NIO 'interfered' in Ombudsman role

Published Thursday, 16 June 2011

The Northern Ireland Office has described the Police Ombudsman's appointment as "fully compliant" with the relevant codes of practice after a report issued by a human rights organisation claimed it had interfered in the process.

We’re sorry. This video is unavailable from your location.

The report by the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) - which was released on Thursday - revealed how two senior figures applied for the post, but missed out to former Canadian Mountie Al Hutchinson in 2007.

Mick Beyers, Policing Programme Officer at CAJ, said they had uncovered "a range of irregularities" in relation to the process used to appoint the current Police Ombudsman, overseen by the Northern Ireland Office.

The human rights group believes this had "a significant impact on the independence of and interference in the Office of the Police Ombudsman."

However, the NIO has rejected the claim.

An NIO spokesperson said: "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. We will look at the Report and the allegations made."

CAJ are now questioning if the police watchdog's work on historical cases is "fit for purpose."

The committee began the investigation process into the effectiveness, efficiency, transparency and independence of the police watchdog last summer, following growing unease among families, victims, legal representatives and human rights groups.

It also raised concerns regarding the length of time the Office was taking to carry out its investigations and how they have dealt with collusion.

Mr Beyers said: "The research has raised serious concerns in relation to the failure of the Office to define and apply the term 'collusion' in a consistent manner across all investigations and a failure to hold the police to account in relation to historic cases."

In a statement the Ombudsman's Office said it was 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."

It said it welcomed the discussion on collusion by human rights group.

The CAJ has made eight recommendations which it says need to be implemented if the Ombudsman's office is to discharge its obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Comments

14 Comments

david in down wrote (342 days ago):

The media continually protray the CAJ as an independant oversight body.Nothing could be further from the truth. CAJ are part of the republican propaganda machine attacking everything and anything that conducts its business in a fair and impartial manner and provides conclusions that CAJ do not agree with. CAJ are an anti British organisation and their impartial propraganda should be exposed by professional journailism.

LORNA in limavady wrote (342 days ago):

Mick Yes the IRA were carrying out republician funerals and the Church at the end wasn't having it either. When you get a paralimitary funeral . Shots over the coffin it had to be stopped but then that was just what the IRA wanted to film and sent the pictures to America. The RUC did not interfere with Catholic funerals

John in magherafelt wrote (343 days ago):

I would take issue with the statement that over 80% within both communities support A Bill of Rights for NI. The EU Human Rights Charter is good enough for the rest of Europe & should be good enough for us. The self appointed CAJ just want something to whine about & justify their existence

Joe Smith in belfast wrote (343 days ago):

The CAJ is silent on on the abuse of human rights by Sinn Fein where thousands are denied a voice in Westminster. The CAJ don't criticise the rewriting of the McGurks bar bombing report by the relatives where the ombudsman was told what to say.

Dave in Belfast, NI wrote (343 days ago):

Having read the CAJ report (much of which reads like a tabloid article), it's hard to avoid the conclusion that they are embarking on a personal crusade against the current PO over their disagreement with the conclusion of the McGurk's Bar invertigation. The murder of John Larmour and the Claudy bombing receive only cursory treatment in the report and were obviously only included as rather thin smokescreens. It's ironic that much of the report talks of "perceptions" of bias when the CAJ is widely perceived as a self-appointed Irish Nationalist organisation with no credibility. I can't help but wonder who funds them (there is only a partial list on their website) and whether their organisation reflects the make-up of the community it purports to serve....

More Comments

^ Top of Comments