The defendant is charged on two counts. The first is for the murder of Robert Hamill on 8 May 1997 and the second, added at the commencement of the trial by leave of the court, is for unlawfully fighting and causing an affray on 27 April 1997 in the County Court Division of Craigavon. The charges arise out of a violent incident which occurred in Portadown on 27 April 1997 which resulted in serious injuries being sustained by Robert Hamill. After lying unconscious in hospital for several days he died on 8 May 1997.
Eve-witnesses to differing aspects of the event were called by the prosecution and their evidence reflects two different views of precisely what occurred. On the one hand, a group of people who had been patrons of St Patrick's Hall, Thomas Street, Portadown gave evidence of an unprovoked attack upon them at the junction of Thomas Street and Market Street as they returned towards their homes. The evidence of police witnesses suggests that some kind of confrontation took place before any serious injuries were sustained.
To resolve the issues which I have to decide in this case. it is immaterial which version is correct but the incident has given rise to some public controversy and I feel that it is appropriate that I should analyse as best I can the evidence given and throw whatever light is possible upon the occurrence of the events which led to the tragic death of Robert Hamill. It must be recognized however that the differing accounts have not been tested against each other since they have both been presented in the same interest during the trial.
It is well recognised that there is sharp inter-communal division in Portadown and the nature of the incident in this case was undoubtedly sectarian. It is difficult to label the protagonists in this kind of situation without giving offence to some but for the sake of description I shall describe the group coming from St Patrick's Hall as the "hall patrons" and those whom they encountered as "loyalists", and persons including the hall patrons and others who were allegedly in confrontation with the loyalists as "nationalists". This is not meant to reflect any precise political affiliation on the part of either group.
The junction of Thomas Street and Market Street, Portadown has been described as a "flash point" at weekends, the reason being that it forms a crossroads where the two communities cross each other's paths when returning from their weekend evening entertainment. Nationalists attend So Patrick's Hall in Thomas Street and many of them, when walking home, make their way along Thomas Street across Market Street and into Woodhouse Street in order to gain access to the area where they live. Loyalists attend Portadown Rugby Club and the Coach Inn at Banbridge from which latter premises they return in buses which deposit them at the Bridge Street end of Portadown from which they make their way home along High Street and into Market Street.
The junction referred to is recognised by the police as being a potential trouble spot. On the evening in question, four police officers were on duty in a land rover patrolling within the central area of Portadown which was enclosed by security gates, and the junction of Thomas Street/Market Street was one of the points of concern for them and indeed was a focal point of their patrol.
The police version of extents at the time of the attack was given by Reserve Constable Atkinson and Constable Neill.
According to the former, the land rover stood parked in the lay-by outside the Alliance & Leicester Building Society facing towards High Street at about 1.30 am (this was position LR1 on map Exhibit No 4(2)). The only people on the street were those making their way "in dribs and drabs" from the High Street direction.
The land rover moved from its position and when it reached a position close to the entrance to Woodhouse Street (LR2) a person crossed the front of the land rover from its right. In cross examination he amended this to say the vehicle was in Position LR3 at that time. Constable Atkinson did not describe any initial exchange between this man and any of the officers, but saw two men come from the High Street direction who had an exchange of words with that person. Constable Cornett opened the front passenger door and told them to carry on.
He next recalled the driver's door being opened and Constable Neill seemed to be pulled out of the vehicle. He got out of the rear of the vehicle to assist and saw the constable and another man confront each other, but was unaware of what words were exchanged. It was then apparently that he noticed that young people were standing on the street cat-calling each other and exchanging sectarian remarks, about fifty; loyalists and twelve nationalists in number. Seeing one particular exchange in which three or four loyalists were engaged with a nationalist, he and Constable Neill ran to extricate the nationalist from the crowd.
After bringing him to Woodhouse Street, he turned round and saw two persons lying on the ground; there was no-one with them. He observed that the groups mere fighting and that bottles were being thrown and he ran over to the two people and helped keep the loyalist crowd back from them. An ambulance was sent for. He and Constable Neill removed a man from the crowd and took him to the rear of the land rover. At that stage his jacket was grabbed by the man who had crossed the land rover initially and who had had the altercation with Constable Neill and there was a struggle between them. He had a glance across the road and saw three persons jumping on one of the prone figures. He ran over to that person and stayed with him for several minutes, so far as he could judge. A police car arrived to assist and he saw Woman Constable Halley one of that team, removing a person to the back of the land rover. This person was wearing a red, white and blue scarf. An ambulance arrived and stayed for 15-20 minutes.
In cross examination he said that he did not hear what the man who crossed the front of the land rover said because of the noise of the engine and agreed that if he had heard that people would be coming from St Patrick's Hall that he would be more anxious to keep an eye on the two potentially rival crowds crossing.
He said that 3-4 minutes passed between the man being confronted bv the other two and Constable Neill's door being opened; he could not recall if he looked towards Thomas Street during that time. The view in that direction would have been through the side slots of the land rover One of the two persons lying on the ground (Mr Girvan) was lying outside the bakers at number 7 and when the ambulance came it stopped short of where he was.
Constable Neill was driver of the police vehicle and described beings parked in the lay-by at about 1.30 am. He said the town had been very quiet that night, but that situation changed within a few minutes when people started coming up from High Street. He said there was a fairly steady flow of people, in groups of two or three, "walking up in dribs and drabs". He decided to drive down to a point near the barrier in High Street to have a look there, but just as he moved into position LR2 a man walked across the road in front of them and mouthed something at them. He had come across from the Thomas Street side heading towards Woodhouse Street. Reserve Constable Cornett opened her door and asked the man what he had said and he understood that he said that there were some people coming down from So Patrick's Hall to Thomas Street. The witness looked up Thomas Streets but there was no sign of anybody coming down so he went to move off. Two males approached from the High Street direction and approached the man that had spoken to the police officers "and they sort of squared up to each other" and he moved the land rover into LR3 position. Constable Cornett opened the door and told the men lo move on.
The two men moved off towards the Alliance & Leicester premises on the corner of Woodhouse Street and the man walked down Woodhouse Street. The constable s explanation for taking up position LR3 was that he was past the point of turning into Woodhouse Slreet when the two men approached the other one and he took up position LR3 "so he could still see what was going on"
He said that the crowd making its way along Market Street was exhibiting "a bit of joviality and a bit of shouting and that, but nothing excessive."
The two individuals who had spoken to the man then engaged in conversation at the land rover for a minute or so discussing where they had been for the evening and then the driver's door of the vehicle was opened. The person who did so started to pull Ihe witness down and was shouting at him to the effect "You sat there and did nothing. You sat there, you watched that happening and you did nothing". Constable Neill did not know what he was talking about and could not see anything that could have explained the remarks.
The witness got out of the land rover and there was a female somewhere behind the man, she was also shouting to the same effect. At that stage the witness saw a crowd of approximately 4o people at the junction of Thomas Street and there was a lot of catcalling going on between a group of loyalists and a group of nationalists, which was the smaller of the groups with about eight to ten in that group. When the three officers got out of the land rover a number of fights broke out across the street. He made his way towards a fight outside Eastwood's Clothing and took one person out of it that was fighting with the other three or four. He took him back over to Woodhouse Street. There he told the man to go home and as he was talking to him someone punched the man in the face from behind the officer. This was a male in his late teens,early twenties The constable took that man back to the land rover where bottles were being thrown, one smashing on top of the land rover. There was still fighting going on across the streets with greater numbers involved.
He saw Reserve Constable Atkinson involved in one of the fights around the central reservation area and he went to assist him. He did not know whether it was at that stage that he saw a body lying on the road. It had not been there earlier, and the first time he saw it was after he had been in Woodhouse Street with the man he had brought across the street. He helped to extricate Reserve Constable Atkinson from the struggle that he was engaged in and then made his way over to the person lying outside Eastwood's, that was Robert Hamill. He said he was lying on the road on his back and there was liquid around his head which he at first thought was blood. His breathing was "like rasping". It sounded as if he had possibly been stabbed- He was alone at that stage. He then realised that he had seen somebody coming down from the church down Market Street towards Thomas Street. The two people seemed to be making their way towards each other, one had a bit of a bottle or a bottle in his handle but he did not see the result of that.
His recollection was unclear, but he could remember being involved in a fight convenient to that area probably before he went to Mr Hamill He seemed to amend this to say that he thought it was after he had made his way to Mr Hamill When asked about this he answered "I thought it was before because I remember seeing a person standing at the head/shoulders area of Mr Hamill". This person was standing over him and he appeared to be shouting or saying something to him as he was lying there. He saw this person swing his foot towards Mr Hamill in the area of his head and shoulders. he saw that clearly. The person was in his twenties he had short hair and a goat beard, he had a round face and he would have been about 5'8"/5'10". The lighting in the area was good. He could not say whether the foot struck Mr Hamill or not.
At that time the witness was trying tO split up another fight. He saw the other person, Mr Girvan, who was lying outside No 7, the home bakery. He was not aware of the ambulance arriving, but was there then it was present. Later he saw the same person that had been swinging a foot towards Mr Hamill. He was in a fight. The witness went to assist Reserve Constable Atkinson and the same person was involved in the fight. It was possibly close to the traffic light on the central reservation. It was only a matter of a few minutes between the two incidents. This person was in the middle of the fight. The witness was trying to pull him out but he was not letting go and he struck him with his baton. He later identified the man he had seen at Lurgan RUC Station on Saturday 10 May and identified him in court as being the accused.
Constable Halley had been on uniform mobile patrol with Constable Orr in a police car and received a transmission from Constable Cornett at 01.47 am. They arrived at the scene at approximately 1.55 am. Approaching the scene she observed a male youth carrying a Buckfast bottle. He ran towards the church. She observed a large crowd of 40-50 persons and two men lying on the road. The crowd was close to them. Police officers were present trying to push the crowd away from the men. She saw the crew of a land rover and Reserve Constable Silcott. The ambulance had not arrived at that point.
The two men on the ground were at the junction of Thomas Street, but she could not say how close to each other. She saw again the male youth she had seen earlier, his name is Wayne Lunt. He turned and ran off and she grabbed him on the arm. He was kicking out at her and kicked her on her legs. At 1.57 am she placed him in the land rover. After he left the land rover she went over to assist the police in pushing back the crowd. Two males approached her, one she described as very irate and abusive. He asked her why she let the man leave the land rover "as he was one of the ones that did it". She did not record that and did not get his name and address.
Mr Gregory Girvan said that he, his wife, Joanne, her sister Siobhan and Robert Hamill left St Patrick's Hall shortly after the music had stopped. As they approached the junction of Thomas Street and Market Street he noticed a couple of people "knocking about" at the corner, but he did not pay any attention to them. All he could remember after that was wakening up in Craigavon Hospital when he had a cut lo his head and a couple of marks to his face.
He. his wife and Robert Hamill had been drinking at the dance and he had "had a few pints"
Mrs Joanne Girvan is the wife of Gregory. She said that the music at the function stopped at l.00 am and they decided to leave early to relieve her baby-sitter. In her view they left the hall at about 1.20 am. As they approached the junction she saw a couple of people whom she assumed had come from the hall walking across into Woodhouse Street. She also saw a police jeep with its back doors facing the town clock. It was to the Bridge Street side of Woodhouse Street.
As she came out into the junction of Market Street she can only remember Gregory lying unconscious and Robert across the road a wee bit lying down. She knew that he was hurt. He did not get up and was lying dead still. A crowd had come out from nowhere numbering about 20-30. She never looked up to see them. she kept her head down and kept herself over Gregory. Both men were outside Eastwood's with Robert more towards the centre of the road.
The first thing that she became aware of was the ambulance coming up towards them and then a police officer came over to her and told her to put Gregory in the recovery position. Siobhan was with Robert. She said she was reassured approaching Market Street by the police presence. She did not see any police personnel out of the land rover. She said that when the ambulance came, a police officer was out of the jeep then. but that was after the attack was over.
Miss Siobhan Girvan thought that they had left the hall at about 1.20 am or 1.25 am. Approaching Market Street junction, there were two people at the bottom of Thomas Street and a police jeep. It was across the road to the right of Woodhouse Street. As they got out onto Market Street a crowd came from nowhere and just started attacking. They had just reached the junction of Thomas Street and Market Street. She could not say whether the crowd came from the right or left. She save Robert lying on the ground and people were kicking at him. There were at least 20 or 30 of them. She took her coat off and put it over his head. They were also shouting "die you bastard". She remembers turning round and seeing Gregory lying with Joanne over him.
After putting a coat under Robert's head she ran over to the police jeep and asked that they should get out and help them. She was not aware of anyone in the jeep at that stage. She ran back to Robert. An ambulance arrived. She had no alcohol taken. She saw nothing in the nature of fighting between the two groups but what occurred was simply an unprovoked attack on the two men. She was not aware of any taunting or cat-calling. The police who were in the land rover remained in the land rover for at least 5-1O minutes after the end of the attack.
Mr Colin Prunty had also been to St Patrick's Hall and left it with his girlfriend. He saw Robert Hamill and Mr & Mrs Girvan and Siobhan Girvan walking in the same direction along Thomas Street. They were behind him. He did not see anyone as he approached the junction with Market Street. Robert Hamill was in front of him, although the others were behind and as he walked into the junction "a whole squad" appeared out of nowhere and jumped him. He heard "Get him, get him" being said. He noticed the police land rover just outside the Halifax Building Society. It was partly on the diagonal. It happened very quickly and his impression was that the people who jumped Robert came from the left-hand side. Robert was dragged to the ground and they started kicking him and beating him. About 20 or 30 people were involved. Some were saying "Kill the fenian bastard".
Mr Girvan ran down to try to help and was knocked straight to the ground. The witness ran down to try to help. He ran into the middle of the crowd. There were no policemen around at that stage. They came to the scene after Robert had got beaten up. Two policemen came to the scene. They broke the crowd up and took one fellow away.
When they broke the crowd up they were still kicking at Robert, but he also said that once the kicking had stopped the police came on the scene then and confirmed that the police broke the crowd up when the kicking had stopped. He saw the police grab a fellow and bring him down towards the land rover. He was wearing a Rangers scarf. He was in the crowd that was kicking Robert. He later saw the man at the back of the land rover. The witness complained to a police woman that that person had been released.
Mr Hamill was taken by ambulance to Craigavon Area Hospital where he was seen by Mr B K Low who was casualty officer on duty. He found no open injury but that Mr Hamill had difficulty in breathing and a decision was made that he should be transferred to the Neuro-Surgical Unit in the Royal Victoria Hospital. There he came under the care of Mr Fannin the Consultant Neuro-Surgeon.
Mr Fannin's notes was referred to by Dr Patel who give evidence indicated that Mr Hamill was being treated for a relatively minor brain injury and indeed following the death of Mr Hamill, Mr Fannin commented that it was felt that he had sustained a relatively minor head injury but suffered a sudden and unexpected deterioration in his condition on 8 May.
It appears that there Was little evidence of direct violence to the head. The postmortem was carried out bv Dr Jack Crane the State Pathologist and he commented as follows
"Death was as a result of the head injuries which he had sustained. Externally his injuries appeared trivial; there was a small area of abrasion on the left side of the forehead, a bruise on the upper eyelid of the left eye and a small spot of abrasion close to the left nostril. Even internally the injuries did not seem particularly severe with only two areas of bruising on each side of the undersurface of the scalp and a small almost hairline fracture in the front part of the skull running into the roof of the left eye socket. Detailed examination of the brain however and in particular its microscopic examination revealed widespread damage within its substance of a type known as diffuse axonal injury. This condition most frequently encountered inacceleration/deceleration injury as a result of a road traffic accidents is also well recognised as occurring as a result of repeated blows to the head such as by punching or kicking and this would seem the most likely mechanism of injury in this case. It was ultimately the effects of the brain injury which were responsible for his death in hospital.
He had also sustained some other injuries although none of these were serious enough to have plaved any part in his death. There was a fading bruise on the front of the abdomen and some further bruising in the muscles of the abdominal wall which could have been due to blows during the assault. There were numerous bruises on the left upper limb particularly on the forearm and hand which could have been sustained if the arm was struck whilst raised in aid of defensive gestures. A few further bruises were located on the right upper limb but some of these are probably related to injections given whilst in hospital. A fairly large area of bruising overlying the right side of the pelvis was due to blunt force and might have been caused by a kick".
On his initial admission to hospital an analysis carried out revealed an alcohol concentration of 221 Mg per 100 ml such a level would leave no doubt that he was moderately intoxicated at the time of the incident also it was well recognised that alcohol intoxication exacerbates the effects of head injuries and may well have played a part in the outcome in this case.
The injury to the brain would therefore appear to have been caused by a jolting type of injury rather than by direct contact but there was no reason to doubt that the fatal injury was sustained as a result of the violent assault referred to by the other hall patrons.
There is a fundamental difference between the evidence of the police witnesses and the patrons at St Patrick's Hall in that the police witnesses say that there was confrontation between groups of people hostile to each other before anyone was knocked to the ground whereas the patrons from St Patrick's Hall say that there was an unprovoked attack on the deceased and Mr Girvan as soon as they had reached the junction of Thomas Street and Market Street.
Both police officers who were present say that Mr Girvan was lying outside the bakery at number 7 but this view is not supported by any other witness including Mr Morrow the ambulance driver who puts the men in the position described by the other hall patrons. It is impossible to determine what significance, if any, is to be attached to this difference of recollection.
Apart from the issue of identification which I shall return to, the prosecution in order to establish the charge of murder has to prove either that the accused inflicted injuries to the deceased which caused or contributed to his death or that by his conduct as witnessed bv Constable Neill he aided and abetted those who had caused such injuries.
In relation to the first proposition, Constable Neill specifically denies seeing the accused make physical contact with Mr Hamill so it is impossible for me to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused personally inflicted any injury upon Mr Hamill although it is probable that he intended to and did strike him. In relation to the second proposition, Mr Prunty says that the Police had not come on the scene until after Robert had been beaten up and Miss Girvan said that the police in the land rover remained there for at least 5-10 minutes after the end of the attack and Mrs Girvan said that the police officer who came over to her, the only one that she refers to as having crossed the road, came over after the attack was over.
Constable Neill was ambivalent as to whether he saw the person standing over Mr Hamill before or after he had gone to check Mr Hamill. He first referred to finding Mr Hamill still breathing and discovering that the fluid around him was alcohol. He then said he was involved in a fight convenient to that area and at first said that that was "possibly before" he had checked Mr Hamill. He then said "I think it was probably before because I can't remember; actually it was after that I think I went to the body, Mr Hamill and he was lying there". He then said he thought it was after he made his way to Mr Hamill that he witnessed the incident involving the accused.
Constable Neill had seen Mr Hamill on the ground from across the Street so he had to cross over to him. The evidence of the hall patrons suggests that Mr Hamill was lying on the ground after the attack for a considerable time before any police officer approached him and Constable Neill's evidence does little to dispel that impression.
There must, therefore, be a reasonable doubt as to whether what was seen by Constable Neill occurred quite some time in terms of minutes after the physical attack on Mr Hamill had ended and it could not, therefore, be said that the accused aided, abetted, counselled or procured the attack or that he participated in it jointly with those who inflicted the fatal injuries on Mr Hamill. The probability is that the fatal injuries had been inflicted and the attack had ceased before the event witnessed by Constable Neill who first saw Mr Hamill on the ground from Woodhouse Street with no-one attacking him.
The situation was a confused one and the attack on Mr Hamill and Mr Girvan was quickly executed; both Miss Girvan and Mrs Girvan say that the attackers "came out of nowhere". it is not surprising that it is difficult to extract a coherent account even from the eye-witnesses. The consequence must be that I am not in a position to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused on the first count and indeed proof of his involvement in the murder falls far short of the required standard.
According to Constable Neill he saw the accused twice on that evening, once as he stood over Mr Hamill and swung his foot towards him and later when he was in the fight involving Reserve Constable Atkinson.
The lighting was good in the street and Constable Neill described the person who swung his foot at Mr Hamill as being in his 2Os with short hair and "a goat beard". He would have been about 5' 8" or 5' 10" and appeared to be wearing a waistcoat or a sort of a leather fronted coat with cloth arms on it. Constable Neill was about 25-30 feet awav from him at that time. A matter of a few minutes later while trying to extract Reserve Constable Atkinson from a fight with some persons, the witness was trying to pull one person out when he realised it was the same person as he had seen. He struck him with the baton at that stage. Obviously the constable must have been close to the person when he was in a position to strike him with his baton.
Constable Neill was cross examined to the effect that he had not mentioned the height that he saw in his earlier statements but I do not see the height of the accused as being a particular distinguishing feature and I do not find it surprising that it was not mentioned in the earlier statements. It appears also that he variously described the attacker as being in his late 20s, his 20s and then simply in his 20s.
All of those descriptions are referred to a person in his 20s and I do not think that the distinctions in the description of age are significant.
The constable also had some difficulty in describing the sort of top that the man was wearing referring it tO as a waistcoat or casual top "like a leather waistcoat with cloth arms" and it was certainly not established to my satisfaction that the accused had any garment answering that description. However, I do not attach a great deal of importance to the description of clothing attempted by the constable.
In my view reliable identification is based on the features of the person to be identified rather than on his clothing. I am satisfied that Constable Neill did concentrate on his features and that he has made a reliable identification.
He next saw the person on Saturday 10 May at Lurgan RUC Station and was able to identify him it being the defendant, Mr Hobson.
Mr Orr applied for a direction citing the well known cases of R v Galbraith and R v Turnbull. However, I consider that the opportunity for observation was good and I could not really see any feature in the case which might give rise to a doubt as to whether the identification was an accurate one. In the event the accused did not give evidence from which I draw the inference that he felt unable to give evidence which would distance him from the events witnessed by Constable Neill, and Constable Neill's evidence is fortified to that extent. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore that Constable Neill has accurately identified the accused, Paul Rodney Mark Hobson as being the person standing over Mr Hamill and later involved in the struggle with Reserve Constable Atkinson. In considering the nature of the second count I can do no better than to quote from the recent judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in the case of Henry and others:
"Affray is a common law misdemeanour, whose elements relevant to the present case are that unlawful fighting is used by one or more persons against another or others in a public place in such a manner that a bystander of reasonably firm character might reasonably be expected to be terrified: Smith & Holgan Criminal Law, 5th Edition, page 738.
Lord Hailsham of St Marleybone LC warned in Taylor v Director of Public Prosecutions (1973) AC 964/987 that the requirement of terror rather than mere fright should not be watered down. It is not necessary however, to call a witness to say that he was put in terror "
I would also adopt, as an indicator of the conduct that may amount to affray, the remarks of Stuart Smith LJ in R v Herron and Spencer (1989) 11 Cr App R (S.) 226 at 998:
"However, in cases of violent crowd disorder, it is not only the precise individual acts that matter. It is the fact that he is taking part in violent disorder, threatening violence against other people, and is part and parcel of the whole threatening and alarming activity".
While those remarks were made in the context of an appeal against sentence following conviction of violent disorder under Section 2(1) of the Public Order Act 1986, the words are equally applicable to the common law offence of affray.
In this case, whether the matter commenced as an unprovoked attack on the patrons from St Patrick's Hall followed by a struggle between the attackers and the police to keep the attackers away from the prone figures of Mr Girvan and Mr Hamill, or whether events started with a confrontation between rival groups, I have no doubt that any bystander of reasonably firm character would be expected to be terrified by the actions of the accused as described bv Constable Neill.
The attitude and gestures of the accused in relation to Mr Hamill have every appearance of being threatening and hostile and undoubtedly would have caused active encouragement and support to others engaged in fighting at that time and the struggle with Reserve Constable Atkinson in which Constable Craig intervened was part of a sectarian confrontation or attack. I am satisfied that any bvstander would have been justifiably terrified, and indeed the situation required the police officers present to call for supporting units.
I am, therefore, satisfied that the accused is guilty of affray and accordingly convict him on the second count.
Considerable publicity was given to the events which gave rise to this case, and while it is not for me to reach a conclusion on matters that are not central to the issues tried by me it does appear to be appropriate to make some comments.
It is clear from the description given by Mrs Girvan, Miss Siobhan Girvan, Mr Prunty and Mr Girvan that the attack on Mr Girvan and Mr Hamill was a very sudden one and that Mr Hamill was brought to the ground and attacked within a very short timescale.
I am unable to resolve the question whether the police officers remained in the land rover during the attack. On the evidence of the hall patrons this would not be entirely surprising and would not necessarily reflect on the officers commitment to duty since according to that evidence the scene was peaceful immediately before the attack as the patrons approached the Thomas Street/Market Street junction.
The only issue which might reflect on the officers and about which no evidence exists is whether they failed to anticipate the attack in the event that there was any preparation or assembly before it. Even if alerted at the earliest moment by the occurrence of the attack itself it is unlikely that they would have been able to dismount and intervene in time to save Mr Hamill.
It appears that once the police officers did intervene they acted resolutely and were able to keep the loyalist crowd away from the two men on the ground and to prevent anv further serious injury. The nationalists were heavily outnumbered bv the loyalist crowd and it was only the presence and intervention of the police that could have been responsible for the prevention of further attacks upon them.
The fatal injuries sustained by Mr Hamill and the injuries sustained by Mr Girvan, from which he made a speedy recovery do not establish that a prolonged beating took place and indeed the fatal injury could have been caused by one blow or a blow combined with a heavy fall.
I am satisfied that the officers came across the road shortly after the attack and that the evidence which suggests otherwise is explained bv confusion and distress on the part of the hall patrons.
In my view the hall patrons were not in a position to be clear about the timing or extent of the police intervention and the evidence of Mr Morrow the ambulance driver shows that there was an active police presence when he arrived. The female witnesses were distraught during the attack and in no position to make accurate observations and Mr Prunty was engaged in trying to protect the injured men. He seems to place the arrest of Lunt at a fairly early stage in the exchanges, when it is clear that it did not take place until after the arrival of Constable Halley.
I recognise that this raises the reasonable doubt as to whether Constable Neill was being truthful when he described the scene as he looked across the street after dismounting from the land rover. If that evidence is untruthful the purpose of it is obviously to protect his own and his fellow officers' position in the face of criticisms that have been publicly made against them and I am satisfied that no such consideration applies to his evidence implicating the accused which I accept as truthful and accurate.
However, there are three items of comment which I regard as appropriate on matters which lie outside the immediate scope of this trial, but the factual basis for which is not disputed.
1. It is obvious that the man who first approached the land rover felt that he had some information or warning of significance to impart.
He may have thought, correctly, that the timing of the proposed departure from the location was inappropriate, since the arrival of hall patrons was imminent, or he may have noticed some assembly of hostile loyalists preparing to attack the patrons.
The officers showed no interest ln the significance of his message. Reserve Constable Atkinson admitted that he could not recall looking to see if any group was coming from the hall during the three to four minutes between the man's approach and the door of the land rover being opened and all of the occupants of the land rover appear to have become distracted from their observation of Thomas Street by a casual conversation with the two loyalists who had confronted the man.
2. It seems unfortunate, once the driver had realised that this individual thought it necessary to inform the police of the arrival of the patrons from St Patrick's Hall, that the land rover was then placed in a position in which none of the officers in the vehicle had a view of the junction of Thomas Street and Market Street except through the side slot of the vehicle. Placing the vehicle at a right angle to Market Street would have provided a clear view towards the junction either to those in the front through the windscreen or those at the rear looking out through the rear doors, and even if parked in its first position or at a normal alignment to Market Street the driver would have had a good view, but the angle at which the vehicle was parked would appear to have been the least advantageous one for the purpose of observation of what has been admitted to be the location in which trouble was likely to flare up in the very situation which had just been reported to the officers.
3. It would also appear that Mr Prunty's observation, if correct, would have provided a prima facie case of serious involvement in the attack on Mr Hamill against the man arrested at the scene and taken to the land rover. It may be understandable that Constable Hallev did not personally follow up the remarks made to her by Mr Prunty, but it seems very strange that she did not regard him as a potential witness and that the facts were not placed before the officers investigating the case. Indeed on the basis of Mr Prunty's police statement there appears to have been sufficient material available on the papers in the case to merit serious investigation of that man's involvement and it should have been easy to relate Mr Prunty's observation of the man to the arrest of him by Constable Halley.
back to testimony
index