Published Date: 25.04.2024

A Police Ombudsman investigation has found that the PSNI missed opportunities to identify the subject of a dissident republican threat, six months before he was murdered in December 2018.

Jim Donegan was shot dead by a lone gunman while waiting to collect his son outside a school on the Glen Road in west Belfast on 4 December 2018.

On 7 June that year police had received intelligence that dissident republicans were planning to shoot an unnamed man “they believed to be involved in the sale of illegal drugs.”

The intelligence identified the type of car driven by the man and stated that he regularly picked up his son from a school on the Glen Road, but provided no date for the anticipated attack.

Members of Mr Donegan’s family told Police Ombudsman investigators that if he had been made aware of the threat he would have changed his routine so as not to put his son at risk.

Police Ombudsman, Mrs Marie Anderson, said a failure by police to link Mr Donegan to the threat and warn him about it had deprived him of the opportunity of taking preventative measures. 

Although she said police had faced challenges in identifying Mr Donegan as the subject of the threat, she found that additional research of the police computer system at an early stage would have been likely to have made such a link.

“As that did not happen, no threat management process was put in place,” said Mrs Anderson. “This meant that police failed to effectively fulfil their obligation to take preventative measures to protect someone whose life was at risk.”

However, Mrs Anderson welcomed the PSNI’s acceptance and implementation of her recommendation for additional training for intelligence officers to help prevent a recurrence.

Police Ombudsman investigators established that after receiving intelligence about the threat on 7 June 2018, police made a series of enquiries in a bid to identify the car and the unnamed person referred to in the threat report.

Although a number of people were identified as potential targets, none were Mr Donegan. Within just over a month of the threat having been received, further enquiries had ruled out each of these individuals, and the police investigation of the threat had drawn largely to a halt.

Police Ombudsman investigators identified a number of reasons why police had failed to identify Mr Donegan as its subject.

One of these was the inability of police to link him to a car of the same make mentioned in the threat message. Although Mr Donegan did own and drive a car of that make, at the time of the threat it was registered to his wife. It was among a number of vehicles identified through police enquiries as potentially matching the details of the threat message.

A police intelligence officer accessed details of all these vehicles and their registered owners, including Mr Donegan’s wife. However, although her relationship with Mr Donegan was referenced, the officer made no checks in relation to him.

“Some additional enquiries at that early stage, in particular checking Mr Donegan’s profile, would have revealed that he had previously been the subject of a number of threats from dissident republicans and was likely to be the unnamed person referred to in the threat message,” said Mrs Anderson.

When interviewed, the officer who made those enquiries said he had not been aware of Mr Donegan or the previous threats against him.

Mrs Anderson said that if the officer had not retired before the conclusion of her enquiries she would have made performance and disciplinary recommendations respectively in relation to the failure to make all reasonable enquiries and for omitting to make appropriate records of the enquiries he had undertaken.

Five weeks after police became aware of the threat, Mr Donegan bought a Porsche and his personalised registration plate was then fitted to that vehicle. He was in the Porsche at the time of his murder.
Mrs Anderson also noted that police records included previous entries linking Mr Donegan to the personalised registration plate. This information had not been entered into the vehicles section of his police profile.

Mr Donegan was the subject of intelligence about two other dissident republican threats in June 2018.

“Police dealt appropriately with both these threats, meeting Mr Donegan and providing him with security advice,” said Mrs Anderson. 

“Regretfully, the threat which family members have stated would have been most likely to have resulted in him changing his routine – given that it mentioned his son and a school - was the one which police were unable to associate with him and therefore did not warn him about.” 

Mrs Anderson added that the case illustrated the importance to public confidence of police correctly applying procedures for referring matters to the Police Ombudsman for independent investigation. She noted that in this case, the PSNI failed to properly apply the statutory test for initiating an investigation via a referral. Instead, they notified her predecessor, Dr Michael Maguire, about the relevant sequence of events and conducted an internal review of intelligence handling in the case.

“Dr Maguire assessed the notification, identified a number of concerns, and directed that an investigation should commence,” said Mrs Anderson.

“However, given the grave circumstances of this incident, it would have been appropriate for police to have made a formal referral. The family brought a challenge to the PSNI’s decision not to refer to the matter to the Ombudsman and the Judge found that the case should have been referred, and that the PSNI’s decision in this respect was flawed.¹

“There have been a number of occasions on which police have failed to make such referrals to my Office in relation to grave or serious matters, and this has raised significant concerns among bereaved families and their representatives,” she said. 

“This case also demonstrates the need for independent investigation of such matters, given that the internal PSNI review of intelligence handling in this case came to the incorrect conclusion that the errors were procedural and required no further investigation.”

ENDS

Editor’s Notes:

¹ The judgment referred to above is available online by clicking this link.