The Police Ombudsman has found that police had reasonable grounds to stop and search two men in connection with the theft of a phone, as well as to interview and conduct an identification procedure involving one of them.
The Public Prosecution Service had asked the Police Ombudsman to investigate the police treatment of the men, on the basis that officers may not have had sufficient grounds on which to conduct the stop and search or subsequent interview.
Both men were stopped and searched by police on Belfast’s Antrim Road at about 4pm on 11 September 2008.
Officers found nothing linking the men with the crime, and in line with procedure issued them with search documentation.
On 19 September 2008, police took a detailed statement from the man whose phone was stolen. This led them to believe that one of the men previously stopped by police (Man A) had stolen the phone, while the other man had been at the scene but not involved in the theft.
Man A later voluntarily agreed to undergo a recorded interview at Musgrave police station during which he strongly denied the allegation. He also agreed to take part in an identification process.
The other man who had also been searched was not interviewed in relation to the crime.
On 17 December 2008, the victim of the crime went to the police station to take part in a process to try to identify the culprit, but was unable to do so.
A file was then sent to the Public Prosecution Service, which later raised concerns that the two suspects had been stopped and searched on very scant information, as well as that only Man A had subsequently been interviewed by police.
During their investigation, Police Ombudsman investigators examined relevant police records, including the file submitted to the PPS and the officers’ notebooks.
When interviewed by Police Ombudsman investigators, the officers said they had stopped the men because they matched the descriptions given by the victim of the theft. One of the officers added that they had complied with correct search procedures, in terms of recording the search and issuing documentation.
Another officer who conducted the investigation and forwarded the file to the PPS, said there had been enough evidence to interview only Man A as the victim had said that two people had been present, but only one matching Man A’s description had committed the theft.
A police supervisor told investigators that he had reviewed the evidence file before it went to the PPS, and had concluded that police had reasonable grounds to suspect Man A had been involved in the robbery, but there was insufficient evidence to recommend prosecution.
Having considered the case, Police Ombudsman, Dr Michael Maguire, concluded that police had reasonable grounds to stop and search both suspects, and that on the basis of information available to them, they had reasonable grounds on which to interview Man A.
He recommended no disciplinary action against any of the officers involved in the case.