An investigation into the 1978 La Mon firebombing was compromised after a man’s confessions were deemed inadmissible by a trial judge, according to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (PONI).
The man alleged he had been assaulted by police while in custody.
The ombudsman published a report on Wednesday into the atrocity in which 12 people were killed and scores injured when the Provisional IRA exploded a bomb at the hotel on the outskirts of Belfast in 1978.
The report considered the effectiveness of the investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), including resulting prosecutions against two men, one who was convicted of 12 counts of manslaughter in 1981, and the other who was acquitted during his trial in 1980.
At the trial, the judge said he could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the man’s statements had not been “adduced by torture or inhuman or degrading treatment” and the statements were excluded.
The case was dismissed in the absence of other evidence.
Paul Holmes, senior director of investigations with the Police Ombudsman’s Office, said the judge’s comments and trial outcomes point to “a violation of the rule of law by the police officers involved”.
Families, friends, and campaigners outside the office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland in Belfast. Image: Oliver McVeigh/PA Wire
PONI also said that a loss of records and exhibits from the original investigation into the 1978 La Mon bombing atrocity was “frustrating”.
Holmes added: “My ability to provide a definitive view on the effectiveness of the RUC investigation, including whether all appropriate lines of enquiry were pursued, has been hindered by the unavailability of certain documentation generated by the investigation. It has not been possible to establish the circumstances in which these records were lost. However, this is a recurring, systemic issue in legacy cases and is not unique to this investigation.”
Ombudsman investigators were able to access the majority of records generated by the RUC investigation and concluded the initial response to the attack was prompt and well managed.
“The first police officers to attend the scene displayed courage and professionalism in seeking to save lives and tend to the injured,” said Mr Holmes.
“More than 100 detectives were involved in the murder investigation and almost 400 statements were recorded. Scenes were identified and exhibits seized, and forensic examinations took place. In the context of the significant pressures and challenges faced by the RUC at that time, I am of the view that the investigation was well resourced and received direction from the highest levels of the RUC.”
Ombudsman investigators also found that some enquiries appeared to not have been actioned by the RUC, including a failure to conduct enquiries regarding the second bomb warning call.
Read more
“Collusive behaviours” were not a feature of the RUC investigation into the 1978 La Mon bombing, according to Ombudsman.
It had said concerns were raised that informants may have been involved in the bombing, and so the RUC may have had information which may have prevented the atrocity or that informants may have been protected by police.
Holmes said the investigation did not see evidence or intelligence that would support the suggestion of malpractice by police officers and found no intelligence which could have forewarned of or prevented the bombing.
He said: “The substantial police investigation files, associated documentation and intelligence records reviewed by this office, together with explanatory accounts from a number of former police officers and other enquiries, lead me to conclude that there was earnest endeavour by the RUC to bring those responsible for the bombing of La Mon House to justice.
“However, maintenance of the investigation did not have the same rigour and this manifested in the loss of investigative material and the failure to interview the person arrested in 1991 in relation to the bombing. I am of the view, based on all available evidence and information, that collusive behaviours were not a feature of this RUC investigation.”
“The evidence and intelligence viewed by the Police Ombudsman’s investigation attributes responsibility for directing, enabling and perpetrating the bombing of La Mon House to the Provisional IRA,” Mr Holmes concluded.
The PSNI has said it is aware of the “hurt and anger” of the families of those affected by the 1978 La Mon bombing.
Assistant Chief Constable Ryan Henderson of the Justice branch said the organisation’s thoughts are with the families and friends of those killed and injured in the “cowardly attack on innocent people socialising on a night out”.
“We are very aware of the hurt and anger still being felt by the families of all those who were affected by this indiscriminate bomb attack and we extend our sincere sympathies to all those families,” he said.
“We acknowledge the historic issues identified in the report concerning records management in this investigation, however, this was at a time that predated the introduction of the computerised Home Office Large Major Enquiry System (Holmes) system.
“While the Police Ombudsman’s report has identified some investigative failings it also highlights that the investigation was well-resourced, comprehensive and effective. The report has found that police held no intelligence prior to the attack that could have prevented it and also found that there was no evidence that any persons were protected from prosecution.
“I would also like to reflect on the courage, compassion and professionalism and of the police officers who responded to the scene of the bombing. The difficult and challenging circumstances they faced when dealing with the victims and survivors represented the highest of standards and I welcome the fact that the Police Ombudsman has highlighted this in the report.”
News Catch Up: Wednesday 11th December