ACC has "MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION" with Cardinal Brady over obligations under Section 5 of The Criminal Law (NI) Act 1967
22 June 2012
TUV Leader Jim Allister has been pressing the PSNI on what action they took following the ‘This World’ programme on abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, particularly in regard to Cardinal Brady. The MLA has expressed surprise at the content of the latest letter he has received from ACC Hamilton, in which the Assistant Chief Constable seeks to defend the view that the Cardinal is not suspected of any offence under Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act (NI) 1967, which criminalises the withholding of information.
Despite maintaining Cardinal Brady is not suspected of any Section 5 offence, the ACC reveals that nonetheless he has had a “meaningful conversation” with Cardinal Brady – whatever that means – concerning obligations under Section 5.
Commenting Jim Allister said:-
“ ‘Meaningful conversations’ are not a mode of police investigation with which I am familiar, so I am inviting the ACC to explain further? When was this ‘conversation’, was it an interview, were any third parties present at the meeting with Cardinal Brady, if there was a meeting?
“I am also concerned, given that it is the responsibility of the PPS, not the PSNI, to apply the prosecutor’s tests, how and when, if at all, was the PPS involved, given the very short timeframe during which the authorities claim to have considered this matter.
“I have set out my concerns to the ACC in the following terms:-
Dear Assistant Chief Constable,
re: Operation Charwell
Thank you for your further reply of 12 June 2012.
I remain puzzled by aspects of this matter.
Can you confirm that since the Criminal Justice Review (2000) the PSNI are no longer permitted to apply the Prosecutor's Tests? Thus, how is your correspondence framed in terms of you coming to "an unambiguous decision" that there was no evidence of Cardinal Brady having breached Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act (NI) 1967? Surely, this was a call for the PPS? Given the very short timeframe, was there any serious consultation with the PPS?
As for your "meaningful conversation" with Cardinal Brady, when did that take place, was it an interview and, if so, was he interviewed as a witness? And, if it were a mere informal chat, how do you think that impinges on any possible future police action? "Meaningful conversations" are not a mode of police investigation with which I am familiar, so, perhaps you could explain further? Also, were any third parties present in the meeting with Cardinal Brady, if there was a meeting?
Yours sincerely,
