Publication date:
The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of the conviction of three police officers who gave evidence at the Omagh Bomb trial.
Transcripts of the evidence of the police officers were referred by the trial Judge to the Chief Constable who referred the matter to the Police Ombudsman for investigation.
Part of the prosecution case at the Omagh trial related to the discovery of an unexploded mortar device at Altmore Forest, Cappagh, Co Tyrone, on 12 April 2001.
An investigation by the Police Ombudsman has established that a photograph referred to at the Omagh trial, which showed a Scenes of Crime Officer without forensic overboots and the investigating police officer for the Altmore incident in civilian clothes, was taken when the crime scene was closed and after a timer power unit, which was a component part of the mortar device, had already been bagged by the Army and passed to the Scenes of Crime Officer.
Having regard to all the circumstances including the clarification with regard to when the photograph was taken, the after caution interviews of the officers and other evidence gathered during the course of the investigation, the PPS has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to meet the test for prosecution against either officer in respect of an offence of perjury.
The investigation by the Police Ombudsman also examined the circumstances, which came to light at trial, in which the two officers had each made two witness statements the second of which contained additional information not found in their first statement.
Having regard to all the circumstances including the reason why the additions were made, the fact that other evidence existed to support the accuracy of a number of the additions and the absence of cogent evidence to undermine the accuracy of the remaining additions, the PPS has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to meet the test for prosecution in respect of either of the two officers in relation to an offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
In respect of a third officer who had responsibility for disclosure, it was concluded that there was insufficient evidence to negative his explanation with regard to the circumstances in which certain statements were not disclosed in accordance with usual practice and that accordingly the test for prosecution was not met in respect of an offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
NOTES TO EDITORS
- The test for prosecution and the test applied by the court to determine guilt are different.
- Prosecutions are initiated or continued by the PPS only where it is satisfied that the test for prosecution is met. The test for prosecution is met if:-
- the evidence which can be adduced in court is sufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction – the Evidential Test; and
- Prosecution is required in the public interest – the Public Interest Test. (see Code for Prosecutors available at www.ppsni.gov.uk)
- It was not necessary to give consideration to the Public Interest Test in this case since it was concluded that the Evidential Test was not met.