Jon Burrows: That Police Ombudsman Marie Anderson still sits in judgment of PSNI officers is indefensible

A file was submitted to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) for the offences of misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice; an investigation that lasted 20 months. In October, the PPS concluded that no prosecution would be brought, and we fully acknowledge that Ms Anderson is innocent in the eyes of the law.

However, this entire episode has exposed a fundamental and dangerous flaw: there is no accountability framework for the Police Ombudsman. No power to suspend. No power to remove. No mechanism to investigate misconduct that falls short of criminality.

For a role that exercises immense authority over serving and former police officers, this vacuum is absurd and unsustainable. The public and the police must have trust in the integrity and probity of the Police Ombudsman.

Policing and justice have been devolved for more than 15 years, yet this glaring gap has never been addressed. That failure cannot be blamed on Westminster, which is often the reflex response of our local politicians.

On Monday in the NI Assembly, I revealed new information that raises serious questions about how this matter was handled. Ms Anderson tendered her resignation to the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Justice, Richard Pengelly, at 9.38pm via email on Sunday, September 24, 2023. Within an hour, he replied that following a conversation with her, he would “park” the resignation and take no action.

This was a profoundly consequential decision. Since then, the organisation has endured instability, extended absences by Ms Anderson, and further reputational damage. All the while she has drawn her full salary of around £150k.

While political and public debate focused on the inability to suspend her during the criminal investigation, it was not known that she had offered to resign at the very outset.

Why was such a significant decision taken so quickly, late on a Sunday night? On whose advice? What record exists of the reasoning?

Media inquiries about a rumoured resignation offer at the time were met with silence from both the Ombudsman’s Office and the Department of Justice. I am glad I have been able to end the speculation and provide the facts.

The justice minister has since stated that her department cannot accept an Ombudsman’s resignation and that it must instead be offered to the King. Yet the most senior official in her department did not relay this advice to Ms Anderson, he simply parked the resignation and decided not to act on it. That was an active decision. This inconsistency demands explanation.

I have also raised concerns about whether Ms Anderson’s national security clearance has been reviewed. The Police Ombudsman holds Developed Vetting, granting access to top secret material. Any police officer in comparable circumstances would see their clearance immediately reconsidered.

To date, no answer has been provided by the justice department or the Executive Office. Transparency is preached more than it is practiced by many in power here.

Confidence in the Ombudsman’s Office was already low. In February 2025, the High Court ruled that Ms Anderson had exceeded her legal powers by making findings of collusive behaviour against RUC officers in several legacy reports, overstepping the Ombudsman’s investigative remit.

It should have been plainly obvious to Ms Anderson the difference between her organisation being an investigatory body, not an adjudicatory one.

This crisis must now be the catalyst for meaningful reform. Doug Beattie MC MLA and I have proposed a package of changes, including:

l Legislation to allow suspension of a Police Ombudsman and investigation of alleged misconduct;

l Faster, more efficient investigations to reduce delay for complainants and officers alike;

l Local handling by PSNI of low-level issues, allowing the Ombudsman to focus on genuinely serious matters;

l Protection for officers from vexatious complaints, including a new criminal offence of providing false information to the Ombudsman, mirroring an existing law in the Republic of Ireland.

I will continue pressing for full transparency around the incident at Ms Anderson’s home in 2023 and its subsequent handling.

The Ulster Unionist Party will continue working to rebuild an Ombudsman’s Office that is credible, accountable, and focused on the very small minority of corrupt or predatory officers, not those who serve with integrity today, tomorrow and who did so in the past.

I also want to commend this newspaper, which has covered this long running scandal in far greater detail than any other media outlet.

The News Letter is a vital voice in our local media and I wish all its readers a very merry Christmas.

l Jon Burrows is an Ulster Unionist MLA