Major failings in RUC investigation into pub killings

Major failings in RUC investigation into pub killings

15 June 2016

THE Police Ombudsman’s report into the RUC investigation of Loughinisland refers to failings on a “catastrophic” scale.

Unexplained delays in arrests, a loss of potential forensic opportunities and “poor professional judgement and practice, if not negligence” are among his findings.

It’s a damning assessment, and far removed from the professional, “appropriate and timely” initial police response noted on the night of the attack by the Ombudsman.

Dr Michael Maguire reports that five minutes after being made aware of the atrocity at 10.20pm on June 18, 1994 police had set up a major incident contingency plan, Operation Aristocrat.

The crime scene was secured within 20 minutes of arriving at the Heights Bar, 11 vehicle checkpoints were set up nearby and a military helicopter launched.

Police on arrival at the Heights Bar also acted “quite correctly”, with the preservation of life prioritised over the preservation of the scene. 

An incident room was established at Downpatrick police station with 30 staff, and forensics at the bar were largely carried out to the Ombudsman’s satisfaction.

However, the next day when the getaway car, a red Triumph Acclaim, was discovered in a field in Crossgar things started to go wrong.

“In my view the vehicle provided one of the best opportunities for recovery of forensic evidence presented to the Loughinisland murder investigation and the absolute evidential integrity of the car should have been paramount to police officers attending the scene,” said Dr Maguire.

Instead checks were made to see if the lights were functioning and if there was any petrol in the car, compromising the evidence. There is also no evidence of footprint checks or soil samples.

The last registered owner of the car was identified as Person O who lived in a house in north Belfast, and it is at this point that the Ombudsman becomes puzzled as to the lack of strategy for handling this suspect.

“Instead the Murder Investigation Team telephoned Tennent Street Police Station and requested that local police visit Person O,” he said. “This was the beginning of a sequence of events, which due to poor decision making, if not malpractice, is likely to have undermined significant evidential opportunities and contributed to a loss of confidence in the police investigation by the bereaved families of Loughinisland.”

The police officer dispatched said he had spoken to Person O’s wife [it would later emerge it wasn’t his wife] who said Person O still owned the car but had taken it to the garage to be fixed. The policeman hadn’t been briefed as to the significance of the visit and took no notes.

It emerged the car had been bandied around among several people as part of a ‘car ringing’ scam involving selling distinctive number plates.

One of those people was a Person Q, now known due to associations with the UVF in Belfast. Appended to Person Q’s statement was a note written by Police Officer 12, a detective constable, directing that any further contact with the witness should be through Police Officer 10.

The Ombudsman said he didn’t have any evidence that Person Q was linked to the Loughinisland attack but added: “The bereaved families of Loughinisland are, quite understandably, concerned that in the context of the relationship, which existed between Police Officer 10 and Person Q, the conduct of these enquiries was designed to afford the latter ‘protection’ from culpability in the supply of the Triumph Acclaim to those responsible for the murders or more direct involvement in the attack.”

The last person known to have the car, a Person S, said he sold it the evening before the attack through the Belfast Telegraph for £175 to a man living at Ballysillan Park, Belfast. A copy of the ad was produced, but investigations around this person “lacked thoroughness and detail”.

“My investigators have established that police held intelligence at that time relating to a prominent member of the UDA living in the Ballysillan area with the same name as that provided by Person S but no enquiries were conducted to eliminate him from the murder investigation,” said Dr Maguire.

However, there was deemed no sinister motive behind the destruction of the getaway car 10 months after the attack, despite the families’ fears it had been wilfully destroyed. 

The Ombudsman does say, however, that this was a matter of neglect.

Dr Maguire goes on to recount delays in interviewing suspects, such as Person A: “Although the Loughinisland Murder Investigation Team was in receipt of intelligence on 19 June, 1994 that Person A might  have been involved in the attack, he was not arrested until 22 August. In the absence of records relating to associated decision making, my investigation has not established the rationale for this delay.”

He added: “I  am  satisfied  that  on  the  basis  of  a  sound  intelligence  case,  Special Branch  identified  Persons  A,  M,  K,  I  & B  to  the  Loughinisland  Murder Investigation Team as suspects on Sunday, 19 June. 

“This presented the investigation with a compelling case for early arrests,  enabling  the  exploitation  of  a  range  of  forensic  and  other  evidential opportunities, including  securing  evidence  through  questioning. The failure  of Police  Officer  8 (the senior investigating officer) to seize this opportunity was catastrophic for his investigation.       

“Instead arrests were delayed and evidential opportunities were probably lost. Ironically  when  arrests  were  made  they  appear  to  have  been informed by intelligence.”

Dr Maguire also expresses concern over some door-to-door enquiries: “Witness  enquiries  in  the Listooder  Road  area  commenced following  the discovery of the Triumph Acclaim on 19  June  1994.  The  car had  been abandoned near the  (former) family  home  of  Persons  A  and  B,  who  quickly emerged as suspects in the police investigation, but the occupants were not  seen  by  police  until  4  July.

“There  is  no  documented  rationale for the delay in this enquiry especially as other houses on the road were visited on 19 June 1994. 

“Given  the  proximity  of  the  vehicle  deposition  site  to  this  address  the delay in these enquiries is a matter for concern. I consider this amounts to evidence of a reluctance by police to conduct enquiries in the areas of suspects’ addresses. Indeed no enquiries were conducted in the Clough area where both Person A and Person K resided.”

Turning to resources at the time of the investigation, the Ombudsman said: “My investigation has concluded that the outset the police investigation was properly resourced but that the inquiry was quickly scaled down due to other investigative commitments.

“A senior police officer (Police Officer 18), who assumed responsibility for the Loughinisland Murder Investigation in 2005 expressed the view to my investigators that under-resourcing of the inquiry by South Regional Command during 1994 had an adverse impact on the investigation.”

The unwillingness of a senior investigating officer attached to the Loughinisland case to cooperate with the Ombudsman is also cited as a hindering factor.

“My investigators sought to engage with Police Officer 8 on several occasions as a witness in the respect of this and other investigations but he has declined to assist,” he said.

“The absence of records relating to the investigative policy and decision making coupled with the decision of Police Officer 8 not to assist, hindered my investigation’s efforts in establishing the rationale behind a number of key policing decisions and strategies.”

A deputy, Police Officer 4, did meet with investigators.

The Ombudsman concludes: “The RUC investigation of the Loughinisland murders is punctuated by unexplained delays in arrests; the loss of potential forensic opportunities; and what might be described as inconsistencies or anomalies. These issues are indicative to me of poor professional judgement and practice, if not negligence, by the police officers responsible for the investigation.”

In his opening and closing remarks in his report the Ombudsman did, however, recognise that many police officers had attempted to uncover the truth behind the attacks.

“Let there be no doubt, the persons responsible for the atrocity at Loughinisland were those who entered the bar on that Saturday evening and indiscriminately opened fire,” he said. “It is also important  to  recognise  that  despite  the  failings  identified  in  this  report  there  have  been many  within  the RUC and  the PSNI  who have worked tirelessly to bring those responsible to justice. 

“I  am  grateful  to  those  members  of  the  public  and  retired  police  officers  who  assisted  my enquiries.”