THE attorney general is considering bringing prosecutions against seven Northern Ireland police officers for alleged collusion with loyalist paramilitaries in murders in north Belfast.

Lord Goldsmith has been sent files on the serving and retired officers by Nuala O’Loan, the policing ombudsman. She has conducted an extensive inquiry into the alleged involvement of loyalist agents and their police handlers in the 1990s murders.

Her report, entitled Operation Ballast, is due to be published next week despite attempts by lawyers acting for more than 20 officers to have it halted so their clients can study the contents. Chris Mehaffey, the ombudsman’s senior investigating officer, has refused to allow the officers advance notification.

It is understood that individual officers will not be named in the report but will be referred to by letters. They are identified in fuller copies of the report that have been forwarded to Peter Hain, the secretary of state, and Sir Hugh Orde, the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) chief constable.

Richard Murphy, a solicitor who represents most of the officers, said: “Last Thursday I delivered a letter to the ombudsman’s office pointing out that under ordinary domestic law and under the European Convention of Human Rights any officers who are subject to adverse comment are entitled to relevant portions of the report before publication.”

Although the ombudsman has allowed officers time to view reports in some previous investigations, she has refused to do so in this case. The fact that prosecution files have been referred to the attorney general underlines the sensitivity of the cases. The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) normally only calls in the attorney general when matters of national importance or security are involved.

It is possible, for instance, that prosecuted officers could identify senior government officials or even ministers to whom they had expressed misgivings about the handling of informants. There are also concerns that sensitive intelligence information, which would endanger the lives of agents, could be revealed in court.

The Retired Police Officers Association, which has more than 3,000 members in Northern Ireland, wrote to Hain last September predicting that individuals would break the Official Secrets Act in order to defend themselves.

“Few, if any, RUCGC [Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross] officers were ever convicted for breaching the Official Secrets Act but we fear that many are being compelled to consider proceeding in that direction, if only to counter the relentless tide of leaks and media speculation which surround the discharge by the police ombudsman of her function,” the letter said.

“We also believe that the present system of random retrospective investigation and associated briefing to the media is having a detrimental effect on wider support for the PSNI from various sections of the community.”

The Ballast report arose from demands by Raymond McCord for an investigation into the 1997 murder of his son, also Raymond, killed by Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) members as part of a dispute over drugs.

Several of those involved were police agents or informants. This was revealed by Johnston Brown, a retired Criminal Investigation Department (CID) detective, who accused special branch officers of refusing to arrest an agent even after it became clear he had carried out murders. One victim was Sharon McKenna, a Catholic taxi driver who was also supplying information to the police and who was shot dead by the UVF in 1993.

Since then Ballast’s remit has spread further. Investigators have discovered that the majority of the UVF’s senior leaders were registered as police agents. According to Murphy, about a dozen former officers refused to be interviewed because the ombudsman insisted the interviews should be conducted under caution. Another four, including Brown, were arrested for questioning. About a dozen attended voluntarily.

Raymond White, a former assistant chief constable who was head of CID at the time of the McCord murder, said: “Just because someone was registered as an informant or agent, it did not mean we had complete control of him.

“People with relevant intelligence might hold back information to suit their own agendas or protect friends.”