APPENDIX 11
Memorandum submitted by Sinn Fein
Sinn Fein welcomes the opportunity to emphasise
the necessity for accountability in policing as a pre-requisite
to and component part of any new beginning to policing. For that
reason, Sinn Fein has determinedly negotiated with the British
government on policing and justice legislation for the last six
years.
The need for a police service which can be and
is held fully to account remains central to Sinn Fein's exchanges
with the British government. Advances have been made, particularly
in the amending legislation on both policing and justice born
out of several phases of negotiations between the British government
and Sinn Fein. By concentrating on providing a robust, legislative
framework for holding the police to account, Sinn Fein has pressed
the British government to fulfil its obligation to fully implement
the Patten report and honour the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.
We will continue to press the British government to legislate
for the transfer of powers on policing and justice, consistent
with the Agreement and the development of a new agenda for policing
on this island.
Sinn Fein advocated the creation of the Office
of the Police Ombudsman. The concept of an independent complaints
body which is effectively empowered to police the police is one
which Sinn Fein strongly supports. There is no acceptable level
of unaccountable policing. Police services around the world have
become familiar with independent complaints mechanisms and oversight
bodies.
In the context of the six counties, where the
status quo on policing is accepted as having been a catastrophic
failure, the concept of an independent complaints mechanism assumes
even greater importance in the effort to transform policing. Winning
the consent of the nationalist community for policing arrangements
is greatly dependent upon evidence that the PSNI are held fully
to account.
Police accountability must apply to the policies
and practices of the PSNI, as much as it does to the misconduct
of individual members of the PSNI. Sinn Fein has made these arguments
forcefully in discussions with the British government. The effect
of these negotiations for the Office of the Police Ombudsman is
reflected in the new legislative provisions for policing, especially
in the Police Act 2003. Provisions enabling the Police Ombudsman
to investigate policies and practices of the PSNI came into force
in that amending legislation on policing. Sinn Fein argued for
these provisions to close the loophole in the legislation whereby
PSNI unjust policies and practices were hidden behind the veil
of "operational independence" and so-called "direction
and control". We hope that the application of these new provisions
will help to lift the veil on many past and present policies and
practices, not least, the apparatus and execution of collusion
with unionist paramilitary death squads.
In negotiations with the British government,
Sinn Fein has also argued for the provision of effective powers
to root out human rights abusers, who have transferred en masse
from the RUC into the PSNI. In that regard, Sinn Fein supports
the incorporation and application of powers under the Regulation
of Investigatory Powers Act (2000). However, it is not within
the gift of the Police Ombudsman to direct criminal prosecutions
against human rights abusers in the PSNI, or formerly in the RUC.
That responsibility rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions
(DPP). Sinn Fein notes with serious concern the failure of the
DPP to effectively expedite prosecutions against human rights
abusers in the PSNI. It is becoming clear, amongst the nationalist
community and amongst many in the human rights community, that
the DPP is displaying a degree of partisanship in the direction
of prosecutions. This pattern, which has been evident in recent
months, is not merely generating anxiety about the efficacy of
police accountability, but also eroding nationalist confidence
in the reform of the justice system, expected under the Agreement.
For example, the case of Mr John Boyle has been
investigated by the Police Ombudsman after the political conviction
against Mr Boyle was found to be a miscarriage of justice. This
conviction was secured before a non-jury Diplock Court and was
based on evidence fabricated by police officers. Having successfully
overturned that conviction, Mr Boyle referred his case to the
Police Ombudsman and the investigation was completed and passed
to the DPP. The DPP directed no prosecution against the (RUC)
police officers involved and has refused to give any reasons for
that decision. Presently, Mr Boyle is judicially reviewing the
DPP's decision to withhold information from him.
Sinn Fein believes that unwarranted and unacceptable
restrictions have been placed on the powers and resources of the
Police Ombudsman to undertake retrospective investigations. When
impediments to the retrospective powers of the Police Ombudsman
were written into the first Police Act (2000) during the era of
Peter Mandelson, Sinn Fein challenged those provisions and had
the restrictions mostly rescinded in the amending policing legislation
last year (ie Police (NI) Act 2003). Now, it has become known
that the Police Ombudsman's office have more than two dozen retrospective
investigations stalling because the Northern Ireland Office is
refusing resources for such cases. This appears to be an attempt
to stymie the work of the Police Ombudsman by stealth and is unacceptable.
For the Office of the Police Ombudsman to be effective, it must
be fully resourced. Sinn Fein believes the allocation of resources
should include provision for an effective system for managing
complaints and cases to enable the speedy analysis of data to
monitor trends and patterns. That aspect of Police Ombudsman's
work must be advanced, as noted by the Police Oversight Commissioner
last year, so that those human rights abusers who have been absorbed
from the RUC into the PSNI and who re-offend can be weeded out
of policing.
Sinn Fein is also concerned that the prosecution
of members of the PSNI involved in a collision with a car in west
Belfast resulting in the death of Mr Raymond Boyle, was thrown
out of court when the DPP offered no evidence earlier this month.
The credibility of forensic evidence in that case was also called
into question, and adds to controversy about the Forensic Science
Agency. The family of the late Mr Boyle may yet pursue other means
of legal redress. However, the cumulative effect of these developments,
and many others in recent months, is that the DPP and other agencies
in the criminal justice system are acting in a way which reduces
public confidence, especially amongst the nationalist community,
that serious grievances brought to the Police Ombudsman will be
effectively resolved and human rights abusers in the PSNI will
be subject to the full rigour of the law.
We also note that the British Secretary of State
made an Order in Council in December 2002 designating the Office
of the Police Ombudsman as subject to inspection by the Criminal
Justice Services Inspectorate. That Order in Council was introduced
merely to placate Ulster Unionists and it is notable that the
enthusiasm shown by them for inspections and investigations of
the Police Ombudsman is not matched by enthusiasm and encouragement
for the investigations of the PSNI or RUC by the Police Ombudsman.
At present, Sinn Fein is monitoring the passage
of the Justice (NI) Bill 2004, which the British government agreed
in negotiations last year. While the provisions of that Bill are
generally welcome, there remain serious deficiencies in the version
of the Bill which received its second reading in the British House
of Commons on 10 March 2004. Particular problems arise from Clause
5 (6).
This places a restriction on the powers of the
Police Ombudsman to investigate cases of police misconduct or
malpractice which may come to the attention of the Director of
Public Prosecutions. This amendment to the Justice Bill was tabled
in the British House of Lords by Ulster Unionists and was accepted
by the British government. That amendment places a time limit
on cases which may be referred by the DPP to the Police Ombudsman
for investigation. The effect of that time-limit will be to screen
many cases, which may cross the table of the DPP, from investigation
by the Police Ombudsman, since many cases may idle more than 12
months in the Department of the DPP.
Sinn Fein believes that the duty on the DPP
to refer matters of police misconduct or malpractice should be
unqualified and the scope of the Police Ombudsman to conduct independent
investigations should be unrestricted. The Justice (NI) Bill 2004
should be amended to bring these requirements into force.
The Policing Board has demonstrated an equivocal,
even schizophrenic attitude to the Office of the Police Ombudsman.
It seems that findings by the Police Ombudsman, in research reports
and investigations are welcomed by the Policing Board whenever
the PSNI are exonerated of any wrong-doing. However, when research
reports are published by the Police Ombudsman, such as the survey
of defence solicitors, or investigations are undertaken by the
Police Ombudsman, such as the inquiry into the Omagh Bomb investigation
and the inquiry into the murder of Sean Brown, the Policing Board
has failed to act decisively on those findings and appears unwilling
to make those in the PSNI responsible for failures and wrong-doing,
fully accountable for their actions. For example, the investigation
into the Omagh bomb inquiry revealed a devastating failure of
leadership in the RUC. It also began to expose the underhand dealings
of the Special Branch. Those same patterns are apparent in the
investigation into the killing of Sean Brown. The Policing Board
has received full reports on both investigations and yet no member
of the PSNI has been held to account.
Sinn Fein believes that there is room for improvement
in the office of the Police Ombudsman. As a party, we do not agree
with everything the Police Ombudsman has said or done. For instance,
the research reports which have been done on plastic bullets do
not fairly reflect the views of those injured by those weapons,
the abusive and dangerous conduct of the PSNI, or the risk to
life posed by the deployment of plastic bullets. Human rights
observers, campaign groups and community organisations have all
documented the lethal effects of plastic bullets and that body
of information and experience should be more fully reflected in
monitoring of the use of plastic bullets. Sinn Fein's position
on plastic bullets is informed by that body of information which
is why we continue to argue for plastic bullets to be banned immediately.
Sinn Fein also has concerns about the failure
to substantiate some complaints which have been referred to the
Office of the Police Ombudsman. It has been argued that complaints
can only be substantiated on the basis of evidence gathered, and
in the absence of evidence or witness statements, that complaints
cannot be substantiated. Sinn Fein has expressed concerns about
the approach taken to evidence-gathering in some cases and has
attempted to assuage the genuine anxiety amongst witnesses about
coming forward to assist investigations. The case of Paud Devenny,
who was seriously assaulted by members of the PSNI in May 2002,
exemplifies Sinn Fein's concerns. Our concerns are deep-seated
and are informed by an experience over many years, that the RUC
could act outside the law, particularly in forms of political
policing. Sinn Fein remains actively committed to creating a system
of accountability for policing which will benefit all sections
of the community and will continue to work in conjunction with
others, including the Police Ombudsman, to achieve that goal.
Nationalists and republicans have enjoyed no
favour or fairness from police complaints systems in the north
of Ireland in the past. Sinn Fein remains hopeful that the Office
of the Police Ombudsman, which is a recent institutional innovation,
will break that cycle of the past and help to engender real confidence
amongst those most alienated from policing in this society, that
a new beginning to policing is drawing nearer.
26 March 2004
| 
