TWO police officers have been disciplined after a Judge ruled that significant failings in the police investigation of a serious assault meant a conviction was impossible.

The attack, which happened in  2009, left a woman with serious injuries.  She was assaulted  by a stranger (Man 1) while out with friends. The victim was taken to hospital and provided a statement to police the following day.

She later told Police Ombudsman investigators that, with the exception of a phone call she made to the investigating officer in the days after the assault, she heard nothing more from police until shortly before the court case - almost two years later. The case was referred to the Ombudsman by police for independent investigation.

Police Ombudsman investigators established that when interviewed by police, Man 1 denied involvement and provided the name of an independent witness.   The potential witness was never interviewed by police. In addition, the officer failed to interview other witnesses or examine relevant technical evidence. 

When interviewed by Police Ombudsman investigators, the officer said the problems had arisen as he had been on sick leave for two to three months at the early stages of the investigation. This was confirmed by police records.  He said he had raised concerns with his supervisor, but believed he had not been given adequate supervision.

The supervisor denied having been made aware of any concerns, but accepted that he could have done more to ensure the case was properly progressed. He also had periods of absence from work during this time.

Both officers expressed regret that the victim had been let down.

The Police Ombudsman recommended that both should be disciplined. He also recommended that the PSNI should give consideration to providing additional training to the supervisor on the use of a computer system used to manage investigations. The recommendations were acted on by the PSNI.