PSNI rush to declare no action against Brady
01 June 2012
TUV Leader Jim Allister has expressed surprise that, without even consulting the PPS, the PSNI has ruled out prosecuting Cardinal Brady under Section 5 of The Criminal law (NI) Act 1967 for withholding information in respect of allegations of abuse investigated by him.
Following a recent BBC documentary which suggested Cardinal Brady in 1975 and since has been in possession of knowledge of serious allegations of criminal activity against a named priest, Mr Allister on 3rd May 2012 wrote to the Chief Constable enquiring if “having regard to his obligations under Section 5 of The Criminal Law (NI) Act 1967” at any time Cardinal Brady’s apparent withholding of information had been investigated, and, if not, would such now be investigated?
Section 5 is quite explicit:
“… where a person has committed a relevant offence, it shall be the duty of every other person, who knows or believes –
(a) that the offence or some other relevant offence has been committed; and
(b) that he has information which is likely to secure, or to be of material assistance in securing, the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person for that offence;
to give that information, within a reasonable time, to a constable and if, without reasonable excuse, he fails to do so he shall be guilty of an offence…”
Now Mr Allister has received a letter from ACC Hamilton saying he has concluded that “there is no evidence that Cardinal Brady has committed an offence under Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act (NI) 1967”.
In a statement the North Antrim MLA said:-
“Given the content of the This World programme, the apparent undisputed fact that Cardinal Brady came into relevant knowledge from the young complainant(s) and the strict requirements of Section 5, I am surprised that after just 3 weeks – suggesting no real investigation - and no recourse to the PPS, that the PSNI can so reach such a definitive conclusion. This is a serious matter and one which I believe merited more detailed investigation than this timeframe could even have permitted. Was Cardinal Brady even questioned about the matter, or did someone decide it was not opportune to pursue the matter.
“I believe the PSNI owe an explanation, particularly to the affected families. I will be pressing the PSNI further on this matter.”
