Sheridan says confidence in Ombudsman’sbeen knocked by ‘unfair’ Rapid criticisms

Mr Sheridan, set up the controversial review of people wanted for offences prior to 1998 back in February 2007, when he was Assistant Chief Constable.

The Administrative scheme for OTRs rose to public prominence over the past year after the prosecution of Creeslough-based republican John Downey for the 1982 IRA Hyde Park was thrown out at the Old Bailey.

During a briefing of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee set up to examine the matter in the Spring, Mr Sheridan, had told MPs that, by the time the terms of reference of Operation Rapid were being drawn up, the PSNI had to adhere to more rigorous standards than those that would have applied in the 1970s and 1980s and that the force couldn’t just lift people willy-nilly.

He had told the Committee that a wrongful arrest and false imprisonment case taken by Londonderry republican Gerard O’Hara, against the former RUC Chief Constable John Hermon, following an arrest in 1985, had transformed the landscape.

However, a few months after Mr Sheridan’s Spring appearance before the Committee Heather Hallett’s review into OTRs suggested that the terms of reference of Operation Rapid “arguably set too high a threshold for the arrest and questioning of suspects.”

Her review did come with the proviso that: “Until the PSNI has concluded its lengthy review of all of the decisions previously made, it is too early to say whether an incorrect threshold was applied at any time, including in 2007/08.”

But it was the recent report by the Police Ombudsman, Dr Michael Maguire into OTRs, which also referred to the threshold for arrest, that Mr Sheridan last week (November 10 and 11) blasted in new written and spoken submissions to the Committee.

In his report Dr Maguire stated: “I consider the most significant flaw to be a wrongly articulated threshold for arrest which created the potential within the delivery of Operation Rapid to apply a higher threshold for arrest than that which is normally applied” before going on to give reasons as to how he arrived at this conclusion.”

But last Tuesday Mr Sheridan told the Committee he believed the report “lacked fairness, balance and thoroughness.”

He told the Committee: “It goes probably to the heart, and it gives me no pleasure in saying this, Chairman, of where some of the difficulties are between former police officers and the Police Ombudsman’s Office.

“I have consistently championed the Police Ombudsman’s Office since its inception, both inside and outside the police. I have tried to persuade former colleagues to take part and co‑operate with the Office. I have to say my own confidence has been knocked by the lack of fairness shown to me.

“Until the Police Ombudsman’s Office stands up to the same level of the principle of fairness that Lady Justice Hallett did and other inquiries do, I am afraid we are going to continue with those same difficulties.”

To underline this Mr Sheridan went on to quote Hallett’s view that pending a complete PSNI review it would be unfair to say that the threshold was wrong.

He also addressed Dr Maguire’s criticisms in considerable detail.