A police officer has been disciplined after evidence he submitted to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) contributed to the collapse of an assault prosecution.
The officer (Officer 1) had been investigating an alleged assault on a female which happened at Belfast's Odyssey complex on 2 October 2008.
He submitted a file to the PPS the following March, and after considering the evidence the PPS directed that the suspect should be prosecuted.
The PPS prosecutor then asked Officer 1 to provide copies of the notebook entries made by the officers involved in the case.
On receipt of the material the prosecutor noted that an entry in an officer's notebook had been crossed out. The officer who made the note, Officer 2, had recorded that the suspect had been "identified by CCTV as to have punched one of the females."
The public prosecutor then contacted Officer 1 to ask if the original notebook entry had been changed, and Officer 1 confirmed that he had altered it.
Tampering with evidence relating to a prosecution is a serious matter. In this instance, when combined with other evidential issues with the case, it contributed to a decision by the PPS to withdraw the prosecution. Officer 1's handling of the case was subsequently referred by the PPS to the Police Ombudsman for independent investigation.
When interviewed by Police Ombudsman investigators, Officer 1 explained that he had crossed out the entry in Officer 2's notebook as he realised it was incorrect. He said that rather than showing the suspect's involvement in the assault, the CCTV footage showed only that the suspect had been in the vicinity.
He stated that he had crossed out the entry in order to prevent himself from challenging the suspect on what he considered to be a misleading record of the CCTV footage.
Officer 1 accepted that he should have disclosed an unedited version of the notebook entry to the PPS, but attributed the error to an oversight rather than a malicious or criminal act. He also accepted that he had failed to recover and retain the original CCTV footage.
In addition, Police Ombudsman investigators obtained police radio transmissions relating to the incident. These confirmed that following the assault Officer B had been directed to a group of four men, including the alleged offender, by police staff monitoring the CCTV system at Strandtown police station. The CCTV operator advised that the men 'may' have been involved in the incident.
When interviewed, Officer 2 accepted that he had mistakenly understood that the assault itself had been recorded and said it was on that basis he completed his notebook entry.
Having considered the evidence, the Police Ombudsman, Al Hutchinson, concluded that Officer 1's failure to recover and retain the CCTV footage, and his disclosure of an edited notebook entry, had raised suspicions of malpractice, and potentially also criminality. His actions had also contributed to a failed prosecution
Mr Hutchinson also noted, however, that there was no evidence that Officer 1 had been motivated by an intention to compromise or interfere with the investigation and prosecution.
The Police Ombudsman recommended that the PSNI should discipline Officer 1 in respect of the failings in his handling of the case, and the officer has since received a disciplinary sanction.