Two police officers have been disciplined for failing to properly investigate an alleged assault on a prisoner who later took his own life.
The young man died in the Hydebank Young Offenders Centre in south Belfast in May 2011, almost seven months after reporting that he had been assaulted by two other inmates, who he said had also threatened to kill him.
At the time of his death, police had begun but had yet to complete an investigation into the alleged assault and threat to kill, which were reported to have happened on 9 October 2010.
After the man’s death, an incomplete investigation file was submitted by police to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), which subsequently directed that the suspects should not be prosecuted.
In October 2012, following a report from the Prisoner Ombudsman and an internal police review which had both been critical of the police investigation, the Chief Constable asked the Police Ombudsman to investigate the police handling of the case.
The Police Ombudsman’s investigation established that staff at Hydebank advised police of the incident on 10 October 2010. Later that day a police officer, who was newly qualified and still on probation, was tasked to go to Hydebank. However, on arrival he was advised that the prison was on lockdown and was asked to come back the following morning.
Investigating officer was still on probation.
He was also told that the injured party had a broken nose, could identify the two assailants, and that Hydebank staff had taken photographs of his injuries.
The officer returned to Hydebank the following day, seized a number of exhibits and tasked a police photographer to attend to take photographs of the man’s injuries. He also updated police logs with his investigative strategy and recorded that he would need both suspects to be produced for interview. In addition, he spoke to prison staff in a bid to identify any other witnesses.
When interviewed by Police Ombudsman investigators, the officer said he subsequently had difficulty in arranging to interview the two suspects. One had refused to attend voluntarily for interview and had not been spoken to at all. Only an account, and not an admissible interview, had been obtained from the other suspect.
The officer said that by the time the young man died, he was still trying to progress a Court process which would require the suspects to be transferred to a police station where tape recorded interviews could take place.
He also accepted that the interview he did conduct had not been tape recorded nor conducted in the presence of a lawyer, but said he thought it better to get some sort of account given the difficulties he was having with arranging interviews through the Court process.
Police Ombudsman investigators also established that the officer had recovered a number of exhibits from Hydebank, but had not submitted them to Forensic Science Northern Ireland (FSNI). This included the alleged assault weapon, a broken ashtray, which had been seized by Hydebank staff and wrapped in a white cloth, and a t-shirt the victim had been wearing at the time of the alleged assault.
Exhibits not submitted for forensic tests.
The officer said he had not submitted them for forensic testing as he could see no marks or bloodstains on the ashtray, and he believed the blood on the t-shirt had been the victim’s own blood. He also admitted that he had failed to take continuity statements from the prison staff who had recovered them.
In addition, the officer said he later became aware that a police photographer had not taken photographs of the young man’s injuries as requested. He then contacted Hydebank to obtain the pictures they had taken, but was told that they had numerous photographs of different injuries to the male relating to a number of different incidents which had not been properly logged.
The officer said he did not review the photographs as he did not believe that he could identify the relevant images.
He added that he had updated his supervisor (Police Officer 2) on a regular basis on the progress of the investigation, and said the supervisor was aware of the difficulties he had faced in seeking to interview the suspects.
When interviewed, Police Officer 2 confirmed that he was aware of the difficulties arranging interviews, but said the investigating officer had told him he had forwarded the exhibits to FSNI. He also said he was unaware of any photographs and did not review the file sent to the PPS after the young man’s death.
Supervisor knew of difficulties in arranging interviews but did not assist the investigating officer.
Having reviewed the evidence, the Police Ombudsman, Dr Michael Maguire, said the police investigation had been characterised by a series of errors and failings.
“The only evidence in the file submitted to the PPS after the young man’s tragic death was the statement from the deceased. The PPS had no option but to recommend no prosecution.”
Dr Maguire expressed concern at the failure to speak at all to one suspect and the failure to conduct a proper interview with the other.
He also criticised the failure to follow up on the request for photographs to be taken of the man’s injuries, and said “some attempt should have been to identify the relevant photographs” taken by staff at Hydebank.
In addition, Dr Maguire said the injury report completed by the nurse at Hydebank should have been submitted to the PPS, and the exhibits seized from the prison submitted to FSNI for examination. “While it is accepted that there was a lack of continuity for the exhibits, that should not have prevented the officer from submitting them to FSNI,” he said.
He also criticised Police Officer 2 for failing to assist the investigating officer with securing interviews with the suspects, despite being aware of the difficulties he was having.
Dr Maguire recommended that both officers should be disciplined for these failures, and the PSNI has since implemented this recommendation.
Investigating officer and his supervisor have been disciplined.
No action was recommended against a third supervisory officer who had reviewed a report on the progress of the case prepared by Police Officer 2. The Police Ombudsman found that Police Officer 2 had not identified in the report any issues of concern which would have required further action by this officer.