Ulster Unionist Justice Spokesperson Doug Beattie MC MLA has noted the return of the Police Ombudsman to work, but serious questions remain about why the Public Prosecution Service deemed it not in the public interest to pursue a prosecution. This situation highlights fundamental flaws in the current oversight and accountability mechanisms for the Police Ombudsman’s Office.

Ulster Unionist Justice Spokesperson Doug Beattie MC MLA commented following the announcement of the Police Ombudsman’s return to work,

“Clarity is needed on whether, following the Public Prosecution Service decision, anyone reviewed the alleged conduct to assess if there were ethical issues that could undermine public and police confidence in her suitability to discharge her duties. This is standard practice in similar cases for other office holders.”

“What has become clear is that there needs to be radical change in the oversight of the Police Ombudsman, as a corporate body, and the way the office of the Police Ombudsman carries out investigations. This should not impinge on the independence of the Police Ombudsman but should allow for speeding up investigations and give the ability to remove a Police Ombudsman, in extremis, from their position.

“Presently, there are no mechanisms to remove a Police Ombudsman. If the case against the present Ombudsman has gone to trial and she was found guilty, she could have, in theory, gone to jail while remaining the Police Ombudsman. This is not suggesting guilt but using the present issue as an example of the ludicrous situation we find ourselves in.  

“The PONI must have an accountability mechanism while at the same time maintaining independence, operational and financial autonomy. This can be found within the Venice Principles. What the Principles also state is that dismissal of the Ombudsman, for serious issues such as gross misconduct, must involve either an independent judiciary or a Parliamentary process. The recommendation is that Police(Northern Ireland) Act 1998 be amended to stipulate a discharge process for PONI and that an ad hoc committee be established, incorporating politicians and lay members, to adjudicate on any dismissal or suspension.

“As for speeding up investigations, we must act against false or vexatious claims that impact both PONI and the PSNI. It is recommended that section 52 of Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 be changed, in line with the Ombudsman’s Office in the Republic of Ireland, where a charge of Perverting the Course of Justice, Forgery or Harassment can be used to bring criminal charges against anyone who makes persistent vexatious claims.  The use of a filter service, to weed out vexatious claims, should also be established.

“The work of PONI must have the ability to assess a non-criminal complaint and, if appropriate and of a minor nature, refer it to the PSNI internal disciplinary structure for action without having to refer to the complainant. The PSNI would then conduct their own investigation and enact its findings, ensuring both PONI and the complainant are informed. Presently, PONI’s hands are tied, even if a minor case of misconduct is brought to the police Ombudsman, which can be dealt with by the PSNI internal disciplinary structures. PONI cannot allow this if the complainant insists. This small and sensible change would help to weed out these very minor cases from the nearly 3,000 complaints against the police per year, resulting in around 6,000 allegations against police officers.

“There is a role for the Justice Minister to lead these changes with support from the wider executive and the Northern Ireland Office. As unlikely as it is that we would need to remove a Police Ombudsman, it is clear there may well be a similar case in the future, as we have seen recently”.