Police Ombudsman issues statement on investigation into PSNI’s handling of Sean Graham Bookmakers commemoration

On Monday (January 27) the Police Ombudsman issued a statement on her investigation into complaints made by a man who was arrested on February 5, 2021, at the event to commemorate the anniversary of the 1992 shootings.

The man, a survivor of the attack on the Ormeau Road in which five people were murdered and seven people were seriously injured, made a complaint to the Police Ombudsman following the incident in which he was arrested, handcuffed and placed in a police car for one-and-a half hours, before being released.

The investigation centred on allegations concerning the insensitivity of police attending the area during the commemoration, his alleged wrongful arrest and the prolonged, unnecessary use of handcuffs.

Commenting on her investigation, the Police Ombudsman, Marie Anderson, said: “Given the restrictions on gatherings which were in place under the Covid Regulations at the time, I am satisfied that there was reasonable justification for PSNI to have attended the scene.

“However, after examination of all relevant evidence, including radio transmissions, body-worn video and other video footage of the incident, I was of the view that the arresting police officer had not responded to the unfolding events in line with an order to treat the gathering with sensitivity.

“I also considered whether the man’s arrest for disorderly behaviour and his handcuffing should be the subject of criminal and disciplinary proceedings.”

Mrs Anderson submitted a file to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) for a decision on whether two officers should be prosecuted for assault. The PPS directed no prosecution in respect of these officers.

The Police Ombudsman then assessed the conduct of seven police officers, including those who were at the scene, in the control room and the senior officers involved in the decision making. Their actions were assessed against the standards set out in the PSNI Code of Ethics.

Mrs Anderson said the evidence had been sufficient to support her recommendations to the PSNI’s Professional Standards Department (PSD) for disciplinary proceedings regarding one officer’s conduct in relation to the man’s arrest and handcuffing.

The recommendations were accepted by PSD and disciplinary proceedings were held. However, the officer subsequently appealed the decision of the disciplinary panel, and the appeal was upheld.

Mrs Anderson emphasised that her investigation focused on the man’s complaint, and was distinct from the decision by the PSNI to suspend one police officer and re-position another. These decisions were subsequently judged to have been unlawful following a judicial review.

Her statement highlighted the following areas.

Attendance at the event

Radio transmissions showed that when police officers first encountered the commemoration, which was taking place at the corner of Hatfield Street and the Ormeau Road, they thought it was a ‘pop-up protest’ and were not aware of the significance of the gathering.

The officers, who were both probationary officers with less than 12 months’ service, were given orders to establish what was happening and were instructed by their supervising sergeant to put their body-worn video on and to “back off” if they met resistance.

Approximately 12 minutes after the initial radio exchange, the supervising sergeant advised the attending officers that the gathering was to commemorate the anniversary of the Sean Graham Bookmakers shootings.

Given confirmation of the commemoration, the supervising inspector then instructed the officers to “still get footage, but treat with sensitivity”.

Initial engagement, captured by the officers’ body-worn video cameras, involved a verbal exchange with the man during which he commented about the way in which an incident had been policed at Pitt Park in east Belfast a number of days earlier on February 2, 2021. The exchange at this point, like the radio transmissions, suggested that the officers were not aware of the significance of the commemoration.

Body-worn video subsequently showed that the man became more unsettled with police and swore at them, prompting one police officer to ask for his personal details, which he did not provide. The officer attempted to detain the man, who walked away.

Arrest and handcuffing

The man was then handcuffed, and informed that he was under arrest for disorderly behaviour and resisting arrest. He was placed in a police car where he remained with his hands cuffed behind him for almost one-and-a half hours, before being released at Musgrave PSNI station.

Witness accounts described concern regarding the need to arrest and handcuff the man. Video footage on social media showed no evidence of police attempting, at that time, to arrest other persons.

The evidence demonstrated that the attending police officers had no advance knowledge of the event or an in-depth understanding of the atrocity which was being commemorated.

Conduct of senior officers

In the course of the investigation, issues also emerged regarding the man’s detention, and investigators considered police compliance with a requirement that a person under arrest should be brought to a police station and brought before a custody officer as soon as practicable.

In this case, on the instruction of a senior officer, the man was released from the police vehicle rather than being brought before a custody officer.

The actions of two senior police officers, a chief inspector and assistant chief constable, were therefore also investigated by the Police Ombudsman.

The assistant chief constable, having become aware of the incident and the arrest of the man, advised the chief inspector to assess police actions, review the necessity for the man’s arrest and continued detention, and to consider whether it was appropriate to release him.

In giving his advice he was mindful of the requirement that ‘all persons in custody must be dealt with expeditiously and released as soon as the need for their detention no longer applies.’

The chief inspector made an assessment and subsequently decided to release the man.

After considering these actions, the Police Ombudsman identified no evidence of a breach of the PSNI Code of Ethics by senior police officers.

Recommendations for improvements to policing

The investigation also led the Police Ombudsman to make three recommendations to PSNI to improve aspects of operational policing.

Based on the belief that had officers been briefed about the commemoration, decision-making regarding how to police the event may have been more appropriate, the Police Ombudsman recommended that police develop a system to ensure that they are aware of Troubles-related anniversaries or commemorations.

Prior to making this policy recommendation, PSNI had already taken steps to increase knowledge in local policing teams of possible commemorations for Troubles-related incidents. However, this recommendation was accepted by PSNI. A section has now been incorporated into the PSNI’s Strategic Community Impact Assessment which covers some of the key events during the Troubles and highlights these to District Command Teams.

The second recommendation related to the then resourcing of local policing teams, given that at the time of this event, a significant number of local policing team officers were probationary officers and a large percentage of supervisors were in temporary positions.

This recommendation was partially accepted by the PSNI.

The final recommendation related to the need for improvements in public order training for new officers and, in particular, case law relevant to arrests.

This recommendation was also accepted by PSNI.

The PSNI said it acknowledges the statement issued by the Police Ombudsman.

Chief Constable Jon Boutcher said: “It is important to say that, first and foremost, I recognise the continuing distress being felt by all of the families of those killed and injured at Sean Graham Bookmakers on February 5, 1992, and want to acknowledge the pain and suffering that they all continue to feel.

“The commemoration event in 2021 took place during Covid-19 when restrictions on gatherings were constantly changing. Following her investigation, the Ombudsman submitted a file to the Public Prosecution Service and they directed no prosecution on any of the officers involved. Our internal processes have also concluded with no action required for the officers.

“As an organisation we are committed to learning from this case and have accepted the recommendations made by the Ombudsman. We have already commenced updating our training, policy and procedures to ensure that incidents of a similar nature do not occur again.”