New Troubles body ‘must avoid repeat of some watchdog fiascos’

A powerful investigative body proposed as part of the Troubles legacy bill must avoid replicating “some of the fiascos produced by the police ombudsman,” a committee of MPs has heard.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

Addressing the Westminster Northern Ireland Affairs Committee (NIAC) on Wednesday, former assistant chief constable Chris Albiston was scathing in his criticism of a series of reports issued by the Police Ombudsman NI (PONI).

Mr Albiston of the NI Retired Police Officers’ Association (NIRPOA) was one of a number of witnesses giving evidence in relation to the new Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill which is progressing through Parliament.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The bill “provides for the establishment of a new independent commission for information recovery, tasked with carrying out robust, effective and thorough investigations into deaths and serious injuries that occurred during the Troubles for the primary purpose of information recovery”.

Northern Ireland Affairs Committee at Westminster on 15 June 2022 heard evidence from former ACC Chris Albiston via video-linkNorthern Ireland Affairs Committee at Westminster on 15 June 2022 heard evidence from former ACC Chris Albiston via video-link
Northern Ireland Affairs Committee at Westminster on 15 June 2022 heard evidence from former ACC Chris Albiston via video-link

Mr Albiston said: “We have always said that if you have evidence, bring it to us, send it to the director of public prosecutions, but none of this nonsense where people can bring imaginary problems with police behaviour or police investigations, long in the past. This generates, and is encouraged to generate, ridiculous and harmful investigations which lead nowhere.

“If you look at the proposals around the [proposed] commissioner’s reports, we fear that unless this is handled very, very carefully, we are simply going to get some of the fiascos produced by the police ombudsman repeated under new legislation.

“While we say that legacy reports produced by the police ombudsman were unlawful – because they were never authorised by Section 62 of the enabling legislation – this legislation will make such reports lawful, because it is primary legislation which will create the power for the commissioner to do those reports.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“Any criminal proceedings should be by an investigatory body and recommendations made to the DPP.

“You can’t then turn around and say, ‘well there’s no evidence that justifies these papers going to the DPP, but I am going to publish a report saying the police were all involved in improper activity anyway. Now, that is not acceptable and never has been”.

In June 2020, the Court of Appeal upheld a ruling by Mr Justice McCloskey, that previous ombudsman Dr Michael Maguire had “overstepped the mark” in finding RUC officers committed criminal acts of collusion with loyalist terrorists who massacred six Catholic men in 1994. But the panel of judges rejected a bid by two retired senior police officers to have the watchdog’s public statement on the Loughinisland atrocity quashed in its entirety.

Mr Albiston said: “I sit on the side of the team that is being well and truly thrashed in the propaganda battle over the last 20 years.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“You cannot inhibit free speech because people say things you don’t like. What you can do, is you can avoid a system of institutions which enable those criticisms to be channelled through what purport to be authoritative public bodies, because we all know that certain elements in society are pointing to erroneous and unfounded reports by established public bodies as being some sort of evidence of police misconduct, when in fact they are nothing of the kind,” he said.

Alliance MP Stephen Farry asked Mr Albiston: “Do you accept that all those who have operated those criminal justice bodies – from the DPP through to those people who have held the post of ombudsman – they have all acted with integrity in terms of their own role, and the terms of reference of their offices?”

Mr Albiston responded: “I don’t accept that the reports which come out of Cathedral Close (PONI) are legitimate and just. Our position, as an association, is that Sect 62 does not permit reports of that sort, which express widespread opinions, simply because they only come out when the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is an established, practiced lawyer, says that there’s no evidence to support any prosecutions.”

In a follow-up question, Mr Farry asked: “You are not suggesting that the people issuing those reports, albeit on their differing view of the legislation, are themselves propagandists?”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Mr Albiston said: “I don’t want to go into the ins and outs of certain reports which have been issued – I don’t think this is the right place for it. These things have been discussed in the High Court and the Appeal Court in the past, and indeed I’m sure you are familiar with the findings of Mr Justice McCloskey, and I would stand by the findings of Mr Justice McCloskey before I would stand by the findings of Mr Maguire.”

In response to the claims, a PONI spokesman said: “We have a legal duty to investigate where complaints relate to legacy matters which are grave or exceptional. These include allegations about police conduct resulting in death, about failures to effectively investigate deaths, or other alleged serious criminality.

“All Police Ombudsman investigations seek to establish the facts and when reaching conclusions about police officer conduct those conclusions are based on evidence. The Police Ombudsman applies the standards of the relevant time. Her public statements are detailed and set out the evidence to support her conclusions and the reasons for those conclusions.”

The spokesman added: “Where a complaint relates to an allegation of criminal conduct, the Police Ombudsman having considered all of the evidence will send a file to the Public Prosecution Service for direction with a recommendation. Ultimately it is a matter for the PPS whether or not to commence a prosecution.”