Judge rejects speculation claims

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/7498873.stm

Version 0 of 1.

A leading Crown Court judge has rejected claims that he indulged in speculation in one of the most high profile NI cases in many years.

Mr Justice Weir was responding to criticism of his handling of the Omagh bomb trial in a report commissioned by the Policing Board.

The report was requested after the judge said police witnesses engaged in a deliberate and calculated deception.

A lawyer for the accused "had no problem with the comments".

The Policing Board commissioned the review by two ex-chief constables after last December's damning verdict.

The judge said in a statement he merely raised concerns, and it was up to law enforcement agencies to investigate.

Sir Dan Crompton and David Blakey, both former chief constables and ex-HM Inspectors of Constabulary, were appointed to examine issues arising from the judgement after south Armagh man Sean Hoey was cleared of 58 charges, including the murders of 29 people in the 1998 Real IRA attack.

They said it had been a very difficult and long running trial for Mr Justice Weir with a requirement to handle huge volumes of information - some of it highly contentious.

'Rigorously examined'

However, they took issue with the part of the judgement which said others involved in the investigation and preparation of the case may have been involved in the deliberate and calculated deception.

"We were left wondering why this passage was included in the judgement.

In such a high-profile case every single word, finding, or suggestion is likely to be rigorously examined by interested parties.

He registered his concern that others may have been involved and he has left it to other agencies to investigated and determine whether that is the case Lord chief justice's office on Mr Justice Weir

"We conclude that the judgement in this respect amounted to speculation by Mr Justice Weir, but we (and others) are left uninformed as to what triggered that speculation."

The two police officers were accused in the trial by defence lawyers of having "beefed up" statements - a term taken up later by the judge which the report said could have more than one interpretation.

"At its worst, the term can describe an attempt to wrongfully bolster a statement to the point of including untruths, or manufacturing, manipulating and embellishing evidence to cover gaps in the prosecution case," they said.

But, they said, there could be a far different meaning where a review of evidence could reveal gaps in evidence and omissions.

Mr Justice Weir was critical of some police evidence

"It is neither bad practice nor professional 'slight of hand' to rectify such omissions, provided additions to statements represent fact, with honesty being an underlying feature," they said.

The review also backed a decision by a PSNI deputy chief constable not to suspend the two officers from duty after the judge's criticism of them and referral of the case to the Police Ombudsman.

It emerged that the Police Ombudsman's report into the actions of the two police officers will be completed before the end of the month.

A statement issued through the office of the Lord Chief Justice Sir Brian Kerr said that Mr Justice Weir "considered that the nature of the evidence given by the two individuals he identified in the judgement raised the possibility of the involvement of others".

Advertisement

Sir Desmond Rea, Policing Board Chairman, speaking about the report

Sir Brian said the trial judge "did not speculate that others were involved, much less who such others might be.

"He registered his concern that others may have been involved and he has left it to other agencies to investigated and determine whether that is the case."

Sinn Féin Policing Board member Martina Anderson said the report "lacked substance in a number of key areas, had been published without reference to other outstanding reports and left unanswered many questions raised by the trial judge".

"The manner in which this report has been completed and published undermines public confidence in the role of the Policing Board to effectively hold the PSNI to account," she added.