Report questions role of North's policing watchdog

A major report on the North's policing watchdog has raised questions over its independence and the British government's role in appointing its figurehead.

Police Ombudsman Al Hutchinson's office is also accused of failing to hold police to account over controversial cases from the Troubles and of using procedures that have left it open to accusations of bias.

The review by human rights group the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) also reveals how two senior figures applied for the post of ombudsman, but missed out amid claims the British government altered the job requirements after they had applied.

The Police Ombudsman's office, a key building block in the peace process, was established in 2000 to boost public confidence by providing independent investigation of complaints against the police.

Aideen Gilmore, deputy director of CAJ, said: "Today's report has uncovered a range of very serious concerns and questions in relation to the efficiency, effectiveness, independence and transparency of the current office, which lead us to question whether the office is fit for purpose in relation to historic investigations.

"CAJ makes a number of detailed recommendations in this report which, if implemented, could go some way towards building much-needed public confidence in the Office of the Police Ombudsman in this regard."

Chief executive of the Ombudsman's office Sam Pollock, who recently resigned alleging Government interference in the organisation, told the CAJ he was effectively stripped of responsibility for accounting for Mr Hutchinson's salary and benefits, which it is said are higher than those of the Ombudsman's predecessor.

Mr Pollock said that when he raised the issue with the Government's Northern Ireland Office (NIO), his concerns were dismissed.

"It was actually stated in writing that the permanent secretary of the NIO and the new ombudsman would discuss how best to ensure effective working relationships between the department and the office," he said.

"I felt it was a complete admonishment and a warning to me to keep my nose out and mind my own business."

The report findings include:

* Growing unease amongst bereaved families, victims, legal representatives and human rights groups over the handling of historical cases;

* Accusations of "painful and distressing" treatment of families by failing to keep in contact with them, and allowing police to see reports before they were completed, but not allowing families the same access. This has also created the impression that police may have influence over the outcome;

* The ombudsman's office has failed to define what constitutes police "collusion" in crime. The report details definitions offered by other investigating bodies. But the ombudsman's use of varied definitions of collusion, which have altered from case to case, were found to have left its impartiality open to question;

* Investigations are "agonisingly slow", producing often brief reports. An eight-year probe into the 1972 IRA bombing of the Co Derry village of Claudy, which killed nine people, produced a 26-page document;

* Ombudsman probes into historic cases have resulted in "findings", as opposed to "recommendations" to secure accountability for police failings;

* There are fears the police may have too much control over what intelligence goes to the ombudsman's office, sparking a call for greater transparency;

* The top tier of the ombudsman's office come from policing backgrounds, while international examples recommend a mix of former police and civilian personnel.

In a response, the Ombudsman said: "After an initial review, it is clear that the report does not include a balanced view of the issues surrounding the investigation of historical matters, nor reflect the structural changes implemented to allow the office to deal with the doubling of historic cases in the past three years.

"The Police Ombudsman does welcome the CAJ discussion around collusion, even though they do not provide a definition. Last year he said it was time for society to begin a discussion about what collusion is and is not."

Mr Hutchinson, who had previously been employed to oversee policing reforms in the North which saw the Royal Ulster Constabulary replaced by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), is the second Police Ombudsman. He succeeded the founder of the office Nuala O'Loan.

But the CAJ report said he is being paid much more than his predecessor.

While Mrs O'Loan started her role on a salary of £75,000-£80,000 (€85,460-91,157) in 2000/01, it was found that Mr Hutchinson began in 2007/08 on £120,000-£125,000 (€136,736-142,443), which matched the salary level Mrs O'Loan had reached by the end of her seven-year term in office.

Mr Hutchinson, who is from Canada where he had a lengthy policing career, was said to have agreed to take a pay cut after a reduction in his office's budget.

But his post also receives substantial benefits. Business class flights for Mr Hutchinson and his wife, plus a housing allowance and payments in lieu of pension, were said to have amounted to £16,140 (18,392) in 2007/08, £73,577 (€83,844) in 2008/09, and £71,370 (81,329) in 2009/10.

The CAJ review said substantial packages are at times offered to attract overseas candidates, but added: "Questions arise as to whether an average cost of £10,000 (11,397) per trip for a return business class flight for the Police Ombudsman and his spouse is fair and reasonable, particularly in the current financial climate."

During the selection process that saw Mr Hutchinson appointed to the post, the CAJ found that a recruitment agency which operates internationally had been tasked to identify potential applicants.

Peter Tinsley, a barrister and former chairman of Canada's Military Police Complaints Commission, who also has extensive international experience, was head-hunted.

Nicholas Long, a commissioner for the Independent Police Complaints Commission in England, was also approached.

Both claim to have been told that prior experience in the North was not necessary, only for that to have been made a requirement after they filed their applications.

The report found that the apparent change could have been introduced by the NIO, but the NIO has denied any such change was made to the job criteria.

The report said: "During the interview with the CAJ, Mr Long ... stated he had considered making a complaint but was advised that to do so would be 'career damaging'."

The report also raised concerns that security-vetting carried out on a newly appointed ombudsman, to clear them for access to top secret material, appeared to have possibly been fast-tracked in Mr Hutchinson's appointment.

The CAJ review said the issue raised further questions over how "the Police Ombudsman's office is treated by the Northern Ireland Office".

The ombudsman said: "Some matters in the report deal with the Police Ombudsman's appointment process, salary and benefits, and security vetting. Those will have to be responded to by the Northern Ireland Office or Department of Justice."

A Northern Ireland Office spokesman said: "We will look at the report. But we are clear that the competition to appoint the Police Ombudsman in 2007 was fully compliant with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (Ocpa) code of practice.

"An Ocpa representative was involved at each stage of the process and signed a certificate confirming it was fully compliant. No additional criteria were added during the appointment process."