Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-179)
20 OCTOBER 2004
MR IRWIN
MONTGOMERY, MR
TERRY SPENCE,
CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
WESLEY WILSON
AND MR
RAYMOND PHILLIPS
Q160 Mr Pound: You think that had this
been an IIB investigation it would have been handled differently.
Mr Spence: I am in absolutely
no doubt, and even when one looks at the concluding statements
and comments from the judge who dealt with this civil action,
the judge in the particular case said that the superintendent
in charge made no attempt to treat either the sergeant concerned
or Detective Constable Greer with dignity and respect. That goes
to the depths of what we are trying to point out, that we have
to try and resolve these problems, we have to try and ensure that
the Ombudsman's investigators deal with our members in a very
compassionate manner when it comes to issues such as this and
move forward from here. This was a particularly sad case because
a prisoner had, obviously, committed suicide and the officers
concerned were treated as suspects, as if they had been engaged
in murdering him.
Q161 Mr Pound: I am sorry to reiterate
the point, but do you feel that this was part of the culture within
the Ombudsman's Office?
Mr Spence: Yes.
Mr Pound: Thank you.
Q162 Mr Clarke: Communication between
PSNI and the Ombudsman has not perhaps been at its best, so much
so that the Ombudsman requested and, with the agreement of the
Chief Constable, managed to undertake a review of communications
between the two bodies, and officers from the police's strategic
command structure discussed and came up with a number of recommendations.
What involvement did your organisations have with that review
of communications between the two bodies? Were you involved?
Mr Spence: The Chief Constable
at the time of setting up that communication channel did not engage
with us in participating in that communication. The situation,
as I pointed out earlier, is such that as a staff association
we believed it was important to open up channels of communication,
both with the Ombudsman herself and, indeed, senior members of
her staff and, as has already been alluded to, the Ombudsman and
her deputy would attend our Constitution, Legislation and Discipline
meetings, which are bi-monthly, so we ourselves have instigated
a lot of moves. Certainly, the Chief Constable did not engage
us in those lines of communication in the early days.
Chief Superintendent Wilson: On
behalf of the Superintendents' Association, we became aware of
the review by members of strategic command when it was really
too late to contribute to it, so there was a hiccup in that way.
I would like to make the point that the protocols and the liaisons
we are now having with the Ombudsman's Office have improved things
considerably and over the period the whole thing has improved
to a great degree. Hopefully it will get better as the time goes
on.
Mr Montgomery: There is just one
point that I would like to make. The manner in which we are engaging
with the Ombudsman's office, at our annual conference this year
she had the opportunity to address all of our Federation representatives
and take questions from the floor. So we have moved on in that
respect as well, that would not have happened a number of years
ago.
Q163 Mr Clarke: That is good to hear
and it perhaps answers one of my further questions, but another
outcome of that review is the recommendation that staff from both
organisations, from the police and the Ombudsman's Office, spend
time on short term attachment to other organisations, yet we know
to date there have only been a series of staff visits and not
real attachments. Do you have any comment to make on the fact
that that recommendation has not really been implemented? Do you
support such short term attachments to other organisations and
do you have any comments as to why, so far, we have been unsuccessful
in making that recommendation become a reality?
Mr Montgomery: From our perspective
we would consider it a good idea that serving officers have an
opportunity to work within the Ombudsman's Office. I do not know
why that has not been the case, but I am aware of some of our
officers who have retired who now work there. Personally speaking,
I think it would be good idea if people were to have the opportunity,
maybe to serve in IIB if you are from the Ombudsman's Office or
whatever, for a period of time, and vice versa.
Chief Superintendent Wilson: It
is an important issue and it is good for the career development
of the officer, but it also means that the Ombudsman's staff can
learn more about our organisation through those attachments, and
also when our people come back into PSNI they can then spread
word about what is going on and get more understanding. So it
would be a very positive thing.
Q164 Mr Clarke: We also noticed from
the submission notes that, to date, there have been no secondments
from PSNI to the Ombudsman's Office. Would you welcome secondments?
Mr Montgomery: We have no difficulty.
As I say, I think it is a good idea.
Q165 Mr Clarke: Do you perceive any potential
conflict of interest in that, or do you think that could be managed?
Mr Montgomery: Not really, I do
not perceive any.
Chief Superintendent Wilson: The
only negative side may be a public perception that PSNI officers
are in the Ombudsman's Office and therefore the independence is
compromised in that way, so it would need to be handled from a
public expectation and perception point of view, but other than
that we would have no reservations.
Q166 Chairman: Just a very short supplementary,
do you think that the main lack of confidence is a lack of confidence
of the public or a lack of confidence of the PSNI?
Chief Superintendent Wilson: The
Ombudsman has had a very positive effect on public confidence
in policing and that is to the betterment of all people, including
the police, but I think there is a big issue about the confidence
of police officers in their dealings with the Ombudsman, and that
needs to be addressed by us all probably.
Chairman: Thank you. Mr Mark Tami.
Q167 Mark Tami: I understand that your
organisations have been involved with the Ombudsman and the management
of the PSNI to come up with a way of dealing with complaints that
will involve informal resolution, mediation. How is that going
and are you really satisfied with that process?
Chief Superintendent Wilson: Informal
resolution is something that has always happened with complaints
and we see it as a very positive way, it is far better if something
can be resolved amicably to some degree by all the parties involved
rather than going to formal, lengthy investigations, so we would
see that as a very positive thing. Mediation is slightly different
and we have some reservations about the mediation, but we feel
it is a good way of resolving things and finding a better way
forward.
Q168 Mark Tami: Could you elaborate a
bit? You said you have some reservations, what would they be and
how would you see the role of the Ombudsman, would you like a
freer role within that or not?
Chief Superintendent Wilson: I
think it is something that needs to have a set of protocols agreed
to it so that officers, when they are involved in these investigations,
feel that they have some protection if they get into a mediation
situation and that their human rights will be protected and that.
It is certainly something that can be progressed.
Mr Montgomery: I would add our
view to that. I would agree entirely with what Wesley has said
and, as well as that, obviously, if you can have the complaint
resolved at a very early stage there is not all the grief that
is caused by going ahead, carrying it on for months and months
and months, with people feeling distraught about that and ending
up off sick maybe, with stress or whatever. So anything that can
deal with a complaint in a short time, that is the way to go.
Q169 Mark Tami: So you see that as a
way of improving relations between yourself and the Ombudsman.
Chief Superintendent Wilson: Yes,
it is, but again there are a lot of things that are subject to
rumour and misrepresentation. We have heard that if you have three
complaints made against you and a fourth complaint comes in, then
it cannot be informally resolved, it is like an unwritten rule
in the Ombudsman's Office that that cannot go to informal resolution
because you have three previous complaints. I do not know if that
is true or not, but those are the sorts of rumours that get about,
they need to be addressed and there needs to be better communication
so that everybody understands those things.
Mr Montgomery: Again, it is a
matter that if we have proper protocols in place then all of this
then can be put in place as to how it is going to operate, and
every side has an input as to how they see it, so that somewhere
in the middle we can arrive at some conclusion that everybody
can sign up to.
Q170 Mark Tami: What do you think about
the Ombudsman's role in looking at police policies and procedures?
Chief Superintendent Wilson: This
might be more of a personal view than the view of the Superintendents'
Association, but the independence of the Chief Constable in doing
policing, I think, is a paramount tenet of British policing and
many police forces across the world. If the Ombudsman then starts
to look at policy and procedure that might start to water down
that independence of the Chief Constable in all operational matters.
So I have some concerns about it in that way.
Q171 Mark Tami: Is that the view of you
all?
Mr Montgomery: You are looking
at things through the rose-tinted glasses of hindsight, and perhaps
the decisions that are made on the ground, when you have weeks
and months to look at how that decision was made, it may have
to be made on the hoof so to speak, and it is very difficult for
the officer concerned who may have made that decision with the
best of intentions to have this looked at for weeks.
Q172 Chairman: That is not policies and
procedures, that is a specific event where someone has to make
a decision. I think Mr Tami's question is about the new role of
the Ombudsman.
Mr Montgomery: It could be a question
of how you interpret that particular procedure, that is the point
I am trying to make.
Q173 Mark Tami: If I could narrow it
down a bit, what type of procedures and policies do you think
the Ombudsman should be looking at?
Chief Superintendent Wilson: One
of the things the Ombudsman does is she can advise the Chief Constable
after an investigation is concluded under Regulation 20, as it
is known. Regulation 20 will set out things that she has found
which the police need to address, so the Chief Constable will
look at those items and some of those might be procedural or policy
matters that have come out of the investigation. So the chief
officers will look at that and, after a period of consultation,
will decide whether we need to change policies. So there is an
indirect way that policies and procedures are looked at arising
from complaints in that way, which is a good thing. The independence
of the Chief Constable in making operational decisions and deciding
operational policies I think is paramount.
Q174 Mark Tami: So you see a rather narrow
role.
Chief Superintendent Wilson: Very
much so.
Q175 Chairman: The very good news is
that there are no more votes today. Your Federation's submission,
Mr Montgomery, said that "to date very few cases heard in
the courts or at internal misconduct hearings have actually resulted
in a successful prosecution" and you said "There is
a perception that the . . . Ombudsman places pressure upon the
DPP and IIB to advance cases, even though there is little prospect
of success." The evidence that we have is that from 2000
to 2003 the Ombudsman referred 374 cases to the DPP and 346 of
those recommended no prosecution; it does not actually tie in
with what you have alleged, does it?
Mr Montgomery: We are going back
again to the perceptions of people that have been before the courts,
we would have felt as an organisation that most of those officers
had no case to answer. Again, we are talking about perceptions
within Northern Ireland.
Q176 Chairman: Are you doing something
then to persuade your members that their perception is wrong,
if there are only 28 cases out of nearly 400 that the Ombudsman
has recommended for prosecution? I am not taking one side or the
other in this, but the figures do not actually bear out what you
say.
Mr Montgomery: Undoubtedly, the
figures do not; as I say, we have gone through the various protocols
and things that we are working through with the Ombudsman's Office
and somewhere along the line we will have reached the conclusion
to all of those, but that is some way off.
Q177 Chairman: What evidence do you have
for the perception that the Ombudsman places pressure on the DPP?
It would seem to be the other way round.
Mr Spence: If you look at the
case of McLeer, which has been alluded to in our report—that
is the case of Norman McLeer and Stephen John Nicholl—in
that particular case the magistrate made certain comments which
were a matter of public record, and he stated in their particular
case that he came to the conclusion that the investigators involved
in that case had a distinct animus towards the defendants, i.e.
the two police officers. That is a matter of public record and
that is the type of comment that causes grave concern to our members,
that if they make a genuine procedural mistake the Ombudsman will
be out to nail them. That is a perception on their part. There
are comments such as this and indeed in the other case that was
alluded to earlier in relation to Dougan and Greer, where the
judge made certain comments as well.
Q178 Chairman: Excuse me, this is another
matter from your allegation—which is a serious one—that
the Ombudsman places pressure on the DPP, not that investigations
have been carried out in a way that may not be entirely satisfactory,
which is the view of the magistrate, but the Ombudsman whose whole
raison d'etre is to be independent has placed pressure on the
DPP. What evidence have you got for that?
Mr Spence: The evidence comes
from the perceptions.
Q179 Chairman: Perceptions are not evidence.
I accept that you say that that is the perception of your members.
Mr Spence: Yes.
| 
