It cannot be established that two RUC Special Branch officers were present – and took no action – when a person allegedly admitted responsibility for a murder, a report has concluded.
Eoin Morley was killed by the IRA in Newry on April 15, 1990, in what intelligence indicated was intended as a paramilitary-style shooting.
A new report has been published today by the Police Ombudsman.
It followed the publication of a report in February 2005 which concluded that the RUC failed to properly investigate his death.
It had claimed that, in the days after the murder, 10 separate items of intelligence relevant to the investigation and which named four individuals responsible for the attack, were withheld from the investigating officer.
In May 2005, three months after the original report was published, the PSNI received information which alleged that a person (Person A), in the presence of security service and RUC officers, had admitted shooting Mr Morley.
The Chief Constable referred the allegation to the Police Ombudsman. A criminal investigation also began about the conduct of the two Special Branch officers.
It centred on a ‘note for file’ dated March 27, 1992, which had been compiled by a member of the security service. It related to meetings held in London on March 13 and 14, 1992, with Person A, who was subsequently jointly recruited by MI5 and the RUC as an informant. The meetings were attended by two RUC Special Branch officers.
In the note, the MI5 officer recorded that Person A disclosed to him that he fatally shot Mr Morley in a struggle during an attempted paramilitary-style shooting.
Police Ombudsman Marie Anderson
The note also recorded that the same admission was subsequently repeated in the presence of the two police officers.
The meeting was reported in a separate Ombudsman investigation into the murder of Constable Colleen McMurray.
Police Ombudsman investigators reviewed available intelligence and files from the RUC investigation into Mr Morley’s murder.
They established that the investigation had not been provided with information about the alleged admissions made during the London meeting.
They also secured a statement from the MI5 officer in which he detailed how and where the disclosure was made, together with the sequence of events leading up to Person A’s recruitment as an informant.
He also provided a copy of the debrief notes made by the two police officers.
Though detailed, these notes did not contain any reference to any discussion relating to the murder of Eoin Morley.
Both police officers were interviewed under caution – neither recalled any disclosure being made to them by Person A in relation to Mr Morley’s murder. Both stated that they would have recorded information of such significance in their notes.
The Police Ombudsman submitted a file to the PPS for the alleged offences of misconduct in public office and attempting to pervert the course of public justice in respect of both officers.
The PPS directed no prosecution for one police officer. The second police officer had passed away prior to the PPS direction.
Police Ombudsman Marie Anderson said: “Although the matter was subject to exhaustive investigation by my office, it was not possible to establish whether the account provided by the member of the security service is more accurate than those provided by the two police officers who were alleged to have heard the admission of murder.
“The PPS gave careful consideration to the available evidence submitted by my investigators and concluded there was no reasonable prospect of securing a conviction against any officer.”
Assistant Chief Constable Ryan Henderson said: “We will now take time to consider the report in full, however it is noted the Police Ombudsman has concluded that it could not be established that Special Branch Officers heard an admission of Mr Morley’s murder.”