Northumbria Police Cover-Up and whitwash Martin McGartland complaints. The 1999 attempted murder of Martin McGartland is being covered-up by Northumbria Police.
Original Title
Yet another Northumbria Police whitewash and cover-up - Northumbria Police took 3 full years to deal with these complaints.
Northumbria Police Cover-Up and whitwash Martin McGartland complaints. The 1999 attempted murder of Martin McGartland is being covered-up by Northumbria Police.
Northumbria Police Cover-Up and whitwash Martin McGartland complaints. The 1999 attempted murder of Martin McGartland is being covered-up by Northumbria Police.
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
Latest PIRA Death Threat Against Martin McGartland (MM) Which Was Concealed by Local Corrupt Force (and Special Branch) and MI5. It Was Only Disclosed After MM Began Asking Questions, Requesting Information
Independent Office Police Conduct (IOPC) Cover Up To Protect Police - Seeking To Impose An Extraordinary Non-Disclosure Agreement (A Gagging Order) On Martin McGartland
Sinn Fein Fury at Arrest in Belfast of Convicted PIRA Terrorist Harry Fitzsimons in Connection With Attempted Murder of Martin McGartland - MI5 and British Government Protecting and Covering Up for PIRA ...
TOP Bent Cops at Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) are protecting Martin McGartland PIRA kidnappers. So are the Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland (PPS) on the orders of MI5, British Security Service.
Strathclyde Police Cover-Up in The Martin McGartland Attempted Murder Case - All On The Orders of MI5, Home Office and HMG To Protect PIRA and The Terrorists Involved in Martin's Attempted Murder
Sue -Sin' Sim of Northumbria Police behind cover-up in the Martin McGartland attempted murder case. Sue Sim and other Bent, Corrupt cops (including Chris Thomson) have been protecting PIRA terrorists who tried to murder Martin McxGartland. They are even covering-up PIRA involvement in the attempted murder. They are doing so on the orders of MI5 (Security Service) and HMG.
State - MI5 Cover-up - Martin McGartland shooting - Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) involved in cover-up (with Northumbria Police, MI5 and HMG) by concealing information concerning Martin McGartland's attempted murder.
Sue Sim and Northumbria Police - up to their old tricks yet again. Information Commissioner confirms that Freedom of Information request for information on Martin McGartland shooting case was NOT 'Vexatious' ...
Top PSNI Cop, Karen Baxter, and other corrupt, Bent, cops within Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) are behind cover-up in the Martin McGartland PIRA kidnapping case. Each of them refuse to investigate former British Agent, Martin McGartland's, PIRA kidnapping Karen Baxterand PSNI are protecting convicted PIRA terrorists (McGartland's kidnappers). Compelling evidence has been concealed by PSNI cops, the PPS are also party to the cover-upo and corruption. Bothg Martin McGartland's kidnappers, Jim 'Tout' McCartht (CRJ Belfast) and Paul 'Chico' Hamilton (also a Tout) are being protected by the State. Both are also convicted PIRA terrorists.
Serious Corruption in Police Service of Northern Ireland by Top Cops (including Karen Baxter) in the Martin McGartland PIRA kidnapping case. Karen Baxter, PSNI are protecting Martin McGartland's kidnappers, Jim 'Tout' McCarthy (CRJ Belfast) and Paul 'Chico' Hamilton (another tout). Both kidnappers are convicted PIRA terrorists. They are also being protected by Bent, Corrupt, Pen-Pushers within the PPS in N. Ireland.
TOP Bent Cops at Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) are protecting Martin McGartland PIRA kidnappers. So are the Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland (PPS) on the orders of MI5, British Security Service.