A case in which a police officer was dismissed over four years after the Police Ombudsman completed an investigation into his conduct has sparked fresh calls for fast-tracking powers for the Ombudsman’s Office.
The Police Ombudsman Chief Executive, Hugh Hume, said the case underscored the inadequacy of current legislation, leading to 'frustrating and unacceptable delays' in holding police officers accountable.
"Despite a timely investigation, which was completed in just over 12 months, it took more than four years for this case, which involved serious misconduct, to reach a conclusion", Mr Hume said.
"Currently, the legislation does not allow this Office to use a ‘fast-track procedure’ where it is clear from an early stage in an investigation that there is criminality or gross misconduct which could result in an officer being dismissed without undue delay.
"All criminal proceedings must be concluded first. In this case, it took from 2020 until 2023 for the trial to take place and conclude and a further year for the PSNI to hold misconduct proceedings, which resulted in one officer’s dismissal for gross misconduct.
"Those officers who commit wrongdoing such as dishonesty, serious assault or violence against women cannot be dealt with expeditiously in the public interest in the current system, and this gap in the legislation does not serve the interests of victims, the wider public or the police service."
The case revolved around two police officers who were involved in the arrest and search of a man at a homeless shelter in Belfast in November 2018. The man was under suspicion of burglary, and during the search, a bag of tablets was found.
However, neither officer recorded the seizure of the tablets in any official records, and both later claimed that the tablets had been thrown away in a bin in the custody suite. The incident came to light when another officer, a sergeant, who was responsible for notifying probation services of the man’s arrest due to his recent release from prison, became involved in the case.
After deciding that the suspect could be released from custody, contact was made with staff at the homeless shelter to ask if the man could return there. Staff informed the police that because the man had suspected drugs in his possession at the time of his arrest, he would not be allowed back at the hostel.
Unaware that suspected drugs had been involved and alarmed by this new information, the sergeant discovered that the officers had not recorded the recovery of any drugs. He also conducted a check of the officers’ lockers, kit bags and pigeon holes but did not find any tablets.
A police officer who conducted a search denied over the phone that any drugs had been discovered, while his colleague confessed that drugs were indeed found. He stated that he had wrapped the tablets in latex gloves and discarded them into a bin at the custody suite. Despite a thorough search of the bins, they had been emptied earlier that day, and no tablets were retrieved. The matter was escalated to the Police Ombudsman by PSNI, leading to the arrest of both officers and the initiation of a criminal investigation.
Investigators discovered that none of the police documentation, including duty statements, notebook entries, custody records or enquiry logs, mentioned the arrested man being found with any tablets. CCTV footage from the homeless accommodation revealed the search of the suspect, during which one of the officers can be seen extracting an item from him.
In subsequent footage, the same officer is seen showing a small bag of tablets to a staff member of the accommodation. .
CCTV footage from the custody suite recorded a conversation between the officers discussing what to "tell the skipper". One officer was seen removing his blue gloves, briefly leaving the camera's view before returning without them.
The other officer informed the custody sergeant about the suspect's belongings, including a lighter and coat, and mentioned disposing of a used needle found at the homeless accommodation. Despite searches of their workplace, vehicles, and one officer's home, no evidence of tablets or controlled substances was found.
A forensic analysis of the arresting officer's phone revealed messages between the officers, admitting to a "mistake" and stating there was no intention of personal gain. In interviews with Police Ombudsman investigators, both officers claimed they thought the tablets were sleeping aids and disposing of them was an error in judgement.
The Police Ombudsman submitted a file to the Public Prosecution Service in January 2020, and in May 2020, the PPS decided to prosecute both officers for misconduct in public office. After being acquitted at their trial in February 2023, a file was forwarded by the Police Ombudsman’s Office to the PSNI's Professional Standards Department (PSD) in March 2023, endorsing disciplinary proceedings.
One officer, who confessed to ditching the drugs, resigned from the PSNI in December 2023 before any misconduct proceedings could begin. The other officer responsible for the search and arrest ended up being dismissed at a misconduct hearing in August 2024.
Despite the ongoing procedures, both officers had been on restricted duties while still receiving full pay.
Mr Hume commented: "This case unfortunately highlights the inefficiencies in the current police misconduct legislation, which results in frustrating and unacceptable delays."
"Successive Police Ombudsmen have recommended that the legislation is amended to allow misconduct proceedings to take place prior to criminal proceedings. Fast-tracking would result in officers being suspended or placed on restricted duties for shorter periods of time pending the outcome of investigations, bring efficiencies to PSNI and would improve confidence in the police complaints system".
For all the latest news, visit the Belfast Live homepage here and sign up to our daily newsletter here.
English (United States) ·