Derry : l'omicidio Brown

Ho ricevuto una mail dal buon Fergus : è il testo dell'ombudsman della polizia in merito all'omicidio Brown (segretario della GAA nella contea di Derry) Anche se è lunga, buona lettura


The following is the full text of a report released today by
the Police Ombudsman, Nuala O'Loan, which is highly critical
of the investigation into the murder by the loyalist
paramilitary LVF of Sean Brown.

Sean Brown was locking up the Gaelic sports club in Bellaghy,
County Derry, where he served as chairman when he was abducted
and killed in May 1997. O'Loan's office has determined that
the police made "no earnest effort" was made to find the
killers, and that crucial files relating to the case have
inexplicably disappeared.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 On 12th May 1997, John Patrick Brown (Sean) aged 61
years, was abducted from outside the Gaelic Athletic
Association Club (the GAA Club) in Bellaghy, County Derry.
He was forcibly placed into the boot compartment of his own
vehicle and driven to farmland adjoining Old Moneynick Road,
Randalstown, County Antrim. He was shot six times and his
vehicle set alight. Police officers who attended the scene
discovered his body, lying next to his burning vehicle.

1.2 The Royal Ulster Constabulary considered this a
sectarian attack and a full-scale murder investigation was
launched utilising the Home Office Large Major Enquiry System
(HOLMES). A Senior Investigating Officer was appointed who
continued to supervise the conduct of the police investigation
until his retirement in July 2000. The appointed deputy to
the Senior Investigating Officer was Detective Chief Inspector
(now Detective Superintendent) A.

1.3 On 04 November 2001 the Royal Ulster Constabulary became
the Police Service of Northern Ireland pursuant to Section 1
of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.



2.0 THE POLICE INVESTIGATION

2.1 The murder investigation followed recognised standard
investigative procedures. The investigation was conducted as
follows:

a) The enquiry operated using the Home Office Large Murder
Enquiry System (HOLMES) in a HOLMES suite;

b) Incoming information / messages were recorded, with actions
being generated and allocated;

c) Two "crime scenes" were identified and forensic support
deployed;

d) A limited investigation into vehicles passing a checkpoint
in Toomebridge Royal Ulster Constabulary Station was
undertaken;

e) Witnesses to the attack were sought and limited
house-to-house enquiries carried out;

f) Intelligence received, from both Special Branch and Force
Intelligence Bureau, was researched;

g) A Policy File was created to record decisions taken and
details relating to those decisions;

h) A review of the intelligence provided to the Murder
Investigation Team resulted in the identification of a number
of suspects.

2.2 The conclusion of the Senior Investigating Officer, was
that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute any
individual. No file was submitted to the Director of Public
Prosecutions for his decision.

2.3 On 2nd July 1998, the Senior Investigating Officer
directed that the investigation be closed "pending new
information coming into police possession".

2.4 Another senior officer, Detective Superintendent B,
carried out an assessment of the murder investigation file for
the Royal Ulster Constabulary after notification that the
Police Ombudsman had received a complaint.

2.5 Detective Inspector C has conducted an analysis of the
murder investigation file to identify whether opportunities
still exist to advance the enquiry.



3.0 THE COMPLAINT

3.1 On 30th January 2001, Solicitors, acting on behalf of
Mrs Bridie Brown, wife of the late Mr Sean Brown, complained
to the Police Ombudsman making the following allegations:

a) That the investigation into the death of Mr Sean Brown had
"not been efficiently and properly carried out";

b) The police had failed to update the victim's family as to
investigative developments;

c) That "no earnest effort" was being made to identify the
persons who murdered Mr Sean Brown.


4.0 THE POLICE OMBUDSMAN'S INVESTIGATION

4.1 Having acknowledged receipt of the above complaint,
preliminary enquiries were made with the Royal Ulster
Constabulary, who were asked to provide this Office with
relevant documentation / material.

4.2 Correspondence received from Detective Superintendent B
provided a brief summary of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
investigation, the level of contact with the victim's family,
detail of the arrests made and the subsequent grounds upon
which the original Senior Investigating Officer closed the
investigation.

4.3 Detective Superintendent B also provided a copy of a
page of a Royal Ulster Constabulary Policy File, in which the
decision to close the investigation is recorded.

4.4 Detective Superintendent B advised that he had "been
appointed to re-assess the decision of the former Senior
Investigating Officer and to liaise with the family in
relation to any further decisions that are made in this case".
This was communicated by the Police Ombudsman to the Brown
family. They declined such liaison.

4.5 The initial complaint made by Mrs Brown was subsequently
considerably expanded upon and clarification was sought in
relation to a wide range of investigative issues. However many
of the issues raised by the family spokesperson were outside
the Police Ombudsman's remit, referring to political and other
matters, and the general tenor of the original complaint has
remained the core focus of enquiries by the Police Ombudsman.

4.6 The Police Ombudsman then began to:

a) Identify and establish liaison with the Royal Ulster
Constabulary / Police Service of Northern Ireland Home Office
Large Major Enquiry System (HOLMES) account manager;

b) Research all relevant evidential information / material,
held on the system;

c) Evaluate all forensic evidential opportunities;

d) Review the extent of enquiries made to trace key witnesses;

e) Identify and review specific lines of enquiry undertaken by
the investigating team;

f) Interview the retired Senior Investigating Officer and
other officers as appropriate;

g) Carry out a review of all recorded strategic decisions and
/ or policy, directed by the Senior Investigating Officer;

h) Assess the level of family liaison;

i) Review the content and dissemination of intelligence made
available to the Murder Investigation Team and the action
generated from that intelligence;

j) Review all available intelligence relating to the murder of
Mr Sean Brown, and to activities in and around Bellaghy both
before and after the murder;

k) Assess the extent to which, if any, the complaints made
were substantiated.



5.0 THE INVESTIGATION

5.1 As the investigation progressed, a number of issues came
to light, which are cause for concern, some of which are
detailed below:

5.2 Forensic Samples

5.3 When reviewing the forensic strategy, it was found that
near to the burnt out vehicle, and in close proximity to the
body of Mr Sean Brown, a number of discarded cigarette butts
were recovered by police. There was every reason to suspect
at the time that these may have been discarded by those
involved in the murder.

5.4 The cigarette butts were submitted to the Forensic
Science Service "for DNA", but no biological samples were
taken or requested from any of the persons subsequently
arrested for the murder of Mr Sean Brown. It has been
established that the necessary technology to carry out DNA
analysis was available at the time. The fact that no
biological samples were submitted to the Forensic Science
Service meant that no analysis was carried out, there being
nothing to compare the samples against.

5.5 When asked in interview, the retired Senior
Investigating Officer was unable to confirm whether biological
samples were taken from the detained suspects. His only
comment with regard to forensic samples was, that to his
knowledge all forensic exhibits were submitted for analysis.

5.6 In interview under caution Detective Superintendent A
could offer no explanation as to why the cigarette butts were
not examined for DNA.

5.7 The failure to identify and pursue this particular
evidential opportunity was a significant error, which could
have impacted upon the effectiveness of this investigation.

5.8 The failure to take DNA samples from suspects when they
were arrested meant that no samples were available against
which comparison could be made of DNA obtained. This has
been drawn to the attention of the Police Service of Northern
Ireland.


6.0 WITNESS ENQUIRIES

6.1 It was established that there was no proper search for
witnesses at the location at which Mr Brown's body was found.

6.2 The Police Ombudsman identified a witness who was in the
Old Moneynick Road area on the night Mr Sean Brown was
murdered. He told the Police Ombudsman's Investigator that
at approximately 190 hours on the evening of 12th May 1997,
he had seen a dark coloured car parked in the exact isolated
spot where Mr Sean Brown's burning vehicle was later
discovered.

6.3 The witness said that he approached the police cordon
and provided this information, together with his own details,
to an unknown uniformed police officer. He had not been
contacted by the investigating team. There is no trace of
this witness in the investigation file. The details of the
witness have been passed to the police.

6.4 In relation to other witnesses the Police Ombudsman has
established that other witnesses identified by the Brown
family were interviewed, and that their evidence was taken
into account.


7.0 ENQUIRIES INTO VEHICLES USED

7.1 The Police Ombudsman examined the police investigation
into what has been described as the "convoy" of vehicles
driven by those involved in the murder, (one of which would
have contained the abducted Mr Sean Brown), as it passed
through Toomebridge on the night of 12 May 1997.

7.2 In 1997 the registration number of every vehicle, which
drove past Toomebridge Royal Ulster Constabulary station was
recorded.

7.3 There are five particular areas of concern:

1. It is known that shortly before being attacked Mr Sean
Brown set the security alarm at the Gaelic Athletic
Association Club at 230 hours. His burning car was
discovered (having travelled through Toomebridge), fifteen
minutes later at 235 hours. The extent of the police
investigation of the vehicle numbers recorded was only
extended beyond this period by a total of two minutes. The
actual time frame investigated by the Murder Investigation
Team thus spanned a period of seventeen minutes. The timings
have been verified. This was wholly inadequate.

2. No attempt was made to identify possible sightings of a
"convoy" or other vehicles passing the police station,
en-route to the scene, prior to the attack upon Mr Sean Brown
in Bellaghy. Little room for error on the return journey was
built in. Nor was any research conducted into the potential
for suspect vehicles to have passed Toomebridge on a
reconnaissance mission in the days before.

3. During the seventeen-minute period, a total of twenty
vehicles, including that owned by Mr Sean Brown, are
identified as having passed the police station. It appears
that, of these, seventeen were eliminated from the enquiry and
statements taken from the owner / drivers. The owner of the
vehicle which preceded the victim's car, was interviewed, and
denied having travelled through Toomebridge on the night of
the murder. That vehicle was seized and forensically
examined. Nothing was found which might associate that
vehicle with the attack on Mr Sean Brown. It now seems
likely that the actual vehicle recorded bore false number
plates.

4. Of the two remaining vehicles one bore an English
registration number. There is no trace of this vehicle on
the Police National Computer, which records the numbers and
owners of all registered vehicles. It is possible that the
car registration was misread and the wrong number recorded.
No further enquiries appear to have been made (i.e. selecting
other numerical variations, or contacting manufacturers) to
trace this vehicle. There were a number of investigative
opportunities which could have been explored in an attempt to
identify this vehicle. This was not done.

5. Finally the one remaining vehicle was owned by a person in
the Republic of Ireland. The Police Ombudsman's Investigator
was informed by An Garda Siochana that the owner was spoken to
and denied that his vehicle had been in the North. An Garda
Siochana were not requested to take a written statement and
did not do so. The result was thus only verbally
communicated. This is not a sufficiently thorough process.
The practice of "telephone elimination" in such cases is
not
satisfactory.


fine parte 1

8.0 INTELLIGENCE ISSUES

8.1 The Police Ombudsman has evaluated the flow of
intelligence between Special Branch, Force Intelligence Bureau
and the original Murder Investigation Team. There is some
confusion, and in certain areas a degree of conflict, as to
what was received and from whom.

8.2 Some intelligence was made available to the retired
Senior Investigating Officer either by Special Branch, or by
the Force Intelligence Bureau. However, no clear audit could
be found within the Home Office Large Major Enquiry System
(HOLMES) account, Special Branch, or the Force Intelligence
Bureau of how the intelligence was received and transmitted to
the Murder Investigation Team. In the absence of the Policy
File (see Paragraph 9.0) the tasks allocated as a consequence
of the receipt of the action, and the reasons for the action
which was taken or which was not taken, cannot be definitively
identified.

8.3 The primary source of the intelligence provided to the
Murder Investigation Team was Special Branch.

8.4 It has been established that all relevant intelligence
available to Special Branch was not shared with the original
investigating team. There are in total some nineteen
intelligence entries, of varying quality (six are of
particular relevance). These entries have now been passed to
Detective Inspector C, who has recently completed an analysis
of the investigation into the murder of Mr Sean Brown to
identify further investigative opportunities. Obviously the
delay in passing this intelligence will have reduced its
potential value to the investigation.


9.0 THE MURDER INVESTIGATION POLICY FILE

9.1 When decisions are made in an investigation of this type
each decision, and the reason for that decision, is recorded
in a Policy File which is created for the purpose of the
particular investigation.

9.2 The retired Senior Investigating Officer stated that he
had maintained a Royal Ulster Constabulary Policy File, within
which he had recorded all decisions made during the conduct of
the murder investigation. Upon his departure from the Royal
Ulster Constabulary, he left the document with other filed
case papers.

9.3 The Police Ombudsman had, on 05 March 2001, received
from Detective Superintendent B, a photocopy of the final page
of the Policy File, completed on behalf of the retired Senior
Investigating Officer, by his Deputy, Detective Chief
Inspector A. It had been copied from the Policy File which
was held in Garvagh Royal Ulster Constabulary Station on that
date. The entry, which is dated 02/07/98, effectively closes
the investigation "pending new information coming into police
possession".

9.4 At some point after the photocopying was undertaken, the
Policy File disappeared. Despite extensive searches by the
Police Ombudsman and the Police Service of Northern Ireland,
it has not been recovered.

9.5 This single Box File which contained the Policy File is
the only item stored at Garvagh Police Station, found to be
missing.

9.6 Examination of the Policy File is a critical process to
determine how and why the enquiry into Mr Brown's death was
conducted. Failure to access and review the Policy File has
seriously impeded enquiries undertaken by the Police
Ombudsman, particularly in relation to issues such as family
liaison, forensic strategies, receipt and handling of
intelligence and any strategy relating to the arrest of
identified suspects. It has also effectively prevented the
allocation of responsibility for individual decisions made by
senior officers.


10.0 THE BELLAGHY OCCURRENCE BOOK

10.1 Each police station maintains an Occurrence Book in
which are entered all matters reported to the police. Searches
have been made but the Occurrence Book from Bellaghy Royal
Ulster Constabulary Station for the relevant period cannot be
found. This means that neither the Murder Investigation Team
nor the Police Ombudsman has been able to examine the record
of what was occurred at Bellaghy Royal Ulster Constabulary
Station on the night of the murder.


11.0 CONCLUSIONS

11.1 COMPLAINT No. 1 - "That the investigation into the
murder of Mr Sean Brown had not been efficiently and properly
carried out."

11.2 The investigation of the murder of Mr Sean Brown on
12th May 1997 was incomplete and inadequate. The
investigation encompassed three incident scenes - the Gaelic
Athletic Association Club at Bellaghy from which Mr Brown was
abducted, his car, in which he was driven to the Old Moneynick
Road area of Randalstown, and the location in which his body
and his burning car were found.

11.3 Significant failures in the Royal Ulster Constabulary
/ Police Service of Northern Ireland investigative process
have been identified. Those failures include:

I. The failure to carry out a proper search for witnesses at
and in the area of the Old Moneynick Road scene;

II. The failure to speak to an important witness who
identified himself to an unknown police officer on 13th May
1997, and who was never subsequently approached by the police;

III. The consequential failure to pursue the evidential
opportunities deriving from this witness's evidence;

IV. The failure to identify and to deal properly with all the
available forensic evidential opportunities;

V. No attempt being made to identify vehicles passing through
Toomebridge in a northward direction prior to 220 hours on
12th May 1997;

VI. Inadequate enquiries into a convoy of vehicles, which
passed through Toomebridge between 220 hours and 227 hours
on 12th May 1997;

VII. The failure by Special Branch to pass a significant
amount of relevant and available intelligence to the Murder
Investigation Team. There was no audit trail as to who was
responsible for the passage of material from Special Branch to
the Murder Investigation Team;

VIII. An unclear audit trail in relation to which intelligence
was passed from Special Branch to the Murder Investigation
Team;

IX. The failure to ensure that material gathered during the
course of the murder enquiry was properly stored in a secure
environment. This led to the inability to produce the Policy
File;

X. The disappearance of the Policy File, in which are recorded
the Senior Investigating Officer or Deputy Senior
Investigating Officer's decisions, the reasons for them,and
the tasks allocated by the Senior Investigating Officer. It
was last seen on 20th February 2001, three weeks after the
Brown family complained to the Police Ombudsman. The Box
File in which this document and others relating to the Royal
Ulster Constabulary investigation were kept, was stored at
Garvagh Police Station. The Box File was not available on
23rd and 24th May 2001, and was formally declared missing on
26th July 2001. The inability of the Police Service of
Northern Ireland to produce this document had massive
consequences for this investigation. It prevented the
investigation of individual officer responsibility for the
failures identified by the Police Ombudsman;

XI. The failure to ensure the proper custody of the Occurrence
Book for Bellaghy Police Station which covered the night of Mr
Brown's murder. This is the book in which all matters reported
to the police in Bellaghy Police Station are recorded. This
Book was not available when sought by the Police Ombudsman and
despite searches it has not been possible to find it;

XII. The failure to investigate properly the ongoing history
of the murder weapon.

11.4 The complaint made by the Brown family about the
quality of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
investigation is upheld.

11.5 COMPLAINT No. 2 - "That police have failed to update
the family as to investigative developments."

11.6 The level and degree of family liaison will perhaps
always remain an outstanding and unresolved issue. On the
one side the family say there was very little liaison and that
they weren't kept properly updated. It has not been possible
to speak to all members of the family. On the other hand we
have some corroboration of the police account of the original
investigation that there was a genuine effort, to support and
keep the Brown family appraised of all developments. It is
clear that the Brown family did not have confidence in the
investigation of Mr Sean Brown's murder. It is also clear
that they asked the Royal Ulster Constabulary to discontinue
visits to their home some weeks after the murder, and that
following this members of the family visited police stations
on at least three occasions.

11.7 The family became dissatisfied with the information
they were receiving from the police and stopped visiting the
police premises.

11.8 Whist it is accepted that early contact was pursued by
the Investigators and that after the family instructed the
police not to visit their home, letters were written by the
police to the family and to their solicitor to inform them,
there have been various key stages where the family have not
been kept informed. One example involves the arrest of a
suspect in 2002, after the Police Ombudsman had been involved
in the investigation, when a suspect was arrested and the
family not told. They learnt of this from the press. The
Police Ombudsman is aware that the Brown family had declined
the offer of liaison from the Police Service of Northern
Ireland which was made by Detective Superintendent B (see
paragraph 4.2).

11.9 The complaint is therefore partially upheld.

11.10 COMPLAINT No 3 "That no earnest effort was made to
identify the persons who murdered Mr Sean Brown."

11.11 The Police Ombudsman has identified above the multiple
failures in this investigation. It is clear from the
Investigation File that there was not full co-operation from
the community. Nevertheless, despite this, many
investigative actions which could have been taken, were not
taken.

11.12 The disappearance of both the Policy File and the
Bellaghy Occurrence Book is very significant, and this,
combined with the investigative failings identified, has led
the Police Ombudsman to conclude that, an earnest effort to
identify the murderers cannot be evidenced from the
Investigation File. This complaint is upheld.

12.0 OTHER FINDINGS

12.1 It has been suggested that the attack upon Mr Sean
Brown was linked to efforts being made to "cement the Northern
Ireland peace process". This suggestion could not form part
of the Police Ombudsman's investigation.

12.2 It has been suggested that a number of vehicles were
under surveillance at the time of the attack on Mr Brown. This
has been investigated. There is no record of any pre-planned
police or military surveillance operation going on in Bellaghy
during or in the days preceding the relevant time.

12.3 Another allegation made was that the "convoy of
vehicles", one of which contained Mr Sean Brown, was allowed
"safe passage" by police and or Security Services. There
is
no evidence to substantiate this.

12.4 Enquiries to establish the degree of military / police
deployment in the area have been carried out. Records
detailing both police and military deployments both before and
after the murder have been examined. During the period
following the murder, military units responded to a request
from the Royal Ulster Constabulary to assist in securing the
area around both crime scenes. Apart from this specific
action, the deployment of military and police personnel does
not indicate any shift or change to what was normal
operational practice at that time, or before the murder.
This allegation is not substantiated.

12.5 A final response, received from the military in
December 2002, indicates that until the discovery of Mr Sean
Brown's body, there were no records of notable incidents of
any description in the area which may have been related to the
murder.

12.6 Finally it should be noted it is only since the
involvement of this Office, that the Royal Ulster Constabulary
considered reviewing this investigation (as indicated in the
letter from Detective Superintendent B, dated 02/03/01). Until
recently the Police Service of Northern Ireland had no policy
with regard to the review of murders. A Murder Review Policy
is currently being developed following earlier criticism in
this respect by the Police Ombudsman. This development has
been welcomed by the Police Ombudsman.


13.0 MATTERS REFERRED TO THE MURDER INVESTIGATION TEAM

13.1 As a consequence of the Police Ombudsman's
Investigation, the matter of the failure to develop DNA from
the discarded cigarette ends has now been addressed. The
Police Service of Northern Ireland assessment of the original
murder investigation, undertaken by Detective Superintendent
B, did not recommend any form of forensic re-evaluation.

13.2 The Police Ombudsman identified that samples for
biological testing were not taken from those suspects
originally arrested in connection with the murder of Mr Sean
Brown. Since this development relevant action has been taken
by the Police Service of Northern Ireland in respect of this
matter and other failings identified in this Statement.

13.3 There are in total some nineteen intelligence entries,
of varying quality (six are of particular relevance). These
entries have now been passed to Detective Inspector C who has
carried out an analysis of the investigation into the murder
of Mr Sean Brown to identify further investigative
opportunities.


14.0 ALLOCATING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FAILURES IDENTIFIED
IN THIS REPORT

14.1 In the course of carrying out this investigation the
Police Ombudsman has uncovered significant failures within the
investigative process.

14.2 In any major investigation the police officer
responsible for that investigation is the Senior Investigating
Officer. The Senior Investigating Officer responsible for
the investigation has now retired. The law states that a
retired officer cannot be made amenable after retirement for
any misconduct occurring before his retirement. Such a
retired officer can be investigated for any alleged criminal
activity.

14.3 The retired Senior Investigating Officer was
interviewed but did not provide any explanation for the
failures identified by the Police Ombudsman. There is no
evidence of any criminal action by this Officer.

14.4 The retired Senior Investigating Officer had
responsibility for a number of other serious investigations
and he was assisted by a Deputy Senior Investigating Officer,
Detective Chief Inspector (now Detective Superintendent) A.

14.5 The unexplained disappearance of the Policy File has
prevented the Police Ombudsman from 'auditing' the decision
making process and establishing the degree of autonomy that
Detective Superintendent A had during the period from 12th May
1997 to 02nd July 1998 when the Policy File recorded the
closure of the investigation pending new information coming
into police possession.

14.6 The Deputy Senior Investigating Officer, Detective
Superintendent A, declined to be interviewed as a witness, and
because of the emerging evidence, he was ultimately served
with a notice that he was under investigation in relation to
the complaint made by the Brown family.

14.7 When interviewed under caution he relied on the fact
that he acted solely on the instructions of the Senior
Investigating Officer, and that he followed the instructions
which he was given. Detective Superintendent A's explanation
to all issues was that it was the "Senior Investigating
Officer's decision". In the absence of the Policy File which
would have clarified responsibility for decision-making, this
provides an effective shield. It does, however, raise the
question as to what value he added to the investigation. He
was a Deputy Senior Investigator, with a far more 'hands on
role' in managing the murder enquiry. He should have made
effective decisions, and challenged any made by the Senior
Investigating Officer which did not meet the needs of the
investigation. There is no evidence that he did so.
Equally there is no evidence that he did not do so.

14.8 In the absence of the Policy File it would not be right
or possible to attempt to hold junior officers to account for
the investigative failures.


15.0 OTHER ISSUES

15.1 Following the disappearance of the Policy File, the
Police Service of Northern Ireland has recognised the failure
of its systems for the protection of murder investigation
files and, in the course of the Police Ombudsman's
investigation there was a Police Service of Northern Ireland
Review of, and necessary amendment to the systems.

15.2 The failure to review properly the murder enquiry has
been acknowledged by the Police Service of Northern Ireland,
and following earlier Recommendation by the Police Ombudsman
the Police Service of Northern Ireland has now established a
Major Crime Review Group.

15.3 This investigation has shown a failure of the
leadership and management of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
enquiry into the murder of Mr Sean Brown. The extent to
which there were failures of the investigative process is
clear evidence of that failure. Had the necessary reviews
and consideration of the conduct of the investigation taken
place the matter could have been more effectively dealt with.

15.4 No evidence of police collusion in the murder of Mr
Sean Brown has been found. There is clear evidence of police
failure to investigate the murder properly.

15.5 In the absence of the Policy File it is not possible to
determine who was responsible for the failures of management
and leadership which are evident from this investigation.
The Police Ombudsman is concerned at the inability of
Detective Superintendent A to recall, other than to say that
each decision was a Senior Investigating Officer matter, the
nature of his contribution to the murder enquiry. However in
the absence of evidence indicating actual misconduct this
matter cannot be taken any further.


16.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

16.1 The Police Ombudsman has recommended that there be a
full Independent Review of the enquiry into the murder of Mr
Sean Brown; that there be a full commitment to carry out the
Recommendations of the Review and that his family be kept
informed of all developments. The Review would identify and
assess all evidential opportunities. The Chief Constable has
now informed the Police Ombudsman that he intends that there
will be a full re-investigation of the murder which obviates
the need for a Review.

16.2 That the Review of the enquiry into Mr Sean Brown's
murder should be linked with the investigation into the two
identified murders in which the same or a similar weapon was
used.

16.3 Since the murder of Mr Sean Brown his family have been
most concerned about the quality of the police investigation.
They have articulated those concerns to the police and those
concerns, which are now shown to be justified have caused them
significant additional stress and suffering. As a result of
this, and because of the consequences of the disappearance of
both the Policy File and the Bellaghy Occurrence Book, I
therefore recommend that the Chief Constable pay to Mrs Brown,
the complainant, a sum equivalent to the maximum amount
currently permitted under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act
1998 as amended, in recognition of the distress caused by the
failure of this investiga





NUALA O'LOAN (MRS)
POLICE OMBUDSMAN FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
19 January 2004