THE Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland has found a police investigation into the Troubles-era killing of an IRA man was “wholly inadequate”.
Colum Marks was shot by a Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officer, known as Officer B, on the evening of April 10,1991 in Downpatrick, in Co. Down.
He later died from his injuries in hospital.
The RUC’s Criminal Investigation Division (CID) began an investigation immediately after the shooting, which happened during an operation being led by the police force to derail what they believed to be a planned mortar attack by the Provisional Irish Republican Army in the area.
Ombudsman Marie Anderson has now completed her review of the incident and the police investigation which followed, although admits her work has been hampered the lack of documentation available which is related to it.
Colum Marks died the day after he was shot by an RUC officer (Image: Phoenix Law)Previous investigations by the Police Ombudsman established that the majority of records detailing the management of covert operations at this time in Northern have been destroyed, and this also proved to be the case for the investigation into the circumstances of Mr Marks’ death.
However, evidence which was available, including radio transmission logs of the operation, showed that a man, later identified as Mr Marks, was seen carrying what appeared to be a mortar at 9.29pm on April 10, 1991.
A few minutes later the same man was seen in the driveway of a house in St Patrick’s Avenue and the mortar was confirmed as having been assembled in the driveway at 9.46pm.
At 9.47pm officers were instructed to arrest the man, who then fled the scene across a recreation ground at which point the shooting occurred.
Mrs Anderson, confirmed that the absence of records severely hampered the investigation and, in particular, her ability to fully assess opportunities that may have been presented to arrest Mr Marks prior to his sighting at St Patrick’s Avenue with the mortar.
“There are no existing TCG records and there are no witness statements or depositions from TCG officers explaining their role and participation in the planning and decision making,” she said.
“I am unable to conclude, therefore, whether there was an opportunity to disrupt the planned mortar attack, to arrest Mr Marks before that evening or to arrest him prior to the first recorded sighting of him by Police Officer B at 9.29pm.
“However, from the evidence which is available, there was a short window of opportunity to arrest Mr Marks on that evening between 9.29pm, when he was first observed carrying the mortar, and 9.47pm when the instruction was given to arrest him.
“It is clear that police intended to arrest suspects in circumstances that connected them to the weapon, and the intent to commit an unlawful act, rather than possession of the weapon alone.
“In the presence of what was described as a viable explosive device, it is my view that this was a high risk strategy on the part of police whose primary duty was to protect life.”
Mrs Anderson’s report further outlines that although the RUC had a mechanism to refer the shooting to the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland (ICPC NI), which had oversight powers at that time, there was no record that any referral was made.
The ICPC only became involved in the case when Mr Marks’ widow made a complaint to them in November 1991, saying ‘an independent inquiry can be the only means for exposing the truth’.
Her complaint was investigated by RUC Complaints and Discipline (C&D) under the ICPC’s supervision, and as a result, a further interview of Police Officer B was conducted under criminal caution.
However Police Ombudsman investigators were unable to locate a transcript of this interview and the original documentation generated by the ICPC was also absent, Mrs Anderson confirms.
No criminal proceedings were subsequently directed against any police officer for any offence relating to Mr Mark’s shooting.
“I am surprised that the opportunity was not taken to refer the death of Mr Marks to the ICPC,” Mrs Anderson said.
“This would have provided a measure of independent scrutiny of the investigation and gone some way to meet the requirements of Article 2 ‘right to life’ of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
She added: “A thorough examination of the circumstances of Mr Marks’ death should have included scrutiny of the events preceding the fatal shooting and specifically opportunities that may have been presented to arrest him and others involved”.
In conclusion, Mrs Anderson admitted that some questions “remain unanswered” regarding the case.
“The investigation of complaints about historical matters is challenging due to the passage of time and unavailability of relevant witnesses and documentation,” she said.
“In their complaint, the Marks’ family sought clarity as to the events of 10 April 1991.
“Regretfully there remain unanswered questions due to the absence of records and in particular information about the TCG operation,” Mrs Anderson explained.
“The effect of the practice of destruction of these records is that the TCG (tactical coordinating group) operation has not been subject to independent examination and scrutiny.
“However, I am critical of aspects of the initial RUC CID investigation, particularly the initial under caution interview of Police Officer B, and I am also concerned that this matter was not referred to the ICPC by the Chief Constable given its gravity.
“In consequence I conclude that the initial police investigation lacked sufficient independence and was not afforded the scrutiny and rigour that a fatal shooting of this nature warranted”.
See More: Colum Marks, Downpatrick, IRA, Northern Ireland, RUC
