Chris Albiston: Government needs to accept its responsibilities for supporting retired police who served in Northern Ireland

​Retired police officers in Northern Ireland, such as I, wish the best to those in the military who served here, some of whom continue to face unjustified vilification and intolerable disruption to their lives in retirement. These men and women provided security to the public and assisted the police to uphold the law. They frequently provided protection to members of the RUCGC as they carried out their policing duties and even while RUC women and men enjoyed some off-duty family time. Bonds formed in such circumstances are not forgotten.

Military veterans will form their own view on the much-hyped ‘six new protections’ and no retired police officer should attempt to speak for them. However as the legislation itself does not state that its provisions are designed specifically for military veterans I offer some comment from a sympathetic non-military veteran.

There are understandable political reasons why the legislation should not mention the military while a press release from the Ministry of Defence should emphasise the supposed value of certain provisions to military veterans. But the reality is that for the most part it is hard to see in what way these provisions are either ‘new’ or exclusively beneficial to military veterans.

Two of the ‘protections’ do indeed have potential benefits for them, especially those residing in Great Britain. These are the facility to give evidence remotely (Section 54) and the restriction on ‘cold calling’, which will be mediated by the MoD.

Two of the protections do not seem to be ‘new’. Anonymity was always available in appropriate circumstances; and treating old age delicately (Section 69), whilst probably a matter of common sense and decency, was already gaining ground in policing, particularly in Scotland and here in Operation Kenova.

Representation on the proposed new Legacy Commission’s ‘Victims and Survivors Advisory Group’ may be welcome, but care will need to be taken that the voice of military veterans is not drowned out by more strident voices.

Finally, what is this ‘protection’ from repeat investigations? In future inquiries ‘duplication’ is to be avoided ‘unless, in the Directors’ view, the duplication is essential’. The same applies to inquests and their Legacy Commission equivalent, ‘inquisitorial proceedings’ - sections 30(5)(b), 31(9)(b), 51 and 84(16)AC(3). We are told that internal officers will decide what is ‘essential’, but not the criteria by which such decisions will be reached. And it is not clear that even this restriction will apply to any investigation initiated by a Director (Section 32). Whatever happened to the old requirement for ‘significant new evidence’?

But surely these ‘protections’ must apply in principle to everyone? Some retired members of the RUCGC do indeed live outside Northern Ireland and would appreciate not having to travel to assist with inquiries. And the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association has for some time been engaging with relevant agencies in order to minimise ‘cold-calling’.

But the truth is that military veterans have structures in place to support them whilst retired police officers do not. This is not to belittle the work of the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust, whose efforts are much appreciated by many retired or injured police. We remain grateful for the creation and funding of this valued institution. Nor should we forget the work of the RUCGC Foundation, which has a non-political role.

The real issue is representational. Military veterans have the Ministry of Defence, which provides support in relation to matters far beyond welfare. It provides legal assistance, moral support and a political voice. Northern Ireland military veterans have a fully-funded Veterans’ Commissioner.

It might be thought that the Ministry of Justice here would have some paternal (or maternal?) instincts towards retired police officers, but not so! NIRPOA have approached two justice ministers and received absolutely no help whatsoever. This may be due to the deficiencies of devolved government, which seems to paralyse anyone who might be sympathetic to our concerns. Westminster has simply abandoned those who carried out HMG’s policies here to the mercy of their enemies.

Retired police could turn to the chief constable. Strapped for cash and answerable to a Policing Board of mixed membership, no chief constable has ever helped retired police. Indeed, some have created barriers to officers seeking access to notebooks. None has exercised their discretion to fund independent legal advice for ex-members. Provision in the Legacy Bill (Section 59) for legal funding seems designed to exclude retired police officers.

Successive chief constables have washed their hands of retired officers in the public arena. Some have even meekly ‘accepted’ erroneous and ultra vires public statements by the Police Ombudsman instead of challenging them. This was left to NIRPOA who, when largely successful in a Judicial Review, were nevertheless handed a legal bill for £100k. That’s difficult to fund on an annual membership fee of £25!

The staggering hypocrisy of the criticism levelled by some of MoD funding for the defence of a military veteran who was acquitted of the crimes with which he was charged has at least been challenged by our local politicians. But is this factional noise the sort of consideration which makes our own government so frightened to accept its responsibilities towards its retired police?

l Chris Albiston is a member of the executive committee of NIRPOA. He was an assistant chief constable in the RUC and PSNI