Jon Burrows: Amnesty for suspected lawbreakers was a further demand after Ormeau Road incident

​In relation to the 2021 Ormeau Road incident, two days after the former chief constable announced the suspension of one officer and the removal of another from front line duties, he gave an interview to the Nolan Show that was misleading to the public and unfair to the officers.

Simon Byrne reluctantly resigned as chief constable a few days after the judgement in the judicial review. The judge found the PSNI had acted unlawfully in taking action against two officers, following the Ormeau Road incident in 2021.

Nolan asked Simon Byrne whether the PSNI had briefed its officers about the anniversary of the Sean Graham’s massacre. A failure to brief the officers would have raised questions for the PSNI leadership, but it would also have undermined the claims of republicans that the officers had knowingly targeted the memorial service.

Byrne repeatedly refused to admit that no officers had been briefed about the anniversary, he even inferred they had been. However, the minutes of a crisis meeting chaired by the deputy chief constable straight after the altercation reveal that Belfast’s most senior officer had told the PSNI leadership that his officers were entirely unaware of the anniversary.

(Click here for Jon Burrows' first essay in this series about the fallout from two police officers being disciplined after an arrest at a vigil on the Ormeau Road in 2021 to remember the victims of the Sean Graham bookmakers' attack.)

When Nolan asked Byrne whether the gathering was a breach of covid regulations, he refused to answer, however he repeated the line used by republicans that those involved were socially distanced and wearing masks. It wasn’t until the legal challenge to the suspension reached court that the PSNI admitted that the gathering was a prima facie breach of covid regulations and hence the officers were duty bound to investigate it.

When Byrne was pressed about the reasons for the suspension, he insisted the decision was based solely on officer behaviour seen the video. We all now know this was manifestly untrue. Having thrown the law-abiding officers under the bus two days earlier, the former chief constable was now reversing the bus back over them.

The following week the officers appealed the suspension, but Mark Hamilton dismissed the appeal; this would prove to be a major mistake. The two junior officers, stoutly supported by the Police Federation, then launched a judicial review against the most senior officers in the land. A David versus Goliath contest.

The reluctant disclosure of documents by the chief constable’s side throughout the case was noteworthy. Most notably, Simon Byrne did not initially disclose the ‘Daybook’ in which he had documented the political demands and threats by Sinn Fein relating to the officer's suspension. However, tenacity paid off and the officer's legal team eventually obtained this smoking gun. The judge criticised the former chief constable’s failure to initially disclose this vital document, referencing the solemn duty of candour he had to the court.

Personally, the outcome of the judicial review was unsurprising. The body worn video proved the officers were exemplary and the disclosure laid bare the political nature of the suspension. Mr Justice Scoffield declared both the suspension and the repositioning of the two officers unlawful.

The former chief constable reluctantly resigned a few days after the judgement but left without giving an apology to the innocent officers. The board’s vice chair, with a straight face, said that Simon Byrne had always had his officer's welfare at the forefront of his mind.

The board bizarrely made the deputy chief constable, the actual decision maker for the unlawful suspension, the interim chief constable, but he went sick. In an unprecedented crisis, the PSNI had neither a chief nor deputy chief constable at work. The Policing Board, whose fingerprints were already all over this crisis, were all at sea.

After the judgement, something perplexed me. It was clear on the video that around 35 people had attended a memorial that was a prima facie breach of covid regulations.

I had watched a vicious assault on a police officer by a suspect whose identity was known. I had counted dozens of offences by multiple suspects, including obstructing police, assault, and disorderly behaviour. Yet there had been no prosecutions. It was imperative to find out why.

I wrote to the PPS seeking information about any files they received relating to the incident. I also met a retired detective (who agreed to be described as such) and what he told me was deeply shocking. A police unit had investigated the incident and identified multiple people who they suspected of committing offences.

However, despite there being sufficient evidence, a senior officer ordered that these investigations into criminal offences and covid regulation breaches were shut down. The information I received from the PPS also indicated that investigation files were unaccounted for.

One investigation that couldn’t be officially dropped was the assault on the constable, as he was the victim of a sectarian hate crime. However, the PSNI press office were instructed to tell the media that they couldn’t provide information on this investigation because the Ombudsman stopped them doing so.

This was untrue, which the Ombudsman confirmed, as it was a PSNI investigation. Over three years later the PPS have inexplicably not listed this simple case for trial. Who was making these decisions and why?

I outlined in part one of this trilogy of articles that three demands were made by the republican movement which were all achieved within 24 hours. These were that a suspect was released from custody, an officer suspended, and an apology given to memorial attendees.

I discovered there had been a fourth demand. This emanated from a community group, and it was that an amnesty was granted to anyone who had attended the memorial who was suspected of breaking the law.

​

l Jon Burrows is an ex-senior PSNI officer.