The Police Ombudsman has concluded that it could not be established that two RUC Special Branch officers were present when a person admitted responsibility for the 1990 murder of Eoin Morley, and took no action.
The Police Ombudsman has concluded that it could not be established that two RUC Special Branch officers were present when a person admitted responsibility for the 1990 murder of Eoin Morley, and took no action.
Eoin Morley was murdered by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) in Newry on 15 April 1990, in what intelligence indicated was a punishment shooting gone wrong.
This is the second investigation undertaken by the Police Ombudsman relating to Mr Morley’s murder and followed the publication of a report in February 2005 which concluded that the RUC failed to properly investigate his death.
The findings in the report referenced that, in the days immediately following the murder, ten separate items of intelligence relevant to the investigation and which named four individuals responsible for the attack, were withheld from the investigating officer. Moreover, having requested any intelligence held by RUC Special Branch, he was told there was no intelligence ‘at this office’.
In May 2005, three months after the Police Ombudsman’s conclusions were published, the PSNI received information which alleged that a person (Person A), in the presence of security service and RUC officers, had admitted to shooting Mr Morley.
The Chief Constable referred the allegation to the Police Ombudsman and a criminal investigation began about the conduct of the two Special Branch officers. It centred on a ‘note for file’ dated 27 March 1992 which had been compiled by a member of the security service.
The note related to meetings held in London on 13 and 14 March 1992 with Person A, who was subsequently jointly recruited by MI5 and the RUC as an informant. The meetings were attended by two RUC Special Branch officers.
In the note, the MI5 officer recorded that Person A disclosed to him that he fatally shot Mr Morley in a struggle during an attempted punishment shooting. The note also recorded that the same admission was subsequently repeated in the presence of the two police officers.
The fact that the London meeting took place and that Person A became an informant was also pertinent to, and reported in, a separate Police Ombudsman investigation into the murder of Constable Colleen McMurray.
In response to the referral, Police Ombudsman investigators reviewed available intelligence and files from the RUC investigation into Mr Morley’s murder and established that the investigation had not been provided with information about the alleged admissions made during the London meeting.
They also secured a statement of evidence from the MI5 officer in which he detailed how and where the disclosure was made, together with the sequence of events leading up to Person A’s recruitment as an informant. He also provided a copy of the debrief notes made by the two police officers. Though detailed, these notes did not contain any reference to any discussion relating to the murder of Eoin Morley.
Both police officers were interviewed under caution as part of the investigation. Neither recalled any disclosure being made to them by Person A in relation to Mr Morley’s murder and both stated that they would have recorded information of such significance in their notes.
The Police Ombudsman submitted a file to the PPS for the alleged offences of Misconduct in Public Office and Attempting to Pervert the Course of Public Justice in respect of both officers. The PPS directed no prosecution for one police officer. The second police officer had passed away prior to the PPS direction.
Commenting on the case, Police Ombudsman, Mrs Marie Anderson, said:
“Although the matter was subject to exhaustive investigation by my Office, it was not possible to establish whether the account provided by the member of the security service is more accurate than those provided by the two police officers who were alleged to have heard the admission of murder.
“The PPS gave careful consideration to the available evidence submitted by my investigators and concluded there was no reasonable prospect of securing a conviction against any officer.”
Person A was investigated by the PSNI for involvement in Eoin Morley’s murder. He denied any involvement and following consideration of the evidence, the PPS made a decision not to prosecute.