ROBERT HAMILL INQUIRY

Day 55: 2^nd September 2009

The Inquiry first heard evidence from William McCreesh.  Mr McCreesh was the officer in charge of the HMU which was a response unit/ riot squad, and also deputy to former Assistant Chief Constable for South Region, Mr Fredrick Hall.

The witness told the Inquiry that he would have expected officers on duty in a Land Rover in Portadown town centre to get out of their vehicle if any disturbances broke out.  He said:

“...their function in being there was to deal with any public order situations and their mere presence to act as a deterrent.”

Mr McCreesh would also have expected officers to intervene if their presence had not acted as a deterrent and a fight broke out to ensure that the situation did not deteriorate further.

Mr McCreesh believed that he first learned of the attack on Robert Hamill when Inspector McCrum called him to say that there had been a public order incident in Portadown.

Counsel to the Inquiry, Mr Underwood QC, summarised generally what is thought to have been the case at the scene of the assault: 1) some sort of riot took place; 2) that one of two injured men was in serious difficulty and rasping for breath which at least one, possibly two, police officers were aware of; and 3) and as far as he [Mr Underwood] could tell, no senior officer talked to officers at the scene to find this out.  He asked if the witness would have expected a senior officer at the scene to have asked what had happened.  Mr McCreesh said he would have at least expected a preliminary brief of exactly what happened and what went on.

Mr Underwood highlighted that the officers at the scene had been allowed to finish their duty and leave before making statements.  He asked if it would be normal for some sort of debriefing to take place before officers went off duty.  Mr McCreesh repeated that he would have expected some type of debriefing to take place.

In response to further questions regarding the type of debrief he would have expected and the circumstances in which the officers went off duty, Mr McCreesh emphasised that the debriefing would depend on the circumstances.  He was of the opinion that the attack on Robert Hamill was also a traumatic experience for the officers involved and there may have been a rationale behind letting the officers go home.  When asked by Mr Underwood, Mr McCreesh confirmed that he believed that letting the officers go home after a debrief would have been reasonable if it had been a thought out strategy.

Questions turned to scene preservation and CID’s involvement at the scene.  Mr Underwood referred to CID arriving on scene at 5 am or 6 am and Mr McCreesh confirmed that once CID arrived on scene they assumed responsibility.  Mr McCreesh also believed that on his preliminary debriefing of Inspector McCrum he was told that CID were on scene and that the matter was under investigation.

Mr McCreesh told the Inquiry that he may have been mistaken when he said previously [during interviews with the Inquiry] he had no further dealings with the investigation into the assault.  He told the Inquiry that he was now fairly certain that he would have had discussions with CID officers about such an investigation as it may have added to tensions in the area.

Mr McGrory QC, representing the Hamill family, asked questions regarding possible tensions arising out of RUC officers policing marches when those participating at the marches were members of the same community as the officer and in some instances lived in the same area.  Mr McCreesh accepted that some officers could have come under ridicule from persons living in the same area as them.

Mr McCreesh confirmed that there were elements in the loyalist community in Portadown who saw the town centre as their territory and that Catholics would have been aware of this sentiment.  He added that St Patrick’s Hall had been in existence for many years and that there would have been many people who made their way to and from the hall without trouble.

Mr McGrory and Mr O’Connor, who represents Detective Inspector Michael Irwin and Inspector McCrum, asked questions regarding the telephone call the witness received from Inspector McCrum in which he learned of the attack.  Mr McCreesh believed that he received the call between 5:00 am and 7:00 am on 27^th April 1997 and that CID were already at the scene.  He could not recall how long the conversation lasted.

In response to further questions from Mr O’Connor, Mr McCreesh confirmed that he was satisfied from the conversation with Inspector McCrum that an active investigation was under way.  Mr McCreesh added that he was also satisfied that: 1) the hospital had been visited; 2) that the situation had been stabilised in Portadown; and 3) there was no on-going riot situation.

Mr McCreesh confirmed that it could have been normal for Inspector McCrum as Duty Inspector for Portadown, Lurgan and Banbridge to leave when things were under control to go and perform other duties – depending on what was happening in the other stations.

During further questions Mr O’Connor highlighted that Sergeant P89 was the duty Sergeant at the scene when Inspector McCrum left and when he returned to Portadown at 4:00 am the officers from the scene had already gone off duty.  Mr O’Connor asked the witness in those circumstances who was responsible for a debriefing.

Mr McCreesh said that he would have expected ‘at least some officer of some description’ to do a preliminary debrief.  Mr McCreesh emphasised that when he enquired as to the seriousness of the condition of the person in hospital he was told it was serious and was not told at any point that their condition was life-threatening.  When asked, Mr McCreesh said that recalling the officers at the scene to the police station to make statements would have been the right thing to do.

When asked about budgetary constraints Mr McCreesh was adamant that there was no issue in terms of paying overtime for officers to stay on and for example, make statements such as those made by officers at the scene.

The second witness on day 55 was former Assistant Chief Constable for South Region, Fredrick Hall.  Mr Underwood began by asking questions about a meeting on 12^th May 1997 which the witness had noted in his officer’s journal.  The entry referred to an operations meeting at RUC headquarters with the Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable and Assistant Chief Constable responsible for crime [who Mr Hall believed was Mr Blair Wallace].  Mr Hall recorded that he briefed those in attendance on the allegation from Tracey Clarke against Reserve Constable Robert Atkinson.

Mr Hall’s response to questions regarding the meeting showed that such meetings took place regularly and the allegations against Mr Atkinson were not the sole topic of the meeting.  However, the witness said that in relation to this meeting, an update on the Hamill murder investigation would have been a major focus.

Mr Hall told the Inquiry that on the Sunday prior to the Monday 12^th May meeting, he was off duty but had sought a full update from the late Detective Superintendant Maynard McBurney and Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) P39.  It was at this earlier meeting that Mr Hall was made aware of the Atkinson allegation.

Mr Underwood enquired if Mr Hall had anything to do with the supply or adequacy of resources for the investigation into the assault on Robert Hamill [which subsequently became the murder investigation from which the Atkinson allegations flowed] and the neglect complaint relating to the allegation that the four Land Rover officers neglected their duty and did not respond adequately to the assault.  Mr Hall could not be sure if he was involved in this respect but was of the opinion that there would not have been a scarcity of resources.

Mr Underwood sought to establish if Mr Hall was conscious of the fact that the Atkinson allegation was treated as part of the complaint investigation and not as part of the murder investigation.  Mr Underwood emphasised that the Inquiry had heard from other officers that they would have expected the Atkinson allegation to have been incorporated into the murder investigation as it was an allegation that he [Robert Atkinson] was an accessory to murder.

Mr Hall could not recall.  He said he was satisfied that it [which could be interpreted as the Atkinson allegation, the murder investigation or both] was being investigated by an experienced detective superintendent and supervised by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints (ICPC).  The witness became aware that the ICPC did not ultimately supervise the Atkinson allegation in 2007 when he learned this from the Inquiry.  However, Mr Hall was of the opinion, from documentation he had been shown by the Inquiry, that the ICPC had supervised the allegation over a number of months and that Mr McBurney had received directions from the ICPC.

Mr Underwood asked Mr Hall in light of what he now knew, could he offer any explanation as to why the ICPC ‘dumped this’.  Mr Hall said no, and was of the opinion that the ICPC appeared to supervise the investigation until September 1997 and that it was in the proper hands being independently investigated.

Mr Underwood asked questions to see if there was any conscious consideration of suspending RC Atkinson before he was interviewed in September 1997 and highlighted that the ICPC and Complaints and Discipline Department [also known as ‘G’ Department] of the RUC both deny any knowledge of such consideration.  Mr Hall was unsure if there had been consideration.  However, he highlighted that, from the documents he has looked at, it appeared that there was consideration in September or October and he presumed that this was as a result of evidence being accrued or interviews taking place in the intervening period.  Mr Hall noted that RC Atkinson went on sick leave and so suspension ceased to be an issue.

Mr Underwood highlighted that there was an apparent four month delay from the receipt of telephone records for the Atkinson household until Mr Atkinson’s interview.  Mr Hall said that it may have been a reasonable approach to do this if it was thought that holding the interview earlier could prejudice the murder investigation.  However, Mr Hall said it would depend on the other evidence and indicated that he could not really comment as he was not privy to all the evidence and believed that the investigation was being supervised by the ICPC.

Mr Underwood referred to the ICPC producing a report which was forwarded to the DPP regarding their investigation into whether or not a case should be brought against the RUC officers in the Land Rover.  He said that the report was clear that the Atkinson tip-off allegation was not supervised by them and asked the witness would the RUC have seen the report.  Mr Hall was unsure and said that G Department was the interface between the ICPC and the RUC.  Mr Hall also added that the murder file would not have been directed through the regional office [in which he worked] as they would have been sent to the Crime Department Headquarters.

In response to questions asked by Mr McGrory, Mr Hall was quite sure he was involved in discussions on whether or not to involve the ICPC by making a referral under an Article 8 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.  He believed from the documents he has seen in recent years that this would have taken place at some time in the week prior to the allegations against RC Atkinson coming to light [it appears that Mr Hall is referring to the formal recording of the allegations in the statement which Tracey Clarke made on 10^th May 1997].

Mr Hall later described the situation with the RUC and external supervision by the ICPC as being that others, including those at the top of the force, ‘could not go around asking questions about an independent externally-supervised investigation because that would have been open to misinterpretation.’  Mr Hall agreed with Mr McGrory that there were two investigations - the ICPC investigation and the murder investigation.  Mr Hall said that he wanted to know everything about the murder but was of the opinion that whether the allegation that an officer had tipped-off one of the alleged murderers was integral to the murder investigation would depend on the circumstances and the evidence; he said that this was something that the SIO and the ICPC had to balance.

Mr Hall accepted that the murder investigation was not actually investigated by the Inquiry but was of the opinion that the ICPC was called in to look at the overall circumstances – whether it was a politician’s allegations of inaction, the neglect complaint, or the allegations against Mr Atkinson.  He believed that all these allegations and the murder investigation were inextricably linked as allegations against the police and that was, in his mind, how they were investigated independently.

Mr McGrory suggested to the witness that as soon as information came into the system that there had been calls between Mr Atkinson’s home and the Hanvey household that Mr Atkinson should have been arrested and questioned.  Mr Hall did not accept this and referred again to the other circumstances within the case, for example, that Allister Hanvey was already in custody and he believed the ICPC were investigating the circumstances surrounding Robert Hamill’s murder.

Mr McGrory asked questions about the appointment of the Senior Investigating Officer of the complaint investigation.  Mr Hall said that ultimately G Department [Complaints and Discipline] would have recommended an investigating officer to the ICPC but indicated that he may have been consulted in terms of workload/availability if Mr McBurney could take on the role of investigating officer.  In response to further questions Mr Hall explained that he was of the opinion that the seriousness of the allegation involving RC Atkinson had a bearing on the appointment of a senior detective [i.e. Mr McBurney] to deal with the complaint.  He said that:

“You didn't want someone just to carry out routine interviews or serve discipline documents.”

Mr Adair QC, representing a number of individual police officers, asked questions which were aimed at clarifying an earlier reference by the witness to service providers at times being unwilling to provide witnesses in relation to telephone records.  Mr Hall referred to occasions when some providers would not provide witnesses to go to court as a result of intimidation, a stance he found came about significantly because of terrorism.  He indicated that in such circumstances, providers may have only provided records on an intelligence basis – as they would not provide a witness to attend court and support records.  Therefore, the information was only for the RUC [note, this may also have included other security force agencies as they shared information].

Mr Adair also sought clarification from the witness on the issue of whether or not the Atkinson allegations should have been part of the murder investigation.  In responses Mr Hall again referred to G Department’s responsibilities and ICPC supervision.  However, Mr Adair asked the witness to leave the ICPC involvement aside and if such an allegation had arose if it should be treated separately from the murder investigation. Mr Hall said:

“ ...on balance that it would have been part and parcel of the murder investigation. I mean, it would have been the CID officer investigating the murder and any associated offences.”

He agreed with assertion made by Mr Adair that what he was saying was that it was a different scenario once the ICPC and G Department became involved.

Mr Adair also displayed a letter from Mr Murnaghan of the ICPC to the Director of British Irish RIGHTS WATCH, dated June 1997, in which he explained his selection of Mr McBurney as SIO in their supervised investigation over an investigator from outside the RUC.  Mr Hall confirmed that the ICPC did play a substantial role in the selection of an investigator for a supervised complaint.

Mr Adair put to the witness that there had been some wild suggestions that Mr McBurney had told Mr Murnaghan to back off.  He asked Mr Hall if this had been the case, with his knowledge of Mr Murnaghan what Mr Murnaghan’s reaction would have been.  Mr Hall said that Mr Murnaghan “would not have countenanced any such suggestion or approach in his wildest dreams.”

The Chairman, Sir Edwin Jowitt, highlighted that the only way the ICPC could have been involved in the Atkinson complaint was if there was an Article 8 referral by the RUC made to the ICPC in respect of the allegation.  The Chairman highlighted that the only way the ICPC could have brought the Atkinson complaint within their supervisory remit was if they had asked the RUC to refer the matter to them for investigation.  Mr Adair agreed with the Chairman.  In response to this interchange, Mr Hall re-emphasised that the ICPC were made aware of the allegation, that it was brought to their attention at several meetings and that the RUC referral to the ICPC for supervision to look at the overall circumstances [surrounding investigation into Robert Hamill’s murder].

Panel member Rev Baroness Richardson asked if there had not been a complaint of neglect would the Atkinson allegation still have been treated as an allegation against an officer or as an investigation into accessory to murder.  Mr Hall was of the opinion it still would have been an allegation against an officer as opposed to the latter as the RUC had already made a referral to the ICPC.