The report by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary into the PSNI handling of the Bobby Storey funeral is seriously defective in numerous ways. How could it be otherwise when Mr Parr will not or cannot name the events company and it is now claimed that no company was involved? How could he have compiled a comprehensive report into the PSNI response when he cannot even tell us if the texts exchanged with Gerry Kelly were on official PSNI phones and Kelly himself, a member of the Policing Board, declined to speak to him? Unlike other parts of the UK, in Northern Ireland, HMIC has no power to compel witnesses or documents so in important respects the investigation was hamstrung from the outset.
It would be wrong, however, to dismiss the report as worthless. It does offer a telling insight into how the PSNI works when it comes to Republicans.
Normally PSNI Gold command planning meetings preparing for large events are attended by people from other departments. The report notes that the PSNI Legal Services Department and the intelligence team are normally invited. Neither were included in the planning meeting for the Storey funeral. The report finds that this was a factor in the PPS decision not to prosecute but tamely describes it as “a missed opportunity”. Why, if it normally happens, were they not invited in this instance? This is a question neither asked nor answered in the report. The fact that it arises though is telling.
We hear that the Gold Commander on the day of the funeral was on leave for four days and returned to work on the day of the funeral. In his absence the weekend Gold Commander spoke to Gerry Kelly on his way home from work and didn’t so much as make a written record of what was said. We will all share the report’s “surprise” at this lack of record keeping and it is indeed “unclear how the funeral Gold Commander would have been able to maintain a full understanding of the funeral planning during leave”.
Surprise is again the word employed about the fact that the investigation could “find no evidence of the 4Es approach in the Gold Command Strategy” – something which undermined the chances of successful prosecutions and which is characterised as “unfortunate”.
In recent days there has been a question mark over whether any events-planning company was involved in the funeral. Yet when one reads the report HMIC tell us:
“We were told [by the PSNI] that an events-planning company representing Mr Storey’s family and Mr Kelly met the funeral Silver and Bronze Commanders in a video meeting on 29 June. The events company shared a plan (we refer to this document as a plan but the Gold Commander has said it is more accurately described as a risk assessment) that outlined the stewarding arrangements for the funeral.”
When the report says that during this conversation with the funeral organisers there was “a conversation about how the Regulations might change before the funeral. It was expected that changes would allow larger numbers of people to attend funerals” one is given to wonder where that information came from – particularly given that the regulations were changed the night before the funeral, allegedly after a request from the Executive Office.
On 26th June an estimated 400 people gathered near the Storey home when his body was brought home. Rather than step in themselves “the PSNI contacted Mr Kelly and he told them that the stewards would disperse the crowd”. Shortly after this “the Silver Commander requested air support to monitor the crowds. The Gold Commander declined because it could cause disorder… Because officers were greatly outnumbered, they were told to monitor crowds from a safe distance.”
What does that say about policing in Republican areas of Northern Ireland?
On the day of the funeral itself evidence gathering teams were deployed along with a vehicle equipped to video the funeral with a camera on the roof. However, HMIC note that what they saw of the footage was “taken from too great a distance to identify individuals.” What a contrast with how police recored recent parades in places like Markethill!
Incredibly when it came to the gathering of evidence “most of the footage provided to the PPS came from Sinn Féin’s own video of the funeral. Sinn Féin’s recordings were of a high quality and captured from a close range”!
The report then moves to give us an insight into the reaction of the Gold and Silver Commanders to the funeral as they watched it unfold. The Gold Commander told HMIC that it was clear “stewarding wasn’t working as anticipated” and that, on reflection, he had “no idea” what they could have done differently.
Clearly the PSNI had abrogated responsibility for policing the funeral to an “events company” which we don’t even know the name of and there is now a question mark over its existence.
When they failed to live up to their promises police were literally clueless as to how to respond!
Incredibly the Sliver and Bronze Commanders both told HMIC that they were “surprised that so few people turned up” with the Bronze Commander telling them that police “wouldn’t have interfered with the funeral unless there was a serious incident with immediate risk to life” and the Silver that “any intervention would have created significant risks of violence, public disorder and damage to community relations.”
What does this say about how Republican areas of Northern Ireland are policed?
One inspector who patrolled the periphery of the funeral in a vehicle that didn’t stop at any time told HMIC:
“I knew it was the sort of gathering that any attempt on my part to stop and engage would not have gone down well. I was getting a clear picture from the steely looks I was getting”.
The report adds:
“They explained that it was a tense situation. It wasn’t one where police officers would engage with mourners to encourage and explain that they needed to comply with the Regulations.
“We were told that, in their opinion, any engagement would have led to disorder. This would have had substantial and long-term consequences for the PSNI relationship with the community.”
The PSNI incorrectly believed for a while that they didn’t record any video footage on the day of the funeral and were reduced to “looked primarily to material available on social media” when it came to looking for evidence.
It was through social media that the PSNI found three photographs showing a different man holding what appears to be the same firearm in an unidentified house. Each of the men is described as dressed in black trousers, white shirt and black tie.
An initial investigation into the firearms photographs was closed on 9 September 2020. It concluded that the ‘firearms’ were likely to be imitations and that the men concerned had not been identified. The PSNI re-opened the investigation on 5 February 2021 and this has not yet concluded.
The HMIC report exposes the fact that the investigation by an independent officer into the policing of the funeral was limited because the terms of reference excluded the planning of the funeral. It is also noted that he wasn’t offered the option of bringing his own team and he told HMIC that he accepted this as “officers from another force wouldn’t fully understand the context of the matters under consideration.”
HMIC say that in planning large public events police often consult with other organisations. They pointedly note that when it came to the Storey funeral the PSNI did not consult the PPS in advance.
We learn that the PSNI provided solicitors of those acting of people being investigated with “over 200 possible interview appointments”. How many of those were for the deputy First Minister? Does giving the justice system such a runaround speak to a movement which respects the forces of law and order?