Court told Police Ombudsman findings on collusive behaviour in terror attacks including Sean Graham betting shop massacre have 'tarred' RUC officers

An RUC commander who responded to the Sean Graham betting shop massacre feels “tarred” by the Police Ombudsman as having colluded with the terrorists responsible, the High Court heard today.

The former senior officer’s sense of grievance was disclosed at a challenge to findings made by Marie Anderson in a series of sectarian loyalist murders.

A group of retired policemen and women is seeking a judicial review of three separate reports into Troubles-era killings where the watchdog identified evidence of “collusive behaviour” within the RUC.

One case relates to a probe into multiple UDA attacks in the south Belfast area during the 1990s, including the Sean Graham atrocity.

Five Catholic civilians were shot dead and several others wounded when gunmen indiscriminately opened fire on customers inside the bookmakers on the Ormeau Road in February 1992.

The Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association claims the Ombudsman was legally prohibited from making findings which effectively branded them guilty of colluding in brutal murders without proper due process.

Counsel for the group, David McMillen KC, argued that all members of the force who served in the relevant areas at the times of the killings have been wrongly smeared.

As part of the challenge a statement was submitted by an RUC sub-divisional commander at the time of the Sean Graham attack.

“He describes that he was there immediately at the scene and gave urgent orders to his officers what they should do in response to this,” Mr McMillen said.

“He was never questioned at any stage by the Ombudsman in relation to this, but he feels that he has been tarred as someone who has colluded with terrorists in these murders.

“That is the impact in real terms that this has on officers.”

Legal action is also being taken over a report into the police handling of loyalist killings in the northwest region from 1989 to 1993.

A third challenge relates to findings in the case of four men wrongly accused of murdering a British soldier in Londonderry.

Known as the Derry Four, the Ombudsman concluded that RUC officers had unfairly obtained confessions from them for the killing of Lt Stephen Kirby in the city in 1979. The four men later fled Northern Ireland until their acquittal in 1998.

A Court of Appeal judgment in 2020 restricted the watchdog body’s scope to accuse former policemen and women of the criminal offence of collusion with paramilitaries.

That outcome followed a previous challenge by retired senior officers Raymond White and Ronald Hawthorne to the contents of former Ombudsman Dr Michael Maguire’s report into the 1994 Loughinisland atrocity.

Acknowledging her limitations, Mrs Anderson said she had identified conduct within the RUC amounting to "collusive behaviours".

Her lawyers insist she carried out a forensic analysis to reach legally-sound findings, identifying behaviour indicative of collusion without being determinative.

However, the Association alleges that the Ombudsman misunderstood her permitted role and cannot use that term without establishing a malign motive.

Amid claims that she “overstepped the mark”, the group is seeking to have the three public statements declared unlawful.

Mr McMillen stressed his clients’ unequivocal position on the consequences for any wrongdoers.

“Any police officers who have committed a criminal offence or disciplinary matter which could be described as collusion, particularly in something as heinous as the murder or attempted murder of innocent people, should be identified, charged, put on trial and punished to the full extent of the law,” he told the court.

The barrister did not dispute that those bereaved and injured in “appalling atrocities and injustices” have a right to seek answers.

“But the simple fact is Parliament has chosen not to give the Police Ombudsman this determinate power,” he submitted.

Senior judges never intended a “cut and paste” outcome where findings of collusion could simply be replaced with the synonym collusive behaviour, according to counsel.

Mr McMillen argued: “The Ombudsman has failed to understand the thoughtful, careful judgment of the Court of Appeal in Hawthorne and White.”