Call for Police Ombudsman fast-tracking powers after officer’s dismissal takes four years

Police Ombudsman chief executive Hugh Hume said the case highlighted the inadequacy of current legislation, which was leading to “frustrating and unacceptable delays” in holding police officers to account.

“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”, said Mr Hume.

“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 Police Service of Northern Ireland (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 centred on two police officers involved in the arrest and search of a man at homeless accommodation in Belfast in November 2018.

The man was suspected of burglary, and during a search, a bag of tablets was recovered. However, neither of the police officers recorded the seizure of the tablets in any official records, and both subsequently stated the tablets had been disposed of in a bin in the custody suite.

The incident came to light when another police officer, a sergeant, who was responsible for notifying probation services of the man’s arrest because he had recently been released from prison, became involved in the case.

Having decided that the suspect could be released from custody, contact was made with staff at the homeless accommodation to ask if the man could return there. Staff informed police that, because the man had suspected drugs in his possession at the time of his arrest, he would not be allowed to return to the hostel.

Unaware that suspected drugs had been involved and concerned by this new information, the sergeant established that the officers had not recorded the recovery of any drugs. He also undertook a check of the officers’ lockers, kit bags and pigeon holes and did not locate any tablets.

The Police Ombudsman said when contacted by phone about the issue, the police officer who conducted the search denied that any drugs had been found, while his colleague admitted that drugs had been found and that he had wrapped the tablets in latex gloves and thrown them into a bin in the custody suite.

Although a search of the bins was conducted, they had been emptied earlier that morning, and no tablets were recovered.

The issue was referred by PSNI to the Police Ombudsman. Both officers were arrested and a criminal investigation began.

Investigators found that none of the police documentation, including the officers’ duty statements, notebook entries, custody records or inquiry logs, contained any reference to the arrested man having been found in possession of any tablets.

A review of CCTV footage at the homeless accommodation showed the search of the suspect during which one of the police officers could be seen removing an item from him. In later footage, the same officer could be seen showing a small bag of tablets to a member of the accommodation’s staff.

CCTV footage from the custody suite captured a conversation between the officers when they could be heard talking about what to “tell the skipper”. The footage also showed one of the officers putting his hand in his pocket and taking off his blue gloves. He briefly went out of sight of the camera, returning without the blue gloves in his hand. The other officer could also be heard informing the custody sergeant that the suspect’s property consisted of a lighter and a coat, and that a used needle was found and disposed of at the homeless accommodation.

Searches of the officers’ workplace, their vehicles and of the arresting officer’s home provided no evidence of any tablets or possible controlled substances.

A forensic examination of the arresting officer’s mobile phone showed that both officers had communicated about the situation, and included statements about having made a “mistake” and that there was “not any intention of… personal gain”.

When interviewed by Police Ombudsman investigators, both officers stated that they thought the tablets were sleeping tablets and that the decision to dispose of the suspected drugs was an error of judgement.

On completion of the investigation, the Police Ombudsman submitted a file to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) in January 2020, and in May 2020, the PPS decided to prosecute both officers for misconduct in public office.

They were acquitted at their trial in February 2023, after which, in March 2023, the Police Ombudsman’s Office forwarded a file to the PSNI’s Professional Standards Department (PSD) recommending disciplinary proceedings.

One officer, who had admitted disposing of the drugs, resigned from the PSNI in December 2023 before misconduct proceedings commenced.

The officer who conducted the search and arrest was subsequently dismissed at a misconduct hearing in August 2024.

Throughout the period in question, both officers were placed on restricted duties on full pay.

Mr Hume said: “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 the PSNI and would improve confidence in the police complaints system.”

The PSNI said while, in certain cases, after consultation with the PPS, it can commence misconduct proceedings in advance of the conclusion of criminal proceedings, this is not currently possible for Police Ombudsman-led investigations under the current legislation.

Deputy Chief Constable Bobby Singleton said: ‘The PSNI is continuing to engage with the Department of Justice, the Office of the Police Ombudsman and the PPS to ensure that police misconduct matters are dealt with as efficiently as possible.

“We would support any change that makes misconduct processes more efficient but crucially any changes must maintain fairness and continue to ensure justice is served.

“A more efficient misconduct regime is, we believe, in everyone’s interest including those subject to misconduct investigations.

“Overall a more efficient misconduct regime would better fulfil the threefold purposes of the police misconduct regime: to maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the police service; to uphold high standards in policing and deter misconduct; and to protect the public.”