You are on page 1of 47

Form MG 5

Not Protectively Marked






Not Protectively Marked

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE




PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS DEPARTMENT

Northumbria Police
All rights reserved. No part oI this report may be reproduced in any material Iorm (including photocopying or
storing it in any medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use oI
this report) without the written permission oI the copyright owner except in accordance with the provisions oI
the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Applications Ior the copyright owner's written permission to
reproduce any part oI this report should be addressed to the Head oI Corporate Communications, Northumbria
Police Headquarters, Ponteland, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE20 0BL.

WARNING: The doing oI an unauthorised act in relation to a copyright work may result in both a civil claim Ior
damages and criminal prosecution.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE; This report may contain conIidential inIormation in relation to individuals.
The ChieI Constable oI Northumbria Police does not accept liability Ior any damage caused as a result oI any
processing or disclosure oI an individual's conIidential and/or personal data by a third party without the consent
oI the individual concerned.








Not Protectively Marked
2

Not Protectively Marked
2











































CASE SUMMARY

Not Protectively Marked


Not Protectively Marked



COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE

CO/552/06



COMPLAINANT

Mr. Martin McGartland

BACKGROUND TO COMPLAINT

As a consequence of his involvement in highly sensitive issues in Northern
reland the complainant was provided with a new identity in September 1991
and re located to the Northumbria Police area.

On 17 June 1999 Mr McGartland was attacked outside his home address in
the North Tyneside area in an obvious attempt to take his life. During the
course of the attack he was shot six times at close range.

Fortunately Mr McGartland survived the attack on his life.

n consequence of the attack a Major ncident inquiry was launched. Such
nquiry was managed in keeping with the existing Major ncident Standard
Administrative Procedures and recorded by means of the 'HOLMES' major
incident enquiry system.

The nvestigation was managed by;

Senior nvestigating Officer (SO): Detective Superintendent C Symonds
(retired)
Deputy Senior nvestigating Officer: Detective Chief nspector K Oliver
(retired)


Not Protectively Marked


Not Protectively Marked


Arrests have been made in connection with the attempted murder of Mr
McGartland but to date no persons have been charged with any offences
arising from it. As such the crime remains undetected.


OW COMPLAINT FIRST NOTIFIED

On 3 October 2006 Northumbria Police Professional Standards Department
received a complaint from Mr McGartland via the ndependent Police
Complaints Commission.

The letter outlined 23 complaints against Northumbria Police.


4 PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINT

The complaints against Northumbria Police can be summarised as follows:-

1. Failed in their duty to carryout a proper and thorough investigation.

2. Failed to keep me informed about the investigation.

3. Failed to hold either physical or electronic identity parade when the two
suspects were in Northumbria Police Custody, and at a time when the
Police had witnesses available who Police believed may have met or had
come into contact with suspects in the days leading up to the shooting.

4. Failed to release important information relating to the case to both myself
as the victim of crime and also the public regarding the handgun and
ammunition which had been found sometime after the shooting. myself
contacted the police after had been informed that the item(s) had been
found, however had not been contacted by the Police before that time,
nor was told of the find. should have been told of such an important
issue but was not.

Not Protectively Marked


Not Protectively Marked



5. Failed to confirm to me if the handgun or ammunition which was used in
the attack had ever been used in any other shootings in the past.

6. Failed to deal with any correspondence related to the case properly, i.e.
not sending replies to questions have been asking about this case.

7. Refused all requests by me as the victim of crime to allow an outside force
to review this case even after 8 years Northumbria police will not allow an
outside force to review the case.

8. Took tape recordings while they questioned me the day after the shooting,
however at that time was very ill in the CU in hospital. do not recall
what questions was asked, nor do recall the answers had given. have
been requesting full details of the same, including copies of all recordings;
however the Police have refused to hand over copies of the tape
recordings to me.

9. Done nothing since 1999 with an audio recording of a person who the
Police believe bought the van which was later used by the gunman. This
recording could still be used to identify the person who was involved in the
attack, however the Police do not think this is important.

10. Failed to carryout DNA screening in this case when they have recovered a
DNA profile of the attacker. have never been given information about the
number(s) of persons who have been tested, nor if any persons are
wanted in this case.

11. Endangered my life by charging me back in 1997 for perverting the course
of justice; however was acquitted unanimously by a jury within 15 minutes
of that charge.

12. Failed to hold Harry Fitzsimmons and Scott Monaghan in custody against
the advice of DC Oliver who was at that time heading the investigation

Not Protectively Marked


Not Protectively Marked


under the control of the Senior nvestigating officer. The two suspects
were released on bail and later discharged from their bail without charge.
have never been informed why both men were released, nor why their bail
was had been cancelled. The CPS files in this matter need to be looked at
to find out the reasons behind the same.

13. Failed to establish or confirm a motive for the attack, even now, after 8
years and even after the MOD, and others have already stated in evidence
during a court case that the attack on me was carried out by the PRA, and
after the same had been stated in books, newspapers and the media many
times since the shooting in 1999.

14. believe the Chief Constable and other senior officers connected with my
case may have committed wilful misconduct in public office. They have
been biased and have failed in their duty to act fairly and impartially. also
believe this could amount to misfeasance in public office due to the many
failings on their part relating to this case.

15. Contacted friends or third parties who knew me, Officers from Northumbria
Police were asking them if had ever been involved with drugs, had they
ever seen me taking drugs etc. They were told that did not even drink nor
smoke let alone take drugs.

16. Failed to take a proper statement from me as a victim of crime. do not
recall ever having been asked to sign a statement in the 8 years since the
shooting, nor do recall a statement having been taken from me by the
police, save for the tape recordings taken by them when was questioned
in CU the day after the shooting at which time was not aware of what
had been asked, nor what replies had given.

17. Failed to investigate a person who left a voicemail message on my mobile
telephone, within minutes of the shooting. The voicemail had been left by
an rish man who was clearly aware that had just been shot as he was
joking about the shooting. was not given any information about this at all

Not Protectively Marked


Not Protectively Marked


by the Police. do not know how this person got hold of my telephone
number. The police took the recording from my mobile telephone and
have refused to return it to me even after many requests. The only thing
the Police would tell me about it was that they had traced the person on
the voicemail to an address in Belfast, but had to press them for this
information. The Police have failed to do anything about this person.

18. Failed to give me information about a person who telephoned me on my
mobile only days before the shooting. was concerned about this call
because the person worked for a PRA newspaper and he himself was
understand convicted at some point for being a member of the PRA. The
Police have never given me details of what they did, if anything about this
matter.

19. Stated to the press that the shooting had nothing at all to do with the PRA,
but that it was related to local drug dealing, and that had been involved
with local gangs, drug dealers who had carried out the shooting.

20. Removed the Senior nvestigating Officer from my case, i.e. understand
the senior investigating officer has been promoted to the head of criminal
justice. t is my understanding that there is now no Senior nvestigating
Officer in place to take control of my case.

21. Have refused to allow me to return to the Northumbria Police Force area.
They have also stated that if was to return into the area would not be
given any security nor any help. regard this as a form of blackmail on the
part of the Chief Constable. also believe that this may be a breach of my
human rights.

22. Failed in their duty of care against me and failed to protect me since first
came into contact with Northumbria Police in the early 1990's. t's said that
nothing has a greater bearing on an organisations success than the quality
of its duty of care. have been let down by Northumbria Police again and
again.

Not Protectively Marked
8

Not Protectively Marked
8


23. Failed to respond to 999 calls after members of the public telephoned them
and told them had been shot several times. The Police, including armed
Police officers waited for up to 20 minutes outside a metro station which is
around half a mile from where the shooting took place. The Police also
held the ambulance crew at the station. t is fair to say that my life almost
came to an end that morning because of such failings.


8. ACCOUNT OF TE INVESTIGATION

Although reasonably detailed, Mr McGartland's letter of complaint did not
clearly identify the officers subject of complaint.

However, given the content and the context of the letter of complaint the
natural assumption is that the complaints are directed at the Senior
nvestigating Officer and his deputy, namely:

Senior nvestigating Officer: Detective Superintendent C Symonds (retired)
Deputy Senior nvestigating Officer: Detective Chief nspector K Oliver
(retired)

Both officers are now retired and are not subject of police discipline
procedures. However, section 21 of the police (Complaints and Misconduct)
regulations 2004 states:

"Where a complaint or conduct matter relates to the conduct of a person who
has ceased to be a person serving with the police since the time of the
conduct, then part 2 of the 2002 act shall apply in relation to such a person as
if it did not include any requirement for an appropriate authority to determine
whether disciplinary proceedings should be brought against a person whose
conduct is the subject matter of a report.


Not Protectively Marked
9

Not Protectively Marked
9

This implies that complaints against retired police officers should still be
investigated; however, there is no authority to bring disciplinary proceedings
against such a person.

t should also be noted that complaints falling outside of the conduct of the
criminal investigation have been dealt with and finalised by way of a legally
binding contractual agreement with Mr McGartland. This agreement included
the payment to Mr McGartland of 46,000 as paid in settlement for, inter alia:

1. Any claim Mr McGartland may have against the authorities arising from his
service as an informer for the RUC between 1988 and 1992, and the
subsequent arrangements for his resettlement in a new identity, including
the necessary security precautions and the handling of his resettlement
thereafter.

2. Any claim he had against the authorities for unauthorised disclosure of
confidential information by Northumbria Police.

3. Any claim he had against the authorities arising from his prosecution for
Perverting the Course of Justice, including claims for malicious
prosecution or claim for damages for personal injury suffered when he was
shot.

4. Any claim he may have against the authorities for defamation in respect of
allegations or reports that he was shot because of his drug dealing
activities.

Numerous attempts were made by the original investigating officer
Superintendent Borrie to meet with Mr McGartland in order to get more
information. t is worthy of note that Mr McGartland refused to meet with the
Superintendent Borrie and the investigation had to be progressed using the
information given by Mr McGartland in his initial correspondence.

Dealing with each complaint individually:

Not Protectively Marked
10

Not Protectively Marked
10


1. Failed in their duty to carry out a proper and thorough investigation.

Northumbria police accorded the highest priority to the investigation into the
attempted murder of Mr McGartland. This included the appointment of a
Detective Superintendent as Senior nvestigating officer, the provision of
appropriate levels of staffing and resources and the investigation of all main
lines of inquiry.

Such nquiry was managed in keeping with the existing Major ncident
Standard Administrative Procedures and recorded by means of the 'HOLMES'
major incident enquiry system.

The inquiry was managed by;

Senior nvestigating Officer: Detective Superintendent C Symonds (retired)
Deputy Senior nvestigating Officer: Detective Chief nspector K Oliver
(retired)

A large number of witnesses and potential witnesses were interviewed and in
consequence over 1000 witness statements were obtained together with an
additional 270 officer reports being submitted.

1890 actions have been raised by the investigation of which only 16 remain
outstanding.

The inquiry seized over 1300 CCTV tapes which were examined in
accordance with an intelligence led and prioritised viewing strategy.

Forensic evidence and exhibits were recovered from the scene and from other
locations identified within the inquiry such seizures including DNA stains.

n November 1999, two men were arrested on suspicion of Conspiracy to
Murder in consequence of the attack and close liaison was maintained at this

Not Protectively Marked
11

Not Protectively Marked
11

time with Crown Prosecution (CPS) Service Lawyers from the Special
Casework Directorate.

Both men were formally interviewed under the guidance of an interview
advisor and had forensic samples taken from them.

Both men were eliminated as the source of the DNA recovered from the
scene.

The evidence against the arrested persons was carefully considered by the
Crown Prosecution Service who made the decision that it was insufficient to
charge them.

Three further individuals were arrested in July 2003 in connection with the
conspiracy to murder Mr McGartland. The basis of these arrests was that they
may have assisted those who carried out the attack.

Again close liaison was maintained with the CPS, DNA elimination was carried
out and the evidence was considered by the CPS.

Neither individual was charged.

A number of nationwide appeals were made to try to identify those involved in
the attempted murder of Mr McGartland. These have included the circulation
of descriptions and artists profiles of some of the alleged conspirators, details
as known of the vehicles they may have had access to, a tape recording of a
man thought to be involved in the offence and further appeals based on the
recovery of the firearm used in the attack. t is clear that this media coverage
generated new lines of enquiry which were explored appropriately.

Liaison has been maintained with other forces to ensure the investigation
keeps pace with any new intelligence. t is clear that the forensic evidence
recovered in this case is constantly being checked against any new forensic
advances.

Not Protectively Marked
12

Not Protectively Marked
12


As such it is clearly apparent that this enquiry is still very much 'live' and that it
is being actively progressed by Northumbria Police.

2. Failed to keep me informed about the investigation.

t is clear that from the very start of the investigation, up to the time of him
making these complaints, Mr McGartland has been kept informed of the
progress of the investigation.

Extensive daily contact was a feature of the case in the early stages of the
investigation albeit that over the period of time since 1999 contact has
reduced.

n a letter to Mr McGartland by the SO Detective Superintendent Symonds
dated 27 July 2004 protocols for liaison with Mr McGartland were set out as
follows:

1. f you have any questions or issues you wish clarified, you should write to
me outlining them.
2. will then provide you with a written response to each issue raised,
answering your questions, or if am unable to do so, providing you with an
explanation for that.
3. undertake to write to you whether or not you have written to me, to inform
you of any significant developments in this case.
4. These arrangements include the possibility of face to face meetings with
inquiry team members, including myself if appropriate, to discuss
significant developments or matters which cannot be communicated by
letter. This would include, for example, my offer to you to peruse your
statement etc.
5. These arrangements will be subject to ongoing review in the light of
developments in the case future arrest operations, criminal trials.


Not Protectively Marked
1

Not Protectively Marked
1

This protocol has been adhered to by the police. This protocol was carried on
by Chief Superintendent Thomson when he took over the role of Senior
nvestigating Officer on the retirement of Mr Symonds up to the time when this
complaint was made. At this time Mr Thomson wrote to Mr McGartland
explaining that because there was a complaint by him over this issue he could
no longer enter into any correspondence until the completion of the complaint.
All further correspondence with Mr McGartland has been made via
Northumbria

Police Professional Standards with the regular reinforcing that a full update as
to the status of the investigation will be shared with Mr McGartland upon the
finalisation of the complaints he has made.

3. Failed to hold either physical or electronic identity parade when the two
suspects were in Northumbria Police Custody, and at a time when the Police
had witnesses available who Police believed may have met or had come into
contact with suspects in the days leading up to the shooting.

n November 1999 whilst the first two suspects in the case were still in custody
a total of sixteen full identity parades were held.

Even though the result of these identity parades, in keeping with the other
evidence gathered and carefully considered by the Crown Prosecution
Service, was that there was insufficient evidence to charge, this nevertheless
demonstrates that a significant number of identity parades were indeed
conducted.

4. Failed to release important information relating to the case to both myself as
the victim of crime and also the public regarding the handgun and ammunition
which had been found sometime after the shooting. myself contacted the
police after had been informed that the item(s) had been found, however
had not been contacted by the Police before that time, nor was told of the
find. should have been told of such an important issue but was not.


Not Protectively Marked
1

Not Protectively Marked
1

On 28 September 1999 two loaded handguns were discovered by a witness in
an area directly below the Redheugh Bridge, Gateshead. Given the
geographical location of these weapons there was an obvious and real
possibility that they had been used in the attack.

These handguns were sent for ballistic examination.

One of the handguns was identified as being the weapon used to shoot Mr
McGartland.

mmediately upon this link being established a further extensive search of the
area was carried out and thirty eight live rounds of ammunition were
recovered.

The recoveries were examined for DNA and fingerprint evidence but this was
with a negative result.

Both hand guns were additionally sent for examination by the Royal Ulster
Constabulary (Weapons and Explosions Research Centre). At this time they
were compared with 'spent' cartridges and 'fired' bullets from incidents in
Northern reland.

Such examination ruled out the use of either weapon recovered by
Northumbria Police in any other known discharges or shootings.

Mr McGartland was informed of the recovery of the firearms and ammunition
by the inquiry team.

The recovery of the items, in particular the pistol used to shoot Mr McGartland,
was made the subject of media appeal by the SO who additionally travelled to
Northern reland to engage in a media appeal.

The timing of divulging information regarding evidence in a case is clearly at
the decision of the SO. t is clear that Mr McGartland was told of the finding

Not Protectively Marked
1

Not Protectively Marked
1

of the weapons and that they were the subject of specific media appeals in
keeping with the overall investigative strategy.

5. Failed to confirm to me if the handgun or ammunition which was used in the
attack had ever been used in any other shootings in the past.

Mr McGartland was advised of the recovery of the weapons, he was told that
one of these weapons was identified as being used in the attack on him and
that neither could be linked to any other offence.

6. Failed to deal with any correspondence related to the case properly, i.e. not
sending replies to questions have been asking about this case.

Northumbria Police Holmes System refers to a large number of letters from
and replies to Mr McGartland he has also entered into protracted
correspondence with Force Special Branch and Legal Department.

Mr McGartland was specifically asked by Superintendent Borrie which
correspondence was not dealt with properly and in what way, he has failed to
answer this question.

7. Refused all requests by me as the victim of crime to allow an outside force
to review this case even after 8 years Northumbria police will not allow an
outside force to review the case.

This allegation was considered by Northumbria Police and assessed as being
a direction and control issue.





Direction and control under Home Office guidance are issues that fall under
the following criteria:-

Not Protectively Marked
1

Not Protectively Marked
1


1. Operational Policing Policies
2. Organisational decisions
3. General policing standards in the force
4. Operational management decisions

Mr McGartland subsequently appealed to the PCC regarding Northumbria
Police's assessment of this complaint as direction and control.

The PCC considered Mr McGartland's appeal and determined that this issue
was a direction and control matter and therefore Mr McGartland's appeal was
not upheld.

8. Took tape recordings while they questioned me the day after the shooting,
however at that time was very ill in the CU in hospital. do not recall what
questions was asked, nor do recall the answers had given. have been
requesting full details of the same, including copies of all recordings; however
the Police have refused to hand over copies of the tape recordings to me.

The interview of Mr McGartland in hospital and afterwards was conducted
under the supervision of a highly experienced and professionally trained
interview advisor.

The tape recording of key witnesses and victims is regarded, under certain
circumstances, as best practice to preserve the integrity of their accounts.

Mr McGartland requested copies of these recordings in 2004, which was
considered by the SO Detective Superintendent Symonds.

Detective Superintendent Symonds' letter to Mr McGartland, dated 27 July
2004, clearly sets out his response and the reasons for it. Mr McGartland was
offered supervised access to the material at that time, an offer repeated in a
letter from Mr Symonds dated 11 January 2005.


Not Protectively Marked
1

Not Protectively Marked
1

To our knowledge Mr McGartland never replied to those letters.

9. Done nothing since 1999 with an audio recording of a person who the
Police believe bought the van which was later used by the gunman. This
recording could still be used to identify the person who was involved in the
attack, however the Police do not think this is important.

The audio recording referred to by Mr McGartland was made subject of a
number of Police and media circulations across different force areas and in
different countries throughout the United Kingdom. nformation arising was
acted upon. ndeed one of the men arrested in 1999 was subject of voice
identification in respect of this recording and this formed part of the SO's
reasonable suspicion to enable the arrest.

Without forensic (including DNA) evidence or a positive identification following
the identify parade the voice identification by itself was not considered by the
CPS to be sufficient evidence to charge the man with the offence.

The audio recording is still available for the public to listen to on the
Northumbria Police website and was referred to within the ten year
anniversary appeal.

10. Failed to carryout DNA screening in this case when they have recovered a
DNA profile of the attacker. have never been given information about the
number(s) of persons who have been tested, nor if any persons are wanted in
this case.

There is a documented and adhered to Forensic Strategy for response to the
DNA stain in relation to this investigation and a number of individuals have
been eliminated because of it.

Mr McGartland has been informed of eliminations where individuals have been
arrested by the enquiry team or where he has enquired about specific names,
or made individual nominations himself. Evidence of this is again contained

Not Protectively Marked
18

Not Protectively Marked
18

within the letter of Detective Superintendent Symonds to Mr McGartland dated
27 July 2004.

Detail in relation to the elimination by DNA of any person not known to Mr
McGartland is of course sensitive personal data that it would be improper to
disclose.

t is for the SO to decide what should and should not be disclosed to Mr
McGartland balancing responsibility to the victim, to the investigation, to third
parties and to relevant legislation.

11. Endangered my life by charging me back in 1997 for perverting the course
of justice; however was acquitted unanimously by a jury within 15 minutes of
that charge.

This allegation was considered by Northumbria Police and assessed as being
a direction and control issue.

Direction and control under Home Office guidance are issues that fall under
the following criteria:-
1. Operational Policing Policies
2. Organisational decisions
3. General policing standards in the force
4. Operational management decisions

Mr McGartland subsequently appealed to the PCC regarding Northumbria
Police's assessment of this complaint as direction and control.

The PCC did not uphold Mr McGartland's appeal.

This complaint is also subject to the contractual agreement agreed by Mr
McGartland.


Not Protectively Marked
19

Not Protectively Marked
19

12. Failed to hold Harry Fitzsimmons and Scott Monaghan in custody against
the advice of DC Oliver who was at that time heading the investigation under
the control of the Senior nvestigating officer. The two suspects were released
on bail and later discharged from their bail without charge. have never been
informed why both men were released, nor why their bail was had been
cancelled. The CPS files in this matter needs to be looked at to find out the
reasons behind the same.

DC Oliver did not advise against the release of the men questioned. The men
were released on bail in consequence of the advice of the Crown Prosecution
Service that there was insufficient evident to charge them.

Mr McGartland was informed of this decision at the time.

13. Failed to establish or confirm a motive for the attack, even now, after 8
years and even after the MOD, and others have already stated in evidence
during a court case that the attack on me was carried out by the PRA, and
after the same had been stated in books, newspapers and the media many
times since the shooting in 1999.

Possible motives for the attack have been established. The decision to
speculate on these or confirm any versions publicly was and remains a
decision for the SO assessing the prospective value of that to the
investigation.

Given that court cases can be compromised if media reporting is deemed to
be incompatible in any regard with the eventual charging and trial of a suspect
there is a need to remain cautious as to the wording in reports given to the
media.

Upon the ten year anniversary of the attack, 17 June 2009, a media release
was made that clearly goes as far as possible in linking the attack to the
likelihood of it being carried out by persons with rish Republican links,
affiliations or sympathies.

Not Protectively Marked
20

Not Protectively Marked
20


14. believe the Chief Constable and other senior officers connected with my
case may have committed wilful misconduct in public office. They have been
biased and have failed in their duty to act fairly and impartially. also believe
this could amount to misfeasance in public office due to the many failings on
their part relating to this case.

This allegation was considered by Northumbria Police and assessed as being
a direction and control issue.

Direction and control under Home Office guidance are issues that fall under
the following criteria:-
1. Operational Policing Policies
2. Organisational decisions
3. General policing standards in the force
4. Operational management decisions

Mr McGartland subsequently appealed to the PCC regarding Northumbria
Police's assessment of this complaint as direction and control.

This part of Mr McGartland's appeal was upheld. Statutory guidance states
that any complaint against a Chief Constable should be forwarded to the
relevant Police Authority as the appropriate authority to consider the
complaint.

As the result of the PCC finding Northumbria Police forwarded this part of Mr
McGartland's complaint to Northumbria Police Authority to consider this
complaint.

Northumbria Police Authority is the only appropriate body to deal with this
matter and can comment on it no further.

15. Contacted friends or third parties who knew me, Officers from Northumbria
Police were asking them if had ever been involved with drugs, had they ever

Not Protectively Marked
21

Not Protectively Marked
21

seen me taking drugs etc. They were told that did not even drink nor smoke
let alone take drugs.

This allegation was considered by Northumbria Police and assessed as being
a direction and control issue.

Direction and control under Home Office guidance are issues that fall under
the following criteria:-
1. Operational Policing Policies
2. Organisational decisions
3. General policing standards in the force
4. Operational management decisions

Mr McGartland subsequently appealed to the PCC regarding Northumbria
Police's assessment of this complaint as direction and control.

The PCC did not uphold Mr McGartland's appeal.

This complaint is also dealt with under the contractual agreement agreed by
Mr McGartland.

16. Failed to take a proper statement from me as a victim of crime. do not
recall ever having been asked to sign a statement in the 8 years since the
shooting, nor do recall a statement having been taken from me by the police,
save for the tape recordings taken by them when was questioned in CU the
day after the shooting at which time was not aware of what had been asked,
nor what replies had given.

A witness statement was obtained from Mr McGartland that he has signed as
a true and accurate record in keeping with Criminal Justice requirements.
This signed statement is currently held along with all other documentation in
the ncident Room relating to this offence.


Not Protectively Marked
22

Not Protectively Marked
22

17. Failed to investigate a person who left a voicemail message on my mobile
telephone, within minutes of the shooting. The voicemail had been left by an
rish man who was clearly aware that had just been shot as he was joking
about the shooting. was not given any information about this at all by the
Police. do not know how this person got hold of my telephone number. The
police took the recording from my mobile telephone and have refused to return
it to me even after many requests. The only thing the Police would tell me
about it was that they had traced the person on the voicemail to an address in
Belfast, but had to press them for this information. The Police have failed to
do anything about this person.

This voicemail message was fully investigated at the time.

The incident room and Holmes System contain relevant records in respect of
this enquiry.

t remains for the SO to decide what should and should not be disclosed to Mr
McGartland balancing responsibility to the victim, to the investigation, to third
parties and to relevant legislation.

18. Failed to give me information about a person who telephoned me on my
mobile only days before the shooting. was concerned about this call because
the person worked for a PRA newspaper and he himself was understand
convicted at some point for being a member of the PRA. The Police have
never given me details of what they did, if anything about this matter.

This matter was fully investigated at the time and documented on the Holmes
System.

t is for the SO to decide what should and should not be disclosed to Mr
McGartland balancing responsibility to the victim, to the investigation, to third
parties and to relevant legislation.


Not Protectively Marked
2

Not Protectively Marked
2

19. Stated to the press that the shooting had nothing at all to do with the PRA,
but that it was related to local drug dealing, and that had been involved with
local gangs, drug dealers who had carried out the shooting.

This allegation was considered by Northumbria Police and assessed as being
a direction and control issue.

Direction and control under Home Office guidance are issues that fall under
the following criteria:-
1. Operational Policing Policies
2. Organisational decisions
3. General policing standards in the force
4. Operational management decisions

Mr McGartland subsequently appealed to the PCC regarding the assessment
of Northumbria Police of this complaint as direction and control.

The PCC did not uphold Mr McGartland's appeal.

This complaint is also dealt with under the contractual agreement agreed by
Mr McGartland.

n keeping with a desire to find a proportionate response to all of the
complaints made by Mr McGartland, and indeed his own assertions that this
particular aspect of the complaint was his main concern, the following,
additional media release was made on the ten year anniversary of the attack
upon him:



RENEWED APPEAL OVER TEN-YEAR SOOTING

Northumbria Police officers investigating the attempted murder of Martin
McGartland are renewing an appeal for information, ten years after the attack.


Not Protectively Marked
2

Not Protectively Marked
2

Mr McGartland was shot as he sat in his car in Duchess Street, Whitley Bay,
on June 17, 1999. He survived, despite being shot a number of times at close
range.

No one has ever been charged with the attempted murder and, ten years on,
the extensive investigation into the attack is continuing.

n the past, detectives have not confirmed a motive for the shooting. Very
early reporting at the time indicated the possibility that Mr McGartland had
been shot by local criminals. There was absolutely no evidence at the time to
support this and that is still the case.

Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Thomson, who is leading the
investigation, said: "Although this was an unsuccessful attack, it was a cold-
blooded, calculated assassination attempt. Mr McGartland has asked that
Northumbria Police clarify the situation as far as we can and am happy to do
so.

"Mr McGartland's history as an agent for the then Royal Ulster Constabulary
and his supplying of information about the Provisional RA is a matter of public
knowledge, documented in his own books on the subject.

"Our main line of enquiry, therefore, continues to be that Mr McGartland may
have been shot by a person or people with rish Republican sympathies, for
reasons closely linked to his former life in Northern reland."

During the ten years of the investigation:



* Five people have been arrested, though no one has yet been charged

* 1,004 witness statements taken


Not Protectively Marked
2

Not Protectively Marked
2

* 1,122 house-to-house enquiries have been carried out

* 2,764 exhibits have been collated

* 5,043 documents have been assembled.

Detectives are continuing to use DNA recovered from the scene to eliminate
people from the investigation. Other lines of enquiry centre around a van
abandoned at the scene which had been bought only two days before the
attack, and a message left on a telephone answering machine a few days
earlier, asking about a van for sale. The caller had a Scottish accent,
originating from somewhere in the Glasgow region.

Two semi-automatic pistols and some ammunition were found in the
Gateshead area within months of the attack. One of the guns was forensically
linked to the shooting and police believe those responsible may have stayed in
the Gateshead area in the run up to the attack and possibly afterwards. This is
another line of enquiry.

Detective Chief Supt Thomson added: "Ten years is a long time for people to
keep a secret about something like this. Over time, word can leak out and be
talked about. Also, people's loyalties can change a lot in ten years, and people
may now be prepared to help us.

"Anyone who may have information can contact Northumbria Police on 03456
043 043, ext 69162 or the independent charity Crimestoppers on 0800 555
111."

Police still have an audio tape message left on a telephone answering
machine a few days before the shooting by a man who is believed to be one of
those involved in the attack. The caller was asking about the sale of a van
which was similar to that used to conceal the gunman immediately before the
shooting. To hear this tape again, log on to:
.northumbria.poIice.uk/vanmessage

Not Protectively Marked
2

Not Protectively Marked
2


n consequence of this release believe that Northumbria Police have sought
every way possible to reach agreement with Mr McGartland on this matter.

20. Removed the Senior nvestigating Officer from my case, i.e. understand
the senior investigating officer has been promoted to the head of criminal
justice. t is my understanding that there is now no Senior nvestigating Officer
in place to take control of my case.

This allegation was considered by Northumbria Police and assessed as being
a direction and control issue.

Direction and control under Home Office guidance are issues that fall under
the following criteria:-
1. Operational Policing Policies
2. Organisational decisions
3. General policing standards in the force
4. Operational management decisions

Mr McGartland subsequently appealed to the PCC regarding Northumbria
Police's assessment of this complaint as direction and control.

The PCC considered Mr McGartland's appeal and determined that this issue
was a direction and control matter and therefore Mr McGartland's appeal was
not upheld.

21. Have refused to allow me to return to the Northumbria Police Force area.
They have also stated that if was to return into the area would not be given
any security nor any help. regard this as a form of blackmail on the part of
the Chief Constable. also believe that this may be a breach of my human
rights.


Not Protectively Marked
2

Not Protectively Marked
2

The decision not to support Mr McGartland's return to the Northumbria Force
area was an operational management decision which was made and
maintained by a series of ACPO officers.

This position was based on expert legal opinion provided to the force by an
eminent QC.

As such this matter is clearly one of Direction and Control.

22. Failed in their duty of care against me and failed to protect me since first
came into contact with Northumbria Police in the early 1990's. t's said that
nothing has a greater bearing on an organisations success than the quality of
its duty of care. have been let down by Northumbria Police again and again.

This allegation was considered by Northumbria Police and assessed as being
a direction and control issue.

Direction and control under Home Office guidance are issues that fall under
the following criteria:-
1. Operational Policing Policies
2. Organisational decisions
3. General policing standards in the force
4. Operational management decisions

Mr McGartland subsequently appealed to the PCC regarding the assessment
of Northumbria Police of this complaint as direction and control.

The PCC did not uphold Mr McGartland's appeal.

This complaint is also dealt with under the contractual agreement agreed by
Mr McGartland.

23. Failed to respond to 999 calls after members of the public telephoned
them and told them had been shot several times. The Police, including

Not Protectively Marked
28

Not Protectively Marked
28

armed Police officers waited for up to 20 minutes outside a metro station
which is around half a mile from where the shooting took place. The Police
also held the ambulance crew at the station. t is fair to say that my life almost
came to an end that morning because of such failings.

This allegation was considered by Northumbria Police and assessed as being
a direction and control issue.

Direction and control under Home Office guidance are issues that fall under
the following criteria:-
1. Operational Policing Policies
2. Organisational decisions
3. General policing standards in the force
4. Operational management decisions

Mr McGartland subsequently appealed to the PCC regarding the assessment
of Northumbria Police of this complaint as direction and control.

The PCC did not uphold Mr McGartland's appeal.

. CONCLUSIONS

1. Failed in their duty to carry out a proper and thorough investigation.

t is clearly evident that Northumbria police accorded the highest priority to the
investigation into the attempted murder of Mr McGartland.

The investigation has been lead at all times by an experienced Senior
nvestigating Officer.

t was provided with appropriate levels of staffing and resources and the
investigation of all main lines of inquiry.


Not Protectively Marked
29

Not Protectively Marked
29

t has been and still is being managed in keeping with the existing Major
ncident Standard Administrative Procedures and recorded by means of the
'HOLMES' major incident enquiry system.

Large numbers of witnesses and potential witnesses have been interviewed
and in consequence over 1000 witness statements and 270 officer reports
have been obtained.

1890 actions have been raised of which only 16 remain outstanding.

The inquiry seized over 1300 CCTV tapes that were examined in accordance
with an intelligence led and prioritised viewing strategy.

Forensic evidence and exhibits have been recovered from the scene and from
other locations identified within the inquiry such seizures including DNA stains.

n November 1999, two men were arrested on suspicion of Conspiracy to
Murder in consequence of the attack and close liaison was maintained with
Crown Prosecution (CPS) Service Lawyers from the Special Casework
Directorate.

Both men were formally interviewed under the guidance of an interview
advisor and had forensic samples taken from them.

Both men were eliminated as the source of the DNA recovered from the
scene.

The evidence against the arrested persons was carefully considered by the
Crown Prosecution Service who made the decision that it was insufficient to
charge them.

Three further individuals were arrested in July 2003 in connection with the
conspiracy to murder Mr McGartland.


Not Protectively Marked
0

Not Protectively Marked
0

Again close liaison was maintained with the CPS, DNA elimination was carried
out and the evidence was considered by the CPS.

A number of nationwide appeals were made to try to identify those involved in
the attempted murder of Mr McGartland. t is clear that this media coverage
generated new lines of enquiry which were explored appropriately.

Liaison has been maintained with other forces to ensure the investigation
keeps pace with any new intelligence.

As such it is clearly apparent that this enquiry is still very much 'live' and that it
is being actively progressed by Northumbria Police.

I find that this compIaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

2. Failed to keep me informed about the investigation.

t is clear that Mr McGartland has been kept informed of the progress of the
investigation.

Extensive daily contact was a feature of the case in the early stages of the
investigation albeit that over the period of time since 1999 contact has
reduced.

n a letter to Mr McGartland by the SO Detective Superintendent Symonds
dated 27 July 2004 protocols for liaison with Mr McGartland were set out as
follows:

1. f you have any questions or issues you wish clarified, you should write to
me outlining them.
2. will then provide you with a written response to each issue raised,
answering your questions, or if am unable to do so, providing you with an
explanation for that.

Not Protectively Marked
1

Not Protectively Marked
1

3. undertake to write to you whether or not you have written to me, to inform
you of any significant developments in this case.
4. These arrangements include the possibility of face to face meetings with
inquiry team members, including myself if appropriate, to discuss
significant developments or matters which cannot be communicated by
letter. This would include, for example, my offer to you to peruse your
statement etc.
5. These arrangements will be subject to ongoing review in the light of
developments in the case future arrest operations, criminal trials.

This protocol has been adhered to by the police.

This protocol was carried on by Chief Superintendent Thomson when he took
over the role of Senior nvestigating Officer on the retirement of Mr Symonds
up to the time when this complaint was made.

I find that this compIaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

3. Failed to hold either physical or electronic identity parade when the two
suspects were in Northumbria Police Custody, and at a time when the Police
had witnesses available who Police believed may have met or had come into
contact with suspects in the days leading up to the shooting.

t is clear that some sixteen full identity parades were held.

I find that this compIaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

4. Failed to release important information relating to the case to both myself as
the victim of crime and also the public regarding the handgun and ammunition
which had been found sometime after the shooting. myself contacted the
police after had been informed that the item(s) had been found, however
had not been contacted by the Police before that time, nor was told of the
find. should have been told of such an important issue but was not.


Not Protectively Marked
2

Not Protectively Marked
2

On 28 September 1999 two loaded handguns were discovered.

These handguns were sent for ballistic examination.

One of the handguns was identified as being the weapon used to shoot Mr
McGartland.

The recoveries were examined for DNA and fingerprint evidence but this was
with a negative result.

Both hand guns were additionally sent for examination by the Royal Ulster
Constabulary (Weapons and Explosions Research Centre). At this time they
were compared with 'spent' cartridges and 'fired' bullets from incidents in
Northern reland.

Such examination ruled out the use of either weapon recovered by
Northumbria Police in any other known discharges or shootings.

Mr McGartland was informed of the recovery of the firearms and ammunition
by the inquiry team.

The recovery of the items, in particular the hand gun used to shoot Mr
McGartland, was the subject of media appeal by the SO who additionally
travelled to Northern reland to engage in a media appeal.

The timing of divulging information regarding evidence in a case is clearly at
the decision of the SO.

t is however clear that Mr McGartland was told of the finding of the weapons
and that they were the subject of specific media appeals in keeping with the
overall investigative strategy.

I find that this compIaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED.


Not Protectively Marked


Not Protectively Marked


5. Failed to confirm to me if the handgun or ammunition which was used in the
attack had ever been used in any other shootings in the past.

Mr McGartland was advised of the recovery of the weapons, he was told that
one of these weapons was identified as being used in the attack on him and
that neither could be linked to any other offence.

I find that this compIaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

6. Failed to deal with any correspondence related to the case properly, i.e. not
sending replies to questions have been asking about this case.

Northumbria Police Holmes System refers to a large number of letters from
and replies to Mr McGartland he has also entered into protracted
correspondence with Force Special Branch and Legal Department.

Mr McGartland was specifically asked by Superintendent Borrie which
correspondence was not dealt with properly and in what way, he has failed to
answer this question.

I find that this compIaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

7. Refused all requests by me as the victim of crime to allow an outside force
to review this case even after 8 years Northumbria police will not allow an
outside force to review the case.

This allegation was considered by Northumbria Police and assessed as being
a direction and control issue.

Mr McGartland subsequently appealed to the PCC regarding Northumbria
Police's assessment of this complaint as direction and control.


Not Protectively Marked


Not Protectively Marked


The PCC considered Mr McGartland's appeal and determined that this issue
was a direction and control matter and therefore Mr McGartlands appeal was
not upheld.

8. Took tape recordings while they questioned me the day after the shooting,
however at that time was very ill in the CU in hospital. do not recall what
questions was asked, nor do recall the answers had given. have been
requesting full details of the same, including copies of all recordings; however
the Police have refused to hand over copies of the tape recordings to me.

Mr McGartland requested copies of these recordings in 2004, which was
considered by the SO Detective Superintendent Symonds.

Detective Superintendent Symonds' letter to Mr McGartland, dated 27 July
2004, clearly sets out his response and the reasons for it. Mr McGartland was
offered supervised access to the material at that time, an offer repeated in a
letter from Mr Symonds dated 11 January 2005.

To our knowledge Mr McGartland never replied to those letters.

The offer of supervised access to this material still stands.

I find that this compIaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

9. Done nothing since 1999 with an audio recording of a person who the
Police believe bought the van which was later used by the gunman. This
recording could still be used to identify the person who was involved in the
attack, however the Police do not think this is important.

The audio recording referred to by Mr McGartland was made subject of a
number of Police and media circulations across different force areas and in
different countries throughout the United Kingdom.


Not Protectively Marked


Not Protectively Marked


One of the men arrested in 1999 was subject of voice identification in respect
of this recording and this formed part of the SO's reasonable suspicion to
enable the arrest.

I find that this compIaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

10. Failed to carryout DNA screening in this case when they have recovered a
DNA profile of the attacker. have never been given information about the
number(s) of persons who have been tested, nor if any persons are wanted in
this case.

There is a documented and adhered to Forensic Strategy for response to the
DNA stain in relation to this investigation and a number of individuals have
been eliminated because of it.

Mr McGartland has been informed of eliminations where individuals have been
arrested by the enquiry team or where he has enquired about specific names,
or made individual nominations himself. Evidence of this is again contained
within the letter of Detective Superintendent Symonds to Mr McGartland dated
27 July 2004.

Detail in relation to the elimination by DNA of any person not known to Mr
McGartland should not be disclosed.

t is for the SO to decide what should and should not be disclosed to Mr
McGartland balancing responsibility to the victim, to the investigation, to third
parties and to relevant legislation.

I find that this compIaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

11. Endangered my life by charging me back in 1997 for perverting the course
of justice; however was acquitted unanimously by a jury within 15 minutes of
that charge.


Not Protectively Marked


Not Protectively Marked


This allegation was considered by Northumbria Police and assessed as being
a direction and control issue.

Mr McGartland subsequently appealed to the PCC regarding Northumbria
Police's assessment of this complaint as direction and control.

The PCC did not uphold Mr McGartland's appeal.

This complaint is also subject to the contractual agreement agreed by Mr
McGartland.

12. Failed to hold Harry Fitzsimmons and Scott Monaghan in custody against
the advice of DC Oliver who was at that time heading the investigation under
the control of the Senior nvestigating officer. The two suspects were released
on bail and later discharged from their bail without charge. have never been
informed why both men were released, nor why their bail was had been
cancelled. The CPS files in this matter needs to be looked at to find out the
reasons behind the same.

The arrested persons were released on bail in consequence of the advice of
the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mr McGartland was informed of this decision at the time.

I find that this compIaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

13. Failed to establish or confirm a motive for the attack, even now, after 8
years and even after the MOD, and others have already stated in evidence
during a court case that the attack on me was carried out by the PRA, and
after the same had been stated in books, newspapers and the media many
times since the shooting in 1999.

The decision to speculate and engage in media reporting regarding the motive
for the attack remains a decision for the SO.

Not Protectively Marked


Not Protectively Marked



Given that court cases can be compromised if media reporting is deemed to
be incompatible in any regard with the eventual charging and trial of a suspect
there is a need to remain cautious in this regard.

Upon the ten year anniversary of the attack, 17 June 2009, a media release
was made that clearly goes as far as possible in linking the attack to the
likelihood of it being carried out by persons with rish Republican links,
affiliations or sympathies.

I find that this compIaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

14. believe the Chief Constable and other senior officers connected with my
case may have committed wilful misconduct in public office. They have been
biased and have failed in their duty to act fairly and impartially. also believe
this could amount to misfeasance in public office due to the many failings on
their part relating to this case.

This allegation was considered by Northumbria Police and assessed as being
a direction and control issue.

Mr McGartland subsequently appealed to the PCC regarding Northumbria
Police's assessment of this complaint as direction and control.

This part of Mr McGartland's appeal was upheld. Statutory guidance states
that any complaint against a Chief Constable should be forwarded to the
relevant Police Authority as the appropriate authority to consider the
complaint.

As the result of the PCC finding Northumbria Police forwarded this part of Mr
McGartland's complaint to Northumbria Police Authority to consider this
complaint.


Not Protectively Marked
8

Not Protectively Marked
8

Northumbria Police Authority is the only appropriate body to deal with this
matter and can comment on it no further.

15. Contacted friends or third parties who knew me, Officers from Northumbria
Police were asking them if had ever been involved with drugs, had they ever
seen me taking drugs etc. They were told that did not even drink nor smoke
let alone take drugs.

This allegation was considered by Northumbria Police and assessed as being
a direction and control issue.

Mr McGartland subsequently appealed to the PCC regarding Northumbria
Police's assessment of this complaint as direction and control.

The PCC did not uphold Mr McGartland's appeal.

This complaint is also dealt with under the contractual agreement agreed by
Mr McGartland.

16. Failed to take a proper statement from me as a victim of crime. do not
recall ever having been asked to sign a statement in the 8 years since the
shooting, nor do recall a statement having been taken from me by the police,
save for the tape recordings taken by them when was questioned in CU the
day after the shooting at which time was not aware of what had been asked,
nor what replies had given.


A witness statement was obtained from Mr McGartland and have seen the
original version that he has signed as a true and accurate record in keeping
with Criminal Justice requirements.

This signed statement is currently held along with all other documentation in
the ncident Room relating to this offence.


Not Protectively Marked
9

Not Protectively Marked
9

I find that this compIaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

17. Failed to investigate a person who left a voicemail message on my mobile
telephone, within minutes of the shooting. The voicemail had been left by an
rish man who was clearly aware that had just been shot as he was joking
about the shooting. was not given any information about this at all by the
Police. do not know how this person got hold of my telephone number. The
police took the recording from my mobile telephone and have refused to return
it to me even after many requests. The only thing the Police would tell me
about it was that they had traced the person on the voicemail to an address in
Belfast, but had to press them for this information. The Police have failed to
do anything about this person.

This voicemail message was fully investigated at the time.

The incident room and Holmes System contain relevant records in respect of
this enquiry.

t remains for the SO to decide what should and should not be disclosed to Mr
McGartland balancing responsibility to the victim, to the investigation, to third
parties and to relevant legislation.

I find that this compIaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

18. Failed to give me information about a person who telephoned me on my
mobile only days before the shooting. was concerned about this call because
the person worked for a PRA newspaper and he himself was understand
convicted at some point for being a member of the PRA. The Police have
never given me details of what they did, if anything about this matter.

This matter was fully investigated at the time and documented on the Holmes
System.


Not Protectively Marked
0

Not Protectively Marked
0

t is for the SO to decide what should and should not be disclosed to Mr
McGartland balancing responsibility to the victim, to the investigation, to third
parties and to relevant legislation.

I find that this compIaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

19. Stated to the press that the shooting had nothing at all to do with the PRA,
but that it was related to local drug dealing, and that had been involved with
local gangs, drug dealers who had carried out the shooting.

This allegation was considered by Northumbria Police and assessed as being
a direction and control issue.

Mr McGartland subsequently appealed to the PCC regarding the assessment
of Northumbria Police of this complaint as direction and control.

The PCC did not uphold Mr McGartland's appeal.

This complaint is also dealt with under the contractual agreement agreed by
Mr McGartland.

n keeping with a desire to find a proportionate response to all of the
complaints made by Mr McGartland, and indeed his own assertions that this
particular aspect of the complaint was his main concern, the following,
additional media release was made on the ten year anniversary of the attack
upon him.

n consequence of this release believe that Northumbria Police have sought
every way possible to reach agreement with Mr McGartland on this matter.

I find that this compIaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

20. Removed the Senior nvestigating Officer from my case, i.e. understand
the senior investigating officer has been promoted to the head of criminal

Not Protectively Marked
1

Not Protectively Marked
1

justice. t is my understanding that there is now no Senior nvestigating Officer
in place to take control of my case.

This allegation was considered by Northumbria Police and assessed as being
a direction and control issue.

Mr McGartland subsequently appealed to the PCC regarding Northumbria
Police's assessment of this complaint as direction and control.

The PCC considered Mr McGartland's appeal and determined that this issue
was a direction and control matter and therefore Mr McGartland's appeal was
not upheld.

t is clear however that there has always been a Senior nvestigating Officer
responsible for this matter and that remains the case to date with the
appointment of Detective Chief Superintendent Thomson as the SO.

21. Have refused to allow me to return to the Northumbria Police Force area.
They have also stated that if was to return into the area would not be given
any security nor any help. regard this as a form of blackmail on the part of
the Chief Constable. also believe that this may be a breach of my human
rights.

The decision not to support Mr McGartland's return to the Northumbria Force
area was an operational management decision which was made and
maintained by a series of ACPO officers.

This position was based on expert legal opinion provided to the force by an
eminent QC.

I determine that this compIaint is a matter of Direction and ControI.

22. Failed in their duty of care against me and failed to protect me since first
came into contact with Northumbria Police in the early 1990's. t's said that

Not Protectively Marked
2

Not Protectively Marked
2

nothing has a greater bearing on an organisations success than the quality of
its duty of care. have been let down by Northumbria Police again and again.

This allegation was considered by Northumbria Police and assessed as being
a direction and control issue.

Mr McGartland subsequently appealed to the PCC regarding the assessment
of Northumbria Police of this complaint as direction and control.

The PCC did not uphold Mr McGartland's appeal.

This complaint is also dealt with under the contractual agreement agreed by
Mr McGartland.

23. Failed to respond to 999 calls after members of the public telephoned
them and told them had been shot several times. The Police, including
armed Police officers waited for up to 20 minutes outside a metro station
which is around half a mile from where the shooting took place. The Police
also held the ambulance crew at the station. t is fair to say that my life almost
came to an end that morning because of such failings.

This allegation was considered by Northumbria Police and assessed as being
a direction and control issue.

Mr McGartland subsequently appealed to the PCC regarding the assessment
of Northumbria Police of this complaint as direction and control.

The PCC did not uphold Mr McGartland's appeal.

By way of summary and overall conclusion feel it appropriate to add the
following:
Over the course of the years that have passed since the horrendous attempt
upon the life of Mr Martin McGartland in June 1999, he has made a number of
complaints against Northumbria Police.

Not Protectively Marked


Not Protectively Marked



As can be seen from this report a number of the complaints made were dealt
with by way of a formal legal agreement between Mr McGartland and
Northumbria Police.

Such contractual agreement places legal restrictions upon him yet a number
of issues so dealt with are raised by him in this complaint.

Other matters that he raises have already been subject to a determination
from the PCC that they be categorised as Direction and Control. Mr
McGartland has been informed of this yet still seeks to pursue these matters.

There are only a small number of complaints that actually required
investigation and decision making as to outcome.

n consequence of the retirement of the original investigating officer,
Superintendent Borrie, these matters have been reviewed both by and on
behalf of Superintendent Keenen from Northumbria Police Professional
Standards Department.

During the course of such review Superintendent Keenen made contact with
Mr McGartland in an effort to resolve all matters in a proportionate manner
and to the satisfaction of Mr McGartland himself.

Upon doing so Mr McGartland was asked what was at the heart of his
complaints and what he was seeking to achieve from the complaints process.

Upon asking this question Mr McGartland stated very clearly that this was the
first time he had ever been asked this. Mr McGartland went in to detail to
state that the only thing that he wanted from the process was an admission by
Northumbria Police that the attack upon him had not been carried out by 'Drug
Dealers' and that it was likely to have been carried out by rish Republican
Terrorists. n addition he stated that because this was his position, if such a

Not Protectively Marked


Not Protectively Marked


statement was made publicly, then he would be satisfied with the process and
withdraw his complaints.

n consequence of the honestly held belief of Northumbria Police that the
making of such a statement in the media would bring this matter to a
successful conclusion for all parties consultation took place and this media
release was arranged.

As a consequence agreement was reached with the current Senior
nvestigating Officer that the best date on which to make such a release to the
media would be on the ten year anniversary of the attack itself.

As such, on Wednesday 17 June 2009 Northumbria Police made the following
press release that was attributed to the current Senior nvestigating Officer for
the attack upon Mr McGartland:

RENEWED APPEAL OVER TEN-YEAR SOOTING

Northumbria PoIice officers investigating the attempted murder of Martin
McGartIand are reneing an appeaI for information, ten years after the
attack.

Mr McGartIand as shot as he sat in his car in Duchess Street, WhitIey
Bay, on June , . e survived, despite being shot a number of
times at cIose range.

No one has ever been charged ith the attempted murder and, ten years
on, the extensive investigation into the attack is continuing.

In the past, detectives have not confirmed a motive for the shooting.
Very earIy reporting at the time indicated the possibiIity that Mr
McGartIand had been shot by IocaI criminaIs. There as absoIuteIy no
evidence at the time to support this and that is stiII the case.


Not Protectively Marked


Not Protectively Marked


Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Thomson, ho is Ieading the
investigation, said: "AIthough this as an unsuccessfuI attack, it as a
coId-bIooded, caIcuIated assassination attempt. Mr McGartIand has
asked that Northumbria PoIice cIarify the situation as far as e can and I
am happy to do so.

"Mr McGartIand's history as an agent for the then RoyaI UIster
ConstabuIary and his suppIying of information about the ProvisionaI IRA
is a matter of pubIic knoIedge, documented in his on books on the
subject.

"Our main Iine of enquiry, therefore, continues to be that Mr McGartIand
may have been shot by a person or peopIe ith Irish RepubIican
sympathies, for reasons cIoseIy Iinked to his former Iife in Northern
IreIand."

During the ten years of the investigation:

Five peopIe have been arrested, though no one has yet been charged

,004 itness statements taken

, house-to-house enquiries have been carried out

,4 exhibits have been coIIated

,04 documents have been assembIed.

Detectives are continuing to use DNA recovered from the scene to
eIiminate peopIe from the investigation. Other Iines of enquiry centre
around a van abandoned at the scene hich had been bought onIy to
days before the attack, and a message Ieft on a teIephone ansering
machine a fe days earIier, asking about a van for saIe. The caIIer had a
Scottish accent, originating from somehere in the GIasgo region.

Not Protectively Marked


Not Protectively Marked



To semi-automatic pistoIs and some ammunition ere found in the
Gateshead area ithin months of the attack. One of the guns as
forensicaIIy Iinked to the shooting and poIice beIieve those responsibIe
may have stayed in the Gateshead area in the run up to the attack and
possibIy afterards. This is another Iine of enquiry.

Detective Chief Supt Thomson added: "Ten years is a Iong time for
peopIe to keep a secret about something Iike this. Over time, ord can
Ieak out and be taIked about. AIso, peopIe's IoyaIties can change a Iot in
ten years, and peopIe may no be prepared to heIp us.

"Anyone ho may have information can contact Northumbria PoIice on
04 04 04, ext or the independent charity Crimestoppers on
0800 ."

PoIice stiII have an audio tape message Ieft on a teIephone ansering
machine a fe days before the shooting by a man ho is beIieved to be
one of those invoIved in the attack. The caIIer as asking about the saIe
of a van hich as simiIar to that used to conceaI the gunman
immediateIy before the shooting. To hear this tape again, Iog on to:
.northumbria.poIice.uk/vanmessage

am of the opinion that the media release as made clearly 'sets the record
straight' as to the likelihood of who was responsible and, given that the
investigation continues, goes as far as Northumbria Police possibly can in this
regard. n addition genuinely believe that this media statement is entirely in
keeping with what was agreed with Mr McGartland as to the manner in which
he would gain satisfaction from the complaints process.

n consequence of contact with Mr McGartland after this media releases was
made it became apparent that he was no longer willing to agree that the
matters of complaint were resolved to his satisfaction.


Not Protectively Marked


Not Protectively Marked


As such it is my opinion that all necessary, relevant and proportionate
investigations have been conducted with regard to the complaints made by Mr
McGartland.

Whilst am of the opinion that there is no substance to any of the complaints
made by Mr McGartland it is evident that he is dissatisfied with the actions that
he perceives have been taken by Northumbria Police with regard to the
investigation of the terrible attack upon him.
t should be noted that the current Senior nvestigation Officer awaits the
finalisation of these matters and thereafter is willing to meet with Mr
McGarland to update him with regard to the general progress of the case and
attempt to provide him with reassurance in relation to the commitment of
Northumbria Police to bring the investigation into the attack upon him to a
meaningful conclusion.

Once this complaints process is finalised would commend this opportunity to
Mr McGartland as a way forward to a more constructive dialogue with
Northumbria Police.





W L Keenen
Detective Superintendent
Professional Standards Department

.

You might also like