Off-duty PSNI officer allegedly assaulted colleagues

A drunk off-duty police officer allegedly assaulted two fellow officers at a wedding, a court has been told.

Constable Marcus Brush had an argument with his partner at a wedding in the Galgorm in September, Coleraine Magistrates' Court heard.

After the argument, Mr Brush was told by a groomsman “in no uncertain terms that he was not welcome”.

Two officers who were guests at the wedding were “escorting or shepherding” Mr Brush back to his room when the 31-year-old allegedly assaulted them.

According to the witnesses, he elbowed both of them to the face before the pair restrained him on the ground until uniformed colleagues who were on duty came to the hotel.

Mr Brush, 31, whose address was given as c/o PSNI Brooklyn, Knock Road in Belfast, faces charges of common assault of the two men.

He also faces charges of driving with excess alcohol on the Fenaghy Road in Cullybackey and being in charge of a vehicle in the carpark of the Galgorm Manor Hotel at a time he was over the drink drive limit on 21 and 22 September last year.

Initially Mr Brush had also been charged with two further counts of common assault and using disorderly behaviour but those charges were withdrawn by the PPS.

Giving evidence on Monday one of the officers told the judge Mr Brush’s partner had asked him to get her bag from their room.

Mr Murphy told the prosecution that, believing Mr Brush was in the room already, he went to ask a colleague for help but as they went to leave the wedding reception, Mr Brush arrived back.

The officer said he tried to reason with Mr Brush and persuade him to go but he did not want to leave even though.

"I wanted to avoid any further unpleasant scenarios,” he added.

The two men “escorted” Mr Brush out of the wedding venue and into the main hotel, the court heard.

According to the witnesses, he elbowed both of them to the face before the pair restrained him on the ground until uniformed colleagues who were on duty came to the hotel.

Under cross-examination from the defence lawyer it was revealed that while most of the incident in the corridor was captured on CCTV there was a two minute portion which was missing and unaccounted for.

“That is the very portion when there was the altercation,” said Mr Brush's lawyer.

During his cross examination, Mr Murphy revealed that he refused to make a statement or formal complaint that evening but when he went on duty the following day, he was summoned to his inspectors office and told that he was “duty bound to make a statement”.

He said his inspector told him he “would be expected to make a statement”, especially as the incident had been upgraded to a “gold level” which would involve senior ranks, potentially up to chief superintendent, discussing the alleged incident.

Mr Murphy confirmed to the defence he was told there had been a “further incident” allegedly involving Mr Brush later that evening and he agreed with the suggestion that “essentially, your free will in refusing to make a statement was taken away”.

The lawyer put it to both witnesses that Mr Brush had sustained bruising to his face and arms during the incident.

He asked the men if they could account for those injuries.

They said they could not and maintained they had acted properly in restraining the heavily intoxicated Mr Brush.

The trial continues.