Report of the Committee of Inquiry into
|
| Government Buildings | Parliament Buildings |
| Great George Street | Belfast BT4 3SY |
| London SWIP 3AJ | |
| 16 February 1979 |
To the Right Honourable Roy Mason, M.P., Her Majesty's Principal Secretary
of State for Northern Ireland
DEAR SECRETARY OF STATE
We were appointed by you in June 1978 to examine police procedures and
practice in Northern Ireland relating to the interrogation of persons suspected
of scheduled offences; to examine the operation of the present procedures
for dealing with complaints relating to the conduct of police in the course
of the process of interrogation; and to report and make recommendations.
We now submit our report, in which we are unanimous.
We alone are responsible for the contents of this report, but
we must record our gratitude to all those who provided us with the material
which formed the basis of our work, and our appreciation of their readiness
to give us their time and attention, and the benefit of their knowledge
and experience. Our thanks are owed especially to our secretary, Nigel
Varney, and his assistant, Noel Cornick, for their very efficient administration
of the Committee's work, and, to the former in particular, for his outstanding
assistance to the Committee in the preparation and drafting of this report.
| Yours sincerely | |||
| H. G. BENNETT | |||
| JAMES HAUGHTON | |||
| JOHN MARSHALL |
N. R. VARNEY
(Secretary)
PART I
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY
Appointment of the Committee
1. On 8 June 1978 the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Right Honourable Roy Mason, M.P., in the course of a Parliamentary statement on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on the Amnesty International report of its mission to Northern Ireland, announced that a Committee of Inquiry would be appointed. On 16 June 1978 the Secretary of State named the members of this Committee of Inquiry and set out its terms of reference, viz:
"To examine police procedures and practice in Northern Ireland relating to the interrogation of persons suspected of scheduled offences; to examine the operation of the present procedures for dealing with complaints relating to the conduct of police in the course of the process of interrogation; and to report and make recommendations."
Scope of the Inquiry
2. The immediate occasion for the appointment of this Committee was
the publication of the report of an Amnesty International mission which
visited Northern Ireland between 28 November and 6 December 1977. Their
report was sent to Her Majesty's Government on 2 May 1978 and was published
generally on 13 June 1978. That report recommended, amongst other things,
the establishment of a public inquiry which would investigate the allegations
made to the mission of maltreatment of persons undergoing interrogation.
H.M. Government, for reasons which were given in the Parliamentary statement
to which we have already referred, did not accept that recommendation.
Instead, H.M. Government invited Amnesty International to submit to the
Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland the allegations of
criminal conduct which they wished to make and their evidence, so that
he might investigate those allegations and in due course make a report
on his general findings and conclusions. At the same time, however, this
Committee was appointed to investigate, in private, police practices relating
to interrogation and the procedures for dealing with complaints. It was
made clear that it was no part of this Committee's duty to inquire into
individual allegations of maltreatment, either those which had been made
anonymously and in confidence to the Amnesty International mission or others.
It was stated that, if Amnesty International were to make available to
the Director of Public Prosecutions the material necessary for him to investigate
the allegations in the Amnesty International report, his general conclusions
would be furnished not only to the Government but also to this Committee
of Inquiry. In the event, the information has not been given to the Director
and no such report from him has therefore come into the hands of this Committee.
3. It is to be noted that on the question of the admissibility in evidence
of statements by prisoners, which was one of the major issues raised in
the Amnesty International report, and in particular the operation of section
6 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973[1], the terms
of the announcement of the appointment of this Committee specifically excluded
from the scope of its inquiry another examination of section 6, or of the
emergency legislation generally. At the time of our appointment Lord Shackleton
was, at the invitation of H.M. Government, then engaged in a general
review of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1974
and 1976. His report[2], to which we refer later, was published on 24 August
1978. Furthermore, this Committee was not required to investigate the exercise
of the powers and discretions of the Director of Public Prosecutions for
Northern Ireland in relation to criminal proceedings, or the fairness or
efficacy of criminal proceedings generally. We are aware that the Royal
Commission on Criminal Procedure is currently reviewing the whole criminal
process from arrest to trial in England and Wales. It may be that any major
changes recommended by the Royal Commission, if adopted in England and
Wales, will also be adopted in Northern Ireland, but we have proceeded
to our conclusions and recommendations on the basis that the essential
features of the existing system of criminal investigation and trial will
continue for the immediate future.
Procedure
4. We were not empowered to take evidence on oath, or to enforce the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents. In gathering evidence, therefore, the Committee proceeded by way of invitation. Our first step was to request written material from official sources to enable us to acquire the necessary background information. These sources were the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, the Police Complaints Board for Northern Ireland and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. In this way we were able to familiarise ourselves with the broad outline of the existing practices and procedures under review.
5. We then issued further and wider invitations to give evidence with a view to assessing the operation of the current procedures. At this stage we felt it necessary as a practical matter to distinguish between those who in our view would be most likely to have relevant matters to place before the Committee and others whose contribution we were not then in a position to judge. To the former we addressed specific invitations to give written evidence. Invitations of this sort were issued to the following:
The Superintendents Association for Northern Ireland
The Police Federation for Northern Ireland
The Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland
The General Council of the Bar for Northern Ireland
Amnesty International.
We received a useful letter from the Superintendents Association setting
out their views in broad terms. The Police Federation for Northern Ireland
informed us that they had nothing useful to add to the material already
made available to us by the Chief Constable. As a result of our invitation
to the Incorporated Law Society, letters were received from a number of
solicitors in Northern Ireland. We received no information from the General
Council of the Bar or from individual barristers acting in that capacity.
Amnesty International sent us two letters in which they declined to discuss
individual cases with us, but expanded usefully on the general points and
recommendations in the report of their mission to Northern Ireland. We
also arranged to receive written information from the Senior Medical Officers
at the police offices at Castlereagh, Belfast and Gough Barracks, Armagh;
and we received a useful memorandum from the Association of Forensic Medical
Officers of Northern Ireland.
6. In addition to the specific requests for information addressed to
the persons and organisations referred to above, we issued general invitations
to the public to make representations to the Committee. This was done by
means of advertisements which appeared widely in Northern Ireland newspapers
and journals on or around 11 July and 23 August 1978. In issuing these
advertisements, we felt it right to explain that we would not be in a position
to adjudicate on allegations against the police or to offer special redress
to complainants.
7. We finally received material from the following, in addition to the persons and organisations referred to above:
Northern Ireland Office
The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
Professor Kevin Boyle
Councillor J. Hassard, J.P.
Mr. D. Murphy
and we received useful information from a number of members of the public,
including some who had been held in police custody, whom we do not think
it is necessary or desirable to name. The National Council for Civil Liberties,
who had earlier indicated a desire to give written and oral evidence, subsequently
wrote to us saying that they did not intend to do so but also making certain
general points.
8. Some of those who wrote to us expressed a desire to give oral evidence;
some we ourselves wished to hear from; and in other cases, we invited people
to appear before us who had not given written evidence. Our hearings occupied
fourteen days in Parliament Buildings, Stormont, and three of our meetings
in London, and we heard a total of 58 witnesses. Of these, 19 were members
of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, ranging in rank from chief constable
to detective constable; 10 were medical practitioners employed or retained
by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, including the Senior Medical
Officers at Castlereagh and Gough, a number of the doctors who deputise
for them, and representatives of the Association of Forensic Medical Officers;
and 11 were members or officers of the Police Authority and Police Complaints
Board. Our official witnesses also included the Director of Public Prosecutions
for Northern Ireland, the Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Health
and Social Services (Northern Ireland), the Senior Medical Officer at H.M.
Prison, Belfast, and a representative of the Director of Public
Prosecutions for England and Wales. In addition we received representatives
of the Alliance Party, of the Community of the Peace People and of the
Belfast Community Law Centre, two members of Boards of Visitors of H.M.
Prisons, two solicitors and a doctor in general practice, and a number
of other members of the public.
9. In addition to receiving evidence from police officers during our sessions
at Stormont, we were also able to hold very useful informal discussions
with a large number of other police officers, in both the uniformed and
C.I.D. branches of the force, ranging in rank from assistant chief constable
to constable, during our visits to police offices, police stations and
other police establishments. On our first visit to Northern Ireland we
visited the police offices at Castlereagh and Gough. At each we spent half
a day examining the premises and discussing their administration and operation.
Subsequently we also visited police stations at Springfield Road, Tennent
Street and North Queen Street (all in Belfast), Strand Road (Londonderry)
and Portadown, Dungannon, Omagh and Cookstown. On these visits we were
particulary concerned to see the cells, interview rooms and medical examination
rooms and other facilities, as well as to discuss the facilities and procedures
with the staff there. We also visited several specialist police establishments
in Belfast.
10. Some of those who gave oral evidence to us, and some of the police officers to whom we spoke on our visits, furnished us with additional material in writing in illustration of points made orally. We also requested additional information ourselves, in particular from the Police Authority and the police, who met our requests in full. As will appear later in this report, among the papers examined by the Committee were reports by medical officers in cases in which complaints had been made against the police, and police files concerning the investigation of complaints. The latter did not, however, include files which were currently before the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration.
11. We are grateful to all those who gave information and opinions to
us. All such information and opinions, without exception, have been helpful
in the inquiry, and a large number of our witnesses evidently went to considerable
trouble to prepare their evidence. It was brought to our notice that other
persons and organisations who might have had relevant information had refrained
from putting it forward because of the private character of this inquiry
and, as they saw it, its likely outcome. This was, for us, a matter of
regret.
Scheme of the report
12. The scheme of this report is as follows. After this introduction,
in the remainder of Part I, we set out some of the background against which
the police in Northern Ireland have to work and the essential features
of police interrogation. In Part II, we outline the current procedures
and practice in Northern Ireland with regard to interrogation. In Part
III, we set out our assessment and recommendations with regard to interrogation.
In Part IV, we outline the way in which complaints are dealt with. In Part
V, we set out our assessment and recommendations with regard to the handling
of complaints. In Part VI, we summarise our principal conclusions and recommendations.
Timing
13. The report of the Amnesty International mission was largely concerned with allegations of maltreatment alleged to have taken place in the years 1975 to 1977. We have confined our own enquiries very largely to the years 1977 and 1978, having noted the many changes which have been made in police practices and procedures and in particular in police orders, rules and regulations in these years. We have attempted in the body of our report to record the most important of these changes so that the position may be made clear.
Terminology
14. We have chosen to use the word "prisoner" to describe
a person kept in police custody who has either been arrested by a police
officer or who has been delivered into police custody after arrest by some
other authorised person. Our use of the term does not include persons serving
a sentence of imprisonment in prison or persons who have been remanded
in custody by a court. We have used the words "interrogation"
and "interview" more or less interchangeably to describe the
process of questioning of all prisoners. In making general use of the word
"interrogation" we have had regard to the terms of reference
given to this Committee, although we are aware that the word "interview"
is commonly used to describe the questioning of a prisoner in relation
to a specific offence which he is suspected of having committed, and the
word "interrogation" is commonly confined to questioning for
the purpose of obtaining general information and intelligence. We have
used the words "witnesses" and "evidence" to describe
those who came to talk to us and what they said, although our hearings
were in private, we were not empowered to take evidence on oath and those
who came to see us were not accompanied by legal representatives. We have
described the two community groups in Northern Ireland as "Republican"
and "Loyalist" for convenience and conciseness, although we are
aware that. neither term is necessarily exact, and that each group contains
within itself considerable differences of opinion and action. We prefer
the word "ill-treatment" to "maltreatment". In all
other instances where a word is defined in the legislation with which we
have been concerned, we have adopted that definition. We have abbreviated
"Royal Ulster Constabulary" to "R.U.C." and "Criminal
Investigation Department" to "C.I.D.".
15. Our terms of reference concern "persons suspected of scheduled
offences". In paragraph 67 below, we explain what scheduled offences
are and how they came to be so described. Broadly speaking, the scheduled
offences are those which are most commonly committed by terrorists, and
it is on the treatment of persons suspected of being terrorists that attention
has largely focussed; the Amnesty International report, for example, appears
to be concerned exclusively with the treatment of suspected terrorists.
But most of the scheduled offences were known to the law before the current
campaign of terrorism arose, and are committed not only by terrorists but
also (although to a much smaller degree in Northern Ireland) by persons
who are not terrorists and have nothing to do with terrorism. Our terms
of reference require us to consider the treatment of such persons as well
as of terrorist suspects. The general approach that we have adopted, and
the general conclusion that we have reached, is that our analysis and recommendations
should apply to all persons dealt with by the police as being suspected
of scheduled offences, whether regarded as terrorist suspects or not. A
further point to be noted here about our terms of reference is that the
emergency legislation in Northern Ireland allows persons to be arrested
and questioned on the basis that they are suspected of being terrorists,
even though they may not be suspected of having committed a specific scheduled
offence. Strictly construed, our terms of reference might seem to exclude
such persons, but our approach has been to include them along with persons
suspected of scheduled offences.
Background
16. Our duty of considering police practices and procedures in the interrogation
of prisoners suspected of scheduled offences cannot be considered in isolation
from the situation in which the police must carry out their task. It is
just ten years since the present wave of terrorist activity began in Northern
Ireland. The express purpose of the paramilitary organisations on the Republican
side is to destroy the existing constitution and order of society by violent
means. For their part, the paramilitary organisations on the Loyalist side
have used violence to destroy or intimidate their opponents. In the result
over 1,800 people have been killed and over 21,000 wounded. Many of these
were innocent victims killed or wounded as they were going about their
daily occupations, in one of more than 6,000 bombings. The physical damage
to property is obvious on every side. The whole community has suffered
from ruined lives, wrecked homes, lost jobs, and loss of peace and security
at th hands of these enemies of their society.
17. These crimes are unlike ordinary crimes, in which the police are called
on to deal with violence and injury inflicted by one citizen on another
for personal reasons or motives. The paramilitary organisations have, of
course, overtly political purposes; and the Army, the police and prison
officers, as the guardians and defenders of society, have been primary
targets for terrorists. More than 370 soldiers have been killed and more
than 3,000 wounded. Up to 31 December 1978, 117 members of the R.U.C. (including
the Reserve had been killed and 3,251 injured. Even these statistics do
not fully convey the personal tragedies inflicted on the R.U.C. The extent
of their sacrifice is brought home to the visitor by the memorial tablets
at police stations and by accounts of such family tragedies as of
father and daughter, both police officers, killed in separate incidents
and of officers shot down in a most cowardly way in performing such routine
work for the community as shepherding children across the street outside
their school.
18. During the earlier years of the decade, prime responsibility for security fell upon the Army. Since January 1977, the police have undertaken first responsibility for security, with the Army in support. This policy has been steadily successful, as is evidenced by the large numbers of crimes detected, the large number of criminals brought to trial and convicted, and the decline in the numbers of serious crimes committed. The R.U.C. has been able to expand the area and intensity of its operations, but still requires the support of the Army in some areas and in some of its activities.
19. Effective policing of a community can only be achieved with the consent and support of the overwhelming majority of that community. This consent is normally forthcoming because the majority see the police as representing and safeguarding the peace and order they wish to see prevail in society. But it may be lost if the police themselves fail to measure up to the standards expected of them either in observance of the law or in the successful pursuit of their many tasks, and particularly in the prevention and detection of crime. Consent may also be lost as a result of the efforts of those who do not wish peace and order restored, but who wish to discredit the police and so deprive them of public support. We have, in the course of our inquiry, seen abundant evidence of a co-ordinated and extensive campaign to discredit the police. We have been shown literature in which the intemperate nature of the language and the character of the illustrations leaves no doubt that it was designed to destroy the reputation of the police at home and abroad. This propaganda is principally concerned with allegations of ill-treatment of prisoners in the course of their interrogation by the police.
20. It is apparent that any misconduct by an individual member of the
force concerned with the interrogation of prisoners affects the reputation
of the force as a whole in the community, makes more difficult and dangerous
the work of his comrades on the streets, and so defers the day of the return
of peace in the community. It strengthens the propaganda campaign and provides
ammunition for the enemies of society who are adept and experienced in
inventing allegations against the police, even without any justification.
We have seen evidence which establishes that this is their declared purpose.
One of the purposes of this inquiry is to review police practices and procedures
in the interrogation of prisoners so as to ensure so far as possible that
ill-treatment of prisoners cannot take place. If this purpose can be achieved,
and can be shown to have been achieved, it will make difficult, if not
impossible, the task of those who seek to discredit the police by inventing
false allegations of ill-treatment.
Footnotes:
[1] Now replaced by section 8 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)
Act 1978
[2] Cmnd. 7324
PART VI
SUMMARY
CHAPTER 19
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
404. In this final chapter we bring together in summary form the most important, as we see them, of the conclusions and recommendations at which we have arrived in previous chapters. References in brackets in the summary below are to paragraphs in those chapters.
(1)We have proceeded to our conclusions and recommendations on the basis that the essential features of the existing system of criminal investigation and trial will continue for the immediate future (paragraph 3).
(2) There is a co-ordinated and extensive campaign to discredit the R.U.C. This campaign is liable to be strengthened by any misconduct on the part of a member of the force (paragraphs 19 and 20).
(3) No other police force in the United Kingdom is called on to deal with so much violent crime in such unpromising circumstances as the R.U.C. (paragraph 24). The normal methods of detection of crime are hampered by special difficulties in Northern Ireland (paragraphs 25-28). Hence, there is reliance on interrogation leading to admissions in many cases (paragraph 29), but admissions and confessions are also a common feature of the prosecution case in England and Wales (paragraphs 30 and 32).
(4) The essential feature of interrogation, whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, is that questioning of the suspect by police officers takes place in private (paragraph 33). There is a number of good reasons why suspects will confess to crime in the right atmosphere (paragraphs 34-37). But privacy also creates the opportunity for unfair and violent means and methods to be used (paragraph 42).
(5) The arrangements for interrogation by the C.I.D. are broadly similar to those in England and Wales (paragraph 43), but in Northern Ireland a majority of persons arrested for questioning are taken to one of two "police offices" (paragraphs 46 and 47). The accommodation at the police offices is superior to that in many other police stations (paragraph 49).
(6) Because of the volume of violent crime in Northern Ireland, interrogation is mostly conducted by sergeants and constables (paragraph 56). The arrangements for the selection and training of C.I.D. officers are the same as in England and Wales (paragraphs 57-59).
(7) Police officers are restrained from ill-treatment both by the criminal and civil law and by detailed regulations and instructions (paragraphs 62 and 63). Indirectly, the law relating to the admissibility of statements in evidence also has that effect (paragraph 64).
(8) Although the older powers of arrest remain available to the police, these are supplemented by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978-which specifies "scheduled offences" - and by the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (paragraphs 65, 66 and 67). Arrest under these Acts does not depend on the commission of any specific offence, and arrest under the Emergency Provisions Act arises on the subjective judgement of a police officer (paragraph 66).
(9) Suspects are under no general legal duty to answer questions put to them by the police (paragraph 72). If a prisoner does make a statement, it may by statute be admitted in evidence provided the Crown show, if necessary, that torture or inhuman or degrading treatment was not used to induce it (paragraph 73). The overall burden of proof in this regard remains with the prosecution (paragraph 78).
(10) The judges in Northern Ireland have retained, and used, their discretion to exclude evidence on grounds other than those set out in statute (paragraphs 80-84). But the reports of cases decided by the judges necessarily leave areas of uncertainty from the point of view of police practice and procedure (paragraph 84).
(11) The Judges' Rules were introduced in their 1964 version in Northern Ireland in 1976. As in England and Wales, however, the Judges' Rules are not rules of law (paragraph 76), and how they are to be applied to the questioning of persons arrested under the emergency legislation is not always entirely clear (paragraph 85).
(12) The treatment of prisoners in custody for interrogation is prescribed in considerable detail in the R.U.C. Code (paragraphs 86-122, passim), but there is no body of provisions applying specially to interviewing officers (paragraph 99).
(13) Solicitors are not in practice admitted to see terrorist suspects before they are charged (paragraph 123).
(14) Medical examinations are offered to terrorist suspects when taken into custody and before discharge (paragraphs 136 and 137), and there is further provision for intermediate examinations. Examinations on the prisoner's own behalf, by his registered practitioner or that practitioner's partner, are also allowed (paragraph 147).
(15) There is a need for continuing vigilance regarding the interrogation of prisoners following the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights (paragraph 154). In a number of civil claims against the R.U.C., damages have been awarded or settlements made out of court (paragraph 155). Criminal proceedings have been undertaken against police officers, but no final conviction has resulted (paragraph 157).
(16) Medical officers, in 1977 and early 1978, made representations about the treatment of prisoners (paragraph 159), and in some of the cases investigated by Amnesty International there was prima facie evidence that ill-treatment had taken place (paragraph 160). Our own examination of medical evidence reveals cases in which injuries, whatever their precise cause, were not self-inflicted and were sustained in police custody (paragraph 163).
(17) It is desirable to ensure where possible that the number of persons arrested is not too great for the available resources of accommodation and staff (paragraph 166).
(18) It is not practicable at the moment to interrogate all prisoners in the locality where they live (paragraph 168). All accommodation in police stations used for interrogation should be reviewed (paragraph 170).
(19) The siting of accommodation for supervising officers should be reviewed (paragraph 170).
(20) We hope that, in due course, more experienced and senior officers will be able to interview prisoners (paragraph 172).
(21) A training programme for interrogation should be devised for detectives (paragraph 175).
(22) Detective officers should rotate between interrogation and more general detective duties (paragraph 176).
(23)Female suspects should be interviewed by women officers (paragraph 177).
(24) Interviews should not last longer than the interval between normal meal-times, or extend over meal-breaks, or continue after midnight except for urgent operational reasons. Not more than two officers at a time, or six in all, should interview one prisoner (paragraph 181). Officers should identify themselves by name or number (paragraph 182).
(25) A code of conduct should be drawn up for interviewing officers, to form a separate section of the R.U.C. Code (paragraph 183).
(26) The proposal that civilian supervisors should be introduced into police offices and police stations is too uncertain in its effects to be commended as a practical measure at present (paragraph 191).
(27) The institution of Boards of Visitors for police offices and police stations would not have any significant effect on the conduct of interviews (paragraph 193).
(28) Medical officers should not assume a wider invigilatory role (paragraph 194).
(29) We hope that experiments in tape-recording interviews will take place soon, but Northern Ireland is not the best place to begin an experiment (paragraph 200). Video-recording is not to be recommended (paragraph 201).
(30) The present situation calls for senior police officers to exercise their responsibility for the good conduct of interviews, rather than for the supervision of interrogation to be transferred to another body, and for changes in police procedures to allow any misconduct to be detected at once and dealt with without delay (paragraph 202).
(31) A sound basis for the supervision of interviews is to be found in the fact that complaints are not made against the uniformed branch (paragraphs 205 and 206). Existing supervisory measures in the R.U.C. go further than in any other police force in the United Kingdom (paragraph 210). Nevertheless, further improvements must be considered (paragraph 211).
(32) Senior detective officers should allot part of each working day to supervision (paragraph 212).
(33) The number of uniformed supervisory inspectors on duty throughout the day at Castlereagh should be increased, and the supervisory strength at inspector level elsewhere should be reviewed (paragraph 216).
(34) The responsibility of the inspectors for the welfare of prisoners should plainly extend to periods in an interview room (paragraph 219), and they should if necessary enter the room and stop the interview (paragraph 220).
(35) Viewing lenses should immediately be installed in all remaining rooms where interviews take place (paragraph 222).
(36) Closed-circuit television cameras should also be installed in all interview rooms used for interrogation (paragraph 224). The monitor screens should be used by the uniformed supervisory staff on duty, and further monitors should be provided for use by senior uniformed officers (paragraphs 225 and 226).
(37) It is important that recognition should be given to the special responsibilities that medical officers have by virtue of their membership of the medical profession (paragraph 240).
(38) Medical officers must have the means to satisfy themselves that prisoners are not being ill-treated (paragraph 240), but should not assume responsibility for monitoring the length of interviews (paragraph 243).
(39) Medical examination should not necessarily take place after each interview, but the uniformed police staff should ask each prisoner after each interview whether he has any complaint and whether he wishes a medical officer to see him (paragraph 248).
(40) Medical officers should see all terrorist suspects and persons suspected of scheduled offences during each period of 24 hours and offer them an examination (paragraph 249).
(41) Medical officers should be aware in every case of each other's findings and opinions (paragraph 251).
(42) The importance of medical examinations should be impressed upon prisoners both by medical officers and in printed notices (paragraph 262).
(43) Prisoners wishing to have a private medical examination should continue to be obliged to call first on their registered practitioner or his partner, but further arrangements should be made to enable other doctors to perform such examinations if necessary (paragraph 266).
(44) Larger notices giving details of rights available to prisoners should be displayed in police offices and police stations, and each prisoner should be given a printed notice to keep for himself. The uniformed staff should have a duty to convey a request for access to a solicitor, where authorised (paragraph 269).
(45) The consistent refusal to allow access to a solicitor throughout the whole period of detention is unjustifiable (paragraph 276). Without prejudice to their existing rights, prisoners in Northern Ireland should be given an unconditional right of access to a solicitor after 48 hours and every 48 hours thereafter (paragraphs 277 and 278). But solicitors should not be permitted to be present at interviews (paragraph 278).
(46) Attention should be given to how best families can get information about prisoners' whereabouts (paragraph 281).
(47) Provision should be made for the attendance of parents at interviews with children and young persons (paragraph 282).
(48) There have in recent years been increases in the numbers of complaints against members of the R.U.C., as against members of other police forces, and especially in the number of complaints of assault during interview (paragraphs 311 and 312).
(49) No disciplinary proceedings have been brought in recent years in respect of interrogation (paragraph 338). There is disquiet about the effectiveness of the complaints procedure in this regard (paragraph 339).
(50) Investigations are conducted promptly and in a painstaking way (paragraph 342). Investigating officers obtain statements from other police officers, but these mostly state simply that nothing untoward occurred or was seen (paragraph 344).
(51) Most investigations, like investigations of complaints in other fields, do not lead to a clear-cut result (paragraph 348). This must be understood when reading the statistics (paragraph 350).
(52) The introduction of investigators from outside the police service is unlikely to make investigations more effective (paragraph 356), but much more use should be made of officers from police forces other than the R.U.C. (paragraph 357).
(53) The requirement that complaints should be investigated before the trial of the complainants involves repeated interviews and delay in the investigation, and should be further examined (paragraph 362).
(54) It should not be assumed that consideration of criminal proceedings must automatically rule out disciplinary proceedings (paragraph 365). The proposed code of conduct for interviewing officers should assist the formulation of disciplinary charges in suitable cases (paragraph 366).
(55) Complainants should be notified every three months of the progress of their complaint by the authority with whom it rests (paragraph 369).
(56) Responsibility for considering the prosecution of police officers should remain with the Director of Public Prosecutions (paragraph 373), who should continue to receive all cases in which criminal conduct by a member of the R.U.C. is alleged (paragraph 376).
(57) The Director of Public Prosecutions should specify to complainants the possible criminal offences for which prosecution has been considered, and indicate whether his decision has been reached on evidential or other grounds and any reason for delay (paragraph 379).
(58) The Director should inform the Chief Constable of cases which he considers especially suitable for the consideration of disciplinary proceedings (paragraph 380).
(59) The Director should, on enquiry, give the Police Authority and Police Complaints Board an explanation of the delay in his consideration of a complaint and of his reasons for deciding against prosecution (paragraph 381).
(60) After the investigation of a complaint is complete (including decisions about criminal and disciplinary proceedings), the Police Authority should be able to obtain sufficient information to ensure that all relevant sources of information have been tapped (paragraph 390). If the Chief Constable refers a request for information by the Authority to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State should decline to confirm it only for the most compelling and specific reasons (paragraph 391).
(61) The Police Authority should make appropriate use of its power to require a complaint to be referred to a tribunal. Provision should if necessary be made to afford further powers to such a tribunal (paragraph 393).
(62) The Chief Constable should recognize the Police Authority's commitment to allaying public anxiety, and pay careful regard to any representation made to him by the Police Authority (paragraph 395).
(63) The Police Complaints Board have expressed the view that the "double jeopardy" rule seriously curtails their effectiveness (paragraph 397), but the final decision on how the rule should be applied in a particular case normally rests with them (paragraph 399). If they cannot reach agreement with the Senior Deputy Chief Constable, they should require him to prefer disciplinary charges (paragraph 400).
(64) The Police Complaints Board should be informed of all disciplinary action arising from the investigation of complaints (paragraph 401), and their requests for information should be met (paragraph 402).
CAIN
contains information and source material on the conflict
and politics in Northern Ireland. CAIN is based within Ulster University. |
 |
|||
|
|||
|
 |
Last modified :
|
|
|
| ||