Full judicial review hearing will bring 'clarity' to role of police ombudsman: retired officers

On Tuesday, a judge granted leave for the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association (NIRPOA) to seek a judicial review in a case centred on three separate reports by Marie Anderson into Troubles-era killings.

Mr Justice Scoffield identified an arguable case that Ms Anderson “overstepped the mark” in some of her findings.

The retired RUC officers claim Mrs Anderson was legally forbidden from making findings which effectively branded them guilty of colluding in brutal terrorist murders without proper due process.

A Court of Appeal judgment in 2020 restricted her scope to accuse former policemen and women of the criminal offence of collusion with paramilitaries.

Those proceedings related to a previous case taken by retired senior policemen Raymond White and Ronald Hawthorne over the contents of former Ombudsman Dr Michael Maguire’s report into the 1994 Loughinisland atrocity.

Acknowledging her limitations, Mrs Anderson said she had identified conduct within the RUC amounting to "collusive behaviours".

But counsel for the Association claimed she misunderstood her permitted role and cannot use that term without establishing a malign motive.

Following Tuesday’s judgement, the NIRPOA said they were pleased that Mr Justice Scoffield had granted the association leave for the hearing of a judicial review.

NIRPOA chairman Raymond Fitzsimons said: “Following our previous successful judicial review of PONI’s conduct in the making of unlawful statements concerning legacy matters, our members have pressed us to address what they consider to be PONI’s continuing improper use of her public platform to accuse retired police officers of grave criminal misconduct without any due process.

"We do not seek to anticipate the outcome of these proceedings, but we note the learned judge’s remarks in relation to the need for proper consideration as to whether PONI has ‘overstepped the mark’. We hope that these proceedings will set clear parameters for PONI’s conduct."

Mr Fitzsimons added: “Our members have regularly and voluntarily assisted PONI’s investigations and we have never sought to protect those whose conduct merits an appearance before the courts.

"What we challenge, and will continue to challenge, is what many perceive to be the unwarranted abrogation by PONI of the authority to adjudicate on matters which she is only authorised to investigate.”

Also welcoming the court’s decision, former senior police officer Alan Mains said: “Having read the report it would appear that Mr Scoffield has rightly referred the Ombudsman’s use of language/opinion to a full hearing as it is important that the police receive a fair hearing also.”

A spokesman for the police ombudsman said: “We are currently considering the judgment. It would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage. “

PONI has previously said it will “robustly” defend its position in court, and that the phrase “collusive behaviour” is “entirely within the boundaries” of what it is allowed to conclude.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​