Operation Kenova team preferred to deal with 'substantive criminal offences' than resort to the term 'collusion'

At the press conference in Belfast to launch the Kenova interim report, the News Letter asked Jon Boutcher why he had decided against using the term ‘collusion,’ or ‘collusive behaviours,’ favoured by the authors of previous reports.

References to collusion have appeared in numerous official inquiries, and several Police Ombudsman reports, even though the term has not been clearly defined, and despite it being repeatedly misinterpreted as denoting criminal behaviour.

Mr Boutcher said he prefers “due process”.

He said: “Collusion is an interesting, and synonymous word with legacy.

"Lord Stevens, who has been a great supporter of this investigation, first introduced that term, I think largely through frustration, because he was lied to – information that he should have received was not passed to him.

"I personally believe in due process. It’s very difficult to prove collusion or disprove collusion.”

Mr Boutcher added: "Our job as investigators, as detectives, is to show the evidence where there is criminality, and if there is malfeasance in a public office, or if members of the security forces are involved in murders, in the way of aiding and abetting, or conspiring with agents, then we should deal with those substantive criminal offences.

"But I understand why people have become so wedded to the term. But I think that you need to show, through proper investigation, rigorous examination of the facts, and where there is actually wrongdoing or criminality.”

He concluded his answer, saying: “I leave it for other people to judge on what I’ve said today – whether this is collusion or not – but it’s certainly been wrong, and shouild never have happened.”

Following the publication of a Police Ombudsman report last year, the Police Federation said: “Of particular concern are the findings of alleged ‘collusive behaviours’, made in the absence of providing any evidence that would ordinarily have to be rigorously tested and determined via either misconduct or criminal processes.”