A police officer has been disciplined for making inappropriate comments to a suspect and prompting the suspect during a criminal interview.
It happened on 5 February 2009 while a police officer (Officer 1) conducted enquiries with a man (Man A) suspected of causing grievous bodily harm.
An evidential file relating to the charge against Man A was subsequently submitted to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS).
The PPS asked the Police Ombudsman to investigate after becoming concerned that notes in the file suggested irregularities in the way Officer 1 had conducted interviews with Man A.
Subsequent enquiries by Police Ombudsman investigators established that Officer 1 had conducted two interviews with Man A. The suspect denied the charge against him during the first interview, but went on to make a full and frank admission during the second interview.
Notes in the file submitted to the PPS suggested that Officer 1 had spoken to Man A while interview tapes were switched off between the two interviews.
During this exchange Man A was reported to have admitted the assault and told Officer 1 that the injured party had “deserved it” as he was a sex offender and had made threats against someone known to Man A.
The notes suggest that Officer 1 responded to this “significant statement” with phrases suggesting he would “hammer” the injured party in light of these allegations and “bin” the first interview tape.
Man A was interviewed by Police Ombudsman investigators and recalled that Officer 1 had indeed offered to bin the first interview tape. He also said that during the second interview Officer 1 had slid pieces of paper in front of him to prompt him.
When Police Ombudsman investigators listened to the second interview tape, a sound similar to someone writing followed by a page moving could be heard, followed by Man A saying “sorry”.
Officer 1 initially denied prompting Man A, but after being shown Man A’s statement and listening to the interview tape, he admitted that he had prompted the suspect.
He also admitted mentioning that the first interview tapes would be binned, but said he did not mean this in a literal sense, but rather that Man A should forget about the first interview and start afresh. He denied, however, having used a phrase suggesting he would “hammer” the person Man A accused of a sex offence.
Enquiries established that in actual fact no interview tapes were destroyed, and notebook entries and paperwork completed by Officer 1 made it clear he had conducted two interviews.
At the time of the interviews, Officer 1 was not a qualified detective but was on secondment to the PSNI’s Criminal Investigations Department with a view to attaining detective status.
At the end of the Police Ombudsman’s investigation a file relating to Officer 1’s conduct was sent to the PPS, which subsequently directed that the officer should not be prosecuted.
The Police Ombudsman, Dr Michael Maguire, then considered the evidence in terms of potential misconduct.
Dr Maguire concluded, on the balance of evidence, that Officer 1 had used phrases such as “binning” an interview tape and “hammering” an alleged offender. He found that the use of such language was unprofessional and breached the Police Code of Ethics.
He also concluded that an additional misconduct offence had been committed when Officer 1 prompted Man A during interview.
Dr Maguire recommended that Officer 1 should be disciplined for these breaches and the PSNI has since imposed disciplinary sanctions on the officer.