BY AILEEN MURPHY

The Police Ombudsman has found police were right to use CS spray during three separate incidents in Enniskillen.

However, Nuala O'Loane has warned of the dangers of using CS spray during public disorder.

The incidents occurred during serious disturbances in the town's Forthill Street in the early hours of Sunday 29 August 2004, and at Drumgallon on 1 November 2004.

The Police had asked the Police Ombudsman to investigate all discharges of CS spray between August and December 2004, following its introduction to Northern Ireland.

While finding that police had acted properly, Mrs O'Loane, warned: "When used in public order situations, CS spray has the potential to affect not only those people who police are trying to subdue, but also innocent bystanders as well as police officers themselves.

"Officers and others could be placed at serious risk if incapacitated by CS spray in such circumstances," she stated.

Detailing the incidents under investigation, the Ombudsman's Report explained the Drumgallon incident began when police attended a major disturbance at Cleenish Park at around 1am on November 1 2004.

They had received a request for help from people living in the area who said they had received death threats and had their cars damaged.

Police reported that, when they arrived at the scene, it appeared a hostile crowd of between 30 and 40 people had attacked a particular home with fireworks, caused severe damage to a vehicle parked outside, and had threatened to enter the house and kill the family inside.

The police quickly arrested 12 people. One of the officers stated that, during the unrest, he saw a man, who was shouting and appeared to be intoxicated, hit one officer and raise his fists at another. The Constable shouted a warning to the man that he had CS spray but, when this was ignored, he discharged one burst of the spray. The man immediately put his hands to his face and ran into a nearby house to wash his eyes. He was later arrested.

Police Ombudsman investigators took statements from each of the officers at the scene. They also made house-to-house inquiries and identified a number of potential witnesses.

The investigators also contacted the man who had been affected by the spray to gain further details of what happened, but he did not co-operate with the investigation.

The Police Ombudsman Report concluded that, given all the available evidence, the officer was right to have used his CS spray 'in order to prevent a serious assault on a fellow police officer.'

Twelve people later appeared in court in relation to the incident, and were convicted of a range of offences.

FORTHILL STREET

Turning to the unrest at Forthill Street, and the Ombudsman's Report detailed two incidents. The first happened shortly after 2am on 29 August 2004 when police attempted to break up a fight involving six or seven males. One male was lying on the ground and being repeatedly kicked and punched by the others.

The officers involved told Police Ombudsman investigators the men had ignored requests to stop fighting and had continued even when officers tried to separate them.

The officer who used her CS spray said she was concerned the victim of the attack would be seriously injured if the fight continued.

Having shouted a warning, she sprayed one continuous stream at the group of males from a distance of about three metres, aiming at their face and chest areas. She said she had taken care to aim directly at the group to minimise the chance of indirectly hitting bystanders.

The spray initially seemed to have little effect, but a number of youths gradually began to show symptoms. One, however, came towards her and demanded to know what had been sprayed in his face.

The officer warned him the spray would be used again if he did not back off. She said he then dropped to his knees as the spray took effect. Other police officers who had been at the scene corroborated her version.

Police Ombudsman investigators also contacted local businesses, as well as the police, to establish whether the incident had been captured on CCTV. No footage of the incident was found.

Letters were also sent to a number of witnesses as well as to those who had been arrested by police, asking them to contact investigators in order to provide statements. No response was received.

Having reviewed the evidence of the case, Mrs O'Loane, found the use of CS spray 'was justified, reasonable and proportionate.'

She went on: "Undoubtedly, the CS spray prevented further injury since, following its use, the youths stopped fighting and eventually ran off."

Her team then examined evidence that, at about 25 minutes after this incident, another officer discharged CS spray in Forthill Street as police dealt with ongoing disturbances in the area among a crowd of around 100 people.

On this occasion, police were attempting to separate four or five people who were fighting among themselves. Some of them became aggressive when police intervened. One man attempted to get into the back of a Police Land Rover where police were talking to a female they had previously detained.

As police moved the man away, he raised his hands into what officers described as a 'boxer's stance' and dared police to, 'come on.' Officers said the man appeared to be intoxicated, his speech was slurred and he was unsteady on his feet.

An officer then warned the man CS spay would be used if he did not back off. Instead, the man continued toward the officers with his hands raised, at which point he was sprayed on the upper body and head.

The officer who used the CS spray told Police Ombudsman investigators the man had been about two metres away at the time, and about one metre from any other member of the public. The officer also said he had checked the area to see if anyone else had been affected by the spray, but nobody appeared to be showing symptoms. He said he had decided to use CS spray as he had been trained that it was a lesser use of force than his baton.

The man who was sprayed subsequently made a complaint to the Police Ombudsman, stating he had raised his hands to the police because an officer had raised his hands at him and he believed he was going to be struck. He claimed there had been no warning about CS spray.

A complaint was also received from a female member of the public who said she had been struck with CS spray.

Medical and photographic evidence showed injuries to her neck and face consistent with having been struck with the spray. The woman did not know if the spray had been directed at her or whether she had 'just got caught up in it.'

She said it would have been obvious she had been hit with the spray as she dropped to her knees and had difficulty breathing, yet no officer offered her help or took her details.

After reviewing the evidence of the case, the Police Ombudsman concluded the officer had been faced with a potentially violent situation and acted with the intention of dealing with an immediate threat to officers.

"It would appear the use of force was proportionate and within existing legislation and guidelines," said Mrs O'Loane.

The Ombudsman expressed concern, however, about the use of CS spray in situations of unanticipated street disorder. She urged that the suitability and risks of CS spray in such situations should be re-emphasised during police training, and welcomed a memo issued by the Deputy Chief Constable dealing with the subject.

In the memo, DCC Paul Leighton warned CS spray was not designed for use in such circumstances, stating it had the potential to affect innocent bystanders and other officers. He warned this could leave officers vulnerable and undermine public confidence in the Police.

Mrs O'Loane noted that her investigators had received full co-operation from the PSNI during the investigation, and she had concluded that no disciplinary offences had been committed by any police officer.