The Police Ombudsman has concluded that there was ‘no credible evidence’ to support previously unknown information that Michael Tighe was trying to surrender when he was fatally shot by an RUC officer in 1982.
The Police Ombudsman has concluded that there was ‘no credible evidence’ to support previously unknown information that Michael Tighe was trying to surrender when he was fatally shot by an RUC officer in 1982 and, therefore, no basis to further pursue an investigation of the matter.
Michael Tighe was 17 years old when he was fatally shot on 24 November 1982 during a covert surveillance operation carried out by the RUC with assistance from the security services near Lurgan, County Armagh.
The focus of the surveillance was a hayshed which security forces believed was being used by republican paramilitaries to store explosives.
Michael Tighe and another man were in the hayshed when three members of the RUC Headquarters Mobile Support Unit (HMSU), approached it and subsequently opened fire, killing Mr Tighe and injuring the other man.
At the time of the fatal shooting the police officers involved in the incident said that they had challenged the two men inside the hayshed before discharging shots at them. When police later searched the hayshed they found three old, single shot rifles, corroded with rust. During this incident, no gunfire was directed from inside the hayshed towards police, and when it was later searched, no ammunition was found.
In 2021, the Police Ombudsman received a referral from the PSNI, in which a member of the public provided information he believed to be relevant to shooting of Mr Tighe. The information he provided to police included a copy of a manuscript purportedly written by his ex-wife about her experiences when deployed as a military officer in Northern Ireland.
The content included references to her alleged contact with an RUC officer who had been responsible for the fatal shooting of Michael Tighe and an admission by him that ‘even though Tighe had put his arms up as a sign that he was surrendering he had shot him’.
Having assessed the new evidence, the Police Ombudsman decided to commence a formal investigation.
Police Ombudsman investigators identified, traced, and interviewed a number of witnesses. The provenance of the documents provided to the PSNI was also examined.
The woman alleged to have written the manuscript which contained the admission spoke with Police Ombudsman investigators and refuted the allegation that the police officer had told her that Michael Tighe had tried to surrender.
These enquiries did not identify any other evidence which may have supported the version of events in the manuscript first provided to the PSNI.
Commenting on the case, Police Ombudsman, Mrs Marie Anderson said:
“Where a police investigation has already taken place, I may only open a fresh investigation if there is new evidence which has come to light that was not reasonably available at the time the matter originally occurred. I am also prohibited from investigating matters that occurred outside the statutory time limit unless the matter is grave or exceptional. Given the matter was grave and there was new evidence I decided to commence an investigation into the matters referred by the Chief Constable.
“My investigation was hampered in a number of respects. Firstly, there was a reluctance by the woman who authored the manuscript, to constructively engage with my investigators. Secondly, the provenance of the documentation which was provided to PSNI could not be established. I was also concerned about the credibility and motivation of the man making the allegations.
“The shooting of Michael Tighe has been the subject of a number of police investigations including the Stalker/Sampson investigation, none of which have led to the prosecution of any police officer in respect of the fatal shooting.
“Nor is there is any credible evidence to establish the veracity of the comment in the manuscript that Michael Tighe was trying to surrender when fatally shot by police.
“Given these facts, there was no basis on which to pursue the investigation of this matter further".
However, given the gravity of the matters alleged in the material provided, the Police Ombudsman believed it was appropriate for the Chief Constable to make the referral.