Police Ombudsman: Marie Anderson to appeal ruling she exceeded powers

The police ombudsman is to appeal a High Court ruling that she exceeded her legal powers in making findings of collusive behaviour by Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officers in a series of loyalist murders.

The verdict followed a legal challenge by the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association (NIRPOA) over the contents of three separate reports into Troubles killings.

The association has been locked in a long-running legal attempt to have the public statements declared unlawful.

On Thursday, a judge held that Police Ombudsman Marie Anderson acted “ultra vires” by reaching conclusions that amounted to determinations of misconduct.

One of the cases focuses on a probe into a series of loyalist paramilitary murders in the south Belfast area between 1990 and 1998.

In 2022 Ms Anderson found evidence of “collusive behaviour” by police in the attacks, which included the February 1992 massacre at the Sean Graham betting shop on the Ormeau Road where Ulster Defence Association gunmen shot dead five Catholics.

Legal action was also taken over the report into the police handling of loyalist killings in the north west from 1989 to 1993.

A third challenge related to findings in the case of four men wrongly accused of murdering a British soldier in Londonderry.

In his judgement, Mr Justice Scoffield stressed the ombudsman’s role was to investigate rather than adjudicate.

“It is not for the ombudsman to make determinations, whether express or implied, as to whether criminal conduct or even misconduct has in fact occurred; no more than it is for the police to determine and publicly state that a suspect is guilty of a crime,” he said.

“The respondent exceeded her powers given the findings or conclusions expressed in the impugned reports which amounted to determinations of (at least) misconduct.”

In a statement issued on Monday, Ms Anderson confirmed she would appeal the ruling.

“The ombudsman seeks clarity as to the scope of her powers given that the judgement has significant implications for the work of the office in relation to extant legacy cases, non-Troubles related historical investigations and complaints about current police officer conduct,” the statement said.

“The office also notes that Justice Scoffield makes clear that nothing in his judgment undermines or cast doubts on the professionalism, dedication or bona fides of the work of the ombudsman’s office.”

The Democratic Unionist Party called for Ms Anderson to be removed from her position in light of the ruling.

Upper Bann assembly member Jonathan Buckley said it was “no longer tenable” for her to remain in post.

“She has compromised her office, I believe she has also brought dishonour on the office in more ways than one,” Buckley said.

“In effect, Marie Anderson has acted in a politically motivated way.”

Justice Minister Naomi Long said she did not agree with that assessment, saying that the judgement “doesn’t say it was by political motivation”.

Long added that her department was considering the ruling and its implications, but she stressed that the role of police ombudsman was appointed by the Executive Office – the department headed by the first and deputy first ministers.

In their legal challenge, the retired RUC officers claimed Ms Anderson was legally forbidden from making findings which effectively branded them guilty of colluding in brutal murders without proper due process.

A Court of Appeal judgement in 2020 restricted her scope to accuse former policemen and women of the criminal offence of collusion with paramilitaries.

Those proceedings related to a previous case taken by retired senior policemen Raymond White and Ronald Hawthorne over the contents of former Police Ombudsman Michael Maguire’s report into the 1994 Loughinisland atrocity.

Acknowledging her limitations, Ms Anderson said she had identified conduct within the RUC amounting to “collusive behaviours”.

But lawyers for NIRPOA argued that she misunderstood her permitted role and could use that term without establishing a malign motive.

The ombudsman had wrongly labelled all police working in those areas at the relevant times as complicit with people responsible for brutal campaigns of murder, it was contended.

Counsel representing the ombudsman hit back by suggesting the retired officers were becoming “collusion deniers”.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Scoffield acknowledged each of the reports was the product of detailed investigation and significant hard work by the ombudsman and her team of officers.

However, the judge held that a distinction drawn by the ombudsman between “collusion” and “collusive behaviours” was either unsustainable or insufficiently clear.