The Police Ombudsman found no evidence of wrongdoing by two PSNI Sergeants following an investigation into their handling of an application for a copy of a tape-recorded interview.
Indeed, the Police Ombudsman commented positively about one of the officers who identified that part of the PSNI's Code of Practice was unlawful, and took practical steps to resolve the issue.
Under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (PACE) members of the public who have been charged with an offence or informed that they are to be prosecuted are entitled to copies of tape recorded interviews conducted by the police.
However, one of the Sergeants under investigation (Sergeant A) identified that the PSNI's Code of Practice states that such tapes should not be supplied to anyone who is not represented by a lawyer. This is contrary to PACE.
The issue came to light after Sergeant A and a colleague (Sergeant B) were investigated by the Police Ombudsman's Office on suspicion of dealing improperly with an application for a copy of a tape recorded interview during July and August 2006.
Sergeant B was suspected of having abused his position as a police officer by obtaining a recording of an interview with his son, who was questioned in connection with a traffic accident. Sergeant A approved the application.
However, the Police Ombudsman's investigation found that Sergeant B had done nothing wrong. He was acting with the written authority of his son, and was entitled to do so.
Although the actions of Sergeant A, in approving the application without completing all relevant paperwork, were contrary to PSNI guidelines, he was found to have acted in good faith and in line with common PSNI practice.
The Police Ombudsman investigation also established that Sergeant A had taken a number of steps to alert colleagues that the common practice adopted by officers in dealing with copies of interview tapes contravened PSNI guidelines.
He informed his supervising Inspector, issued an email to colleagues in his own area, and put up a poster in his station reminding colleagues to complete all relevant paperwork.
In addition, he identified that the practice of withholding interview tapes from suspects not represented by a solicitor/legal representative was unlawful under PACE.
He also sought clarification from senior officers about the use of triple tape recording systems, pointing out that tapes were routinely handed out to interviewees before charge, again contrary to police guidelines.
Police Ombudsman Al Hutchinson said: "The officer must be positively commented upon for taking the initiative to remind his colleagues about the need to complete paperwork when dealing with requests for tapes, and also for alerting his supervisors to inconsistencies in PSNI practice."
Mr Hutchinson also recommended that the PSNI should conduct a review with the aim of establishing a consistent approach across all District Command Units (DCU's), while ensuring the integrity of the paper audit trail.