Ex-RUC officers to contest Loughinisland findings in judicial review

Ex-RUC officers to contest Loughinisland findings in judicial review

21 June 2017

RETIRED police officers have won High Court permission to challenge the Police Ombudsman’s report into the Loughinisland massacre.

A judge has granted leave for a judicial review of the report into the UVF attack on the Heights Bar, in which six men were murdered.

Those taking the legal action argue the Ombudsman acted beyond his legal powers and want his report quashed. They point to a lack of prosecutions following the report and say officers have instead been “indicted in the court of public opinion, with no right of appeal”.

Families of the victims have said they are surprised and disappointed by the legal action.

The Ombudsman’s report by Dr Michael Maguire, published last June, said collusion was “a significant feature” of the murders. This followed on from a previous Ombudsman’s report which said mistakes were made in the police investigation but stopped short of saying there was collusion.

UVF gunmen opened fire at the Heights Bar in Loughinisland as their victims were watching a World Cup match in June 18, 1994. The men who died were: Adrian Rogan, 34, Malcolm Jenkinson, 53, Barney Green, 87, Daniel McCreanor 59, Patrick O’Hare, 35, and Eamon Byrne, 39.

During his press conference last June, Police Ombudsman Dr Michael Maguire said he had “no hesitation” in saying there had been collusion, but said there was insufficient evidence to recommend criminal charges for any of the officers who colluded with the UVF gang.

Chief Constable George Hamilton accepted the findings but said he was surprised the Ombudsman did not arrest and charge officers he said had been involved.

The report findings were strongly criticised by unionist politicians and the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers’ Association.

The two retired senior police officers challenging the report are Raymond White, a former RUC Assistant Chief Constable and senior Special Branch officer, who is now chairman of the Retired Police Officers’ Association, and Thomas Hawthorne, a retired chief superintendent and former sub-divisional commander in the Down area.

They have been granted leave to judicially review the report on a number of grounds.

These include an assertion that the Ombudsman acted ‘ultra vires’ — beyond his powers — because there was no legal basis for the investigation and subsequent report.

The applicants claim the Ombudsman failed to establish any basis of belief that a serving or retired police officer had committed a criminal offence.

They are seeking a court order quashing the report and also want a declaration that the findings were “flawed and misconceived”.

Niall Murphy, a solicitor for the Loughinisland families, said Dr Maguire’s report was unambiguous in his finding of collusion.

“The victims and survivors are further distressed and disturbed that despite having written to the Retired Police Officers’ Association and the court seeking formal notice party status, no party has sought to update the families. Instead the victims and survivors have found this out via the media, which they consider to be nothing short of disgraceful,” he said.

Raymond White said in a statement: “We have every sympathy with the families connected to the Loughinisland tragedy. We are not challenging them, but the powers of the Police Ombudsman.

“The Ombudsman produces reports that do not contain any actual evidence about individuals and files are not sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (PPS) recommending prosecution.

“But they conclude there was collusion, which infers criminal intent.

“If files were sent to the PPS to make a decision and retired officers were taken to court, they would have the opportunity to see the evidence and to challenge it. But that does not happen, instead they are indicted in the court of public opinion, with no right of appeal.”

A Police Ombudsman’s spokesman said the office had acted totally within its powers and would strongly contest the legal challenge.

Emma Rogan, daughter of Adrian Rogan, said to find out about the judicial review from the media on the week of the Loughinisland anniversary was “disgraceful”. She described it on Twitter as a “vexatious challenge”.

The Ombudsman has been given two months to respond to the case made by the retired officers. The judicial review is expected to take place later this year.