Omagh Bomb Officers Cleared

There will be no criminal action taken against two PSNI officers incorrectly accused of lying during the Omagh bomb trial by the judge.

After news that they have been effectively cleared, there has been a call for an official apology.

DUP Policing Board member Ian Paisley Jnr believes both officers now deserve an apology.

"These two officers who were vilified by the courts deserve a full public apology for the things that have been said about them, both by politicians and secondly, by a trial judge," he told the BBC.

Mr Paisley was commenting after it was revealed by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) that there is "insufficient evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of the conviction of three police officers who gave evidence at the Omagh Bomb trial".

This was the official outcome following a long-running inquiry by the Police Ombudsman who examined transcripts of the evidence of the police officers.

The material was initially referred by the trial Judge to the Chief Constable who referred the matter to the Ombudsman for investigation.

Part of the prosecution case at the Omagh trial related to the discovery of an unexploded mortar device at Altmore Forest, Cappagh, Co Tyrone, on 12 April 2001.

An investigation by the Police Ombudsman has established that a photograph referred to at the Omagh trial, which showed a Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO) and the investigating police officer, was taken when the crime scene was closed and after a timer power unit, which was a component part of the mortar device, had already been bagged by the Army and passed to the Scenes of Crime Officer.

The Ombudsman said that "having regard to all the circumstances including the clarification with regard to when the photograph was taken, the after caution interviews of the officers and other evidence gathered during the course of the investigation, the PPS has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to meet the test for prosecution against either officer in respect of an offence of perjury".

The investigation by the Police Ombudsman also examined the circumstances, which came to light at trial, in which the two officers had each made two witness statements the second of which contained additional information not found in their first statement.

The PPS also concluded that there is insufficient evidence to meet the test for prosecution in respect of either of the two officers in relation to an offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The PPS also said that, in respect of a third officer who had responsibility for disclosure, it was concluded that there was insufficient evidence to meet the test for prosecution of an offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

However, the Ombudsman said he had identified a number of issues and failings that require further consideration by the PSNI, relating to case preparation, documentation and disclosure.

They will be the subject of a further report and recommendations to PSNI Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde.

(BMcC/JM)