Oral evidence: Administrative scheme for ‘on-the-runs’, HC 177Tuesday 11 November 2014

Oral evidence, 11 November 2014.

Witnesses

Dr Michael Maguire, Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Adrian McAllister, Chief Executive, and Paula Cunningham, Deputy Senior Investigations Officer, Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, gave evidence.

Chair

Dr Maguire, Ms Cunningham and Mr McAllister, you are very welcome. Thank you very much for joining us. You are aware of the inquiry that we are carrying out. I suppose the most obvious place to start, given the evidence session we have just heard, is by asking you to respond to the comments that you have heard and make any other fairly brief opening statements that you may wish to do. Thank you very much for joining us.

Dr Maguire

Chairman, thank you and thank you for the opportunity to meet the Committee and talk through this. I had some opening remarks, which take us through the report, but given the session that we have just had, it is probably better if we cut to the chase and talk about some of the issues. It seems to me that the risk with this kind of conversation is that, whether or not you accept an Ombudsman’s report[15] is whether you agree with it or not. One of the things that has plagued the Office, certainly since its beginning, has been people have taken a position on what the Office has said, irrespective quite often of what is in the detail of the report. Can I say in the context of this report that it has been through a factual accuracy check with the police? Everything we have said has been given to the police and come back to us for factual accuracy. There is nothing of substantial difference between what is in this report and in Lady Justice Hallett’s report. The issue for me is around when we look at Operation Rapid as a scheme and reflect on Operation Rapid as a scheme, not with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, but looking at it from the perspective of what should be in place in the context of what was a very serious issue. The consequences of the decisions that were being made were extremely important. I do not think it unfair that, when we look at a scheme and the way that it has evolved, we should make commentary around problems in relation to the way in which the scheme was set up; that information that was known within the police as an organisation was not necessarily shared with those who were involved on the operational side of it; that there was a lack of clarity and confusion, within those who were involved in the scheme. For example, there was an issue that it was Northern Ireland‑focused, yet the police were checking the PNC. I note that Mr Sheridan did say he would have liked Norman Baxter to have given the information that John Downey had been wanted by the Met, yet that was outside the terms of reference. All that tells me is that there was some degree of disagreement and confusion around the setting‑up of the scheme and the terms of reference of how it evolved. You then get into the operational delivery of the scheme itself. As the report shows, there were a number of issues that emerged in the context of the way in which the scheme evolved. Issues were raised within more junior members of staff that were not actually dealt with as the scheme developed. When you get into the specifics around the issue associated with this, we cannot get away from the fact—Mr Justice Sweeney says it, Lady Justice Hallett says it, we say it—there was a mistake. There was a mistake in the context of the letters that went from the police to the PPS, whenever Mr Downey was wanted and that information was not shared, and whenever the opportunity was given to correct that mistake it was not taken. Fundamentally, those are the issues that we cannot get away from in relation to this. This report was undertaken because of a referral by the Chief Constable. I think it was entirely appropriate that the Chief Constable refer an issue like this to me in the context of a matter of public interest. We started the report much earlier than Lady Hallett’s; indeed, we briefed her team as the process evolved. It took us a bit longer to finalise it, but that is just the nature of the business. In the context of the report, I do not think I have been unfair to Mr Sheridan. I think I would have been extremely unfair had I made comments like he was aware of what was happening in relation to the role of the NIO, because he had lots of meetings with the NIO. Whatever Mr McGinty says, everybody involved in the scheme knew there was a product and issues like that. I do not say that because I do not believe it. What I do say is that, in the context of the scheme and the way in which it was involved, as a senior officer, in thinking about this, there are issues of accountability in relation to Operation Rapid and that is surely the basic point of this. I cannot look at the role of the NIO. I cannot look at the PPS. I cannot look at any other agency involved in this. My remit is exclusively on the police. In that context and the issue of the seriousness of it, the issues that we identified as the process evolved, when it comes back to the report, for me it is about dealing with issues of accountability. We can get into a situation in a report such as this.

Lady Hermon

Why on earth was Peter Sheridan not given the opportunity of a right to reply to the criticisms contained in the report?

Dr Maguire

Peter Sheridan was given the opportunity. Peter Sheridan was told in advance that we were going to publish the report, and he was offered the opportunity to see the report. He did not take up that opportunity.

Lady Hermon

Sorry, Dr Maguire, with the greatest of respect, did you offer him a right of reply before the publication of the report? We understand that, while your office contacted him and said yes, he could see the report before publication, it was suggested to him it would not change a line, a dot or a comma in the report. Is that the case? He was going to be shown it before publication, but without any right of reply or opportunity to amend its content. Was there any opportunity to amend the content?

Dr Maguire

The email that we sent to him actually says, “As a key witness to our investigation we would like to offer you the opportunity to read the report prior to public release. I must emphasise that a reading of the statement would be for your information purposes only and is to ensure fairness to key witnesses whose accounts are subject to our findings.” He was given a very clear message that there was an opportunity to look at this report.

Chair

Can we have a bit more structure to this? The question is: would that have enabled Mr Sheridan to change anything in the report.

Dr Maguire

We did have some correspondence with Mr Sheridan and we looked at some of the points that he made. As matters of fact, it did not change what was in the report, no.

Kate Hoey

Did you meet him personally?

Dr Maguire

No.

Kate Hoey

Who met him personally? Did anyone meet him personally?

Dr Maguire

Paula.

Kate Hoey

How long did you spend with him?

Paula Cunningham

Initially we conducted an interview. This was on the basis of the referral that occurred on 26 February. As soon as Mr Sheridan was available to see us, we conducted an interview and that was prior to us gaining and receiving the majority of the material. That was I would say an hour’s interview. That was just an introductory interview. Once we had received all the material and wanted to explore a number of the inconsistencies that were emerging through the investigation, then we conducted another interview with Mr Sheridan.

Kate Hoey

Who did that interview?

Paula Cunningham

Again, myself and a colleague, an investigations officer.

Kate Hoey

There is this very senior officer, who was very intricately involved in all of this. Would it have been right for you to see him, Dr Maguire?

Dr Maguire

No, it would not.

Kate Hoey

What do you do then? What does your job actually do? What do you actually do?

Dr Maguire

The way in which the Office works is that I get presented with an investigation report. I am kept briefed as the investigation unfolds. I look at lines of enquiry. I ask questions about lines of inquiry. I allow officers to progress the work that they have been tasked to do. On occasion, I will look at the transcripts of interviews, which I had done in this case. By the time I get an investigation report, I am apprised of the process; I am apprised of the issues; I am apprised of the people I have spoken to, so that then I can make my judgments and conclusions around an issue in an investigation report.

Kate Hoey

Do you never meet anybody who is being investigated?

Dr Maguire

I have not, in the context of the job that I have been doing, no.

Kate Hoey

You do in some others, do you?

Dr Maguire

In the context of my job as Police Ombudsman, I have not. I did it in my previous role, as Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice but, in the context of the Ombudsman work, I have not, from memory, met with anybody.

Ian Paisley

Is Ms Cunningham a former police officer?

Dr Maguire

Paula has been trained by the Office.

Ian Paisley

Are you a former police officer?

Paula Cunningham

I am not, no.

Ian Paisley

I am just wondering in terms of the expertise or skill that you would have had in examining previous very highly serious organised crime investigations.

Paula Cunningham

Mr Paisley, we are probably getting to the crux of what is considered a civilian oversight body. We are trained investigators. We are trained in national occupational standards. In fact, even police officers who come into our office also have to go through the same training that I have gone through to make sure that our skills, in terms of investigations, interviewing skills, etc, and our knowledge of the law, would be of the same standard. It is the nature of a civilian oversight body, where you must have that.

Ian Paisley

It is an oversight body that has quite a number of former police officers on it.

Paula Cunningham

It certainly does.

Ian Paisley

I think Mr McAllister was very senior—a Chief Constable?

Adrian McAllister

Assistant and Deputy Chief Constable.

Ian Paisley

Some very senior ranking officers would have had experience in dealing with and handling serious organised crime investigations and murder investigations. Were you properly skilled to conduct that investigation against Mr Sheridan?

Paula Cunningham

Certainly, Mr Paisley, I was. My team, and I report to a senior investigating officer, consists of persons who have come from different investigative agencies, not only the police, but also, as you say yourself, senior police officers as well. Bear in mind this was an investigation team that conducted this; it was not just one investigator.

Ian Paisley

Your hour‑long interview with Mr Sheridan, was that one‑on‑one?

Paula Cunningham

Along with a colleague who actually is also a retired senior police officer. It was not one one‑hour interview; that was the introductory interview. The second interview was much longer again, and we went through all the inconsistencies that were explored. My colleague investigating officer is a former retired officer, who would have worked in murder investigations.

Dr Maguire

Can I say just one point I forgot to make? In relation to that email that I sent to Peter, his response was, “Paula, many thanks for the update, but I am content to wait until the report has been formally issued.”

Ian Paisley

That was because he could not rebut it. I do not know how long you have known Mr Sheridan. I have known Peter for about 18 years. I find him to be most placid, laidback, almost horizontal, in terms of his conduct, given where he has had to live. The fact is he comes from a minority community and has policed the minority and the majority community. He has come from very difficult circumstances, and he is still one of the most laidback, easy-going, cool‑tempered individuals and gentlemen you could possibly meet. Today, I saw a Peter Sheridan I have never seen before. If you were not in the public gallery, I would say your ears would have been burning, because he was very cross. I have never seen him, I would say, actually angry with the way in which he was treated. I find that unexplainable. What I find even more unexplainable is that he said he was really reserving his trust now in the organisation. Given the senior rank that he came from that is a body blow to the Office.

Dr Maguire

I do not accept that.

Ian Paisley

Really, Michael? You do not accept that.

Dr Maguire

There has always been criticism of the Office by retired officers.

Ian Paisley

Yes, by politicians.

Dr Maguire

By officers.

Ian Paisley

But not of his rank.

Dr Maguire

By senior retired officers at ACC level, there has been criticism of the Office since the day in which it began. The important thing for me in the context of this—and I have to say I have absolute confidence in the work that Paula and her team did in relation to undertaking these investigations—is this is an issue that comes down to accountability. Peter was in the chair. Peter was the Assistant Chief Constable with overall responsibility. We can take the issues about process aside and talk about those but, in the context of the report, this was an issue in relation to the way in which the scheme was set up and the way in which it evolved, and the—

Ian Paisley

If you had to do it again today, would you give him the right to rebut?

Dr Maguire

Peter had the opportunity to rebut.

Ian Paisley

No, he did not.

Dr Maguire

I can put it this way: if Peter was very unhappy with the way in which he had been treated, he can make a formal complaint to the Office and we will deal with it in that process.

Chair

Can I just bring some order to it? With regards to investigations, is there a facility for anybody to feed in officially to it and put their paragraph at the end of it? Is that the normal way of doing things or is there not that facility?

Dr Maguire

I am glad you raised that, Chairman. It is a very interesting point. One of the issues that brought me to the Office of Police Ombudsman—and some Committee Members may know that, prior to taking on this job, I was Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice—was we had undertaken a very critical review of the Police Ombudsman’s Office. One of the issues that came out of that review was the way in which the Office was buffeted—buffeted by family members, buffeted by police, and buffeted by retired officers. One of the things that I have done in the past two years is to play a very straight line in relation to the way in which investigations have unfolded. They have been subject to internal quality assurance, internal checking, by very senior police officers as well as those who are sitting in the oversight body. We have been through that very robust process. Those systems and processes have been externally validated by the criminal justice inspectorate. There was a report published in September, which said the independence of the Office had been restored. That tells me that the process we have adopted is the right one. What I cannot do is—and there was a suggestion earlier that this may have happened—for the sake of the integrity of the Office and the integrity of the report, sit down with someone who I am criticising and go through it line by line to see whether they like it or not. That is simply not the way in which business is done. It undermines the integrity of the Office, it undermines the independence of the Office, and it is something that I cannot allow to happen in the context of what we do. In relation to the report and the work that was carried out, there were a number of interviews with Mr Sheridan, and those interviews were reviewed by senior staff. The integrity of that investigative process was overseen and, therefore, that fed into a report that led us to the conclusions that we have. I still have to come back to the point, Chairman—and remember I am only looking at policing—that this is about accountability for Operation Rapid and ACC Sheridan was the accountable officer.

Chair

Can I take you up on that point, then? I accept it is just about policing, but neither Mr Sheridan or anybody else is in position to, for example, criticise the NIO, and yet we certainly, when we come to our report, will criticise the NIO, among other things, for the pressure they may have put on the police, in terms of time, in terms of getting the sorts of results that they wanted to see, because they were dealing with Sinn Féin who wanted results, and there was this peace process. How far can you put that into the balance? Those surely are relevant considerations, because you have to understand what pressure the police must have been working under?

Adrian McAllister

That is a very fair point, Chair, but the evidence that we have received and have seen as this Committee has unfolded convinced us that the police were very clear that they knew the political context they were operating in, but were very clear they were carrying out a distinct policing role. They did not bend to the pressure that they may have been put under, explicitly or implicitly. They carried out a very clear policing role with what they describe as some clear terms of reference. We have made comment on those terms of reference and I am happy to comment on those terms of reference, but the police have been consistent: that they did not bow to that pressure. If we had found evidence or thought that they had bowed to that pressure, we would be talking about a very different type of report today.

Chair

We have been given evidence to the solicitor who acted for Sinn Féin at the time, called Barra McGrory[16], who is now the head of prosecutions in Northern Ireland, who told us—and it is there on the record—that under ordinary circumstances the police would have wanted to speak to some of the people who received letters. To me, there is some suggestion of a corruption of ordinary practice there.

Adrian McAllister

I do not think there is a corruption of practice. There were questions and there are questions for us about the terms of reference, but the terms of reference were explained to us and why the terms of reference were written as they were. We have made comment on those terms of reference, as indeed has Lady Justice Hallett. There are certainly two aspects of those terms of reference that are very questionable. They led to cases being looked at in a particular context. Those terms of reference were done with the best intentions and in good faith by the police. Whether they were right or not is a different question altogether, but they were done in good faith. I do take Matt Baggott, Peter Sheridan and others at their word, because I think they are genuine people, that they were not bowing to political pressure here.

Chair

Is it right to focus entirely on the police? I accept you are the Police Ombudsman. You look at the mistakes that the police have admitted making, but we are also aware that the Attorney General wrote to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the time saying that Mr Downey was wanted for serious terrorist offences[17]. To look at it purely in isolation with regards to the police, is that not to miss the bigger picture, even given the constraints on your inquiry? Surely you have to look a little bit wider than just that?

Dr Maguire

It is indicative of the role of the Office in the context of a scheme such as this. We can only look at policing. For example, there was a case I looked at recently where there was a suggestion that the army may have been involved. I could not look at that, because we only deal with policing. It is the remit of the Office to look at policing. Adrian is right: I would have taken the criticism if we had suggested that there was some degree of impropriety in the way in which the police conducted their business with regard to responding to political pressure. We are not saying that. What we are saying is that the police undertook the job that they were given to do; however, there were issues about the way in which it was set up and the way in which it was delivered. That catalogue of issues fundamentally led to a mistake in that being delivered. That is the nature of the focus that I had to give policing. This Committee is much better placed to judge and take a much broader view in relation to where that sits in the overall jigsaw that exists.

Ian Paisley

How do you respond to Peter Sheridan’s rebuttal of that: that he has been admonished by you because him and his senior team were too open and too transparent, and have now been caught in the crossfire? They should have battened it down, narrowed it down, played the game.

Dr Maguire

That reinforces the sense that the police did do the job that they were asked to do. If there was a “conspiracy”, in inverted commas, I suspect the terms of reference would not have been as detailed as they were.

Ian Paisley

You just admonished them for that.

Dr Maguire

I did not admonish them for having terms of reference. I admonished them for the way in which the terms of reference were set out and the lack of clarity around what was being looked at in terms of Northern Ireland versus outside Northern Ireland. I was critical of the way in which the scheme was managed as it evolved. I have to say it still comes back to the point that, if we look at the letter, for example, as we say in the report, no one who we have been able to speak to has put their name to that letter and said, “Yes, I drafted it”. What you cannot do in that sense is to allow the minutiae of any one individual piece of information to deflect from the overall nature of what it is we are trying to look at here, which is the way in which the process evolved. I am firmly of the view, as Adrian said, that I do not see the police being involved in responding to the political pressure in the way in which has been suggested. I do think the police took on that role in the context, but there were problems with the way in which the scheme was delivered and those are the issues we have identified in the report.

Adrian McAllister

I just wanted to say, in terms of what Mr Paisley said about the terms of reference, that I do not happen to agree with Peter Sheridan in terms of what he said about those terms of reference. My experience of doing this kind of work is that you do have terms of reference. It is a matter of judgment as to what goes in those terms of reference. If you keep them lightweight, what sits under that then are tight procedures. There are two documents: there are strategic terms of reference and then, sitting under that, is something else that takes you line by line through what you should do; or you have terms of reference that have a lot of information in them, one of the two. When you are dealing with something as serious as this—and I think it was Drew Harris who said that these were some of the most serious criminals that Northern Ireland was facing at the time and potentially continue to be—this is as a serious matter. Whatever the terms of reference looked like and whatever the document sitting underneath that looked like, the detail needed to be there. I go back to the point that I personally think at least two elements of those terms of reference were flawed. We did not fall on the back of Lady Justice Hallett’s argument on that; we had identified that as an issue well in advance of Lady Justice Hallett even getting there. I remember having a discussion with Paula, who showed me those, and I said, “No; from a policing perspective, those two elements of the terms of reference are patently wrong to my mind. That is not the evidence test that should be applied.” I understand Peter’s point that they were applying those terms of reference in the context of the police having had a really difficult time over the forensic evidence, so I understand the context within which they were drafting those terms of reference, but I do not think they were right. Going back to the fundamental point, I think you should have detailed documentation, which makes it clear to everybody what their role is and that was not there.

Lady Hermon

Dr Maguire, can we just establish one or two of the facts here? The email that you read out, which either you or Paula sent to Peter Sheridan, did it at any stage, in any line in that email, invite Peter Sheridan or give him the opportunity to address criticisms in the report, or was it simply a pre‑publication read‑through?

Paula Cunningham

Would you like me to read the full email?

Lady Hermon

I think that would be helpful.

Paula Cunningham

Absolutely, and you can have a copy of the email. This was sent on 30 September, so it was a considerable period before the release of the report, which was 21 October.

Lady Hermon

Just three weeks.

Paula Cunningham

“Dear Peter, re: a PONI investigation into matters arising from R v. J Downey. Hope you are well. The purpose of this email is to advise you of the Police Ombudsman’s intention to release the public statement of the investigation and findings. It is intended to schedule the release for 21 October 2014,” so it is to advise him of the date. “In respect to statutory reports, we are obligated to share a draft with the PSNI for fact‑checking comment only. The draft is currently with the PSNI.” In the same—

Lady Hermon

Just continue with what you were reading.

Paula Cunningham

Thank you. “As a key witness to our investigation we would also like to offer you the opportunity to read the report prior to public release. I must emphasise that a reading of the statement would be for your information purposes only and to ensure fairness to key witnesses/subjects whose accounts are subject to our findings. Should you wish to do so, I can arrange a reading of our statement at our office.” It just goes on to say, “It is not expected that there should be any changes to the release date, but I would notify you at the earliest opportunity. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank you for your co‑operation during this investigation. It is greatly appreciated.” Mr Sheridan responded on—

Lady Hermon

So you can confirm to us, having read that into the record—and that was very helpful—that at no stage was there a line or suggestion that Peter Sheridan had an opportunity to reply before publication. It is for information only. Dr Maguire, you were present—in fact all three of you were present in the public gallery—when Peter Sheridan gave his evidence to the Committee. He emphasised, not just once but he certainly emphasised twice, how supportive he was of the Police Ombudsman’s Office, and he has been consistently supportive of the Police Ombudsman’s Office and of your predecessor, Dame Nuala O’Loan. He did say that their conversations were robust. He is not one of those retired officers who has been critical of the Police Ombudsman’s Office, and you would accept that, Dr Maguire.

Dr Maguire

I would.

Lady Hermon

The suggestion earlier on to the Committee that of course the Police Ombudsman’s Office is being criticised by a retired officer—he is not one of those. Given that you have also told us that the purpose of your inquiry, at the behest of the Chief Constable Matt Baggott, was to look at the scheme—I have taken down here the way it was “set up” and the way it was “delivered”. That is what you were looking at. Surely to goodness, in fairness to Peter Sheridan and to getting the best report that you possibly could have and the best informed report that you could have, when it is published, Peter Sheridan and everybody else are left with no right to reply, apart from judicial review, which nobody is going to do unless they are extraordinarily wealthy and have grounds for doing so. What justification could there possibly be in not giving Peter Sheridan, the man at the centre of this report, the opportunity to address and inform your report, so it is a better report? Why?

Dr Maguire

There are a number of issues, Lady Hermon. The first is, in relation to checking the factual accuracy of the report, we gave that report to the police well in advance of publication and we had very limited commentary back from the police, in relation to the factual statements that are in that report.

Lady Hermon

Bearing in mind that this is 2014 and we are dealing with a set of facts in the Downey case that arose, and the letter was issued, in 2007.

Dr Maguire

I have to deal with the framework within which I work, so there is a factual accuracy check for that.

Kate Hoey

Who replied on those factual things? Who actually signed it off?

Dr Maguire

From memory, I think it may have been the Deputy Chief Constable at the time, but I will come back to you if that is not the case. From memory that is who it was. From a factual accuracy point of view, the police is the organisation, because it is a report to the police; it is a criticism of the police or a supportive document of the police—whatever it happens to be. The police, as a key organisation, have to respond back to the factual statement to say whether or not, in their view, we have the facts right and they also offer, on occasion, other commentary that I may or may not take on board. At the other end, I cannot allow, for the purpose of the independence of the Office—there is a middle ground here—individuals who we deal with in the report the opportunity for a pre‑release copy and to go through that line by line. I can tell you that the criticism the Office would get for doing such a process would be profound and—do you know what?—it would be right, because we cannot do that. May I finish this point? There is a middle ground where, as we did, we offered Peter the opportunity to see the report.

Lady Hermon

Yes, just before it was published but no opportunity to change it.

Dr Maguire

Well, three weeks.

Lady Hermon

He was going to read it three weeks in advance, but there was no opportunity to change it. We are agreed on that; he had no right of reply. We are agreed on that.

Dr Maguire

I do not think we are agreed on that, because I gave him the opportunity to see the report. He did not take up the opportunity. He then subsequently made some commentary to us on the report, which actually did not change in substance the comments that were in the report itself, because he was making some legal arguments that actually our own advice did not accept.

Lady Hermon

If it is the case that in fact nothing that he said changed a jot or a tittle in the report, why did you not give him that opportunity before publication?

Dr Maguire

He did get the opportunity.

Lady Hermon

No, he did not get an opportunity to respond.

Chair

I thought we established earlier that there is not the facility for anybody to change what you are about to write. Is that roughly what you are saying?

Dr Maguire

If Peter Sheridan had taken up the opportunity to see the report and he had said to me, “Actually, Michael, there are things in this report that are factually incorrect—”

Lady Hermon

Ms Cunningham, you read out the email to us. At any stage in that email was Peter Sheridan invited to make prior comment and respond to the report? Absolutely not. It was for his information only. He was not invited to have a response.

Dr Maguire

It does say, “to ensure fairness to key witnesses/subjects whose accounts are subject to our findings”.

Lady Hermon

In other words, “I am sending it to you so that, in fact, you know three weeks in advance that you are going to be criticised in it”. There was no opportunity to change it.

Dr Maguire

If Peter had taken the opportunity to see the report and he had identified issues of facts, we would have been under an obligation to make those changes.

Lady Hermon

Why was what you have just told this Committee not included as a line in the email that was sent to Peter Sheridan?

Dr Maguire

It was.

Lady Hermon

“If there are issues of fact that are incorrect, you have the opportunity to correct them.” Was that in the email?

Dr Maguire

As Peter says, he is a very experienced officer and he is very aware of the way in which the process works.

Lady Hermon

Sorry, that is precisely the point that Peter Sheridan made. He made the point to this Committee that, in a previous Ombudsman’s report, there was a right of reply; there was a right to have the report corrected. That is what has changed and that is what has cost him his confidence in the Police Ombudsman as presently structured.

Dr Maguire

To be fair, when Peter made those comments he was a serving officer. In the context of my dealings with serving officers, I do have robust conversations with the police in the context of reports. I am sure, if you brought in Drew Harris or others, they would say, “Yes, the Police Ombudsman has given me the opportunity to me, as a police officer, to comment on those reports.” I am not aware of conversations that Peter has had on reports that have been published since he left office.

Lady Hermon

Dr Maguire, let us just pick up what you said about Mr Sheridan: that, as a retired police officer, he has been very supportive of the Ombudsman’s Office. Correct?

Dr Maguire

He has.

Lady Hermon

You also told this Committee that, subsequently when the report had been published, you do not feel his comments—the ones that Peter Sheridan did make to you after the publication—would have changed your report.

Dr Maguire

In terms of what I saw in the email, it did not change substantively what we said in the report, no.

Lady Hermon

Why was he not given an opportunity to have that conversation with you or even to meet with you? This was a very serious issue. You are nodding in consent; it is a very serious issue. Dr Maguire, you are the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. It is shocking to find that ACC Sheridan, retired, comes before us today and said that he has never met with you over this report.

Dr Maguire

Overt his report that is the case, because I have confidence in my staff to do the interviews. I have confidence in the quality assurance process.

Lady Hermon

Out of a mark of respect for the most senior officer, who was criticised in this report, I do think it ill behoves the Office not to have given him the opportunity to reply. Let us move on.

Ian Paisley

Can I come in on that line? I just do not understand, Dr Maguire, why you are holding on to this fictitious point that you would have been compromised by having someone read the report and offer their suggestions as to how it might be altered, made better, improved or indeed made more accurate if they felt there was an inaccuracy. I was a member of the Policing Board, which I sat on for seven years. We conducted investigations as an oversight body into the Ombudsman, into ACPO, into senior police officers and senior investigation officers, and vice versa; ACPO conducted investigations into us, and the Ombudsman conducted investigations into us in the Policing Board. On every single occasion, bar none, we were given an advance copy; we could go through and, I remember on occasions, in one of the ACPO reports, we were able to amplify a position that had been made in one of the reports. It did not jeopardise the standing, morality, ethos or independence of the body doing the investigation into is. I just do not understand why you felt you would have been compromised in offering that facility. What you are doing is quite unique.

Dr Maguire

In the context of what you just described, I would do exactly the same, because I gave the police the opportunity to comment on the factual accuracy of the report. You were there as the Policing Board, so I gave the police, as I would have done any organisation, as I did with the criminal justice inspectorate—the organisation that is subject to an investigation gets an opportunity to comment.

Ian Paisley

Is what you are saying that, because he is now a civilian, he has been treated differently?

Dr Maguire

No. First of all, he was given the opportunity to comment on the report; he did not take it.

Ian Paisley

We are disagreed on that.

Dr Maguire

Secondly, the issue for me is I cannot allow a situation where any one individual—we do reports into very sensitive issues all of the time. If I sat down with a retired officer and allowed them to go through that report line by line that would compromise the integrity of the Office.

Ian Paisley

That is what happened with ACPO and us in the Policing Board. Remember, we are a civilian oversight board. I remember we did an investigation into the former head of Special Branch, who was no longer a serving officer. Those facilities are frequently open and they do not compromise the independence. In fact, they make it stronger because they are able to do that. I just do not understand why you are holding on to this shibboleth that I do not think actually serves your office well.

Lady Hermon

Do you think you owe Peter Sheridan an apology?

Dr Maguire

No.

Chair

If I could come in, I do think there is a situation here where the Ombudsman has a different role perhaps from other committees. What I am hearing from you—and please correct this if this is wrong—if Mr Sheridan had said, “It was not a Tuesday when I met such a body; it was a Wednesday,” or factual information like that, you could correct it, but if he wanted you to put a different spin on something that would compromise your report. Is that basically what you are saying?

Lady Hermon

I do not think Mr Sheridan was asking for spin.

Chair

I am putting my own question forward based on what I am hearing from the Committee.

Dr Maguire

He was interviewed twice, let us understand. He did have an opportunity to say his piece, as it were.

Nigel Mills

Just moving back to the on‑the‑runs issue rather than the Peter Sheridan issue, the question that keeps coming up to me is, especially at the time of Rapid is: was this actually deliverable at all or was this just something about which the police should have said, “Look, we are not touching this. This is wrong”? In your report, did you consider whether this was just inappropriate for the PSNI to have done in the first place?

Adrian McAllister

No, I think it was deliverable. The police by and large showed that they could deliver it, but there were mistakes made. The process was set up. I have talked already about the terms of reference. They have to do some checks and they had to do some quite fundamental checks. There was some confusion about those fundamental checks: whether they were being carried out and why they were being carried out, and when the result of those checks was known, if and how that information was shared. The answer to the question is: yes, it was doable, but it needed to be done well against tight terms of reference and against clear operating procedures, which meant that people across the scheme—and I do not think this is just about Mr Sheridan, in fairness; I think this is across the scheme—knew precisely what was going on, what was being communicated to who and for what reason. The police were part of that scheme and in the element that the police were responsible for, there were mistakes made. It is not much more complicated than that from a policing perspective.

Nigel Mills

You were not concerned, then, that the police were engaging with one political party in an exercise that looks a little abnormal in normal criminal justice processes. You did not think that was something they should have said, “This is not policing”.

Adrian McAllister

I think that was for others and other inquiries to establish that or take a view on that. We were looking at the policing procedure. We were satisfied, as I said earlier, and as repeatedly senior police officers have come here and said, that this was a policing process. They understood the wider context; there was a political context. They had a policing role in that. The policing role was to check whether people were wanted in Northern Ireland, whether they were on the run—whether they were wanted in Northern Ireland. There was some confusion about what the checks on the PNC meant, because they were carrying out checks on the PNC and they were getting results from those checks, but there was some confusion about how that information could or should be shared. We now know that it was not shared in one particular circumstance, but the police carried out a policing function and we were satisfied that they did not bow to any political pressure, albeit these are top police officers. They know they are operating better than I did. They understand the political context a lot better.

Chair

When you say it is doable, you will be aware that Drew Harris came last week and they are reviewing the 95 cases that they have intelligence against in relation to almost 300 murders[18]. That could take him up to nine years. It is a little bit difficult to square that with the fact that this was doable, in your words, in a short space of time. The two are a little bit contradictory perhaps.

Adrian McAllister

I think of the police at the time. If they did not think it was doable, they should have said it was not doable, but they had already done quite a considerable amount of work, of course, in respect of these people. They chose to do an amount of that work again, but they had a body of information that they then reviewed and they had to do some relatively straightforward checks then, in terms of the PNC.

Lady Hermon

I wonder—

Chair

Sorry, I should have brought Oliver in.

Lady Hermon

Oliver will be delighted that in fact the question is going to be about extradition, but not about the European Arrest Warrant. I leave that to you, Oliver. I notice that in fact at paragraph 4, sub‑paragraph 17, in your report that you do note that there was no attempt made by the Metropolitan Police Service to extradite Mr Downey, but it would be their intention to arrest should he come within their jurisdiction. Did you pursue that further? Why was it that the Metropolitan Police—and we are going to have the reply that, “We can only look at the Police Service of Northern Ireland”? Surely when you are questioning police officers and senior police officers, and in line with the question that my colleague has asked, why did the Metropolitan Police make no effort to extradite Mr Downey from County Donegal?

Dr Maguire

Unfortunately, my reply is what you said; I had no remit to look at the Metropolitan Police.

Lady Hermon

Yes, but you do have a remit to investigate the Police Service of Northern Ireland. They were working in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police. We would hope that in fact it was all joined‑up: that Mr Downey would have been arrested and would have been duly charged with all of these. In any of the questioning by your investigation team, was the question not posed to the Chief Constable or to any of the current serving members of the Police Service: why did the Metropolitan Police not extradite Mr Downey? That is a legitimate question to have asked, I would have thought.

Paula Cunningham

In terms of when we interviewed the senior investigating officer, the Detective Inspector of Operation Rapid, he would have talked through his assessment templates at the time when he was considering each individual case. Mr Downey was being considered in relation to five incidents in relation to Northern Ireland, and the Hyde Park bombing was referenced in that. I think it would be fair—it is not for me to speak on behalf of the SIO—to summarise that he took the view that it was a matter for the Metropolitan Police to pursue this particular incident in respect of it. What he was trying to do was ascertain if there was any basis underneath that question.

Lady Hermon

Can I just repeat my question? My question was: did the Ombudsman’s investigative team ask the current Chief Constable or any of those officers who in fact were co‑operating with your inquiry, who asked to be involved in this inquiry and who volunteered to give evidence to the Ombudsman’s Office? Were they asked why the Metropolitan Police had not sought the extradition of Mr Downey, since that was a perfectly legitimate question for the PSNI to have asked of the Metropolitan Police? You note it in your report, but it does not seem to have been followed up.

Paula Cunningham

That is recorded in our report, the records that were made by the police at the time. That was our assessment of what they knew with the Metropolitan Police Service at the time. That specific question certainly was not put to any of the officers.

Lady Hermon

Why was that left out? That would seem to be a very key question to have asked the PSNI.

Paula Cunningham

Respectfully, I believe that would have been a matter for the Metropolitan Police Service and would not have been within the remit of the PSNI to consider.

Lady Hermon

That is exactly what I would expect the PSNI to say, but that is a question that should have been put to the PSNI. One would like to think that the Police Service of Northern Ireland works in conjunction with the other police services throughout the United Kingdom, including the Metropolitan Police Service. It just seems very unusual to me that the Chief Constable at the time that Mr Downey receives this letter—and this is not a criticism of Hugh Orde—it seems to me very odd that Hugh Orde has come as a very senior commander within the Metropolitan Police. He is a very long‑serving and distinguished Chief Constable of the PSNI. It just seems to me to be an appropriate question for the Ombudsman’s Office to have asked: why was it that the PSNI, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police, did not know why Mr Downey was not sought for extradition?

Dr Maguire

I think it is a very interesting question, but we did not ask it.

Lady Hermon

You did not ask it, okay.

Adrian McAllister

A point worth making on that perhaps is that the requirement to expedite extradition proceedings—the threshold for undertaking those is much higher than it is to arrest somebody. I am not putting words in anybody’s mouth, but I can understand why the Metropolitan Police might—

Lady Hermon

Exactly, but you are speculating, because Dr Maguire has just confirmed that the Ombudsman’s Office did not think it worth asking the question. That question was not asked.

Chair

On that point, Mr McAllister, Mr Downey did get to trial, or he got to a position where a stay was put in the trial. The threshold could well have been there. I do not know at what point that threshold was reached.

Adrian McAllister

There is the key point. Clearly he was arrested and things might have changed subsequent to his arrest, etc, but, of course, I can only imagine the Metropolitan Police at that time had decided, along with the prosecuting authorities of course, that there was not sufficient evidence to expedite extradition proceedings, because it is a very different scenario, is it not?

Lady Hermon

That is your imagination of the situation, because the question was not asked. Can I just ask, then, how many PSNI officers actually were interviewed by the investigating team? They are putting together this very significant report into a highly controversial issue, which has hurt, upset and caused a major trauma to a huge number of victims right across the United Kingdom. How many PSNI officers, retired and otherwise, were interviewed? At the introduction to your report, you say that in fact a number of police officers were interviewed, including retired officers. How many in total were interviewed?

Paula Cunningham

I would not be able to give you the rounded figure. I would have to look back into the investigation to give you the exact figure, but we interviewed all of those who were associated with the Operation Rapid team, so that would have been the initial six officers who were involved. Also, in our initial enquiries, what we wanted to do was establish the processes that were taking place before Operation Rapid, and we spoke to a considerable number of officers who were involved in that as well, who potentially were back in the police in a civilian capacity. There was quite a range of different avenues that we went down and spoke to. We focused our report within Operation Rapid as well, in terms of the accounts.

Lady Hermon

The words that I have not heard you mention are “the Chief Constable at the time”. Presumably you interviewed the Chief Constable at the time.

Paula Cunningham

No, we did not.

Lady Hermon

You did not interview the Chief Constable at the time.

Dr Maguire

No, because we were concerned with the operational delivery of Operation Rapid, on behalf of the current Chief Constable.

Lady Hermon

Even though reference is made in your report to meetings that the Chief Constable and ACC Sheridan attended, including the meeting with Sinn Féin, you did not see fit to interview Sir Hugh Orde, who was the Chief Constable at the key time in 2007.

Dr Maguire

No. We listened to Hugh Orde’s evidence to the Committee.

Lady Hermon

You listened to his evidence to us[19].

Dr Maguire

Yes, and we took the judgment that we did not need to interview him at the time when we were producing the report. That is correct.

Lady Hermon

You actively took a decision, within the Police Ombudsman’s Office, not to ask the key player, the Chief Constable of the PSNI in 2007, when Operation Rapid commenced.

Dr Maguire

I am not sure that he was the key player in the context of the delivery of Operation Rapid. Yes, he was Chief Constable at the time. In our view, the focus of this report was looking at the delivery of the scheme and we interviewed the key officers and the accountable officers in terms of the delivery of this scheme.

Lady Hermon

That being the case then, who actually gave the instructions that Operation Rapid should be set up? Your inquiry confirms who gave the instructions.

Dr Maguire

To Peter Sheridan?

Lady Hermon

To Peter Sheridan. Peter Sheridan did not just wake up one morning and go, “Oh yes, I must set up Operation Rapid.” He is an ACC; he is an Assistant Chief Constable. Who directed Peter Sheridan to set up Operation Rapid?

Dr Maguire

That would have been the Chief Constable.

Lady Hermon

That would have been the Chief Constable, but you did not interview him.

Dr Maguire

No.

Lady Hermon

You do not think that is a flaw in your report.

Dr Maguire

In the context of the commentary that we made in terms of how the scheme was set up, how it was delivered and the specific issues around the way in which the letters were sent and the failure to follow through in the checks, no, I do not.

Lady Hermon

Can I just then ask? Your report said—and I am quoting here—and it is paragraph 4.24 of your report, that Operation Rapid “emerged as a result of a number of meetings held in 2006”. What evidence is there that Operation Rapid emerged as a result of a number of meetings held in 2006?

Paula Cunningham

Mr Sheridan would say in an interview that that is how it emerged—through these meetings.

Lady Hermon

Yes, but if we look at the one key piece of information, the letter from Tony Blair to Gerry Adams, the President of Sinn Féin, after Christmas of 2006. We know from the Downey judgment that he specifically gives a guarantee that he will expedite the OTR cases. Within six weeks we have Operation Rapid set up. We have just had Dr Maguire suggest that it was the Chief Constable who would have given the instructions for Operation Rapid to commence at the beginning of February.

Paula Cunningham

Operation Rapid is a policing initiative. Mr Sheridan confirmed it emerged as a result of these meetings. Obviously what happened within the political dimension is not for us to account for.

Lady Hermon

Absolutely not. I am not asking you to talk about the political interests. I am asking you to tell us, when the Police Ombudsman chose not to interview the Chief Constable, how on earth you, and the wider public, can understand how Operation Rapid came into being. How can you be so sure?

Dr Maguire

We spoke at length to Peter Sheridan about this.

Lady Hermon

So there is a missing piece in your report.

Dr Maguire

In the context of our commentary around how the scheme was set up operationally, how it evolved and the specifics around the letters, no, I do not think there is a missing piece.

Lady Hermon

Your report also mentions, and it does make reference in paragraph 4.53, an email sent by a senior police officer to a number of other police officers in the parent criminal justice department, which details that the OTR work had become a priority. The email reads—and I am quoting here directly from what is in your report—“Due to the renewed progress on the political front, the NIO is pushing strongly to have the outstanding cases reviewed as quickly as possible and the 54 OTRs.” You have quoted that email and the words were within the PSNI that the NIO is pushing strongly to deal with the OTR scheme. You cannot look at the Northern Ireland Office and you cannot ask for them to account for themselves, but were you concerned, as the independent reviewer of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, that this was political interference by the NIO in the operation of the police function?

Dr Maguire

I think that is a hugely important question.

Lady Hermon

We are agreed on something.

Dr Maguire

In the context of this, as Adrian said earlier, it would have been unfair for me in the report to suggest that the police, in the context of what Peter Sheridan, Norman Baxter and his staff did, were responding directly to political pressure and trying to come up with a solution that met the political masters. You are entering into criminality there, if that were the case. In the context of what we looked at, we were of the view—and we were very clear in the context, which I think was very measured—that the police, within the remit that they were working, tried to do their policing job. That was one piece of the jigsaw in the context of a much broader jigsaw, I accept. The police tried to do their job to deliver a policing response.

Lady Hermon

Despite the attempts by the NIO to interfere with the police’s operational independence.

Dr Maguire

The police did their job as a policing response. As Adrian said, there are issues and difficulties with the way in which they did it, but we do not say in this report—and we are very clear—that this was the police responding directly to political pressure to do something that would meet the demands of their political masters. They did a policing job, and our commentary was around the way in which, as police officers, they did that job.

Lady Hermon

Do you have some compassion and some sympathy for Mr Sheridan and Norman Baxter, and indeed other officers, who had absolutely no idea that the Northern Ireland Office officials were busy sending out letters to OTRs? Those in fact were secret letters.

Dr Maguire

In the context of the job that they did, what the NIO did, to some degree, is a separate issue. As Adrian said, and I agree in the context of the report, their intentions in trying to do the policing job within that ring‑fenced focus were to try to deliver that policing objective within a broader political context. As I think Kevin McGinty said in evidence to the Committee, all of those who were involved in this process knew—I cannot remember the exact words. He is saying they knew there was going to be a product or outcome. I cannot remember which word he used, but he knew there was going to be consequence from all of this but, to some degree, that is a separate issue in the context of the police doing their job to deliver a policing response to that. I think that we have actually been quite measured in the context of trying to articulate the way in which this programme evolved. At the end of the day, it still comes back to the point that this is the Police Ombudsman; we are looking at operational policing activity and we are looking at the accountability for problems where they arose. Those are some of the issues that emerge out of this report.

Lady Hermon

Let us just focus on that, then. I will ask you the question that I asked Mr Sheridan: what if Mr Sheridan’s letter[20] had not been amended, unbeknownst to him, by the Northern Ireland Office official, Mr Mark Sweeney[21]? ACC Sheridan said, in 2007, about Mr Downey that under the terms of reference of Operation Rapid he was not wanted in Northern Ireland, full stop. Unbeknownst to him, the Northern Ireland Office, courtesy of Mark Sweeney, altered that letter and said he was not wanted in the United Kingdom, which was factually incorrect. What would have been the consequence for Mr Downey if the letter had been issued as it had been drafted by Mr Sheridan?

Dr Maguire

I will have to plead the fifth on that. I have no idea. You are asking me to speculate on the consequences. I do not know.

Lady Hermon

No. We are now being told that in fact your Office, which has all of this investigative training—I have asked you a straight question: that, in fact, a letter has been drafted by ACC Sheridan that said that Mr Downey, who is a resident of County Donegal, was not wanted in Northern Ireland. We all know—everybody in this room knows—that he was wanted for the Hyde Park bombings by the Metropolitan Police, who did not bother to seek extradition. It is in your report. What if Mr Sheridan’s letter had gone out un-amended and Mr Downey flies into Gatwick Airport with a letter that only said he was not wanted in Northern Ireland? What would have been the consequence for the Metropolitan Police in taking forward the Hyde Park prosecution?

Adrian McAllister

He would clearly have a very different letter in those circumstances. It may well not have led to the same abuse of process, but we do not know that, do we? What we do know is the focus becomes on the letters, of course. I am not here to defend the NIO or anybody else—

Lady Hermon

I hope not.

Adrian McAllister

But what we do know is, from an NIO perspective, they tried to establish very clearly with the police what the police were doing, in terms of the checks.

Lady Hermon

No. With the greatest respect, they did not try to establish very clearly. Mr Mark Sweeney emailed and telephoned the office of Mr Sheridan. He did not speak to Mr Sheridan. He did not explain to the office of Mr Sheridan why they were seeking that information.

Adrian McAllister

I accept that, but they asked a very straightforward question: “What checks are being carried out in respect of these individuals?” They got a letter back from Mr Sheridan saying, “The PNC has been checked; we have checked with the An Garda Síochána and we have checked international arrest warrants.” That was a letter signed by Mr Sheridan. On that very same day, the letter went to Mr Downey. Now, if you are sitting in the NIO’s office and asked the police, “Has the PNC check been done—”

Lady Hermon

Sorry, why was it proper for an official from the Northern Ireland Office to be phoning? It is wholly improper for an official to be phoning the private office of a senior police officer. Surely that has crossed the threshold.

Adrian McAllister

I do not know whether it is improper or not. A fairly straightforward question was asked and the question was answered. If it was felt improper that the question should have been answered, then that should simply have been stated and the Northern Ireland Office should have been told, “We’re not answering that question”. .

Lady Hermon

The difficulty was, as Mr Sheridan put it very well to us today, there were two different tables being played here. His office was not aware; Lady Justice Hallett confirms that Mr Sheridan and Mr Baxter had no idea—in fact no idea at all—that letters were going out to the OTRs. On the one hand, a lady is sitting or a gentleman is sitting in the police headquarters, but not Mr Sheridan sitting in his private office, and a phone call comes and an email comes from the Northern Ireland Office, Mark Sweeney, asking if the national police computer has been checked. There is no explanation given by Mr Sweeney as to why he wants that information. Unbeknownst to Mr Sheridan’s office, the reason the Northern Ireland wants it is to be able to sign out. They alter a letter drafted by Mr Sheridan, but do not tell Mr Sheridan’s office. Do you accept that?

Adrian McAllister

I accept all of that.

Lady Hermon

Thank you. It is factually correct.

Adrian McAllister

It is absolutely factually correct, yes.

Lady Hermon

I am just asking you again, then: what if Mr Sheridan’s letter had gone out un‑amended by the Northern Ireland Office: that Mr Downey was not wanted only in Northern Ireland.

Adrian McAllister

That letter would have been factually correct.

Lady Hermon

Perfectly correct, thank you. It was perfectly wrong and the fault lay with whom?

Adrian McAllister

It is very difficult to lay the fault.

Lady Hermon

Oh, no, it is not difficult. You have just answered the question; it was altered by Mr Sweeney. The fault lies with the Northern Ireland Office.

Adrian McAllister

With respect, I have answered the question, yes. What was sent back to the NIO—whether that request was right or wrong, it was responded to by Mr Sheridan’s office.

Lady Hermon

But Mr Sweeney got it wrong. A catastrophic error was made by Mr Sweeney and the Northern Ireland Office.

Adrian McAllister

The question was asked of Mr Sheridan’s office: what checks have been made in respect of these individuals? That was responded to. If I had received that letter, it was telling me that the PNC had been checked, etc, and all the other checks had been done. It tells you what you need to know: that checks had been done and this man is not wanted.

Lady Hermon

It tells you, but it does not tell you why you are looking at that information. It certainly does not tell you that the Northern Ireland Office is altering the letter. Sorry, Dr Maguire, am I not correct? The Northern Ireland Office at no stage explained to Mr Sheridan’s office that his letter was being altered.

Dr Maguire

I must assume that that was the case, yes.

Chair

The letter said that, “The Police Service of Northern Ireland are not aware of any interest in you from any other police force.” It almost puts words into the mouth of whoever in the PSNI wrote that letter. That is the bit that is particularly worrying us. It says the Secretary of State of Northern Ireland had been informed by the Attorney General that there was no outstanding direction for prosecution, yet the Attorney General wrote to the Secretary of State saying they did want him. The Police Service is not going to write that letter. This has been put together by we do not know whom in an extraordinary way.

Lady Hermon

You are nodding your head, Mr McAllister.

Adrian McAllister

I have accepted that that letter was written on the basis of a request and that information came back from the office, and it was then written. I am not suggesting for one minute that that was a correct process; I think it was for others to judge whether it was a correct process, but that was the process. A request was made and a response was made to that request.

Chair

One of the many things that concerns us is, if the Attorney General wrote to Peter Hain, as he did, saying that Mr Downey is wanted, who told the Attorney General that he was wanted? The Attorney General will not access the police computer any more than I could. Somebody, presumably either in the Met or in the PSNI, told the Attorney General that Mr Downey is wanted. It is all very confused.

Dr Maguire

In looking at this exclusively from the policing point of view and setting that review within the context that the Operation Rapid tried to deliver it within a policing perspective, there was a good deal of confusion. There was a great deal of lack of clarity around what the purpose was, what was being checked and what was not being checked. That is very clear as the process evolves. You then layer a whole set of other organisations around this and you have, in the context of what one of your colleagues said, at the very least, an example of not very good joined‑up government. I think that was the phrase used before, and absolutely I would say that.

Oliver Colvile

First of all, can I thank you very much indeed for coming and thank you also for going through the whole process of actually hearing? I am not quite sure about this, so bear with me for a second. Are there any other ombudsmen of police forces as well within the whole of this country, or are you the only one?

Dr Maguire

In Northern Ireland—

Oliver Colvile

There are others in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Dr Maguire

There is the IPCC in England and Wales. There is the police accountability in Scotland, and there is the—

Oliver Colvile

How much liaison have you had with those other services, which do something similar to you here in England and also elsewhere?

Dr Maguire

In a general sense, quite a lot. We talk at different levels.

Oliver Colvile

Specifically on this issue to do with Northern Ireland, terrorists and all of that, have you been speaking to anybody else, any of the other ombudsmen services within the rest of the United Kingdom?

Dr Maguire

No, because I am not aware of any investigations that have been undertaken in that regard.

Oliver Colvile

Maybe it is one of the things, given the breakdown in this letter, which nobody seemed to be aware of, that it would be wise for the police here in London to end up having an investigation done by the ombudsman as well. In your journeys through all of this, can I ask if you came across anybody who had—how the extradition, from the Northern Ireland police, ended up by happening from Southern Ireland back into Northern Ireland? Did you come across any of that at all?

Dr Maguire

Not that I am aware of.

Paula Cunningham

Not in respect of this particular investigation. Bear in mind we were focusing in relation to the Downey considerations.

Oliver Colvile

Generally speaking, are you aware of the PSNI trying to use extradition?

Paula Cunningham

Certainly, yes.

Oliver Colvile

Do you have any idea as to how many?

Paula Cunningham

No, I would not be able to provide you with figures. Obviously it has changed over time as well, in relation to the proceedings.

Oliver Colvile

It may be something that we want to try to pursue with some parliamentary questions and things like that too, because I think we need to find out why it was that the police have not been successful in getting people extradited back to the United Kingdom, especially when they are a bunch of terrorists. Thank you very much indeed.

Kate Hoey

Mr McAllister, sorry if I misheard briefly there, but what exactly do you do? What was your role in this whole investigation? You are the Chief Executive of the Office.

Adrian McAllister

I have a dual role. I have responsibility for the day-to-day running of the organisation, the finance, the HR and the IT side.

Kate Hoey

How many people work for the Ombudsman?

Adrian McAllister

Just shy of 150.

Kate Hoey

150 people? In this investigation, what did you do?

Adrian McAllister

I would have conversations with Paula. I had regular briefings on the direction.

Kate Hoey

You did not meet anybody.

Adrian McAllister

No, I did not, no.

Kate Hoey

I think you have explained your role, Dr Maguire. You sort of oversee it all.

Dr Maguire

Yes.

Kate Hoey

How much did the whole investigation cost?

Dr Maguire

I could not give you a figure. We do not cost our investigations like that.

Kate Hoey

It is all staff time; that is what they are paid to do.

Dr Maguire

Staff do not fill in time sheets and they are not costed by the hour.

Kate Hoey

Do you think in hindsight that Matt Baggott was right to so quickly rush in and say, “We’ve got to get the Ombudsman to look into this”, or was it just another way of finding a job for the Ombudsman to do?

Dr Maguire

I will answer your second question first. The Ombudsman is not in difficulty getting work. Last year, we had a 70% increase in complaints to the Office, more complaints than at any other time in its history.

Chair

How many complaints was that?

Dr Maguire

3,700 or thereabouts.

Kate Hoey

From individuals?

Dr Maguire

From individuals, yes. On an annual basis, we would get a number of referrals from the Chief Constable. Some of them are immediate, in the context of a particular issue that is of immediate public interest. Others are cases that have emerged in the context of events that have unfolded, and some are because, by statute, we are required to deal with those cases. For example, there were some fatal car crashes recently where there was death after contact with the police. We would look at those automatically. There is a variety of ways in which the Office gets work, in a sense. This particular issue, because of the seriousness of it, I did not have a difficulty, given that the judge had said it was a catastrophic mistake by the police. The Chief Constable had apologised for it. I think it was entirely appropriate that he gave that referral to the Office and said, “Look, can you do an independent investigation into what happened?”

Kate Hoey

Do you think it has achieved anything? What has it actually achieved—all this work, time and money? What is it saying? Is there anything in it that is really different from what we learned from Lady Justice Hallett?

Dr Maguire

That is a sequencing issue. We were actually ahead of the game first and we briefed Lady Justice Hallett’s team as they progressed, so we were developing many lines of enquiry before the Lady Justice Hallett investigation was completed. In the context of this report, because we had had it referred to us, I had a statutory obligation to finish it. The fact that yourselves are doing this work, the fact that Lady Justice Hallett then was subsequently appointed, meant that I did not have the option to stop. We finished the job that we were asked to do.

Kate Hoey

Do you think, in the long‑term history of Northern Ireland, it will go down as something that people will be referring to in years to come as being a major work?

Dr Maguire

I have no idea. I do think it was a very serious issue that required independent investigation.

Lady Hermon

It was a very serious issue indeed and, unfortunately, we have had a very senior retired officer leave the room today and give us evidence, saying that his confidence in the Police Ombudsman’s Office has been dented by this. Those are not his exact words, but that summarises. That does not help confidence in your Office and that is most regrettable, I must say.

Dr Maguire

I am disappointed that Peter has said that. It does not make it right.

Kate Hoey

You do not think you owe him any kind of apology of saying, “Maybe we could have handled this differently in hindsight”. Everyone has hindsight these days.

Dr Maguire

Everyone has hindsight; we can all do things differently. I have to protect the independence and the integrity of the Office. I did not want to be sitting here facing any Committee that is saying, “Hang on, Dr Maguire. Are you telling me that the officer who was subject to complaint, you actually sat down with him and went through the report on a detailed basis?” I could not justify that.

Lady Hermon

Yes, you could, because in fact you were looking at the way the scheme was set up and the way it was delivered.

Chair

We have covered this extensively earlier. I do not think there is great appetite to go through it all again. We have heard what Mr Sheridan has said. We have heard what you have said, Dr Maguire, and your colleagues. Unless there are any more different questions, we will conclude there. Thank you very much for joining us. Oral evidence: Administrative scheme for ‘on-the-runs’, HC 177 52 [1] Peter Sheridan submitted the following written evidence to the Committee: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/northern-ireland-affairs-committee/administrative-scheme-for-ontheruns/written/15246.pdf [2] A link to the Hallett Review report can be found here: http://www.hallettreview.org/report/ [3] The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland’s ‘Public Statement on PSNI Operation Rapid, matters arising from the ruling in R v John Anthony Downey’ (21 October 2014) can be found here: http://www.policeombudsman.org/PONI/files/9d/9d6aa90c-5429-43cd-9f66-8ed229fde238.pdf [4] The terms of reference of “Operation Rapid” can be found here: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/northern-ireland-affairs/Operation-Rapid-Terms-of-Reference.pdf [5] A link to “The Queen v John Anthony Downey, Judgment: Abuse of Process” can be found here: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-downey-abuse-judgment.pdf [6] A link to the letter from the Northern Ireland office to Mr John Downey of July 2007 is provided here: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/northern-ireland-affairs/Cover-letter-from-NIO-to-Gerry-Kelly-and-John-Downey-OTR-Letter-July-2007.pdf [7] The terms of reference of “Operation Rapid” can be found here: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/northern-ireland-affairs/Operation-Rapid-Terms-of-Reference.pdf [8] The transcript of Kevin McGinty’s oral evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 30 April 2014 can be found here: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/northern-ireland-affairs-committee/administrative-scheme-for-ontheruns/oral/9013.html [9] The terms of reference of “Operation Rapid” can be found here: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/northern-ireland-affairs/Operation-Rapid-Terms-of-Reference.pdf [10] The terms of reference of “Operation Rapid” can be found here: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/northern-ireland-affairs/Operation-Rapid-Terms-of-Reference.pdf [11] The letter from the Rt Hon Lord Goldsmith QC, Attorney General to the Rt Hon Peter Hain MP, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland dated 27 February 2006 can be found here: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/northern-ireland-affairs/Letter-from-Lord-Goldsmith-to-Peter-Hain-February-2006.pdf [12] The terms of reference of “Operation Rapid” can be found here: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/northern-ireland-affairs/Operation-Rapid-Terms-of-Reference.pdf [13] A link to the transcript of the oral evidence from Chief Constable Matt Baggott CBE QPM, and (then) Assistant Chief Constable Drew Harris OBE, Police Service of Northern Ireland to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 7 May 2014 (HC 1194) can be found here: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/northern-ireland-affairs-committee/administrative-scheme-for-ontheruns/oral/9418.html [14] The transcript of Lord Goldsmith’s evidence to the Committee on 2 July 2014 can be found here: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/northern-ireland-affairs-committee/administrative-scheme-for-ontheruns/oral/11189.pdf [15] The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland’s ‘Public Statement on PSNI Operation Rapid, matters arising from the ruling in R v John Anthony Downey’ (21 October 2014) can be found here: http://www.policeombudsman.org/PONI/files/9d/9d6aa90c-5429-43cd-9f66-8ed229fde238.pdf [16] The transcript of the oral evidence of Mr Barra McGrory QC, Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on Tuesday 10 June 2014 (HC 177) can be found here: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/northern-ireland-affairs-committee/administrative-scheme-for-ontheruns/oral/10426.html [17] The letter from the Rt Hon Lord Goldsmith QC, Attorney General to the Rt Hon Peter Hain MP, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland dated 27 February 2006 can be found here: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/northern-ireland-affairs/Letter-from-Lord-Goldsmith-to-Peter-Hain-February-2006.pdf [18] The transcript of Drew Harris’s evidence to the Committee on 4 November 2014 can be found here: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/northern-ireland-affairs-committee/administrative-scheme-for-ontheruns/oral/15103.pdf [19] A link to the transcript of the oral evidence from Sir Hugh Orde OBE QPM, President, Association of Chief Police Officers and former Chief Constable, Police Service of Northern Ireland to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 9 April 2014 (HC 1194) can be found here: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/northern-ireland-affairs-committee/administrative-scheme-for-ontheruns/oral/8472.html [20] Peter Sheridan’s letter to the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions (6 June 2007) can be found here: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/northern-ireland-affairs/Peter-Sheridan%e2%80%99s-letter-to-the-Department-of-the-Director-of-Public-Prosecutions-(6-June-2007)%20.pdf [21] A link to the letter from the Northern Ireland office to Mr John Downey of July 2007 is provided here: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/northern-ireland-affairs/Cover-letter-from-NIO-to-Gerry-Kelly-and-John-Downey-OTR-Letter-July-2007.pdf