A Police Ombudsman investigation has concluded that a combination of human error by police officers and problems with a PSNI computer system led to the collapse of a criminal case against a senior Orangeman following a controversial Loyalist parade.

 Police had recommended the prosecution of a senior member of the Orange Order in relation to alleged breaches of public order during the Orange Order's Whiterock Parade on 28 June 2003.

The alleged offences concerned the flying of paramilitary flags and the playing of band music at Lanark Way Gate by participants in the parade, in breach of a prior Parades Commission determination issued under Section 8(7) of the Public Processions (NI) Act 1988.

Police were preparing the prosecution case against the senior Orange Order official when the case collapsed because of a failure by the PSNI to obtain necessary legal documentation.

In February 2004, the Chief Constable of the PSNI, Hugh Orde, referred the police's failure to prosecute to the Police Ombudsman for investigation.

Following an investigation, the Police Ombudsman has concluded that the failure to progress the case was due to two main factors:

• Computer problems: a police computer system would have led police to believe that they had secured the necessary documentation when in fact they had not.
• Human error: An officer had begun, but did not complete, the process of applying for the necessary documentation.

Mrs O'Loan concluded that, given the large volume of files handled by the PSNI department responsible, and the lack of an adequate automated reminder system, the likelihood of such errors was high.

There was no evidence, she said, of any criminal activity by police officers in relation to their handling of the case.

Background

In the lead up to the Orange Order's 2003 annual Whiterock Parade, residents of the Springfield Road,Whiterock Road, the Highfield Estate and Lanark Way, along with the police, had agreed a series of measures which it was hoped would ensure a trouble-free event.

One element of the agreement was that the PSNI would submit a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions highlighting any breaches of the Parades Commission determination or any other criminal offences.

In a press release issued by the PSNI press office on the eve of the parade Chief Superintendent Cecil Craig stated that police would "be closely monitoring the progress of events on the day, particularly to ensure that it passes of in accord with the determination and we will have no hesitation in reporting any breaches".

Following the parade, police conducted an investigation into the alleged offences. A file was prepared and recommendations to prosecute were forwarded to the DPP in October 2003.

During their investigation, Police Ombudsman investigators established that on 17^thDecember 2003, the PSNI Sergeant who prepared the police file for the DPP asked the PSNI’s Central Process Office (CPO) to obtain a Form 1 in respect of the case. These forms are required to protect potential prosecutions which would otherwise become statute-barred after six months.

The Sergeant, wary that the six-month deadline for obtaining the Form 1 was approaching on 26 December, called the CPO on Christmas Eve to check on the progress of the application. Another PSNI Sergeant queried the relevant police computer system and reported that it indicated that a Form 1 had indeed been obtained.

In February 2004 the DPP called the PSNI's Investigating Officer to signal their intention to prosecute a senior member of the Orange Order in connection with the case.

The Investigating Officer then made a further check call to the CPO to ensure that Form the 1 had been obtained. The CPO this time indicated that it had not been. This meant that no prosecution could proceed as, in the absence of a Form 1, the alleged offences were "statute barred".

The Investigating Officer reported the matter to a superior officer, who raised the issue with the officer in charge of the CPO. After consideration, the Chief Constable referred the matter to the Police Ombudsman for investigation.

During their investigation, Police Ombudsman investigators became aware of a number of issues with the PSNI's computer system in respect to Form 1 applications.

These included that:

• The system would incorrectly indicate that a Form 1 had been obtained before a record was fully completed.
• It would indicate that a Form 1 had been issued, even if the process was cancelled.
• New information entered into a record could completely overwrite previously stored information.
• The system did not generate any automated facility to remind officers of impending deadlines

Police Ombudsman investigators also established that three Sergeants within the CPO had accessed the relevant record during December 2003. Two of these officers viewed the record, but did not input any data. The third officer entered some information but did not complete the record. It was suggested that this might have happened as a result of logging off to obtain further information, and then forgetting to log back on and complete the record.

Investigators were unable to establish to whom the task of obtaining the Form 1 had initially been allocated, and who therefore, was responsible for ensuring it was obtained. No system existed for recording this information.

As a result of the investigation, the Police Ombudsman made a number of recommendations to help prevent a recurrence of the problems encountered during this case. These include:

• A computerised registry system to track application requests and identify officers responsible for them.
• Changes to the relevant police computer system to avoid misinterpretations regarding the receipt of Form 1s.
• The introduction of an integrated "warning" system to alert officers to impending deadlines.
• Amendments to the computer system to prevent the overwriting of information.
• The use of a standalone fax machine to minimise the possibility of Form 1 applications being misplaced.

No recommendations for criminal or disciplinary action were made against any officer in respect of the case.