Theft of PSNI surveillance equipment 'was operation gone wrong' says former ACC Alan McQuillan

The defendant appeared at Antrim Magistrates' Court, sitting in Ballymena on Tuesday, via video-link from prison.

A prosecutor said on January 20/21 a “PSNI guardian alarm” was activated at an unoccupied property in Ballymena and “police responded to the alarm activation”.

Police found entry had been forced and a lock had been tampered with.

Officers noticed that “police equipment, which had a guardian alarm, and CCTV equipment had been removed with wiring left behind which appeared to have been cut. The approximate value of the equipment taken was £6,500”.

Police were still at the flat at 1.45am on January 21 when the defendant entered the front door, but then made off.

He was stopped nearby with a pair of cutters and a torch in his pocket.

A search took place at a nearby property where the defendant was “residing” at the time and “all of the stolen equipment” was located.

Police were able to recover CCTV which showed Ralston in the property at the time of the alarm activation.

It showed him in the “attic where the majority of the equipment was located before the camera feed stops due to it being disconnected”, the prosecutor said.

A defence lawyer said other people were perhaps involved but Ralston “seems to be the fall guy”.

The lawyer said Ralston “doesn't know who the equipment belonged to or why it was there”.

The barrister said the defendant had a “long-standing history of drug misuse” and stealing the items was for financial gain “to fuel a habit”.

District Judge Nigel Broderick told the defendant, who had 130 previous convictions: “You must have known there was high value equipment there because these items were stored out of sight in an attic.”

Former PSNI ACC Alan McQuillan said that police sometimes have to take risks when deploying surveillance equipment to investigate crime.

While still a serving officer he had himself commissioned the use of such equipment for investigations.

“I would not say it is routine, it requires very clear authorisations and there are different authorisations for different levels,” he told the News Letter.

“For example, some might have to be authorised at chief officer level and in some circumstances they might have to go to the secretary of state. But yes, it is done, though very carefully.”

The type of justifications for such operations might be a threat to life, intimidation or terrorist activity.

Other cases might be serious fraud or theft, or watching the operation and clientele of a brothel.

In other cases someone's life might be at risk from someone living with them, he added.

“Terrorism and drug dealing would be the bread and butter cases for surveillance, but there will be lots of odd outliers such as tiger kidnappings, punishment shootings or racist attacks.”

Such video evidence is sometimes used in court, he added.

The PSNI was invited to comment.