Transcripts
Return to the list of transcripts
Full hearings
Hearing: 26th June 2008, day 42
Click here to download the LiveNote version
----------------------
ROSEMARY NELSON
PUBLIC INQUIRY
----------------------
held at:
The Interpoint Centre
20-24 York Street
Belfast BT15 1AQ
on Thursday, 26th June 2008
commencing at 10.15 am
Day 42
1 Thursday, 26th June 2008
2 (10.15 am)
3 MR NIALL MULVIHILL (affirmed)
4 Questions by MR SAVILL
5 MR SAVILL: Could you give us your full names, please.
6 A. Niall Mulvihill.
7 Q. I think it's right that you have given a statement to
8 this Inquiry, so I am going to ask for the first page of
9 that, please, to be called up. That is RNI-813-040
10 (displayed). That is the first page of your statement.
11 Could I ask for RNI-813-072 to be called up
12 (displayed). That is the last page with your signature
13 and the date of 27th, I think, of July on there. Can
14 you see that?
15 A. I think it is 27th April.
16 Q. Oh, it is April, is it? Oh, I see, 27th April 2007.
17 That is your statement?
18 A. It is.
19 Q. Mr Mulvihill, I am going to ask you some questions for
20 events that took place some time ago but which I am sure
21 are, to a degree, still familiar to you. You have made
22 a statement with exhibited documents and you have also
23 been shown some other documents this morning, which we
24 will discuss and will be hopefully brought up on the
25 screen as necessary.
2
1 Just dealing with your background, I think I am
2 right in saying that you are retired?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. But that you joined the Metropolitan Police in May 1968?
5 A. Yes, I did, as a cadet.
6 Q. And for two years until July 1970, when I think I'm
7 right in saying that you were eligible, as it were, to
8 be appointed a full constable?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you have been promoted through the police service
11 over a number of years until your retirement, which was
12 when?
13 A. I retired in May of 2001.
14 Q. What was your rank when you retired?
15 A. I was a commander, which is a rank specific to
16 London-based forces. It is the equivalent of
17 assistant chief constable, were I to be a member of a
18 non-London police force.
19 Q. Thank you, you anticipated my next question. You may be
20 able to say precisely, how many commanders did the
21 Metropolitan Police Service employ at the time of your
22 retirement?
23 A. I think in the region of 30.
24 Q. Now, having read your statement, certainly as far as I
25 am concerned, there is a broad range of activities in
3
1 your service. Would you agree with that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And I think, just summarising a few of them, you have
4 worked in different areas of London. You spent some
5 time as police adviser to the Prison Service?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. Could you just tell us what that was all about, please?
8 A. On my first appointment to the rank of commander, I was
9 police adviser to Her Majesty's Prison Service, which
10 was a role requiring me to advise and guide on the
11 interface between the two agencies.
12 Q. And you were also given responsibility for the organised
13 crime group?
14 A. Yes, I was. That included the organised crime group,
15 which embraced the robbery squad or flying squad, the
16 fraud squad and the firearms command at that time.
17 Q. I think you also had involvement in the murder squad?
18 A. Yes, I did. That was my latter command whilst also
19 retaining responsibility for firearms.
20 Q. Thank you. Now, in July 1998 -- if we could call up on
21 to the screen, please, on the monitor, RNI-830-172
22 (displayed) and highlight the first entry -- we can see
23 there -- and indeed you have mentioned this in your
24 statement -- that you were called in to see Mr Stevens?
25 A. Yes.
4
1 Q. And I think it is right -- 3rd July 1998 -- to discuss
2 an appointment that we are all now familiar with
3 involving complaints in Northern Ireland?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, would it be right to say that that was something
6 that came out of the blue?
7 A. Absolutely.
8 Q. One minute you were doing your normal job and the next
9 minute you were discussing this mission to
10 Northern Ireland?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So just dealing with that meeting with Mr Stevens, what
13 did he explain to you was involved?
14 A. I mean, the purpose of the meeting was to give the
15 deputy commissioner the opportunity to determine whether
16 there were any reasons I should not conduct the
17 investigation, or whether there were any prohibitors,
18 like, if I was having a lengthy period of leave, or
19 anything that he might not be aware of. The reality is
20 he had decided I would do the Inquiry unless there were
21 reasons for me not to.
22 Q. I was going to ask you that, because I'm not fully
23 au fait with the dynamic between a deputy commissioner
24 and a commander. Was this a situation where you could
25 have politely refused?
5
1 A. No, not politely refuse.
2 Q. So it was going through the motions of politely asking
3 you if you would mind doing this?
4 A. I think it would have stood any scrutiny, in terms of if
5 there had been a genuine reason for me not doing it.
6 But there weren't any.
7 Q. But your preference would not have come into it, really?
8 A. Not at all.
9 Q. As far as Mr Stevens was concerned, did he give you any
10 comment as to his views or experiences, as they may have
11 been, of Northern Ireland and what might have been
12 involved in it?
13 A. I don't have any recollection of him saying anything
14 which in any way coloured my vision of what the future
15 was likely to be conducting an investigation in
16 Northern Ireland.
17 Q. And when you, as it were, left the meeting and the die
18 had been cast that you were going to do that, what was
19 your immediate reaction to that?
20 A. Well, I hadn't done such an investigation before whilst
21 occupying the level I was in and I looked forward to it.
22 Q. Yes, I wanted to ask you about that: at this time, prior
23 to you going to Northern Ireland and then subsequently,
24 what was your experience in the field of complaints?
25 A. Well, in the Metropolitan Police, once an officer has
6
1 reached the rank of chief inspector, in the era when
2 I reached that level, chief inspectors routinely
3 investigated complaints.
4 Q. Sorry, what that was era?
5 A. I was appointed chief inspector in the early 1980s and
6 chief inspectors on ordinary duties were allocated
7 complaints to investigate along with their day work.
8 That continued to be the case. I did complaint
9 investigations in all subsequent ranks. I'm not
10 100 per cent sure if I did as a chief superintendent,
11 but I certainly did as chief inspector, superintendent.
12 The system changed somewhat in the Met and there was
13 a centralisation of complaints at one point, but from my
14 point of view I had a regular familiarisation with them
15 in those sort of formative years.
16 Q. I hope you will agree with me if I characterise this
17 particular investigation in this way: it was not your
18 home force and it was a number of complaints, a number
19 of individuals making varying allegations. Had you,
20 prior to your appointment, or did you subsequently ever
21 involve yourself in a similar inquiry such as this?
22 A. No, this was a one-off. Once this was completed, I
23 wasn't called upon again to conduct such an
24 investigation, because within two years of its
25 conclusion I had retired.
7
1 Q. And if you and I had met walking down the street after
2 your meeting with Mr Stevens, what would you have told
3 me you thought at that point your role was going to
4 involve?
5 A. To reinvestigate and freshly investigate new allegations
6 of alleged misbehaviour by then RUC police officers
7 against people who had been under arrest, held in police
8 premises.
9 Q. And had the Rosemary Nelson angle, if I can use that
10 word, been highlighted to you at this stage?
11 A. Not at all. Once I was appointed to the investigation,
12 that was the first time I ever became aware of
13 Rosemary Nelson's existence, to be perfectly honest.
14 Q. Yes. Thank you. And as far as Northern Ireland and the
15 policing context over there was concerned at this time,
16 what was your experience of that, or knowledge?
17 A. Until 1991 I had never been to Northern Ireland. I had
18 been to southern Ireland but not been to
19 Northern Ireland.
20 I did a one-week attachment whilst attending the
21 senior command course at the Bramshill police staff
22 college. And then in 1995, when I first became police
23 adviser to the Prison Service, I spent a couple of days
24 in Belfast and I visited what was then Long Kesh and I
25 think it is Maghaberry, but my memory is not too clever
8
1 on that. But I visited what one would describe as
2 a maximum security prison and an ordinary prison as part
3 of my exploration of how people are detained.
4 Q. What, as a matter of interest, please, did you think
5 that you with your skill set and your experience could
6 bring to this investigation and inquiry?
7 A. I suppose on reflection I hoped that I would bring fresh
8 perspective and an open mind, a willingness to get to
9 the root of problems, and I would have no fear of
10 chastising people who had transgressed, if that was what
11 emerged.
12 Q. Yes, thank you. Now, I believe that with your meeting
13 with Mr Stevens, you were not briefed as to strategy
14 particularly but there was a discussion of terms of
15 reference?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Not what they would be, but the significance or
18 otherwise of establishing them?
19 A. Yes. I mean, all that the Deputy Commissioner really
20 did was to confirm that which had been stressed to
21 people like myself on a variety of courses for chief
22 police officers: that if you are to undertake an inquiry
23 in another force area, you must get terms of reference
24 which are clear, unambiguous, so that at some future
25 date somebody cannot say you didn't do what you were
9
1 asked to do.
2 Q. Or you did more than you were asked to do?
3 A. Theoretically, I imagine, yes.
4 Q. And I think we can all see, perhaps, the wisdom of
5 getting those things in black and white, written down
6 before you start your work?
7 A. That's right.
8 Q. That, I think I am right in saying, was very much in
9 your mind?
10 A. Yes, indeed.
11 Q. And following your conversation and meeting with
12 Mr Stevens, I think you spoke to Sir Ronnie Flanagan?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 Q. And if we could just highlight the 6th July entry. I am
15 sorry, I should have asked you: this document we are
16 looking at is a log of meetings and conversations that
17 you created?
18 A. Yes, indeed.
19 Q. And we can see there that you had what is described as
20 a brief conversation on the telephone with Mr Flanagan?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you agreed to undertake the Inquiry subject to
23 approval by the ICPC?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And then you indeed spoke to members of the ICPC
10
1 regarding a need to meet, which I will come to in
2 a moment?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You spoke to Sir Ronnie Flanagan. Again, in the same
5 way I have discussed the meeting with Mr Stevens, was
6 this a formality or was this very significant that he
7 approved you personally?
8 A. I must say I don't know what goes through the mind of
9 a chief constable at this time, other than they have got
10 to ensure that the person coming in to undertake the
11 inquiry has some credibility. And I would imagine that
12 the vast majority of people occupying the position I did
13 would have that level of credibility, because I think it
14 is mentioned in other papers but, for example, you could
15 not be subject of an investigation yourself.
16 Q. Indeed.
17 A. So that optimistically your bona fides would be such
18 that everyone would be content unless there was some
19 major event that meant that a party was uncomfortable
20 about you.
21 Q. It is my fault for asking probably quite a loose
22 question, but to try and assist you: did he ask probing
23 questions of you when he spoke to you?
24 A. I don't remember the specifics of what Sir Ronnie said,
25 but I am sure that he would have asked me questions
11
1 which would have established that, in his mind at least,
2 from his perspective, he was content with my
3 appointment.
4 Q. Did he express any indication as to the purpose or
5 purposes of your appointment?
6 A. In very general terms I am sure he did, but of course we
7 had no terms of reference by then.
8 Q. Quite.
9 A. It was very much the early times of yes, I was
10 available, yes, I could get work done in a decent
11 timeframe, and yes, I was up for the challenge.
12 Q. So you didn't discuss with him what had gone on, the
13 past, his expectations --
14 A. If we did, it would have been in the broadest terms,
15 because names would not yet have meant anything to me.
16 I am sure he would have, for example, indicated that
17 a certificate of dissatisfaction had been issued and
18 that he wanted to make sure that the ICPC were
19 satisfied, hence my appointment.
20 Q. Yes. And as sometimes people do when you are having
21 a conversation that both parties know may be the subject
22 of a note or a record, did he make any remarks to you,
23 as it were, in parenthesis, off the record --
24 A. No.
25 Q. -- indicating any subtext?
12
1 A. No, there was no separate agenda. I have never found
2 that with my dealings with Sir Ronnie. In any event, he
3 is a straightforward individual.
4 Q. Again, helpfully, you are anticipating where I am going
5 next. I think you knew him, or knew of him?
6 A. Yes, I mean, we had both been on a similar course. Mind
7 you, there were 50 of us on the course in all different
8 syndicates and we weren't in the same one. But with
9 a chap like Sir Ronnie Flanagan, he is a very pleasant,
10 obviously able person and he wasn't a close personal
11 friend or anything like that, but we did know one
12 another; he would have known my name. I wouldn't be one
13 of those obscure individuals that he had never set eyes
14 on. He did know me, yes.
15 Q. You've touched on his character, and obviously
16 I appreciate that is an entirely subjective point of
17 view from yourself?
18 A. Yes, of course.
19 Q. But throughout your period of endeavours in
20 Northern Ireland and making your reports and your review
21 shortly thereafter, how would you describe his
22 involvement with you and your team?
23 A. In the nicest possible way, detached. He didn't insert
24 himself in any way. He didn't become a pain, wanting to
25 be momentarily kept up-to-date with how things were
13
1 going. He was content for us to get on with the work
2 and to report as appropriate.
3 Q. If I may say so, I think that paints a very helpful
4 picture. You are using the word "detached" in the
5 nicest possible way and I think, presumably, from that
6 you would say that you would have been rather more
7 concerned if he had been --
8 A. Indeed, it would have been the sort of thing of being
9 concerned that there might be an agenda.
10 Q. And that certainly never crossed your mind?
11 A. Never at all.
12 Q. Because there was never any reason for it to do so?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Thank you. Now, I have mentioned a moment ago that you,
15 in the highlighted portion, needed to meet with
16 Geralyn McNally and Jennifer Mitchell. Could we just
17 highlight the 8th July entry, please.
18 We have you and your colleague, who I will come to
19 in a moment, Mr Marshall, collecting these ladies at
20 Heathrow airport and attending the Chief
21 Superintendent's office; yes?
22 A. Yes. I mean, it is in a separate building completely.
23 We picked them up at the airport, drove about a mile to
24 Heathrow police station and, helpfully, the local senior
25 officer made his own office available for us to use.
14
1 Q. Yes. I want to ask you a little bit about that, if
2 I may. I hope I am right in suggesting to you that
3 there was entirely proper and reasonable reasons for you
4 meeting these people?
5 A. Yes, it was essential that I was approved by the ICPC
6 and they were -- in particular, Geralyn McNally was very
7 content to come to Heathrow. I can't really remember
8 why it had to be Heathrow.
9 Q. This is what I was going to ask you, because I think --
10 A. I think it may have been convenient. I can't really
11 recall, but something inside my mind tells me that there
12 was a reason for her to be in London anyway and it
13 helped the issue to move on rather more promptly.
14 Q. Yes, I think, obviously speaking only for myself,
15 meetings at Heathrow are to be avoided?
16 A. Indeed, but of course we were in a separate building.
17 Q. This may have been a matter of convenience that led you
18 there?
19 A. I think that was the case.
20 Q. So there is nothing to be read into it, the location and
21 the Superintendent's office.
22 A. No.
23 Q. As to that meeting, again a similar type of question
24 from me, please: was this a mini interview, as it were,
25 of you, did you feel, by these members of the ICPC?
15
1 A. Yes, I suppose I did really, because if, for example, I
2 had expressed any views which might have raised
3 a question mark about me, then I would probably not have
4 received approval. I can't really think of anything
5 that would have come to mind, but it was, I suppose,
6 a mini interview. They had to be satisfied that I would
7 do a good job.
8 Q. Yes. You had had your interest piqued, as it were, in
9 this; you had dealt with senior officers, Mr Stevens and
10 Mr Flanagan?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. But is it right that you felt that had, for whatever
13 reason, rightly or wrongly, Geralyn McNally and/or
14 Jennifer Mitchell felt you were not the right person for
15 the job, you would not have gone on to do it?
16 A. I am certain that was the case. I was asked, I know,
17 about my own background, my own experiences, and
18 I outlined them. It was not a two-way street. I was
19 not going to be offered the opportunity of querying
20 anything in their background, quite rightly. It was me
21 that was being approved.
22 Q. Just so we are clear, you didn't feel it was improper?
23 A. Not at all. It was quite correct to do it that way.
24 Q. I suppose -- and I am using an awful expression -- it
25 was better to get any dirty washing out at the outset,
16
1 rather than there being a problem in the future?
2 A. Absolutely.
3 Q. And you were left in no doubt that they had, as it were,
4 the right of veto?
5 A. Most definitely.
6 Q. And as far as you were concerned, they did quite
7 a thorough job of interviewing you?
8 A. Yes. I mean, it was principally Geralyn McNally as the
9 member but ably assisted by her number 2.
10 Q. And in summary, you got on very well, I think?
11 A. Yes, we did.
12 Q. Now, after you had met, you I think went and wrote
13 a letter to her confirming the matters that had been
14 discussed?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I am afraid we don't have that letter. And she wrote
17 back confirming your appointment?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I just want to touch on an issue, and I hope, please,
20 you do not think I am being critical. I just want you
21 to clarify it for all of us: You were not going to do
22 this full-time?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Could you explain the reasons for that?
25 A. The post that I occupied was one which I thoroughly
17
1 enjoyed, and if I had undertaken or been made to
2 undertake this inquiry full-time, I could have lost my
3 command, in that it was not one where it could be just
4 left vacant. So I was anxious to ensure I kept my
5 command, because I realised that, all things being
6 equal, there would be a finite time when I would be
7 conducting these inquiries and then I could resume my
8 normal duties back at Scotland Yard, but also continue
9 to do them whilst I was conducting these enquiries.
10 Q. Thank you. Again, just so that we are absolutely clear
11 about this, there was never, would you say, any conflict
12 between your stated and open position and the role that
13 you in fact went on to perform?
14 A. No.
15 Q. No one ever said to you, "You are not spending enough
16 time over here" or "We don't think your heart is in it",
17 anything like that?
18 A. No, we worked exceptionally long hours, including
19 weekends at times. That was never the question at all.
20 Q. So far as you are concerned, Mr Mulvihill, you were
21 perfectly able, and indeed did, to run both parts of
22 your professional life concurrently?
23 A. Indeed.
24 Q. I would like, if I may, just return to the subject of
25 the terms of reference and explore that a little bit
18
1 more in some detail with you. Could we call up on to
2 the screen, please, RNI-103-145 (displayed)? Thank you.
3 I don't know if we can highlight all of that. Thank
4 you.
5 This is a letter dated 13th August from Mr Flanagan
6 to you, and obviously there is more over the page which
7 we will come to in a moment, but I am sure this is
8 something that is familiar to you because this was the
9 bedrock, as it were, upon which your endeavours were
10 founded?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, just to explore with you, you have told us that the
13 terms of reference were extremely important, and the
14 reasons for that. Who had the final say?
15 A. I think it amounts to an agreement between the
16 Chief Constable and the investigating officer, in other
17 words myself, but very much led by the Chief Constable.
18 I would have the opportunity of submitting my views
19 if I thought that it was too widely framed, but I was
20 completely content with it when I was offered these as
21 my terms of reference.
22 Q. And again, I don't mean this critically, you were
23 presented with these terms of reference?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. But what I think you are saying to us is that you were
19
1 presented with them, you found nothing disagreeable
2 within them?
3 A. That's right.
4 Q. Therefore, you agreed and signed up to them?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. But had you seen something in that that you felt was
7 objectionable, you were entitled to, and would have
8 complained?
9 A. Yes, I would have.
10 Q. And as far as you were aware, who had input into these
11 terms of reference?
12 A. I imagine the people who had been involved in the
13 background, which let to my appointment in the first
14 place. So -- and I am surmising here, I hasten to add,
15 but I would assume that it was the as then was Royal
16 Ulster Constabulary who I don't know, and the ICPC:
17 again, the people involved I don't know.
18 But I would have thought it amounted to an agreement
19 between both parties, because it would have been,
20 frankly, daft for me to have been given terms of
21 reference which the ICPC thought were inappropriate.
22 Q. Yes. And I don't want it called on to the screen, but
23 in your statement to the Inquiry you say that you have a
24 vague recollection of some additional discussions with
25 Paul Donnelly of the ICPC about the terms of reference
20
1 but can't recall anything specific?
2 A. Yes, and it is even vaguer as time has gone by.
3 Q. But what you were referring to there is yourself talking
4 to Mr Donnelly?
5 A. That is right.
6 Q. So far as you are concerned, these terms of reference --
7 and we will just have a very brief look at them. We
8 have 1 to 5. This is number 1: the Lawyers Alliance for
9 Justice in Ireland complaint?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Number 2, we have Rosemary Nelson and Colin Duffy. We
12 then have those persons again in number 3, but
13 a slightly different subject matter?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In number 4, we have what I think we could, I hope, call
16 a new complaint?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Because it hadn't been looked at by the Complaints and
19 Discipline branch; that's at number 4.
20 At number 5, again, this is a new complaint
21 involving Mr Donnelly. If we could turn over the page,
22 please, again just highlighting those paragraphs, we
23 have got number 6, which sets out plainly that you would
24 be under the supervision of Miss McNally.
25 Now, just pausing there, what did you imagine, and
21
1 indeed go on to experience, that supervision aspect
2 involved?
3 A. My thoughts on this in advance translated pretty much to
4 the outcome. I anticipated that I would discuss with
5 the supervising member a broad strategy as to how the
6 complaints would be investigated, who would be
7 interviewed, who would be present at the interview,
8 a protocol for any supervisor who perhaps wanted
9 additional questions to be asked when matters arose
10 which hadn't been predictable.
11 And that is how it went: good discussions prior to,
12 an ability to communicate during, further discussions
13 after interviews and then occasional discussions on, you
14 know, where are we to date, how are things panning out,
15 are we missing anything. It was very professional but
16 friendly and sensible. It was -- the two sides of
17 a coin coming together to try to make sure that the
18 outcome was satisfactory.
19 Q. Thank you. Number 7 -- and we will come to this in due
20 course -- this was to review the original RUC
21 investigation into the matters 1, 2 and 3 that we have
22 already discussed. And importantly there -- I will just
23 read:
24 "If at any stage you conclude that this aspect
25 requires separate or independent investigation or should
22
1 be investigated by another officer, you will draw this
2 to my immediate attention. Alternatively, you will
3 report with any recommendations you feel are appropriate
4 in this regard."
5 Yes?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 8, this is the report to be provided for consideration
8 by the Director of Public Prosecutions; 9, a report for
9 consideration as to disciplinary offences; 10, a report
10 if there are any recommendations you wish to make; and
11 11, a sort of catch-all at the end:
12 "Nothing in these terms of reference should be
13 construed as any constraint upon you investigating any
14 matter coming to your attention as a result of your
15 enquiries."
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So would you agree with me that you had set down here in
18 this letter the specifics, but also the overarching
19 principles upon which, or under which, you would be
20 operating?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. Is that fair?
23 A. It is.
24 Q. Thank you. You also, I think, had the opportunity to
25 discuss these with the members of the ICPC, and if we
23
1 could just call up on to the screen, RNI-223-033
2 (displayed), these are their minutes, I believe, of
3 a meeting on 19th August. If we just highlight the top
4 part of the page. Sorry, again, the top part including
5 the meeting heading. Thank you. I am sure that was my
6 fault and I will be reprimanded accordingly, but we have
7 here Wednesday, 19th August, a meeting G McNally, you
8 and Detective Inspector David Marshall. Do you see
9 that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I'm not going to go down the page in detail, but we can
12 see two headings there:
13 "1. Investigation of two new complaints ...
14 "2. Reinvestigation ..."
15 So you are talking about what you are going to be
16 doing.
17 Can we turn over the page, please, and could we
18 highlight the bottom half, that is number 3 downwards.
19 This is a discussion of paragraph 7 and 11, your terms
20 of reference; yes?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And I just want to explore with you the middle three
23 paragraphs.
24 We can see that there is an enquiry into a number of
25 aspects of its content, which refers to the negative
24
1 statement from the Commission, and you then outline your
2 proposed course of action.
3 You propose to carry out a review as opposed to
4 a formal investigation at this stage, but to leave the
5 review open-ended. You would wish to come to an
6 agreement with me -- I am not entirely clear who this
7 is, but I think it is Miss McNally:
8 "... and to receive written observations, concerns,
9 as partly detailed in the statement. I indicated that I
10 wished to discuss the matter with both Chief Executive
11 and Chairman, and undertook to confirm agreement or
12 otherwise later that afternoon.
13 "Having discussed the matter with the above, it was
14 agreed that a review was appropriate at present and with
15 provision that if any matters arose which warranted
16 formal investigation, then same would be instigated.
17 The IO [I think that's you, the investigating officer]
18 was pleased with this confirmation and reassured me that
19 the review would culminate in his recommendations to the
20 Chief Constable. The IO [that's you again] was informed
21 of the substantial interest of international bodies, the
22 NIO, Secretary of State and others."
23 So just having read that, just dealing with two
24 matters arising from it: First of all, the outside
25 interest aspect. How did you come to know about that
25
1 and what impression did you form of, if I can put it
2 this way, external pressures or interest on your
3 inquiry?
4 A. I was aware, as a result of the conversations with all
5 the people that have already been mentioned in this
6 morning's question and answers, that there was external
7 interest from international bodies and others as to how
8 this particular set of enquiries would proceed and what
9 the outcome would be.
10 I actually did not feel under any pressure from
11 outside bodies, as the reality of life for me was that
12 everything would be decided upon how the investigations
13 progressed. And I would not have been unduly influenced
14 by the views or concerns of others, but would always
15 have taken them into consideration, because they may
16 well merit consideration in the overall scheme of how
17 the Inquiry panned out.
18 Q. Thank you. And the second matter I just want to pick
19 out from this, please, is the initial discussions that
20 seemed to be happening here about what is a review, what
21 was going to be your methodology?
22 A. Well, it is easy now to reflect on what it was, but it
23 is not as clear as it was at the time. But what I do
24 recall is that it was not going to be a reinvestigation
25 unless something emerged which really made that the
26
1 appropriate outcome. It was a review of how things had
2 gone, including what had not gone well, in order to
3 ensure that the same set of circumstances did not arise
4 again in the future.
5 Q. And just to push you on that a little bit, I think I
6 understand your meaning between the differences of a
7 review and a reinvestigation, but what would be perhaps
8 a couple of practical examples that would differentiate
9 between a review and a reinvestigation, in your mind?
10 A. I suppose an example would be where perspective comes
11 in, where two people who have a view of an event which
12 seemed to be different, although both clearly are
13 referring to the same event.
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. A review might throw up some thoughts about how such
16 a dispute might be overcome in the future, perhaps by
17 the addition of some paperwork to confirm what is agreed
18 as a consequence of that meeting.
19 Two people can go away from an encounter and have
20 completely different views of what they have just agreed
21 or not agreed upon. If an investigation is conducted,
22 there is always going to be paperwork attached to it,
23 whereas if a review is conducted of what has happened
24 already, then the recommendations which emerge, there
25 may be no paperwork attached to that because you will
27
1 ask people what happened. I will take their word for it
2 and I will come up with recommendations.
3 Q. Thank you. And this is my amateurish interpretation,
4 but would it be right, therefore, to say that
5 a reinvestigation involves getting to the bottom of what
6 actually happened or was said or was done, whereas with
7 a review -- and I don't want you to take this the wrong
8 way -- it doesn't really matter, because that is not the
9 purpose of it?
10 A. I think that to say "it doesn't matter", in quotes, is
11 not entirely accurate. It does matter very much, but it
12 is not a reinvestigation, which really would mean going
13 right through everything again. And of course, it would
14 mean, if it became a reinvestigation, that much of the
15 contribution of the people who had already said what
16 their concerns were would have to then be reduced to
17 writing.
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. And would then be able to be used as the background to
20 questioning. It would have meant additional formality
21 and additional time.
22 Q. I see. Now, could we push the highlighted portion,
23 please, to the left-hand side of the screen, if that is
24 possible, and could we call up on to the right-hand side
25 RNI-223-080 (displayed).
28
1 This is another meeting of 11th September; similar
2 personalities present. If we could go over to
3 page RNI-223-082, and if we could highlight the second
4 chunky paragraph towards the bottom of the page
5 (displayed). I will just read this out. This is
6 obviously a minute of a meeting that we have seen:
7 "Commander Mulvihill acknowledged receipt of the
8 documents specifying the concerns/issues relating to the
9 investigation carried out by Chief Inspector P146. He
10 referred to this aspect as a further investigation and
11 Miss McNally made it clear that she considered his work
12 in the area to be a reinvestigation. It was
13 acknowledged that if Commander Mulvihill's 'review' (as
14 defined by point 7 of the Terms of Reference) disclosed
15 anything which required 'separate or independent
16 investigation or should be investigated by another
17 officer', this would be drawn to the immediate attention
18 of the Chief Constable. Commander Mulvihill confirmed
19 that he envisaged his final report as being comprised of
20 three distinct areas of report (i.e. on the complaints by
21 Lawyers Alliance for Justice in
22 Ireland/Rosemary Nelson/Colin Duffy, on the complaints
23 by Rosemary Nelson/[C208] and on the 'review' of the
24 original investigation)."
25 So there seems to be a discussion similar to that
29
1 which you and I have just had in very broad terms about
2 the investigation, reinvestigation, review point?
3 A. I mean, I am accepting what is in front of me here,
4 having in mind that they are, it seems to me, the notes
5 of Jennifer Mitchell which were subsequently, I note,
6 noted by Geralyn McNally. But of course I was never
7 provided with these at any point. They are the ICPC
8 notes. But I am not disputing them.
9 Q. That was what want to say to you: Is there anything in
10 there that you disagree with?
11 A. No, but I am sure that if a person were prone to be
12 argumentative, the issue about the review, as to what it
13 really means, it seemed much clearer then.
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. I don't know in if that helps.
16 Q. I think it is an expression that we can all associate
17 ourselves with. So let me perhaps ask you this
18 question: at the time, over the months you were doing
19 this, were you under the impression that you and those
20 you were working with -- and I mean your own officers,
21 members of the Commission, all knew what was meant to be
22 done?
23 A. Yes, I am quite certain that that was the case, that the
24 complaints which were being investigated or
25 reinvestigated were really one very large limb of the
30
1 Inquiry, but that the review run alongside it but was
2 separate from it. And that somehow or other it seems to
3 me that it was unlikely that there would be further
4 investigations unless something glaring emerged.
5 And that was the feel that I got all the time in
6 conversation with not only my own team but with the
7 ICPC. There was never an occasion where there was an
8 argument, a dispute of any sort, where somebody who was
9 supervising said, "This now needs investigation, don't
10 you think?" That never occurred.
11 Q. Yes. And at this point can I ask you just to
12 characterise very briefly your working or indeed social
13 relationship with the members of the Commission
14 throughout the term of your work?
15 A. I would describe it as professional, friendly, sensible.
16 There was very little social relationship at all,
17 because all our work tended to be daytime.
18 Q. And before I just move on slightly from this issue of
19 the review, presumably at the time you were aware that
20 there had been problems, as we have, I think, read --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. -- in relation to the actions of the Complaints and
23 Discipline Department. Would it be right to say that
24 you felt that the review would, by necessity, have to
25 involve a discussion not only of the RUC's side of
31
1 things but also the Commission's?
2 A. I think it would have been lopsided for the two parties
3 involved not to have been the subject of some comment.
4 I can't see how I could have reported and excluded the
5 ICPC's involvement.
6 Q. Dealing very quickly with your team and your
7 methodology, I don't want you to name him, but you had a
8 detective chief inspector helping you, Detective
9 Inspector David Marshall, another detective chief
10 inspector, and you worked, as you have told us, very
11 hard in short bursts in Ireland. Would that be right?
12 A. Yes, that is right. And for some of those team members,
13 they worked pretty much full-time engaged on this, in
14 that, as a consequence of statements taken or interviews
15 conducted, it would have required scrutiny of tapes,
16 scrutiny of previous statements and developing
17 questioning plans for future interviews. So they were
18 hard at it most of the time.
19 Q. And I was going to say that Mr Neligan was the junior
20 officer?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And I don't use this pejoratively, but he was a fixer
23 and an organiser, was he?
24 A. Yes, he was. It was a case of all machines need oil and
25 some people are those who can make things happen by
32
1 making the phone calls, arranging the interviews and so
2 on. And there were very helpful people in the RUC who
3 did precisely the same things.
4 Q. And as far as you are concerned, you yourself, would it
5 be right to say that you were the head of this?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You distributed tasks to those beneath you?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You certainly involved yourself at the very outset with,
10 if I can call them this, the higher profile interviews?
11 A. Yes. Only by being present. I might not have taken the
12 statement from the individual concerned, but in the
13 critical interviews I certainly made myself available so
14 that I was party to discussions prior to statements
15 being taken.
16 Q. And that would involve Mrs Nelson and Mr Duffy?
17 A. Yes, indeed.
18 Q. And what was your thinking, very briefly, as to why you
19 needed to put yourself forward at this point? What was
20 so important?
21 A. I felt that it was important, from the point of view of
22 those people making the complaints, that they saw the
23 person who was heading the Inquiry and had
24 an opportunity to ask me questions in case they had any
25 doubts about my determination to be fair and
33
1 even-handed.
2 And there had been difficulties in the past, I had
3 been advised, with getting people to attend for
4 interview, and I thought it was a whole credibility
5 issue and that I should make myself available, and it
6 seemed to work.
7 Q. And subsequently, for the reason that we have just
8 discussed, you perhaps, I think, took a slightly lesser
9 role in what was going on on the ground in
10 Northern Ireland. Would that be fair?
11 A. I didn't sit viewing tapes and doing things like that.
12 I was content to be advised in statements that my staff
13 had done that work. I couldn't do it all myself.
14 Q. No. And as far as, if I were to call it a strategy or
15 a plan of action was concerned, what was that? How were
16 you going to look into this?
17 A. Well, it was to make sure that we left no stone
18 unturned. It was to ensure that those complaints which
19 we were either investigating or reinvestigating, every
20 effort was made to track down every available witness,
21 to prevail upon those who were reluctant, for whatever
22 reason, to make themselves available for interview and
23 to convince them of the fact that we were determined to
24 do a genuine job on whatever it was that they had to
25 complain about, and to come to a conclusion which met
34
1 with the satisfaction of the ICPC in particular, given
2 that they had been dissatisfied previously.
3 I had hoped that those members of the RUC who were
4 investigated, however much they may have been
5 uncomfortable about the fact that they were interviewed,
6 that they would also have seen it as a professional job
7 completed properly.
8 Q. Did you feel that you had, or were provided with,
9 sufficient background material to conduct your task?
10 A. I believed so, yes.
11 Q. Were you in possession or did you ask for sight of
12 previous convictions or disciplinary records,
13 intelligence? Can you remember?
14 A. A range of different things you ask there. I imagine
15 that I would have been made aware of criminal
16 convictions, of complainants. It doesn't come to mind
17 immediately, but I imagine that would have been the
18 case. I can't recall seeing anything about disciplinary
19 backgrounds of people, and my memory is that I did not
20 see any intelligence reports on people involved.
21 Q. But were you content to proceed --
22 A. I was.
23 Q. -- in possession of -- sorry.
24 A. I was more than content to proceed in the fashion that
25 I did, because I think that exposure to too much of that
35
1 sort of information, there is the risk that it would
2 reduce even-handedness.
3 Q. Or perhaps provide preconceptions?
4 A. Indeed.
5 Q. Yes. When you came to the task, obviously I hope I am
6 right in saying, there was one personality, namely P146,
7 the Complaints and Discipline officer, who had been
8 heavily involved in the same aspects of work that we are
9 now looking at?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, as far as he was concerned, he obviously was a, as
12 I say, very prominent figure from what had gone before?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What did you believe was the appropriate level of focus
15 to place upon that individual in carrying out your own
16 investigation and review?
17 A. He was secondary to the first thrust, which was to
18 undertake reinvestigations and new investigations. My
19 conversations with the ICPC member moved me towards
20 picking up on him latterly, when the main thrust of
21 investigations was almost completed.
22 Q. Yes. But as far as you were concerned, you carried out
23 a sufficiency of contact and interview with him to
24 enable you to progress your task?
25 A. Yes, I interviewed him having looked at some of the work
36
1 that he had undertaken, and I delayed interviewing him
2 for a fair period so that I could pick up on the style,
3 not only of interview that he had conducted, but also
4 the style of the people who were being interviewed by
5 him, which of course myself and my team also interviewed
6 some of those characters.
7 Q. Yes. And would it be right to say also that he wasn't
8 the subject, himself, of a complaint investigation,
9 technically?
10 A. No, he was not.
11 Q. Did that affect your focus on him?
12 A. No. The difference is he was not a suspect officer. He
13 was a witness.
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. And whilst clearly there had been problems or the
16 perception was of problems between him and the
17 supervising member for the ICPC, because the certificate
18 of satisfaction had not been granted in cases that he
19 had investigated, nonetheless no complaint had been made
20 against that individual man.
21 Q. I can show you this in your statement if you want me to,
22 but I hope I don't need to. You make the comment that
23 you did not like the style of some of the investigations
24 that you reviewed?
25 A. Yes.
37
1 Q. Briefly, could you just expand on that for me, please?
2 A. Well, I am an outsider, if you will, for -- compared to
3 what the inside people of the then RUC had to contend
4 with when conducting investigations, and I guess
5 experience is a great one for telling you how to deal
6 with your own organisation.
7 From a personal point of view, I would probably have
8 pushed harder in some of the investigations in terms
9 of -- and I am sure we will get on to it, but where
10 people provided pre-prepared statements. There came
11 a time, I believe, where some of the investigating
12 officers would ask a series of questions and the
13 individual suspect officer would say little more than,
14 "I refer you to my statement".
15 From a personal point of view, I would not have
16 accepted that per se. I would have gone through the
17 fine detail of what it is that the allegation is against
18 you, you have said in your statement the following, for
19 example, would you care to add to that, and I might have
20 gone down side roads of further questioning.
21 But, of course, I wasn't dealing with RUC complaints
22 on a day-by-day basis as many of these investigators
23 were, and they were bringing their experience to the
24 table and it was not mine.
25 Q. No. And I wanted to ask you, and I think now is the
38
1 right time: this was a police force uniquely positioned
2 at the time, dealing with paramilitary crimes and
3 activity?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. These were officers who, we would all agree, were in
6 considerable personal danger very often in their working
7 lives?
8 A. Certainly. At least potentially.
9 Q. And certainly many of the suspects who made these
10 complaints were terrorist suspects?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So just tell us, please: how did that weigh in your mind
13 when you came to consider and investigate the complaint?
14 A. Again, I think the even-handedness issue comes to mind.
15 I was determined from the outset, and my team all shared
16 my stance on it, that the fact that individual
17 complainants were considered to be potential terrorists
18 would have no bearing on how we conducted our enquiries,
19 because otherwise it would have been coloured from
20 day 1. And it was not, as you know, because the ICPC
21 were satisfied with the way we did business.
22 But I was determined that immaterial of what alleged
23 background an individual complainant might have, they
24 would get a fair hearing, their statement would be
25 taken, their allegations would be properly investigated
39
1 and recommendations would be made at the conclusion on
2 the basis of the evidence which emerged.
3 Q. Now, you obviously had to set up interviews with police
4 officers and complainants?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And I'm not going to show them to you, we have seen some
7 of them already in our hearings: letters that you wrote
8 to people asking them to attend?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Some were very keen to attend, some had to be cajoled
11 and some showed absolutely no interest whatsoever in
12 attending?
13 A. That is a very fair summing-up.
14 Q. The approach that you adopted to getting people to come
15 to these interviews, particularly the complainants
16 themselves, was perhaps slightly more relaxed than you
17 would have adopted elsewhere, I think. Is that --
18 A. I think that is reasonable.
19 Q. Why --
20 A. There was no point me trying to be difficult with people
21 who were potentially reluctant witnesses if, by being
22 a little bit more flexible, I could actually get them to
23 come through the door and make a statement. That is
24 what I set out to do.
25 For example, statements taken by others and
40
1 submitted on their behalf, evidentially are pretty
2 hopeless. So I really needed to see those people, to
3 hear from them. So we could take statements which would
4 have evidential worth.
5 Q. Once again, if I may say so, you have read my mind and
6 answered a question I was going to ask you. You did
7 receive, as it were, outside input from third parties,
8 including Mr Lynch?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. But to your mind they were of little help; is that
11 right?
12 A. Well, they were hearsay.
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. And as such, unless the law is changed, it simply didn't
15 take things very much further forward, and the
16 contribution of any individual who might have been the
17 author of the original complaint, if they came and saw
18 us and made the statement, it was so much more worthy
19 than what we got.
20 Q. Could we just call up on to the screen, please,
21 RNI-813-052 (displayed). Thank you. Could we highlight
22 paragraph 38. This touches on what you have just
23 helpfully told me:
24 "It was unhelpful that some the complainants
25 themselves would often not come to speak to us. In some
41
1 cases, third parties such as Ed Lynch would give
2 statements, but often these were nonsensical or
3 unprovable. Some alleged events were clearly
4 disprovable, but would only get sorted out for definite
5 by talking to the complainants themselves."
6 Could you just help us with the expression that
7 "some alleged events were clearly disprovable"?
8 A. For example, inconsistency of dates where people could
9 categorically assure and prove that they couldn't have
10 done what was alleged, and it might have been a wrong
11 date and it might have been that the note taken by the
12 third party wasn't accurate.
13 Q. So just so we are clear, you are not necessarily tying
14 that expression to a particular example?
15 A. Not at all, no. But there were examples, and I wouldn't
16 want to try and find them now, but there were examples
17 where it was quite clear that what was included in
18 a third party contribution could not have taken place
19 when it was said.
20 Q. Yes. So just to tie up that point, you are saying the
21 example being the officer saying to you, "Look, I was in
22 France on that day date"?
23 A. As an example, that could well have been.
24 Q. That is what you are talking about?
25 A. But it doesn't mean that the officer couldn't have done
42
1 it on a different date which, if we had had the real
2 complainant to come forward and say, we would have had
3 a chance.
4 Q. We are going to take a break in just one moment, but
5 before we do, you say in that final sentence:
6 "It became clear that some of the complainants were
7 never going to come forward and could not be found."
8 How did that colour your work and eventual reports?
9 A. I hope it didn't colour them in any great way at all,
10 because the object of the exercise was to do the best
11 job possible on the available evidence. And if my
12 efforts, coupled with those of Rosemary Nelson and her
13 staff, still failed to produce the people -- and I also
14 add and Ed Lynch -- still couldn't get people to emerge,
15 well, we did the best we could.
16 Q. But surely am I not right in saying that there must have
17 been an effect on your mind, your mindset, if people
18 didn't cooperate?
19 A. Well, only that it is a shame that they didn't, but it
20 didn't mean that they were either more or less credible.
21 It just meant that the evidence had to be weighed in
22 their absence.
23 Q. Yes. Sir, I think this is probably an appropriate
24 moment for a break.
25 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Mr Mulvihill, can I just clarify one
43
1 point with you, if I may. I'll use your term "third
2 parties".
3 A. Yes.
4 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: And of course we have heard from
5 various third parties here before us. It is impossible
6 to ask you for an accurate assessment, I know, but based
7 on the information that was supplied by third parties to
8 detail, what sort of percentage, when you had a chance
9 to challenge that, look at it for accuracy, would you
10 say was inaccurate?
11 A. I honestly couldn't say. At least some.
12 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Some?
13 A. Yes, at least some was inaccurate.
14 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Not a majority --
15 A. And the allegations had an tendency to be very broad
16 brush and not specific in terms of times and locations.
17 Some of the allegations tended make a broad
18 reference to malpractice by detention staff but no
19 specifics, and the absence of specifics means that you
20 could investigate for ever and a day and never be
21 certain that the real complaint was ever being
22 addressed.
23 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Okay, thank you.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: We will have a break of a quarter of an hour
25 now. That is 25 to.
44
1 (11.20 am)
2 (Short break)
3 (11.45 am)
4 MR SAVILL: Mr Mulvihill, we were talking about, I think,
5 non-attendance by some complainants and your attitude to
6 that.
7 As far as the police officers were concerned, they
8 attended for interview?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And could you just describe their approach or attitude
11 to your enquiries?
12 A. For some, it was an attitude of resignation, in terms of
13 they knew that they had no choice but to attend and be
14 interviewed. But in the main, they were compliant and
15 their attitude was good.
16 There were one or two who, I suppose, one would
17 describe their style of being interviewed as less than
18 helpful.
19 Q. But bearing in mind the allegations that were being
20 made, the context of the allegations, the fact that this
21 was another investigation into these complaints, was
22 there in fact any behaviour that you took as being
23 unreasonable or inexplicable in the circumstances?
24 A. No. For even those who were mildly hostile, they never
25 got to the point of rudeness or threat, or anything like
45
1 that. They were angry.
2 Q. Now, as far as your impression was concerned, bearing in
3 mind you yourself didn't interview that many officers
4 but your colleagues did, were you given to understand
5 that there was any degree of hostility towards defence
6 solicitors, or Mrs Nelson in particular, being shown by
7 individuals or the Royal Ulster Constabulary as
8 a corporate body?
9 A. Mrs Nelson wouldn't have been present at any interviews
10 of police officers.
11 Q. No, I am sorry. Perhaps let me rephrase that. Were you
12 left with any impression, either from what you saw or
13 heard or what your colleagues told you, that members of
14 the Royal Ulster Constabulary were not well disposed
15 towards defence solicitors generally, or Mrs Nelson?
16 A. That is actually quite difficult to answer. I think
17 that there was a prevailing perception that some
18 solicitors were extremely sympathetic to some of the
19 suspect terrorist prisoners and that that wasn't well
20 received by some RUC officers. But there was never any
21 suggestion that there was open threats or open hostility
22 displayed towards any member of the legal profession.
23 Q. Why do you say that which you just have about there
24 being sympathies?
25 A. I think it was just that the feeling, as it was
46
1 portrayed back to me, was that certain lawyers were
2 regularly there on behalf of particular factions and
3 made the complaints on their behalf.
4 I think that there was a feeling that -- certainly
5 that Rosemary Nelson appeared only to represent one
6 faction and there may have been other solicitors who did
7 similar roles for other factions.
8 Q. Why, though, would that amount to undue sympathy as
9 opposed to simply a successful solicitor being chosen by
10 a particular category of client?
11 A. I am only reporting what I had been fed, that if you get
12 a -- you have to look at the peculiar circumstances in
13 which the RUC were operating. You know, part of your
14 remit was to combat paramilitary extremism, and I should
15 think it was a very difficult job. And if, repeatedly,
16 the same person were attending to complain, then I think
17 they would have found that hard work.
18 Q. These were comments passed back to you by your
19 colleagues. Can you remember who may have said that to
20 you?
21 A. These were comments passed back about the past and then
22 some of it displayed during interviews with -- which we
23 conducted, where comments were made by suspect officers
24 to the effect of, well, here we go again, this is
25 a contrived complaint, same as usual. That sort of
47
1 feedback.
2 Q. Yes, and I think some of those officers expressed in
3 interview to you the theory, if I can use that word,
4 that there was a pre-ordained tactic to complain and
5 make trouble to discredit the Royal Ulster Constabulary
6 or its members?
7 A. That's right, and an orchestrated tactic of complaint.
8 Whether or not, of course, that included members of the
9 legal profession or whether they just ended up being the
10 conduit or the complaints was never clear.
11 Q. And what was your view of that suggestion?
12 A. I don't know. I really don't know.
13 Q. You weren't and don't feel in a position to comment on
14 it from your experience?
15 A. I didn't gain any impression that the legal profession
16 were involved in any orchestrated campaign, but again, I
17 didn't -- I couldn't exclude it as a possibility.
18 Q. And what about the individual suspects themselves?
19 A. Well, again, I think I said in all the reports that
20 I submitted there were various potential options as to
21 what had really occurred, which the extreme of, yes, it
22 was an orchestrated campaign, including or not including
23 the legal profession, right through to the other extreme
24 that every allegation made was true.
25 Q. And just before I move on, did you pick up yourself, or
48
1 were you told by your colleagues, any impression given
2 by senior officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary,
3 management level, that there was an unfortunate attitude
4 towards defence solicitors?
5 A. I never picked up anything in that vein, that there was
6 any sort of prevailing attitude towards any of the legal
7 profession.
8 Q. When you were conducting these interviews and your
9 colleagues were working, I just want to ask you,
10 throughout this period presumably the Commission members
11 were also assisting you?
12 A. Absolutely. They were in attendance for the vast
13 majority of interviews conducted. And in fact, those
14 that they did not attend for, there was agreement.
15 There was never any interviews where the ICPC members
16 were not advised and agreed that the interview would
17 take place, and if they were not present, it was by
18 choice.
19 Q. You will appreciate, I hope, that obviously there is
20 a difference between making up the numbers and actually
21 having a role to play. Would you say that the
22 Commission members were free to have input to you and
23 your team as to what went on in these interviews?
24 A. Most definitely. That was part of the plan, that prior
25 to interview it was agreed what the broad area of
49
1 questioning would be for specific officers, invitation
2 then to the ICPC member to add to that range of
3 questions and a protocol whereby if, as a result of what
4 emerged during the questioning, the ICPC member wished
5 to add further questions, there would be a method by
6 which that could be done, either the passing of a piece
7 of paper to the investigator or a brief stoppage so that
8 questions could be determined, and then the interview
9 recommenced and carried on.
10 Q. Could we call on to the screen RNI-223-138, please
11 (displayed). No need to highlight it, but these are
12 some minutes of a meeting dated 21st and 22nd September,
13 I think created by yourself -- we will see in a minute.
14 And at that period of time, 21st and 22nd September,
15 there was a real blitz of activity, I think, on your
16 part visiting Northern Ireland.
17 If we turn over the page, please, to RNI-223-139
18 (displayed) -- can we highlight the top half, thank
19 you -- we can see that there is a meeting on
20 22nd September:
21 "Ms McNally and Mrs Mitchell discuss the following
22 points and suggestions which were enthusiastically
23 welcomed:
24 "To prepare a set preamble for interviews;
25 "To prepare a questioning strategy;
50
1 "Determine responsive style of suspects and strategy
2 for obtaining compliance;
3 "Tape recording;
4 "Anacapa schedule of timings."
5 Just explain what that was, anacapa, please?
6 A. It means that things can be cross-referenced so that
7 actually times and locations can be linked so that there
8 is a clear pattern. It is a pattern analysis.
9 Q. Thank you:
10 "Research itemised phone billing;
11 "Determine the range of times checking."
12 So if we could remove the highlight, please, we can
13 see your signature at the bottom of the page?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. So I think this goes, does it not, to what we have just
16 been discussing: the protocol and the input that was
17 welcomed and constructively created with the members of
18 the Commission. Would that be fair?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, turning to two individuals now, first of all
21 Mrs Nelson herself, what was your contact with her?
22 A. I may have met her more than once but I really can't
23 recall. I do have a very vivid recollection of my
24 initial meeting with her, and my recollection also is
25 that that was the same date that we interviewed
51
1 Colin Duffy. And I remember -- again, it was almost --
2 in terms of setting the scene, it was ensuring that we
3 had a conversation where she was able to be put at ease,
4 comfortable, content that myself and those who were in
5 my team would be the type of people who would do
6 a proper job and that she would be able to have
7 confidence in us. And from our point of view, it was
8 important that we got across the point that we really
9 did need at times to be using her good offices in order
10 to ensure that potentially reluctant witnesses actually
11 came forward and gave evidence themselves.
12 Q. Yes. But there wasn't any suggestion in the way that we
13 have discussed with Miss McNally, for example, that
14 Mrs Nelson had any right of veto over your involvement?
15 A. Oh, good Lord, know. She was a complainant. She had an
16 absolute right in terms of -- she was part of the
17 complaining side and she also had legal responsibilities
18 towards her clients. But no, she had no power of veto
19 and she never sought it.
20 Q. No. And just speaking generally, what impression did
21 you form of her as a person and as a professional
22 solicitor?
23 A. A professional -- she was very pleasant. Anything
24 beyond that would be speculation, but certainly there
25 was nothing of a negative nature whatsoever about my
52
1 meetings with her.
2 Q. Was there any impression formed by yourself as to this
3 aspect of undue sympathy with certain categories of
4 clients?
5 A. No, she seemed clinical, in the nicest possible
6 interpretation of that word, in terms of she was -- she
7 appeared to me to be faithfully representing the
8 interests of those she represented.
9 Q. Thank you. I'm not going to go into all the specifics,
10 but if I say this, I think you will understand me: there
11 are and were a number of weaknesses, as it were, to some
12 of the complaints, the time that they were made, the
13 level of cooperation of the complainants, and so on and
14 so forth. Did you discuss with Mrs Nelson any of the
15 reasons for that or the problem with that, or would that
16 have been seen as improper if she was a witness?
17 A. I think in the broadest terms there may have been
18 discussion as regards -- I know she made an early
19 undertaking to provide some details of her own notes
20 which would have helped to prove or disprove things
21 which were at issue. She did provide them too.
22 Q. I am going to come to those in a moment. I'm not
23 suggesting that this was said, but to ask you: was there
24 any, as it were, concession by her as to perhaps
25 inefficiency on her part or "I should have written to
53
1 him" or "I should have told him to come", or on the
2 contrary did she say, "I am facing an uphill task with
3 some of these people getting them to cooperate"?
4 Was there any discussion about that?
5 A. I don't think it was ever as relaxed as that where there
6 were there any concessions at all. She did
7 a professional job and she undertook to do what she
8 could to get people to come forward.
9 Q. Could we call up RNI-223-277, please (displayed). We
10 can see here a letter dated 10th December -- no need to
11 highlight it -- from you to Mrs Nelson. And if we look
12 at the middle paragraph:
13 "I am reaching the final stages of my enquiries and
14 would appreciate copies of the contemporaneous notes
15 that you offered to supply and mention in your
16 statement."
17 I am not going to go into this in detail, but there
18 came, didn't there, a point where there was a dispute
19 over timings?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And in relation to a complaint, and Mrs Nelson provided
22 you with her notes which went to support, in the final
23 analysis, the account given by a police officer?
24 A. They went to the heart of the matter.
25 Q. And they resolved it, as it were, in favour of the
54
1 police officer?
2 A. They confirmed his version of events.
3 Q. So this is an example of cooperation by Mrs Nelson?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. That in the end operated in favour of the police
6 officer?
7 A. The absence of the provision of those notes would have
8 left an enormous question mark over one specific aspect,
9 which was really disproportionate to the whole enquiry.
10 But it really was about the credibility of one
11 individual police officer who had not performed well
12 under interview, but ultimately it was shown he had been
13 telling the absolute truth.
14 Q. Thank you. Could we put up RNI-813-058, please
15 (displayed) and highlight paragraph 62? Just to tie
16 this off, you say in your statement:
17 "The overall impression I formed of Rosemary was
18 that she was sincere and dedicated to the function of
19 representing people. When she presented me with the
20 notes ..."
21 This is what we have just been talking about:
22 "... I referred to above that confirmed the RUC
23 officer's version of events, I also felt that she had
24 been particularly even-handed. She could easily have
25 'lost the notes'."
55
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The other personality I want to raise with you now is
3 Mr Ed Lynch. Again, I am not going to go into the
4 detail, because I think we are all familiar with it.
5 But this first, if I can call it, first report of yours,
6 the Lawyers Administration for Justice report, that came
7 about really through Mr Lynch?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And it was an odd way for it to have raised its head,
10 but Mr Lynch took the view that he had a right, as it
11 were, to be involved. Is that a fair way of putting it?
12 A. Yes, that is, I think, a fair way of putting it.
13 Q. I am going to just take you to paragraph 66 on this page
14 and highlight that, please. You told the
15 statement-taker that:
16 "I remember meeting Ed Lynch."
17 You describe him as a:
18 "... pseudo legal representative from the LAJI in
19 the United States. I say pseudo because he had very
20 little grasp of what the law required in terms of
21 proving or responding to the allegations which had been
22 made. It is for the complainant to prove the substance
23 of their allegations. You cannot simply rely on hearsay
24 evidence as to what may or may not have been said or
25 done."
56
1 Can we turn over the page, please, highlighting the
2 top paragraph:
3 "Edmund Lynch started from the position that if
4 someone had complained, it ought to be investigated and
5 the policeman involved should be suspended, the matter
6 taken to court and pursued on the basis of someone being
7 assumed guilty without actually considering what the law
8 requires from an evidential perspective.
9 "He often thought that the mere taking of statements
10 from complainants would be sufficient proof of
11 wrongdoing. We made it clear that for the investigation
12 to be effective, the witnesses had to be credible and
13 that they should give a statement to support the initial
14 complaint. We envisaged that we needed to speak to
15 people who saw or heard what was going on, rather than
16 those who were reporting comments as hearsay."
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So I am going to take you to some documents relating to
19 Mr Lynch in a moment, but summarising his involvement in
20 the early stages, how did you view it?
21 A. I think what I have written there is quite clear and it
22 really does set the picture quite well.
23 I don't think he understood the system. He had
24 meetings with the ICPC and I think, from some of the
25 documents that you may be about to show to me, it is
57
1 quite clear that the view of him not really
2 understanding his situation or position is borne out by
3 the comments of the ICPC member.
4 I think he saw himself as somebody who would be
5 steering the Inquiry, whereas the reality of life for me
6 was that I already had a supervisor who was going to be
7 guiding me and bringing me back on the rails if I went
8 off. And he didn't have any such role.
9 And of course, I believed he was well intentioned,
10 so I wanted to keep him on board for the really specific
11 reason that he potentially had the sway to get reluctant
12 witnesses to come forward, and he did have some success
13 on one or two occasions.
14 Q. And how difficult a task did you find it to deal with
15 his well intentioned input?
16 A. He was never unpleasant. He just didn't grasp that it
17 was different here. I don't know what it was like in
18 the USA, and I know that he was an active legal
19 operative over there, because in some of his literature
20 to me he spoke about when he could attend because of
21 trials he was involved in. But it must be different,
22 because he seemed to think that he would direct
23 proceedings, which of course was not going to be the
24 case.
25 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Could I just seal off that point so
58
1 I entirely understand.
2 The standard of proof you were working to on this
3 inquiry was beyond all reasonable doubt?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Okay.
6 MR SAVILL: Just taking you to one or two of these
7 documents, RNI-223-071 (displayed), just highlighting
8 the main chunk of text, please, we can see this is
9 addressed to you. And in the middle of the page we now
10 have:
11 "We certainly have no objection to
12 Ms Geralyn McNally participating in your investigation,
13 but we do object to any member of the RUC participating
14 in the investigation or having access to the statements
15 or identities of witnesses who come forward to meet with
16 you or Ms McNally. Our obvious concern is retribution."
17 Could we call up RNI-114-132, please (displayed).
18 This is your reply. Could we highlight it. It is dated
19 10th September 1998. You explain that, in the first
20 bullet point, you have been appointed to further this
21 matter by the Chief Constable and that you will be
22 submitting any completed report to him:
23 "There is no question of keeping witness identities
24 or statements a secret in this investigation as the
25 identities are already known."
59
1 In the second bullet point -- I won't read it -- we
2 can see that you explain Miss McNally's role. This is
3 an example, I hope you agree, of you using soft hands,
4 as it were, to respond to well intentioned input from
5 Mr Lynch?
6 A. Yes, indeed. And I mean, he had meetings with the ICPC.
7 I don't know if that was face-to-face -- I can't
8 recall -- with Geralyn McNally, but I felt that in terms
9 of legal people together they could determine what they
10 wanted to do if it was necessary. But he would not have
11 a role in directing or unduly influencing the way I
12 would conduct an investigation.
13 Q. Could we call up RNI-114-133, please (displayed). This
14 is again a letter, we can see, from the Lawyers Alliance
15 for Justice, and we have a date of 14th September.
16 Again, I am not going to read the whole thing, but could
17 we highlight the third paragraph down. He writes:
18 "It would be helpful if we agreed as to the ground
19 rules for your meeting with these witnesses. May
20 I suggest that you consider travelling to Lurgan and
21 meeting these individuals at Mrs Nelson's office at
22 8 William Street."
23 Could we call up RNI-114-134, please (displayed).
24 Middle paragraph highlighted. This is your response,
25 dated 14th September. You say:
60
1 "I am confident no witness has anything to be
2 concerned about in respect of meeting me. I regret to
3 say I cannot consider travelling to Lurgan or to meet at
4 Mrs Nelson's office at 8 William Street. I understand
5 that it has already been agreed in a bilateral
6 agreement, between Mrs Nelson and the ICPC officials,
7 that meetings will take place at the ICPC offices in
8 Belfast. In respect of the issue of confidentiality of
9 witnesses, I believe I address this in my earlier letter
10 to you."
11 Again, just very quickly, this is a response by you
12 damping down, perhaps, Mr Lynch's desire to take a more
13 fulsome role in directing your activities?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Is that fair?
16 A. Yes, indeed.
17 Q. Could we call up RNI-223-105, please (displayed)?
18 Again, I don't know if we can highlight the whole thing
19 because it is rather small. Good. Thank you.
20 This is a fax from him to you, dated 16th September.
21 Again, I'm not going to read it all, but the first
22 paragraph:
23 "The following safeguards are essential. The
24 witnesses will be granted immunity from prosecution for
25 any alleged crimes which are the subject matter of their
61
1 statements."
2 Number 3:
3 "The ICPC will hold each witness ..."
4 I think it says "harmless":
5 "... and indemnify each witness for any claims for
6 of defamation, slander, libel or similar claims which
7 are in any way related to their cooperation with the
8 ICPC or statements given to the ICPC as part of the
9 pending investigation."
10 And number 4:
11 "The statements of the witnesses will be recorded by
12 a certified reporter and a copy of the transcript of
13 same provided to each witness and to me without charge."
14 Now, what I would just like to ask you in relation
15 to that is: would you say that this was an example of,
16 as it were, Mr Lynch really pushing the boundaries of
17 his entitlement?
18 A. Yes, it was completely outside the remit of the way
19 complaints are investigated. It was another, I think,
20 illustration of a failure to understand the role of the
21 ICPC.
22 Q. And if we could just call up RNI-223-114 (displayed),
23 just don't highlight anything at the moment. This is
24 a meeting with Mr Lynch at the ICPC offices on
25 21st September. Do you see that?
62
1 A. Yes, indeed.
2 Q. And these are the Commission's notes. Could we just
3 highlight the top part of the main paragraph, please:
4 "Mr Lynch, despite having just come from a meeting
5 with the Chairman and Chief Executive during which the
6 Commission's role had been fully explained, appeared not
7 to have grasped Miss McNally's role in the matter, or
8 indeed the purpose of his own presence."
9 Do you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. If we just drop down three lines, we see your name in
12 the middle:
13 "Commander Mulvihill pointed out that he was not
14 aware of past examples of such retribution. The
15 Commander went on to explain (very patiently) to
16 Mr Lynch how he came to be involved in the investigation
17 and pointed out that the Chief Constable of the Royal
18 Ulster Constabulary had been happy to bring in an
19 outside investigator, which many forces in the
20 United Kingdom did."
21 If could we go to the bottom of the page, please,
22 and highlight the bottom part. Could we go up five
23 lines from the bottom, middle of the page:
24 "[Exclamation mark]. Commander Mulvihill reiterated
25 the investigative procedure and pointed out to Mr Lynch
63
1 that he had not grasped the Commission's role as the
2 independent element of the investigation, nor did he
3 seem to understand that as a co-complainant, and not
4 a legal adviser to Rosemary Nelson and Colin Duffy, as
5 he had made clear, he was not empowered to interpose in
6 their interviews."
7 So, again, I hope that paints the picture you are
8 seeking to tell us about, that Mr Lynch didn't grasp his
9 place in the greater scheme things?
10 A. Yes. It was all done in a very friendly manner, but
11 ultimately he had to be advised that he simply wouldn't
12 be as influential during the investigative aspect as he
13 would have wished to have been.
14 Q. No. And I think if we can call up RNI-114-137.501
15 (displayed), if you will forgive my expression, all's
16 well that ends well. If we highlight this letter of
17 25th September from Mr Lynch to you, perhaps it will
18 show us all what you are driving at when you say that he
19 was well intentioned, because Mr Lynch writes:
20 "Please accept this brief note of thanks for the
21 cooperative attitude you and your team exhibited on
22 Monday and Tuesday of this week.
23 "I understand there might be some uncertainty on
24 your part as to my role in the proceedings. I assure
25 you that I share your goals, seeking the truth and
64
1 correcting any injustice or wrongdoing if evidence the
2 same is adduced. I have informed Chairman Donnelly of
3 the ICPC that in my opinion you and your team are
4 conducting a credible and thorough investigation."
5 So, a very pleasant letter from him to you following
6 your meetings.
7 Now, I want to just turn now, if I may, to your
8 actual reports. As far as I understand it, they were
9 completed in January 1999?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Just tell us very quickly, please, who wrote them? How
12 were they produced?
13 A. My recollection is that members of my team submitted to
14 me drafts of various aspects. There are a series of
15 headings in all the reports, and drafts were submitted
16 of our findings and then I would have revised and
17 polished the reports so that I was content to sign them
18 off as an accurate reflection of my findings.
19 Q. So as far as you were concerned, the reports contained
20 your, Commander Mulvihill's, opinions and findings?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And as a result of handing in and producing these
23 reports, you received good news from the ICPC. And if
24 we could call up RNI-218-144, please (displayed), and
25 perhaps highlight that, a letter of 19th February from
65
1 the Chief Executive. And if we just pay close attention
2 to the title first of all, that is "The Complaint
3 involving Mrs Nelson and [C208]":
4 "Thank you for your report."
5 And enclosed is a copy of the Commission's
6 statement. And if we turn over the page, please, to
7 RNI-218-145 (displayed), highlighting all that. Again,
8 I'm not going to read it all, but that in essence was
9 the tick in the box to your endeavours?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And it was very brief: one page. If we go to
12 RNI-223-324 (displayed), bear in mind of course that
13 C208 was a new investigation, we have here the statement
14 in relation to the Lawyers Alliance for Justice, the
15 Mrs Nelson and Mr Duffy aspect of the Inquiry. And if
16 we look in the middle of the page -- just highlight that
17 bold paragraph -- we can see that it says:
18 "The following statement will confirm that by the
19 conclusion of the investigation it was satisfactory, but
20 that there were aspects of the earlier stages that gave
21 rise to serious concerns as to its proper conduct."
22 And I'm not, again, going to go through it, but you
23 will recollect, I expect, that after this first page,
24 there then followed a history written by Miss McNally of
25 the initial Complaints and Discipline investigation then
66
1 leading up to your own inquiry into the matter?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And within this document she summarises, if we could go
4 to RNI-223-326 (displayed) and highlight the bottom of
5 the page, the reasons behind the unsatisfactory and
6 unacceptable nature, in her view, of the initial
7 inquiry; yes?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. But in any event, could you just tell us, please: what
10 was your reaction and feeling to receiving, as I said,
11 the ticks in the box to your work?
12 A. I was pleased. At the time I submitted the various
13 reports, which followed not only the conclusion of the
14 direct interviews and the broad investigation,
15 I discussed my findings with the ICPC member, who
16 endorsed all of what I was about to write. But of
17 course, ultimately, when one is in that position, one
18 looks for the tick in the box, as you have aptly
19 described it, which came in the guise of a certificate
20 of satisfaction, which was clearly what I was seeking to
21 achieve, and thankfully that is what emerged. So I was
22 pleased.
23 Q. It may seem a stupid question, but why did you need to
24 discuss with the Commission prior to reporting what you
25 were ...?
67
1 A. That had been the nature of the relationship throughout.
2 There were no subtleties; everything was done above
3 board. I met with the ICPC member regularly. I assured
4 her from the outset that there would be no trickery. I
5 would discuss with her everything that I proposed to do
6 in terms of investigative thrust, research, interview
7 strategy and then outcome.
8 I don't think you could have had the relationship
9 that my team had with the ICPC and then have written the
10 report with the recommendations without reference to
11 them.
12 Q. Because I presume what you would say is that it would
13 have been rather farcical for you to have kept it close
14 to your chest, released it and then had no certificate
15 of satisfaction --
16 A. Absolutely. That is exactly right.
17 Q. And obviously it had to be your report and your
18 findings, and you weren't, I presume, prepared to be
19 bent one way or the other --
20 A. That's exactly right.
21 Q. -- in the wind?
22 A. I wouldn't have moved, but I was prepared to listen.
23 The point about it was that if something had emerged
24 which, for example, the ICPC member had thought merited
25 a recommendation of either criminal charges or
68
1 disciplinary charges, I would have listened and we would
2 have discussed it.
3 So that -- I mean, the outcome is that my report was
4 a reflection of our joint findings.
5 Q. Yes. Just dealing with the nub of what you actually
6 did, these complaints were historic to an extent?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You were treading in other people's footsteps; they had
9 been looked at. An old word, which you probably
10 remember in your career, of corroboration was sorely
11 lacking, I think you would say?
12 A. That's right. The absence of corroboration doesn't
13 always preclude proceedings, but in the circumstances
14 and given the historical nature of some of the
15 allegations, there was no obvious clear evidence to
16 support prosecution, a recommendation which was borne
17 out by the view of the DPP.
18 Q. Because at the end of the day -- and feel free to
19 disagree with me -- you were balancing two completely
20 opposing accounts?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Against one another?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. There was no medical evidence, no passing witness, no
25 audio transcript. I appreciate you viewed some video
69
1 tape?
2 A. Nothing remotely even on the video that supported the
3 notion that aspects of the allegation had taken place,
4 because there was no interaction, human response to
5 somebody saying something to you which maybe made you
6 animated in the chair, there was nothing.
7 Q. No, of which perhaps television is more fond than real
8 life, sudden breakdown in interview and confession, no
9 trip-up by the cunning point raised?
10 A. No anger or aggression in response to something --
11 nothing at all.
12 Q. What I want to ask you, Mr Mulvihill, is that was the
13 reality as you came to find it?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Was that what you expected when you started this? Did
16 it slowly dawn on you that this was the reality, or not?
17 A. I tried to go into the investigations with no
18 pre-conceived notions, and I recognised that in the
19 human condition that's not easy.
20 But I was prepared for whatever would emerge and if
21 credible evidence came forward, whether that was visual
22 evidence through video, audio, I didn't know what the
23 system was when we went there, or whether credible
24 witnesses emerged. But they never did. They never
25 emerged where there was an independent element which
70
1 swung it towards clearly being able to say, yes, that
2 merited prosecution or disciplinary proceedings.
3 Nothing like that emerged.
4 Q. And you have already been asked by the Panel about the
5 standard of proof. How heavily did that weigh in your
6 mind?
7 A. I was bound by it. At that time the standard of proof
8 was beyond reasonable doubt. I think there has been
9 a revision of that.
10 Q. In 2000, it changed, I think, to the balance of
11 probabilities.
12 A. That's right. But it was very, very clear-cut in 1998.
13 It was beyond reasonable doubt. Probabilities did not
14 come into it.
15 Q. Could we call up RNI-813-061, please, which is your
16 statement (displayed). Could we just highlight the last
17 paragraph. Then we are going to go over the page to
18 RNI-813-062 (displayed):
19 "I cannot now remember all the details of the
20 report, but do remember coming to a specific conclusions
21 that I was personally happy with. As far as I can see,
22 there were three ..."
23 And if we highlight that paragraph:
24 "... possible conclusions; namely, the allegations
25 were supported and provable; that they were made up by
71
1 the complainants; or that they were made up with the
2 help and assistance of the solicitor representing the
3 suspect. I recall that in each instance there was
4 insufficient evidence to prove conclusively that the
5 allegations were well founded. On this basis,
6 I recommended no prosecution and no disciplinary
7 proceedings should be brought against any of the police
8 officers. My findings do not mean that everyone involved
9 was as pure as the driven snow, but in the absence of
10 evidence against the RUC ..."
11 I think you mean the officers, rather than the body
12 corporate?
13 A. Of course.
14 Q. "... there was a clear route to the conclusions that
15 I drew and I remain comfortable with them."
16 I just want to dwell on that for a moment. You say:
17 "My findings do not mean that everyone involved was
18 as pure as the driven snow."
19 What do you say were the actual meaning and
20 implication of your findings?
21 A. Evidentially, the allegations were not proven and so,
22 therefore, I recommended no action. Otherwise, of
23 course, I don't know. And all I did was to again try to
24 be even-handed. I do not know whether any particular
25 officer on any particular occasion may have said
72
1 something or done -- or did something which was unlawful
2 or contravened disciplinary regulations. I don't know,
3 but the evidence certainly did not support any
4 prosecution.
5 Q. Thank you. And as far as the involvement of legal
6 representatives -- we have touched on this already --
7 was concerned, slightly outside of your ambit, but were
8 you left with any impression or view as to the
9 possibility of, innocent or otherwise, involvement of
10 legal representatives?
11 A. I simply couldn't know.
12 Q. The reports were dispatched to the Chief Constable,
13 Mr Flanagan?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And also to the Complaints and Discipline branch of the
16 Royal Ulster Constabulary?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And as I have already explored with you, after they had
19 been sent on, you received the certificates of
20 satisfaction?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And if we could call up RNI-228-037 (displayed), this is
23 a letter to you, we can see at the bottom of the page,
24 from Mr Flanagan. Could we highlight the text, please?
25 It is dated 25th March 1999:
73
1 "Thank you for your reports in relation to your
2 investigation into complaints made on behalf of the late
3 Mrs Rosemary Nelson and to your review of the original
4 investigation by RUC officers of some of these matters.
5 I greatly appreciate your work in this regard.
6 "In connection with item 7 of your Terms of
7 Reference, I am of course aware that nothing arose
8 during your investigations which led you to conclude
9 that any aspect required separate or independent
10 investigation by you or investigation by another
11 officer. Now that you have submitted your reports, is
12 this still your view?"
13 Now, we will recall that paragraph 7 gave you the
14 option of bringing something up independently if it came
15 up in the review, and this was an enquiry from
16 Sir Ronnie Flanagan to you almost, as it were, by way of
17 belt and braces, I think.
18 If could we call up RNI-228-110 (displayed), you
19 reply -- we can highlight this letter of 7th April --
20 thanking him for his letter. And looking in the
21 penultimate paragraph:
22 "However, for the record and for the sake of
23 completeness, I can confirm that it remains my view that
24 nothing arose during my investigations which led me to
25 conclude that any aspect of Terms of Reference item 7
74
1 required separate or independent investigation by either
2 myself or another officer."
3 So we are going to move on, as you will anticipate,
4 to new matters in a moment, but you had done the job,
5 you had got your certificates of satisfaction. Was
6 there any debriefing? Were there any phone calls from
7 any of the personalities involved or did you hear very
8 little?
9 A. No, no, it was quite quiet, actually. Having submitted
10 the three major investigation reports -- and I also
11 submitted the review at the same time, which was
12 a separate document and which I authored exclusively --
13 it was quite quiet. And I expected that it would be
14 quiet on the basis that all the discussion had taken
15 place with the ICPC member, there were not going to be
16 any emerging issues, I thought anyway, which would
17 require any further investigation of the three major
18 complaints. And of course, having in mind that the ICPC
19 also had access to my terms of reference -- and it was
20 their guideline as well, because it was agreed -- at no
21 time did anybody raise with me that I should perhaps be
22 looking at further investigating anything that was in
23 the review. That never emerged.
24 So I didn't expect much to happen.
25 Q. No. Now, I'm not intending to take you through, you
75
1 will be pleased to hear, no doubt, your reports -- they
2 are voluminous -- but can I just, as quickly as I can,
3 take to you certain parts of them. RNI-227-014
4 (displayed): this, I hope -- yes, it is -- sh