It remains unclear why a man who secretly recorded police officers talking amongst themselves was placed under arrest, or whether he was subsequently charged with a crime.

The News Letter has been seeking to find out more information about the bizarre episode depicted in a recent Police Ombudsman report which led to four officers being castigated.

The ombudsman's office has also declined to give any more examples of the "several concerning comments" which it says were made by the officers.

The most serious example it had given of the "degrading" language used is that an officer had privately described someone as "mental".

placeholder image — The man was under arrest when he made the secret recording - but it is not clear what for

The complaint against the officers was made to the ombudsman in January 2023.

The report into it came out on Monday this week, some 34 months later.

It all centres on an incident involving a man and his partner in December 2022.

From the account which the ombudsman has given, it appears that the man had set his phone to record audio, and was subsequently arrested.

When his phone was taken from him by officers it continued recording and captured what the officers were saying amongst one another, totalling some 16 hours of audio.

The ombudsman's office said "the recording included several concerning comments" which "reflect attitudes and behaviours that are entirely unacceptable".

The examples it gave were that "officers referred to a suspected victim of domestic violence as 'mental', possibly suffering from 'post-natal depression' and requiring hospitalisation".

The ombudsman also looked into an allegation that an officer had "encouraged a colleague to destroy the mobile phone out of fear it might be recording," adding: "Another officer was heard to respond: 'what a way to get sacked'."

The man who made the recordings claimed that he had been unlawfully arrested and that officers had falsified statements and logs. None of these claims were substantiated.

The ombudsman's office recommended misconduct hearings for all four officers.

In the end, the PSNI opted for a misconduct hearing for one, and "advice" for the others.

Sinn Fein issued a press release after the ombudsman's report came out, decrying the "misogynistic behaviour" on display by the officers and demanding to know why they hadn't faced tougher sanctions.

The News Letter asked the ombudsman why the man who made the recordings was under arrest to begin with, and whether he was subsequently charged with any crime.

The ombudsman's office referred the News Letter to the PSNI for an answer.

The PSNI then referred the News Letter back to the ombudsman's office.

The News Letter also asked the ombudsman's office for further examples of the "several concerning comments" it says were made by the officers.

"The media release sets out examples of the concerning language," it responded.

"It explains that such derogatory comments, particularly when made in respect of a woman who had reported domestic abuse, together with the conduct in respect of the management of the mobile phone, demonstrate unacceptable attitudes and behaviours.

"The PSNI’s Detective Superintendent Julie Mullan has also confirmed that the conduct of the officers fell short of the standards expected."

This comes after the ombudsman last month refused to give details on what the "inappropriate" Whatsapp messages were in another case that had led to an officer being fired and others disciplined, saying that to reveal those messages would also be "inappropriate".

It stood by this when asked again this week.

It also comes just as the Police Ombudsman herself, Marie Anderson, returns to work after learning she will not be prosecuted for misconduct in public office or attempting to pervert the course of justice in relation to a domestic incident - the details of which her office had refused to reveal.

Asked again this week if it can shed light on this episode, the office said: "As you are aware, the investigation in respect of the Police Ombudsman has concluded and a decision has been made by the Public Prosecution Service. The Police Ombudsman’s Office is not, therefore, in a position to comment."