There are renewed calls for NI’s Police Ombudsman to be given new fast-tracking powers after a PSNI officer remained on full pay for more than four years before being dismissed for “serious misconduct”.
Another officer remained on full pay before resigning over the incident involving suspected drugs which were not recorded as being seized from a suspect before they went missing.
The watchdog’s chief executive said the particular case highlights the “inadequacy” of current legislation which is leading to “frustrating and unacceptable delays” in holding police officers to account for offences including serious assault and violence against women.
Hugh Hume warned existing mechanisms do not allow his office to use a fast-track procedure “where it is clear from an early stage in an investigation that there is criminality or gross misconduct which could result in an officer being dismissed without undue delay”.
He lamented the fact that in one particular case involving “serious misconduct”, it took more than 48 months to reach a conclusion, “despite a timely investigation which was completed in just over 12 months”.
“All criminal proceedings must be concluded first. In this case, it took from 2020 until 2023 for the trial to take place and conclude, and a further year for the PSNI to hold misconduct proceedings, which resulted in one officer’s dismissal for gross misconduct,” Mr Hume added.
“Those officers who commit wrongdoing such as dishonesty, serious assault or violence against women cannot be dealt with expeditiously in the public interest in the current system and this gap in the legislation does not serve the interests of victims, the wider public or the police service.”
The case referred to centred on two police officers who were involved in the arrest and search of a man at homeless accommodation in Belfast in November 2018.
A bag of tablets was found during a search of the suspected burglar, but neither of the officers recorded the seizure in official records and subsequently claimed the pills had been disposed of in a bin in the custody suite.
The incident only came to light when a sergeant responsible for notifying probation services of the man’s arrest contacted staff at the homeless accommodation to check if the suspect could return there upon his release.
The sergeant was surprised when hostel staff refused due to the involvement of suspected drugs, about which he was unaware.
He undertook checks of the two officers’ lockers, kit bags and pigeon holes before the officer who conducted the original search by telephone.
Police Ombudsman chief executive Hugh Hume
The officer denied that any drugs had been found. However, his colleague admitted that drugs had been uncovered and that he had wrapped the tablets in latex gloves and thrown them into a bin in the custody suite.
No substances were found in the locker search or in the bins which had been emptied earlier that morning.
Both officers were then arrested and the issue was referred by the PSNI to the Police Ombudsman as a criminal investigation was launched.
No reference to the suspected drugs was found in any police documentation, including the officers’ duty statements, notebook entries, custody records or enquiry logs, despite CCTV footage showing one of the police officers removing an item from the suspect in the homeless shelter.
Footage also revealed the same officer showing a small bag of tablets to a member of staff at the hostel.
CCTV from the custody suite captured a conversation between the officers, who could be heard talking about what to “tell the skipper” before one of them put his hand in his pocket and took off his blue gloves.
After briefly going out of sight of the camera, he returned without the gloves in his hand.
The other officer could also be heard briefing the custody sergeant about the suspect’s property, which he said consisted of a lighter and a coat and a used needle which was disposed of at the homeless accommodation.
Searches of the officers’ workplace, their vehicles and of the arresting officer’s home provided no evidence of any tablets or possible controlled substances.
A forensic examination of the arresting officer’s mobile phone revealed that the two colleagues had communicated about the situation, claiming they had made a “mistake” and insisting there was “not any intention of… personal gain”.
During interview by Police Ombudsman investigators, both officers claimed they thought the items were sleeping tablets and that the decision to dispose of the suspected drugs was an error of judgement.
In January 2020, a file was submitted to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) and a decision to prosecute both of them for misconduct in public office was made in May of the same year.
Both officers were acquitted at trial in February 2023.
However, a month later the Police Ombudsman’s Office forwarded a file to the PSNI’s Professional Standards Department (PSD) recommending disciplinary proceedings.
One officer, who admitted disposing of the drugs, resigned in December 2023 before misconduct proceedings commenced.
The officer who conducted the search and arrest was subsequently dismissed at a misconduct hearing in August 2024.
Throughout the period in question, both officers were placed on restricted duties on full pay.
Mr Hume said the incident highlights “the inefficiencies in the current police misconduct legislation which results in frustrating and unacceptable delays”.
“Successive Police Ombudsmen have recommended that the legislation is amended to allow misconduct proceedings to take place prior to criminal proceedings,” he added.
“Fast-tracking would result in officers being suspended or placed on restricted duties for shorter periods of time pending the outcome of investigations, bring efficiencies to PSNI and would improve confidence in the police complaints system.”