A police officer involved in the investigation into the murder of Lyra McKee has been accused of “breaking every rule in the book” regarding the identification of suspects.
Ms McKee lost her life after being struck by a bullet fired at police during a riot in the Creggan area of Derry on April 18 2019.
In the aftermath of her death, a murder investigation was launched and one of the officers involved give evidence at her murder trial on Monday.
The detective sergeant was questioned about what a defence barrister branded as a “secret viewing” regarding images of masked men involved in the riot.
This took place before a formal ‘controlled viewing’ which the non-jury trial has already heard was in breach of normal procedure.
The court heard that still images of masked men at the riot were uploaded onto an internal police system, to establish whether any officers could identify anyone.
The detective sergeant confirmed that no identifications were made and that some time at the start of July 2019, he decided to show some clips to members of the District Support Team (DST).
He did this without direction from his superiors and failed to make relevant entries in his notebook.
After viewing footage supplied by the detective sergeant, one of the DST officers identified Peter Cavanagh.
This DST officer has already given evidence and claimed that after making the identification, the detective sergeant nodded at him.
Cavanagh (36) from Mary Street in Derry is one of three men charged with murdering Ms McKee, possessing a firearm and ammunition and other linked offences including rioting and both possessing and throwing petrol bombs.
Under cross examination from defence barrister John Kearney KC, who is representing Cavanagh, the detective sergeant was quizzed about the July 2019 meeting.
Mr Kearney branded it a “secret meeting” and one which took place prior to a formal controlled viewing. This formal process, Mr Kearney pointed out, was always conducted in the PSNI’s Cyber Support Unit and was on a ‘one-on-one’ basis involving the identification officer and the officer viewing stills or CCTV footage.
After the detective sergeant confirmed he was aware of the procedure, Mr Kearney then asked him “you would have known it was highly inappropriate before you purport to recognise anyone to have a chat with colleagues”.
The detective sergeant replied “that’s correct, yes”.
Mr Kearney then asked the witness if he was aware it was “highly inappropriate” to have a group identification before a controlled viewing, to communicate with colleagues about “who knows who” and to have “chit chat amongst colleagues with names being named”.
To each point, the detective sergeant replied “yes, that’s correct”.
Mr Kearney then said that by bringing footage to the four officers in a “secret showing”, he accused the detective sergeant “breaking every rule in the book”.
The detective sergeant said “I wouldn’t say that” adding that at the time he was showing “better quality footage” to the four DST officers for potential identification purposes.
He did, however, accept that he didn’t record the viewing in his notebook and that he didn’t take any statements when one of the officers made an identification.
At hearing.