A Police Ombudsman investigation has concluded that the arrests of two women suspected of causing criminal damage to a cash machine during a pro-Palestine protest in Belfast did not breach police guidelines.

However, the inquiry identified concerns about aspects of officer conduct during the incident, including a failure to take action against other suspects.

No public complaints were made about the incident, but Chief Executive Hugh Hume directed an independent investigation as the behaviour of some officers might have amounted to misconduct.

The two women were arrested on 24 May 2025 after reports that stickers had been placed on the keypad and card slot of an ATM during a demonstration outside Barclays Bank at Castle Place in Belfast city centre.

Although bank staff removed the stickers before the arrests, investigators cited case law indicating that actions which, even temporarily, impair the function or use of property may constitute criminal damage. While the arrests were found to comply with police policy and the PSNI's Code of Ethics, officers were noted to have taken no action against two other women who had earlier been reported for similar conduct.

Files were sent to the PSNI recommending performance improvements for the two arresting officers, who failed to deal with the additional suspects.

The PSNI decided no action was required regarding one officer, who said he was unaware that the women arrested were not those referred to in the initial call for assistance.

However, the recommendation was accepted in relation to the second officer, who took no action when city centre CCTV operators specifically identified a suspect. His claim that he had considered other options before arresting one of the women was found to be inconsistent with evidence that he arrested her immediately after she was identified.

The PSNI also accepted a recommendation to improve the performance of a Custody Officer who entered identical information on police systems about the circumstances of both arrests, despite differences in the individual cases. The officer accepted he had been negligent but said he had no ill intent.