writing and liaison meetings.

24 Then at 20:

25 "In the event that real concerns emerge on either




1 side at any time throughout the duration of an Inquiry,

2 then the matter must promptly become the subject of

3 written debate between the Chairman and the

4 Chief Constable or their designated nominees.

5 Additionally, there must be clarity of outcome, with

6 concluding correspondence making it transparent that any

7 disputed issues are resolved."

8 So in fact the recommendations in this public form

9 of the review report cover a very large number of the

10 concerns expressed about the way those investigations

11 took place by the supervising member, and one can see

12 the Commander trying to formulate suggestions so as to

13 ensure that the same situation did not recur.

14 Now, the business of the fallout from the

15 investigation continued because -- and again I don't

16 think we need to look at this material. In fact it was

17 determined that all of the officers who had been

18 complained against, the ones who were, where

19 appropriate, removed from the investigation, should

20 themselves be the subject of a threat assessment on the

21 basis that if such information had emerged in the public

22 domain, they ought to be assessed, and that appears to

23 have been done promptly.

24 However, this mood of harmony between the Commission

25 and the Chief Constable was brought to an end when the




1 Chairman released his commentary on the Mulvihill Report

2 and sent it to the minister, Mr Ingram, on 4th May.

3 That is RNI-228-193. You will see and hear in the

4 evidence his explanation for why he produced this

5 commentary, and the commentary is a lengthy document

6 which again I don't propose to take to you in great

7 detail. But this is the letter enclosing a copy of it

8 to the minister, and he sets out there in the second

9 paragraph, in very clear language, what we have seen

10 a glimpse of at least in the press article, namely that:

11 "The supervising member had been the subject of

12 gossip, rumour and vilification on the part of those who

13 should have known better, enthusiastically supported by

14 elements of the media, ever since her statement in this

15 case was placed by others in the public domain.

16 "This has included challenges to the veracity of her

17 conclusions as well as her motivation in coming to them.

18 Others have gone beyond the sharing of defamatory

19 sentiments and threatened her directly, necessitating

20 the implementation of security measures on her behalf."

21 As I commented earlier, a bleakly ironic situation

22 to arise in the aftermath of the publication of a report

23 into these allegations.

24 Then he goes on to express his views about the way

25 in which the Commander's report had been used or dealt




1 with. The commentary itself, which, as I say, is

2 a substantial document, is at RNI-228-176 (displayed).

3 And this is a commentary which, in addition to sending

4 to the minister, he also dispatched on 30th April to the

5 Chief Constable.

6 As I say, I am not intending to dwell on it, but it

7 sets out in much greater detail than was the case in the

8 appendix the thrust of the concerns, the criticism of

9 the original investigation. We will see at RNI-228-179,

10 "behaviour and attitude of investigating officers", and

11 the Chairman developed that area of concern and many

12 others about the specific interviews -- there are

13 passages beginning at RNI-228-183, for example, and

14 going all the way to RNI-228-188, as well as a detailed

15 critique of Commander Mulvihill's report.

16 Now, that perhaps shows that, as it were, beneath

17 the agreed and joint statement to the media that we

18 looked at, dated 30th March, matters had not in fact

19 been resolved. And that led to further discussions,

20 further complaints. Exception was taken to what was set

21 out in it, not least by the original investigating

22 officer, and we have in our bundles all the material

23 that then flowed from that, including the setting up by

24 agreement between the Chairman and the Chief Constable

25 of a joint working party to look at the review report




1 recommendations, decide what needed to be done by way of

2 changes to the complaints system.

3 Now, the end of all of this, if you remember, was

4 the question of whether there should be any further

5 action, and at the end of the matter the answer was: no.

6 The Commission was notified by G Department, by

7 Complaints and Discipline, that the decision of the

8 Director was that there should be no prosecution in

9 relation to any of these matters, that decision being

10 made public in January, and the same applied in due

11 course in relation to disciplinary issues. So no

12 prosecutions, no disciplinary proceedings.

13 Sir, can I just try to draw some matters together in

14 relation to Mulvihill after that, I am afraid, very

15 lengthy journey through the material?

16 The first is to reiterate the point I have made:

17 that the beginning of the complaint and what happened to

18 it at various stages thereafter was, in the words of

19 Mr Donnelly himself, exceptional. That is at

20 RNI-209-271. The complaints in the LAJI case did not

21 emerge from the clients, they did not emerge, so far as

22 Complaints and Discipline were concerned, that

23 department, from the client's solicitor. They emerged

24 from the Lawyers Alliance and they came to the Attorney

25 General.




1 It was only many, many months later, if you

2 remember, after the investigating officer had tried to

3 make progress without success, that the four clients in

4 the LAJI complaint, their details and eventually their

5 written statements, emerged.

6 To those were later added the

7 Colin Duffy/Rosemary Nelson, and the C208 matter.

8 That matter was based on an incident which had taken

9 place a year after the Colin Duffy matter and some

10 16 months after the LAJI complaint incidents

11 in February 1997.

12 As I have suggested to you, despite all the

13 commentary at the very beginning and throughout,

14 including in the exchanges we have looked at involving

15 the Commission, it does appear as though only one of the

16 clients alleged what was, at least on its face, a death

17 threat. Though bear in mind, please, the comment of the

18 Commander in relation to C208's case and the suggestion

19 that to associate the solicitor with the paramilitary

20 organisation was itself to raise a concern about or to

21 endanger the position of the solicitor.

22 The other statements contain comments which are

23 personal and, on any view, unpleasant. They include

24 comments about Rosemary Nelson's behaviour, about her

25 motivation being money, as opposed to her clients' best




1 interests, about her personal appearance. There are

2 suggestions of improper sexual links between her and her

3 clients; the one we have seen is in the case of C220,

4 the question about whether he was seeing her.

5 Then they contain the more serious matters in

6 relation to adverse comment, namely the association with

7 Provos, that she was a Provo lawyer, associated with

8 paramilitaries. In addition, we saw the connection made

9 explicitly in some of the cases between her and

10 Mr Duffy, not just in relation to his own complaint but

11 also in the allegations or the things alleged to have

12 been said to her clients by police officers.

13 The way the matter was put in the correspondence

14 and, in particular the reference to death threats, may,

15 of course, be explained by various things, but it may

16 well be that there was confusion between the

17 circumstances giving rise to these complaints on the one

18 hand and, on the other hand, the reports being received

19 from NGOs and from others, relating to the threats,

20 ie the threats which were not in fact the subject of the

21 complaints. And we saw very starkly in the statement of

22 1st September with the production of the threat note how

23 these matters could and did come together.

24 So far as the way the case proceeded, it is, as

25 I say, full of what I suspect were novelties and




1 surprises at every turn: The fact that the case was

2 revived when it appeared to have gone nowhere

3 in September of 1998, the stream of interventions from

4 abroad, from the NGOs, the political aspects of it.

5 I suspect that this brought a range of challenges to the

6 mechanisms to the procedures, which were unprecedented,

7 and as I say, in that context, first of all the

8 description by the Chairman of the investigation as

9 exceptional, but also, you may think, the way in which

10 it was regarded and dealt with by the civil servants in

11 those internal memoranda, which I read to you, can be

12 explained.

13 But as we have seen, the introduction of

14 Commander Mulvihill was not the end of the high level

15 controversy and that continued, not only in the disputes

16 between the Chief Constable and the Commission, but also

17 in the media, after the murder of Rosemary Nelson, and

18 included the very unfortunate episode which appears to

19 have taken place involving the supervising member

20 herself.

21 Now, sir, that is the Mulvihill complaints or my

22 outline of them. They occupy many, many files, as you

23 will have seen from the index, of the section 2.

24 Sir, there are three further police complaints of

25 relevance at which we have taken a closer look, two of




1 which appear to disclose threats of the kind that I have

2 mentioned. Therefore, the irony, when we come to look

3 at them, is that those complaints which were dealt with

4 at a much, much lower level and dispatched rather more

5 expeditiously, although they had at their heart threats

6 to kill or threats to Rosemary Nelson's safety, did not

7 attract the literally years of investigation and strong

8 feeling which the Mulvihill complaints, with in fact at

9 their heart, as I say, one case, did.

10 So, sir, my plan is to take you though those three

11 as briefly as I can and then to show you the limited

12 material in relation to two Army complaints, which take

13 us into a completely different sphere.

14 Now, it is 20 to five --

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you do the first of the three before

16 quarter to five?

17 MR PHILLIPS: I don't know if I can do it before a quarter

18 to five but I can certainly start it.


20 MR PHILLIPS: Now, sir, the first of the three is one to

21 which we have seen reference already and which indeed

22 I have shown you the statement, and this is the

23 complaint of Brian Loughran. This emerged very late in

24 the Inquiry's investigation, because it was, as I say,

25 simply not accorded the same prominence as all the




1 Mulvihill complaints. In fact, it came to the Inquiry's

2 attention, I think, via some investigations conducted by

3 the PSNI, which led to correspondence in which the

4 papers on this were disclosed and for which we appear to

5 have the wrong reference.

6 But, sir, moving on, the origin of the matter is

7 in November 1997, you will see from your crib sheet here,

8 Brian Loughran was detained at Gough in the middle

9 of October and also that he is a witness and you have

10 decided that he should be called to give evidence.

11 The first indication of the matter being a live

12 complaint that we have is at RNI-215-117. This is

13 a letter in fact in connection other matters and in the

14 third paragraph, the second sentence:

15 "In the interim, I enclose copy statement made by

16 ..."

17 That is one of the four Mulvihill clients:

18 "... and one more recent by ..."

19 And there he is. He was detained in Gough Barracks

20 for a period of two days. The statement itself is at

21 RNI-215-154. It is extremely short:

22 "I was lifted by the police about two weeks ago and

23 taken to Gough Barracks. Two Special Branch men

24 interviewed me and one said that Rosemary Nelson got

25 a bad deal out of life. She must have been hit with an




1 ugly stick about ten times. He then said it was as well

2 I'd not been lifted during Halloween as Rosemary would

3 have been out on her broomstick and I wouldn't have got

4 her down. Also about three years ago, I was being

5 questioned in Gough Barracks and I was asked what I was

6 using Rosemary Nelson for as she did all the Provos."

7 That is dated 6th November and signed by

8 Mr Loughran.

9 Now, the matter then went into the mechanism and it

10 was the subject of a memorandum by the investigating

11 officer to his superior at RNI-215-118. We have seen

12 this before, but if you turn the page after the

13 complaint about Rosemary Nelson's non-cooperation, he

14 says at the top of page RNI-215-119:

15 "Naturally, all of this is being documented but it

16 is beginning to cause administrative difficulties,

17 particularly in view of the latest correspondence which

18 introduces what I consider to be a new complaint from

19 Brian Loughran."

20 We saw this earlier. At the next page, RNI-215-120, the decision

21 was made that these new matters should be dealt with as

22 new complaints, second paragraph, with the comment about

23 the general tactics made by the Superintendent.

24 The complaint form is at RNI-215-152 and it says

25 that the nature of the complaint -- this is box 4 -- is




1 incivility. And the same investigating officer who

2 dealt with the Mulvihill matters originally was

3 appointed to investigate it on 23rd December, but unlike

4 the ones we have been looking at, it was not supervised.

5 Now, there is a statement in the bundle in

6 a slightly different form and bearing a different date

7 at RNI-215-143, the differences being 26th January, it

8 says, 1998 -- you remember the other one was, I think,

9 6th November -- and signed and also witnessed by an

10 employee of Rosemary Nelson's firm. But in fact, the

11 substance of it is the same.

12 This was produced, as I understand it, at any rate,

13 on the occasion of the interview which took place

14 between Mr Loughran and the investigating officer, and

15 we can see a handwritten and, if I may say so, virtually

16 illegible statement at RNI-215-149 and RNI-215-150.

17 Now, sir, what I am going to propose is that

18 overnight I try and decipher it and so tomorrow morning

19 I can begin with an interpretation of this statement.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Phillips. Quarter past 10

21 tomorrow, please.

22 (4.46 pm)

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






2 I N D E X

Opening submissions by MR PHILLIPS .............. 1
4 (continued)
























Associated Evidence

Reference Title Description
228-176-191 A Commentary by the Chairman of ICPC on the Review of RUC Investigations into Complaints by or on Behalf of Mrs Rosemary Nelson Conducted by Commander NG Mulvihill - Metropolitan Police
106-222.500 - 222.501 Annex A - Lines to Take General
215-152-153 B147/3796/97 - Complaint Against Police - Rosemary Nelson - Name & Address of Complainant - Brian Loughran
209-283-289 Confidential Briefing Note - Reference Com Sec 97/195/21 - B147/941/97
215-118-119 Division S - Sub-Division/Department G - Station/Branch - Complaint and Discipline - Gough - Complaints by Rosemary Nelson
218-011-012 Form - ICPC Copy of Complaint - James Donnelly - Ref B147/1968/98
209-281-282 ICPC Dissatisfaction with C&D Investigation - Colin Duffy and Others - Fallback Compromise Postion
226-080-093 Investigation of a Complaint Made by Mrs Rosemary Nelson (Solicitor) and Mr Colin Duffy Against the Officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
228-193-194 Letter about Commentary on Commander Mulvihill's Review of the RUC Investigation into Complaints by or on Behalf of Rosemary Nelson
209-271-273 Letter about Complaints Against Officers of the RUC in Respect of Alleged Threats to Rosemary Nelson - Solicitor- Alleged Death Threats and Sinister Innuendoes
209-277-278 Letter about Complaints Against Officers of the RUC in Respect of Alleged Threats to Rosemary Nelson - Solicitor
106-312-313 Letter about Complaints Against Police by or on Behalf of Mrs Rosemary Nelson Solicitor
106-262-263 Letter about Rosemary Nelson - Allegations of Harassment
106-251-253 Letter about Rosemary Nelson
106-221-222 Letter from the Independent Commission on Police Complaints - Rosemary Nelson -To Update the Secretary of State on the Rosemary Nelson Case
106-217.504 - 217.509 Letter from the Independent Commission on Police Complaints Rosemary Nelson
228-028.503-028.504 Lines to Take - Mulvihill Investigation
106-219-220 Lines to Take
106-253.500-253.502 Memo about Letter from the Independent Commission on Police Complaints - Rosemary Nelson
228-028.500-028.502 Memorandum about Commander Mulvihill's Report on Complaints Made by Rosemary Nelson - the ICPC's Statement on Commander Mulvihill's Investigation into Complaints Made by and on Behalf of Mrs Nelson Was Issued Today
228-052-061 Memorandum about Meeting on Sunday 28th March 199 with the Chief Constable of the RUC and the Chairman of the ICPC
220-005-021 Metropolitan Police - Report - Investigation of a Complaint by Mr James Donnelly and Mrs Rosemary Nelson (Solicitor) Against Officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
227-024-027 Statement of Witness - of C138
220-036-038 Statement of Witness - of Patrick Vernon
227-021-023 Statement of Witness - of TA Simmons
226-097-098 Statement of Witness - Statement of Colin Francis Duffy
215-149-150 Statement of Witness
220-024-031 Statements of Witness - of James Donnelly
220-032-034 Statements of Witness - of Rosemary Nelson
106-217.501 - 217.502 Table showing Complaint - Action by IO and Wider Issues
223-324-330 This Statement is Made in Accordance with Article 9 Paragraph (8) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 Relating to Complaints against Officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Made by Lawyers Alliance for Justice in Ireland on Behalf of Rosemary Nelson Solicitor and Mr Colin Duffy