PSNI ‘did not have capacity’ to manage risk posed by catfish killer Alexander McCartney

By Jonathan McCambridge, PA

Police cybercrime units in Northern Ireland did not have the capacity or capability to effectively manage the risk posed by a prolific online predator who drove one of his victims to take her own life, a Police Ombudsman investigation has found.

Ombudsman chief executive Hugh Hume said it was clear that Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) teams tasked with detecting and investigating online child sexual abuse by catfish abuser Alexander McCartney were under-resourced and under pressure.

However, although under-resourcing was found to have resulted in delayed police inquiries and the ineffective management of McCartney’s bail conditions, Mr Hume said the investigation had identified no misconduct by any individual police officer, given the pressures they had been under.

In October 2024, McCartney, from Newry in Co Down, was sentenced to a minimum of 20 years in prison after being convicted of offences including unlawful act manslaughter, inciting children to engage in sexual activity, and making and possessing indecent images of children.

Cimarron Thomas, from West Virginia in the United States, took her own life in 2018, immediately following contact with him online.

In January 2020, Cimarron’s father, Benjamin Jay Thomas, also took his own life.

McCartney had first been arrested more than two years before Cimarron’s death, in February 2016, after indecent images of children were found on his mobile phone.

He was 17 at the time and was interviewed by police before being released on bail.

However, delays in producing evidential reports about some 1,100 indecent images of children found on his phone and other devices seized at the same time, meant that he was not interviewed about them again until more than two years later, in May 2018.

Cimarron died just five days before this interview.

During the same two-year period, McCartney had been involved in abusive online communications involving at least seven other children. He was on police bail throughout this time.

The PSNI’s ability to identify other offenders, frustrate sharing forums and ultimately protect children and young people were compromised

Mr Hume said the delays in police inquiries had been due to insufficient resourcing amidst a growing backlog of digital devices requiring examination in connection with online child abuse.

He said: “When the initial devices were seized from McCartney in 2016, the officer responsible for investigating his online offending was part of a team that, due to absences and other factors, had only five officers in post against the complement of 14 that it was supposed to have.

“This resulted in delays in the investigation and potential prosecution of those whose activities pose such a risk to children and young people, and opportunities to proactively follow evidence to identify where indecent images of children were being shared were missed.

“Consequently, the PSNI’s ability to identify other offenders, frustrate sharing forums and ultimately protect children and young people were compromised.”

Concerns about delays in the McCartney investigation led the PSNI Chief Constable to ask the Police Ombudsman, in April 2021, to conduct an independent investigation into its handling of the case in the three years since McCartney’s home had first been searched in January 2016.

The PSNI advised that an internal review had raised concerns about the timeliness of the police investigation, the prioritisation of investigative actions, as well as about risk management processes and the management of McCartney’s bail conditions.

However, McCartney's targeting of young girls is a clear example of violence against women and girls in the digital space.

A separate report  by the National Crime Agency, commissioned by the PSNI’s Public Protection Branch in September 2021, noted that the resources available to the PSNI’s Child Internet Protection Team (CIPT), were “currently insufficient to manage the number of referrals in a timely manner”, resulting in risks to victims and the wider community, and “the potential to impact on public confidence”.

There was a gap of more than two years and three months between McCartney’s initial arrest and interview and him being interviewed again about more than 1,100 indecent images which had by then been found on his phone, a tablet and five computers.

By the time this interview took place, on May 18 2018, McCartney had been arrested a second time.

This was on March 21 2018, nine days after the PSNI received information from the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) that he had, during a Snapchat conversation, tricked a girl in Lancashire into sending him an indecent image, then threatened to post it online.

The NCMEC also advised PSNI that indecent images of children were being uploaded from McCartney’s home IP address.

Around five weeks later, he was in contact with a 14-year-old girl in Los Angeles who sent him images involving self-harm.

At the time of his second arrest, McCartney was 19 and studying Computer Science at college.

His bedroom was searched, resulting in the seizure of eight more digital devices.

Following an initial triage, five of these devices were submitted to other police teams for forensic examination.

The evidential report about one of these devices, a mobile phone which McCartney had admitted was his, was not completed until April 2019, over a year later.

By that stage he had been arrested a third time, after Police Scotland advised the PSNI that a young person had received naked photos via Snapchat from a person whose internet address was linked to McCartney’s home.

Reports on the four other devices seized in March 2018 had still not been completed by the time he was arrested for a fourth time on July 30 2019.

This was despite one of those devices, a laptop, having been found during an initial triage examination in September 2018 to contain indecent images of children, along with evidence that McCartney had, during January and February 2018, been sent a video of self-harm by a 13-year-old girl in Florida, and another explicit video involving other children.

On January 2 2019, the laptop was resubmitted to the Cybercrime Centre, with a higher priority, to enable the production of an evidential report. Despite its priority status, the report was not completed until 20 February 2020, almost two years after the laptop’s initial seizure.

Inquiries by Police Ombudsman investigators found significant pressures among all PSNI teams responsible for investigating online offending involving children and indecent images.

In 2018, the Service’s Cybercrime Centre, staffed by around 60 officers, accepted applications from other police teams for the examination of some 935 computers and 284 mobile phones.

Mr Hume said: “Despite this, sufficient investment was not allocated during this period to allow for any purposeful increases in human and technical resourcing to assist in reducing investigative delays.

“In addition, the PSNI’s Cybercrime Centre, which conducts digital forensic examinations on behalf of other teams, used a prioritisation process in which terrorism and serious crime offences received priority, negatively and disproportionately impacting on the examination of devices being submitted to it by the Child Internet Protection Team (CIPT).

“However, McCartney’s targeting of young girls is a clear example of violence against women and girls in the digital space.

“As this case demonstrates, it can have devastating consequences and should carry equal weight in terms of the prioritisation of digital forensic examinations.

“We have also reported on a number of cases recently in which issues have been identified in the way digital devices have been handled, stored and examined by police.

“We recognise the resourcing demands and complexities of digital forensics, but it is clear that the PSNI needs to take positive steps to ensure the integrity of all digital exhibits, the protection of personal data and the effective and timely use of digital forensics to protect the vulnerable and secure important evidence.”