RUC officers challenge Loughinisland report

RUC officers challenge Loughinisland report

17 August 2016

THE Police Ombudsman’s report into the Loughinisland massacre is being challenged in the High Court by former RUC officers.

The Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association is questioning the way in which Dr Michael Maguire’s team conducted the extensive investigation and the conclusions it reached which proved so damning of the RUC.

Papers have been lodged with the High Court seeking leave to apply for a judicial review and the initial hearing is expected to be heard early in November. If that is successful the case will proceed to a full judicial review early next year.

Dr Maguire’s report into the UVF murder of Adrian Rogan (34), Malcolm Jenkinson (53), Barney Green (87), Daniel McCreanor (59), Patrick O’Hare (35) and Eamon Byrne (39) was published in June and found “collusion was a significant feature” of the attack which occurred in June 1994.

While he found no evidence the police knew in advance about the murder plot Dr Maguire was heavily critical of how the RUC Special Branch handled informers and failed to robustly disrupt the activities of a UVF gang operating in south Down. He also criticised Special Branch officers for failing to share intelligence with detectives investigating the gang and claimed there was a “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” approach.

The report studied at length the importation into Northern Ireland by loyalists of a huge consignment of arms seven years before Loughinisland and concluded Special Branch had full knowledge of the shipment. The guns used in the Heights Bar came from that shipment.

He also claimed the overall investigation into the murders contained elements of “poor professional judgement and practice, if not negligence.”

However, despite such damning criticism Dr Maguire did not recommend prosecutions against any of the former officers.

There was also surprise and concern within the police, both former RUC officers and serving PSNI members, with the way Dr Maguire’s report handled Special Branch intelligence reports.

There was a feeling that too often intelligence was being presented as fact to criticise without the necessary evidence to back it up. This handling of intelligence is likely to be a key plank in the case being prepared against the Ombudsman.

A source close to the Retired Police Officers Association said the legal action was not directed against the families of the victims of the Loughinisland attack.

“This is a challenge against the Ombudsman and how he conducted his investigation and the conclusions he reached, it is not against the families,” he said.

“On behalf of retired officers we have to challenge when we think that a wrong has been done by the Ombudsman,” he added. “We believe he significantly overstepped the mark.”

However, the solicitor representing the families, Niall Murphy, criticised the legal action. 

“The families, having gone through the tortuous process they have endured in trying to recover the truth of what happened in Loughinisland, are now confronted with this misconceived application to quash the report,” he said.

A spokesman for the Police Ombudsman said of the legal challenge: “We are aware of it and are considering it.”