Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
21 JULY 2004
MR PAUL
LEIGHTON, PROFESSOR
DESMOND REA,
MR TREVOR
REANEY AND
MS SINEAD
SIMPSON
Q80 Mr Bailey: What do
you think can be done to improve this? You have quite openly said
there have been contentions between you.
Professor Rea:
I think we are going to have to learn from the history; we are
going to have to learn in terms of current relationships and build
upon them. I am giving you my perspective on that, which is that
we wish to do so because it is a very important part of the architecture
of policing in Northern Ireland.
Q81 Mr Bailey: With respect,
that is a somewhat vague response. Have you any specific proposals
that you think might help?
Professor Rea:
We have encouraged the meeting between staff, her staff and our
staff, and, as I have said, in terms of the Chairman and the Vice
Chairman and the Ombudsman, we are happy to meet as often as is
necessary.
Q82 Mr Tynan: Does the
need exist for the development of an independent review mechanism
for the work of the Ombudsman?
Professor Rea:
There are two levels on this. With respect to individual cases,
and I listened to what the Ombudsman had to say to you and I thought
she gave a very succinct summary of that, there are matters that
are to do with process and matters of substantive decision. With
respect to process, she pointed out to you that should she make
a recommendation to the DPP, then there is an appeal mechanism
built in. If it is a discipline matter, it would be referred to
the Chief Constable and again, in terms of disciplinary procedure,
there would be an appeal mechanism. There is one other area that
indeed we have explored with the Ombudsman, which I did not hear
covered, and that is the creation of an appeal process outside
the current judicial review process whereby matters of process
could be appealed to the Northern Ireland Ombudsman. This was
a suggestion made by Maurice Hayes in his 1997 report, A Police
Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. In other words, the Police
Ombudsman's views were sought by us on that suggestion. The argument,
I would have thought, would be from an individual policeman that
he or she might find it less onerous to go that route than to
go the route of judicial review. Her response to that, Mr Chairman,
was that she thought that was worth considering. With respect
to the review mechanism in terms of the general working of the
Board, that is a much more difficult area of an Ombudsman's Office,
and you have already explored that. I think that is really for
politicians, either at Westminster or if and when we have a devolved
Parliament, to think about.
Q83 Mr Tynan: What is
your view of the present accountability arrangements for the Ombudsman?
Professor Rea:
I have referred to the accountability arrangements in respect
of the latter answer that I gave you. I think certainly there
would be members of my Board who feel that there needs to be a
further accountability mechanism. For example, we explored, long
before you decided to look at this area, whether your Committee
could have a role in this. Incidentally, let me say that if that
were the case with respect to the Ombudsman's Office, as Chairman
of the Policing Board, I do not see why that should not be also
true in respect of the Board itself, so let me not be partial
in terms of arguing that. I think I have answered your question.
Mr Leighton: As
a member of one of the most overseen police forces in the world,
or, according to Kathleen O'Toole, the Chief of the Boston Police,
the most overseen police force in the world, I have to say that
I sometimes wonder whether Northern Ireland is obsessed with oversight.
I know that this is a serious issue for many of our members. I
have heard the Federation make that point and I know the Federation
is due to give evidence to this Committee and therefore I would
leave it to them. All I would say is that I am not aware of any
other Ombudsman that has oversight by another Ombudsman. I am
not sure where it ends.
Q84 Mr Hepburn: In your
view, have all the relevant parties learnt the lessons from the
handling of and the response to the Omagh bombing inquiry? I am
asking both parties.
Professor Rea:
Let me attempt an answer and, if I have not done so adequately,
no doubt you will come back to me. I think, first of all, there
was a series of recommendations that came out of the Ombudsman's
report. The Board embraced those recommendations. The Board sought
mechanisms by which to pursue the recommendations and it asked
for various investigations to be conducted. Those were pursued.
Those reports were filed with the Board and the Chief Constable.
The recommendations, in particular as they related to Special
Branch, have been assiduously pursued and the Chairman of the
Board and the Vice Chairman of the Board were asked to monitor
the implementation of the recommendations. We have used HMIC to
assist us in the monitoring of those recommendations. I think
you will find that, in terms of the implementation of those recommendations,
not only did we monitor them but we encouraged the PSNI to come
and report to the Board as a whole in terms of the implementations
of the recommendations and on regular occasions the relevant ACC
has done so. Incidentally, I made comments about breaches of confidentiality.
There have been no breaches of confidentiality from the Board
in respect of any of that. He will come in September, as will
the HMIC, and he will be updating us. I also suspect you are getting
at the terms of the learning from Omagh. I said to you as a Committee,
Chairman, that there is a residue and that relates in particular
to the personalisation. Protocols have assisted and have been
developed in the wake of that, and I think we are slowly but surely
building up the relationships in respect of the negative residue
that I have referred to. I have answered the question in terms
of the positive, and that is extremely important. In fact, with
the work that has been done by the Board on the recommendations
that came out of Omagh, I believe when history comes to be written
it will endorse that work done by the Board and the way in which
it approached it as a highlight of the life of this Board. Do
not forget that we have only been in existence for two and a bit
years.
Mr Leighton: In
answering the honourable member's question, the first thing I
would state is that undoubtedly the Omagh investigation and the
surrounding publicity did a lot of damage to confidence in various
quarters and confidence in the police. My main concern now is
that my members and my organisation deal with the real issue of
Omagh which is: who planted the bombs and who killed the people?
I know that that investigation is being pursued assiduously. I
believe the Ombudsman's report did help us to focus on that and
to get on with that investigation. It has been beneficial and
we have learnt those lessons because that is what we are doing.
I know that in other investigations the Ombudsman has been critical
of past investigations. I, like the Chairman, share a distaste
for any personalisation of this because I know that members did
their best and tried their best in the circumstances pertaining,
but the focus now has to be on finding out who committed the murders
and bringing them to justice and in bringing some form of closure
and some form of satisfaction to the many families in Northern
Ireland who, as yet, have not got that closure. That is where
our focus is. I believe there was much debate around the Omagh
Report. I was not in the province at the time but I followed it
quite closely. I am not sure all of that was helpful but I know
many lessons have been learnt from it. I do not think that within
my organisation that sort of situation could arise again with
the Ombudsman because of the measures that both the Ombudsman
and we have taken to improve the relationships and to develop
a more professional understanding of each other's work.
Chairman: I am sure I
can speak for all of the Committee, Mr Leighton, when I say that
we wish you and your Police Service well in bringing that investigation
hopefully to a successful conclusion and drawing a line under
what, by any standards, was a terrible atrocity.
Q85 Reverend Smyth: I
think the Ombudsman has made for greater co-operation between
the PSNI and its internal investigation branch. As a result, there
was a decision between her and the Chief Constable and two senior
officers were appointed to lead that co-operation. Arising out
of that, a report was prepared; 14 recommendations were brought
forward and I understand implemented. However, the CAJ, and you
will not be surprised to hear about that, do not believe that
there is close enough co-operation between the lower ranks of
the PSNI and the Ombudsman. Would you have anything to say about
that? What are the relationships and what is happening? Is that
relayed to you?
Mr Leighton: The
report the member refers to is one by two independent senior police
officers from England. We and the Ombudsman agreed and set terms
of reference for those two officers to come in and look at the
relationships between PONI and the PSNI. That produced 14 recommendations,
which we have been pursuing and have implemented. Criticisms of
the relationship with lower ranks will persist. It would be fair
to say that I am not going to try and speak on behalf of the Federation
because the Federation can speak for itself very adequately. I
know that we have developed more meetings with the Federation
and with the Superintendents' Association and the other representative
bodies. Those meetings are becoming more and more constructive
and more and more regular. We have established protocols which
have been approved by the Federation and the Superintendents'
Association, so that everything that we do now is referred to
the Staff Associations for them to have oversight of the developing
relationship that is ongoing and the protocols that are signed
off. I think the relationship has a way to go yet, but I would
say that it has improved dramatically in the past couple of years.
Q86 Reverend Smyth: We
are happy to hear that. We also understand that arrangements have
been put in place. Are police officers able to make contact with
the Ombudsman directly on issues without permission from their
senior officers?
Mr Leighton: Yes.
There is no restriction on that.
Q87 Reverend Smyth: Does
that in fact happen then?
Mr Leighton: I
cannot speak for individual officers and obviously that would
be a question for the Ombudsman. I am not privy to what contacts
there are.
Q88 Chairman: I doubt
she would tell us anyway because she keeps all her contacts confidential.
You do have a problem there.
Mr Leighton: I
cannot answer that.
Reverend Smyth: The Special
Branch and the Intelligence Service levels know what is happening.
Q89 Mr Campbell: This
is a question to Mr Leighton. After the Communications Review,
there was a target set of trying to reduce the complaints against
the police by 25% over three years with an initial reduction of
10% in one year. Can you tell the Committee what progress has
been made in relation to both of those?
Mr Leighton: The
figures are in my submission. We are down 18% since 2001-02 and
we have reduced 10% in the last year. It is very hard to say exactly
all the influences that cause a reduction in complaints. We can
point to the fact that there is better training and that training
is better informed by the complaints that are made. If I were
to make a comment about our previous complaints and discipline
system, it is that I am not sure that the link between a complaint
that was made, unsubstantiated or partially substantiated, and
our training system was sometimes as direct as it now is. When
a regulation 20 notice comes from the Ombudsman's Office, there
is a very effective committee that assigns actions that have to
be signed off. I sign off personally every regulation 20 report
before it goes back to the Ombudsman to say what has been done.
An ACC has been through it before I get it and so there is quite
rigorous oversight over what exactly happens with regulation 20s.
I think in that respect training has improved in its responsiveness
to complaints. Apart from that, it is quite difficult because
obviously there are community influences at play. We had a quiet
marching season last year, as you are aware. Obviously that has
contributed to the reduction in complaints now.
Q90 Mr Campbell: Is there
a correlation between community tensions and the lack of them
and the level of complaints?
Mr Leighton: My
perception would be that there is, but obviously the Ombudsman
now receives complaints. We do not have an oversight of just exactly
what comes in immediately.
Q91 Mr Clarke: I am sure
you heard earlier on Mr Beggs's questions in respect of policies
and procedures. Obviously the Police (Northern Ireland) Acts 2002
and 2003 extended somewhat the Ombudsman's role in giving additional
powers to investigate current practice or policy. I wonder if,
from the point of view first of PSNI and then the Board, you would
indicate to us whether or not you find that an acceptable extension
of powers or do you feel that a power to investigate policy and
procedure could have a negative impact on the work you do?
Mr Leighton: Without
experiencing the operation of such an investigation, it is difficult
to make comment about how much it might affect us. Broadly, we
are satisfied that the Ombudsman's powers are correct and proper
and we do not have any issue with that. It will be for experience
to tell us whether there are boundaries within operational matters
on which we will have discussions with the Ombudsman. The relationship
with the Ombudsman is such now that I think we could have those
conversations in a constructive manner. That is important.
Professor Rea:
You are quite correct that these powers have been given to the
Ombudsman. We have already discussed with our office the interface
between these new powers and those of the Board, the calling for
reports into public policing issues and initiating inquires. This
is in particular under sections 59 and 60 of the Police (Northern
Ireland) Act 2000. We are satisfied that as a Board we can work
collaboratively with the Ombudsman. The question is about whether
this can be done without the burden imposed on the PSNI. Already
you have heard mention of the regulation 20 reports, which in
actual fact, and I have already referred to this, fall, roughly
speaking, into this area. There was one interesting one and that
was a report into the discharge of a firearm on the South Armagh
border in June 2001, an incident which Garda officers may have
witnessed. An issue arose about the Ombudsman's ability to secure
information from Garda Siochana to enable the investigation to
be fully completed by recognising that the remit of the Ombudsman
does not extend through the Republic of Ireland. The Board was
keen to see good co-operation with that office by Garda Siochana
and we sought to support her in access to the information that
she had requested. Also, one further point that has already been
referred to, is the identification. Recently we received notification
from her that she proposed to look at that area. The Board has
not had an opportunity to discuss that but I would have to say
to you that as Chairman of the Board I could see no reason whatsoever
why she should not; it is in the best interests of the PSNI and
the Board in holding the PSNI to account that every constable
should be identified by the number on his tunic.
Q92 Mr Clarke: You did
not pass or make comment in your submission about worries you
have under the Human Rights Act in respect of complaints about
the Chief Constable's direction and control of the PSNI. Could
you expand on what your concerns are?
Professor Rea:
Could you elaborate on that?
Q93 Mr Clarke: The Board
has expressed concerns that human rights issues may be raised
through complaints about the Chief Constable's direction and control
of the PSNI. Now, we are unclear as a committee as to what those
human rights concerns are. We wondered if you could help us.
Professor Rea:
I cannot remember exactly but I will try to help you. I think
that we were concerned about aspects to do with—and I am
going back in memory now—the—
Q94 Mr Clarke: If I can
be helpful, it was Monitoring PSNI Compliance with the Human
Rights Act 1998 published in December 2003 and human rights
issues may be raised in complaints against the police which the
Ombudsman has no power to investigate was one of the comments
raised.
Professor Rea:
Can we reflect further on that and write to the Select Committee?
Q95 Mr Clarke: That would
be helpful because you are in the same position as us not knowing
what the human rights objections are.
Professor Rea:
We note that and will write back to you.
Q96 Mr Tami: What use
has been made of section 55 referrals and what has been your experience
of the conduct of the Ombudsman in respect of such referrals?
Mr Leighton: This
is where we refer issues to the Ombudsman?
Q97 Mr Tami: Yes.
Mr Leighton: I
can refer to one which has just been completed as a good example.
I referred to the Ombudsman a case where a forensic scientist
in a court case had made comments about the police which caused
our independence and professionalism to be called into question
by the judge; he referred it up his chain of command. I immediately
referred that to the Ombudsman because it was clear that, no matter
what we said, the public would accept other people's views. The
Ombudsman has since reported back and that has been extremely
helpful because we now have an independent assessment, which has
called on independent forensic
advice etc, to the public saying that we acted entirely
corrected and what we forensic scientist was entirely within our
rights and was entirely correct. So, those are very useful for
us.
Q98 Mr Tami: You are happy
with that process?
Mr Leighton: Yes,
I am happy with that process.
Q99 Mr Tami: I ask Professor
Rea the same question.
Professor Rea:
The ability of the Board and for that matter the Chief Constable
to refer issues to the Ombudsman for investigation is an important
one and one that was used by the Board on what is now known as
the Lowry case and I would like to give you that case very briefly.
In this case, the Board referred a high-profile issue to the Ombudsman
to investigate. We do not have the investigative capacity to do
this. The case was investigated and the Chief Constable was exonerated.
In respect of the Chief Constable, it confirms again that it is
a useful mechanism when someone is charged with the baton rounds.
Now protocol is such that all such cases will be investigated
by the Ombudsman in other cases where officers' wrongdoing may
be suspected and the Chief Constable can successfully use legislative
arrangements that exist to ensure that an investigation is carried
out in an impartial way by an outside independent body. I think
that is of benefit to the PSNI and it certainly gives confidence
to the Board in holding the Police Service of Northern Ireland
to account through the Chief Constable. If you want me to go into
further detail about Lowry, I will do so.
| 
