There’s no transparency, says the ‘angry’ son of murdered councillor
THE son of a murdered Sinn Fein councillor has said the PSNI’s failure to disclose “significant sensitive information” about loyalist atrocities to the Police Ombudsman proves the force is “no different to the RUC”.
Dr Michael Maguire’s office found that information relating to the 1992 UFF massacre at Sean Graham’s bookies in the Lower Ormeau had not been made available to his investigators. Some of the information related to covert policing.
Fionnbharra O’Hagan last night told the Belfast Telegraph he was “disgusted, angry and heartbroken” at the latest revelation.
Relatives for Justice and the SDLP have also expressed deep concern and have supported the ombudsman’s call for an independent review of the PSNI’s disclosure methods. The material has opened up new lines of inquiry into the ombudsman’s investigation of the gun attack on Sean Graham’s as well as the 1993 murder of a Belfast teenager and UFF killings from 1988 until 1994 in the north west.
Mr O’Hagan’s father Bernard was shot dead in Magherafelt in 1991. His family have long alleged security force collusion.
“We are disgusted, angry and heartbroken at this latest development,” Mr O’Hagan said.
“The PSNI is just the same as the RUC. Only the name changed, the same ethos prevails. There was no transparency then, and there is none now. The police have just been caught out holding back information and I don’t for a second believe their excuses.”
Relatives for Justice, which represents a significant number of those killed and injured in the attacks affected, described the
‘Alarming’: SDLP’s Dolores Kelly development as “alarming” and said: “There clearly is a systemic problem in terms of disclosure concerning state killings and in particular killings where collusion is a feature.
“It is only recently that the PSNI ‘discovered’ a computer concerning voluminous material relating to the British Army and relevant to numerous killings before inquest and other inquisitorial and civil processes, years after they claimed it did not exist.
“That is why we also endorse the call by Dr Maguire for an independent review of how the PSNI deal with their legal obligations regarding disclosure. This review should begin as a matter of urgency.”
The SDLP said it would be raising the issue with the PSNI.
Upper Bann MLA Dolores Kelly said the families had “every right to be angry” and she asked who would be held account for what had happened.
“So many years down the line, it is alarming to note the unacceptable policing failure in the disclosure of information,” she said. “If the Department of Justice and the British Government are serious about resolving legacy here, they must invest in the best technology available to ensure the access of relevant information. The SDLP is scheduled to meet the PSNI Assistant Chief Constables on March 4 and we will raise the matter with them.”
Alliance deputy leader Stephen Farry said the revelation had the potential to undermine confidence in the criminal justice system. He called for the Policing Board to be convened immediately to examine “whether it was systemic or a human error” and how many cases may be affected.
“The Department of Justice also needs to look at this to es-
tablish how much a lack of resources contributed to this failure to make all the relevant information available to the ombudsman,” he added.
DUP MLA and Policing Board member Mervyn Storey said: “We need to recognise that the police worked to gather information during a terrorist campaign. Evidence gathering took place in an often dangerous and difficult environment.
“Today there are families who are still looking for answers and justice. Therefore it is important that any new information is fully investigated. I will be raising this matter during our discussions at a Policing Board level.”
The Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) said: “The Police Ombudsman’s office relies on the PSNI acting in good faith to assist it in its investigations as RUC archive material remains within its control.
“These developments clearly expose the lack of willingness or capacity of the PSNI to provide full disclosure to the Police Ombudsman to allow him to carry out independent and effective investigations.”