HL Deb 20 January 1987 vol 483 cc848-62

5.15 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness)

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement about the bombing cases which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on my review of the cases of the Birmingham pub bombings, the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings and Mrs. Anne Maguire and her co-defendants. Although there were of course connections between the Guildford bombings case and that of the Maguires, these were three separate cases, treated entirely separately in the courts. It follows that I have considered each one separately. I apologise for the length of the Statement.

"All 17 people concerned were found guilty of very serious offences by a jury following lengthy trials. The verdicts in each case were later upheld on appeal after further long hearings. In short, the question of guilt was in each case properly determined by due process of law.

"A Home Secretary must consider very carefully in what circumstances, if any, he would be justified in interfering with a verdict reached by the courts. These are among the most important individual decisions which a Home Secretary has to take. Over the years all kinds of changes may come to alter the view which some people may take of a particular case. The enormity of the crime committed may cease to dominate the scene; those convicted may continue to protest their innocence; police procedures may be improved; new scientific tests may be developed; individuals may write books or produce television programmes which summarise days or weeks of evidence in a way which reflects their genuine conviction that the verdict was wrong or open to considerable doubt; as a result, a body of distinguished opinion may grow up to the same effect. All that has happened here.

"In responding to these pressures a Home Secretary must never allow himself to forget that he is an elected politician and that under our system the process of justice must be kept separate from the political process. It is open to others to say: 'If I were trying that case as a judge I would have given a different summing up', or 'If I had been on that jury I would have reached a different verdict'. But it is not open to a Home Secretary simply to substitute his own view of a case for that of the courts. It would be an abuse of his powers if he were to act as though he or those who might advise him constituted some higher court of law.

"A different situation arises of course if new evidence or some new consideration of substance is produced which was not available at trial or before the Court of Appeal. In any civilised system of justice there must be a means whereby a case can be re-opened so that new matters can be assessed alongside the old evidence by due process of law.

"This distinction between new evidence and differences of opinion about old evidence has governed the way in which my predecessors have used the power under Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to refer cases to the Court of Appeal. Mr. Robert Kee, in his book Trial and Error, implies that this distinction is a technicality. I disagree. In my view it is fundamental. It is hard to see how the Court of Appeal could fail to dismiss any reference to it based simply on the proposition, argued without fresh evidence, that its predecessors and the jury had got it wrong. More important perhaps, this House and the public would rightly become deeply suspicious of a convention which enabled politicians to throw a verdict into doubt simply because they had developed, without any fresh evidence, a view that the verdict may have been mistaken. Once such a convention had become established the door would be wide open to interference in any case in which a Home Secretary thought it convenient to bow to pressure to have a case re-opened.

"I believe that my predecessors were right to take a principled view of the circumstances in which it is proper to exercise the power of reference to the Court of Appeal. After much thought I mean to follow them.

"Mrs. Maguire, her husband Patrick, two of her sons (Vincent and Patrick), her brother-in-law (Patrick ('Guiseppe') Conlon), Patrick O'Neill and Sean Smyth were convicted in March 1976 of unlawfully handling explosives. The prosecution case rested almost entirely on the results of TLC (thin layer chromatography) tests which indicated that all seven defendants had handled nitroglycerine. After a trial lasting six and a half weeks, during which the scientific evidence was examined at great length, all seven were found guilty. In July 1977 the full court, after a hearing lasting 10 days, refused their applications for leave to appeal.

"The defendants had protested their innocence throughout and have continued to do so. The case has been reviewed previously, most notably in the period 1980 to 1983 and following a debate in another place in May 1985 by which time Mrs. Maguire, the last to complete her sentence, had been released from prison.

"I have examined with the greatest care the arguments which have been advanced in particular by Mr Kee in his book published last October. I am clear that there is no new evidence or consideration of substance which I can regard as casting doubt on the safety of the convictions. I am placing in the Libraries of both Houses a memorandum which sets out in greater detail the reasons why I have reached this conclusion. None of the arguments now presented succeeds, in my view, in challenging the scientific evidence. The scientific validity of the TLC test—which is not the same test as that used in the Birmingham case—has not been undermined. The main argument which Mr Kee now advances—that the samples must have been accidentally or deliberately contaminated—is not supported by any evidence. In these circumstances I can see no grounds on which it would be proper for me to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.

"Next, the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings; in October 1975, after a trial lasting over a month, Patrick Armstrong, Gerard Conlon, Paul Hill and Carole Richardson were found guilty of carrying out the bombing of two pubs in Guildford in October 1974 in which five people died. At the same trial Armstong and Hill were convicted of two murders arising from the bombing of a public house in Woolwich in November 1974. All were found guilty by unanimous verdicts. In October 1977, after a hearing lasting 11 days, the full court refused applications for leave to appeal.

"The convictions were based wholly on confessions made by the four to the police. It is common ground, and was fully before the court of trial and the Court of Appeal, that there were a number of inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements made. All four alleged at trial that those statements were untrue and that they had been improperly obtained. All four put forward alibis, which were plainly not accepted by the jury. Later, members of the Balcombe Street Gang and Brendan Dowd claimed that they, and not the four, were responsible for the Guildford and Woolwich bombings. These claims formed the main plank of the four's grounds of appeal.

"The Court of Appeal, however, concluded that there had been—and I quote— 'a cunning and skilful attempt to deceive the Court by putting forward false evidence'. The Court of Appeal also specifically considered Carole Richardson's alibi evidence, concluding that it was concocted.

"I have carried out a detailed examination of the points which have been raised about the conviction in this case. It is clear to me, however, that no new substantive points have been raised. The arguments which have been put forward simply repeat or rework those which were aired at trial or on appeal. Indeed, Mr. Kee acknowledges there is no new evidence. Accordingly, I have had to conclude that there are no grounds which would justify my referring the case to the Court of Appeal. Again, I am placing in the Libraries of both Houses a memorandum which sets out in greater detail the reasons for my decision.

"I turn to the case of the six men who were convicted in respect of the Birmingham pub bombings. In August 1975, after a two-month trial, Hugh Callaghan, Patrick Hill, Robert Hunter, Noel McIlkenny, William Power and John Walker were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in respect of the bombing of two public houses in Birmingham in November 1974 in which 21 people were killed and 162 injured. Applications by the six men for leave to appeal were refused by the full court on 30th March 1976. The men later pursued a civil action which was eventually dismissed by the House of Lords in 1981. The prosecution case rested principally on admissions made by the six men in police custody, together with scientific evidence which indicated that two of the men had handled nitroglycerine.

"The six men maintained at trial that the admissions had been secured by means of police brutality and intimidation. The defence also disputed the scientific evidence, alleging that the results obtained on the Griess test were due to contact with a harmless substance called nitrocellulose.

"As the House will be aware, the safety of the convictions has since been challenged, most notably in two 'World in Action' programmes and in a book published by Mr. Chris Mullin in June last year.

"I have examined all this material with great care. I am satisfied that there is new evidence which would justify my referring the case to the Court of Appeal and I have now done so. The effect of my action is that the case will now be treated as an appeal by the six men and is sub judice. The House will understand why I cannot comment in detail. I can say, however, that the grounds relate to the scientific evidence given at the trial and the allegations by ex-PC Clarke that he witnessed intimidation of five of the six men in police custody and saw signs of injury on them. I am placing in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of a letter which I have today sent to my honourable friend the Member for Harborough, and the report of a reappraisal of the Griess test which was conducted at my request by the Aldermaston forensic science laboratory.

"Following consultation between the chief constables of the West Midlands and the Devon and Cornwall forces, the latter force has been asked to undertake further inquiries into the allegations made by ex-PC Clarke. The results of that investigation will of course be made available to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the appellants.

"I should add, for the avoidance of doubt, that the Court of Appeal is not confined to considering those matters which form the grounds of reference; and that it is open to the appellants to seek to place before the court any matters which they wish to raise on their behalf.

"As the House will recognise, these have not been easy decisions to make. I have thought it right to maintain the principle that I should interfere with the verdict of a court only where there is some new evidence or new consideration of substance which casts doubt on the safety of the convictions.

"The second necessary principle is that where such material is to hand no consideration of amour propre or possible embarrassment should prevent a referral of the case. I believe that by following these principles a Home Secretary can best serve the interests of justice."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I think that the House would want to thank the noble Earl for his patience and the Secretary of State for the Home Department for his propriety in having made such a lengthy Statement on matters which have caused grave public concern over a period of years.

There is a duality of public concern. The first is of absolute horror at the events which we recalled when we heard that Statement and at the thought of all those who died or were seriously injured in those dreadful occurrences. The second is that in all matters, whether dreadful or not, our system of justice is seen to work in the best possible way consistent with that justice.

Let me say at once that the constitutional proposition contained in the Statement in regard to the Home Secretary's rights and duties under Section 17 were very clearly, and as we think correctly, stated in what has just been read out to us. With that we have no quarrel whatsoever. Having said that, there must be a feeling at least of regret in the layman's mind that only one of these cases has been selected for reference under Section 17 and not all three of them. But lawyers will understand, and I believe that Members of your Lordships' House will understand, after that Statement the reasons that the Home Secretary has, in his view correctly, adopted.

Having said that, I wonder whether your Lordships will forgive me if I refer for only a moment to the specific case of the Maguires. I still wonder whether that could not have been brought within the scope of Section 17, or at least whether further steps could not have been taken, and cannot now be taken, so that with due propriety, and within the definition of his duties and powers under Section 17—as so clearly given by the Secretary of State—he could consider whether those powers could be applied to the Maguire case.

In the Statement reference was made to a debate in your Lordships' House in May, 1985. It was initiated by my noble friend Lord Fitt, who throughout this matter has taken such a leading part. If your Lordships will forgive a personal quotation, during the course of that debate I ventured to say this: There is another factor. I believe that as a matter of national policy—especially at this time—this country wants to assure every Irish citizen who lives in the United Kingdom (whether it be in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales) that they are safe from prejudice; that if they are good, peaceful citizens they will be safe in our midst from all authority. These are the factors which I believe the Secretary of State would want to consider. This is what I will ask him and the noble Lord the Minister to do—and I am not as pessimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I shall not ask for the section to be invoked at this moment. I will ask the Secretary of State whether, because of the great anxiety and concern that exists, he will appoint independent scientific advisers to look into the evidence that was then given and to advise the Secretary of State whether there are grounds under the section for him to consider that there is new evidence. Given all the concern and anxiety, that is not much to ask the Secretary of State to do".—[Official Report, 17.5.85; col. 1403.] In those days the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, was dealing with home affairs. He courteously answered me in the following way at col. 1406: However, I note with care the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and his suggestion that perhaps an independent group of scientific advisers might examine the facts before the section of the Act to which I referred, Section 17, is looked at. I cannot give an undertaking in quite the way the noble Lord would like me to, but what I can tell him is that I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the suggestion that he has made.". Again, a further courtesy was paid to me because following upon that there was a letter from the Home Office saying that unfortunately the Secretary of State could not see his way to avail himself of the suggestion that I had made.

The Statement refers to a memorandum being placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I have taken advantage of that facility and have read the memorandum. There are scientific arguments referred to but they appear to be scientific arguments advanced from within the Home Office itself. I may be wrong—and if I am the noble Earl will correct me or at least elucidate the position—but at the moment, from that memorandum and this Statement, it does not look as though the independent body of scientific advisers has in fact been consulted. I ask the simple question: is it too late? Can it not be done now so that all of us may have more satisfaction in regard to the Maguire case?

There is only one other observation I have to make. Again and again in the course of the two cases referred to—the one in which there is now to be a reference to the Court of Appeal and the other in which there is not—confessions were mentioned. It was said that some of them contradicted each other. It was said in regard to one case that the convictions were based on the confessions alone.

It reminds us of the debates in your Lordships' House when the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill was being considered with such care by your Lordships. At that time we on these Benches said, and we were supported in other parts of the House, how necessary it was to have confessions tape recorded in every one of our police stations and, where practicable, where any confession was being taken. We were promised then that that would be pursued under powers in the Act. How far has it been pursued? What percentage of police stations in the United Kingdom—I shall limit it to the United Kingdom—have these tape recording machines? What percentage of confessions are being recorded in this way? If we had a satisfactory answer to that question, many of us, who look with regret at some of the wording in this Statement about confessions, when convictions are based on confessions alone in serious matters of this kind, will have our minds a little more at ease in regard to the future.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

Perhaps I may join with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in thanking the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. It is clearly right, as the Home Secretary has said, for the Government to pause for a substantial period of time before attempting to interfere with verdicts in the courts. However, I think that it is clear from the Statement which has been made about all three cases that the widespread concern in Parliament, which has been reflected by similar concern outside Parliament, has made it right for this long and detailed Statement to be made. I do not think any of us have any doubt as to the difficulty faced by the Home Secretary when he came to make a judgment on these matters. I also hope that some of those who campaign so ceaselessly for a return to capital punishment will for once themselves pause before considering what would be our position today if these men had been executed, as they clearly would have been had capital punishment been restored.

First, is the noble Earl aware that all of us in all parts of the House welcome the decison of Mr. Hurd in respect of the Birmingham pub bombing cases? It was a horrific crime in which 21 people were killed and over 150 people were injured, many of them very gravely. The Home Secretary has said that there is new evidence, and on the basis of what the noble Earl has said to us today there clearly is. The Home Secretary has also said that the matter is sub judice. That obviously is also right, and therefore I do not think that it is appropriate to comment further on that matter.

Perhaps I may turn to the question of the Maguires and the Guildford and Woolwich cases. None of us has yet had the opportunity of studying the memorandum which the Home Secretary is going to place in the Libraries of both Houses. However, I must say at once that I think his decision, difficult though it was, fills a number of us with substantial disquiet. These are very difficult decisions, but many of us remain deeply uneasy about his decision not to send these cases to the Court of Appeal. Mr. Robert Kee and many others, both in Parliament and outside, have I think produced a powerful prima facie case, which in our view would justify such a reference.

I think that we must recognise that what is at stake here is not simply the issue of these prisoners, and in some cases ex-prisoners; what is involved here, as I think the Home Secretary would obviously recognise, is public confidence in the administration of justice in relation to these particular defendants. I am sure that the Home Secretary is in no doubt, and we must accept the fact, that what will now happen is that there will be renewed public argument about these cases for many months, and possibly even for many years. I repeat, I think that we all recognise the difficulty of the Home Secretary's decision, but he should have no doubt that a number of us believe that it is mistaken.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Harris of Greenwich, in particular for what they said with regard to the difficult but correct decision that my right honourable friend has taken on the Birmingham bombers.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in particular mentioned the possibility of a scientific committee and was kind enough to say that he had already received a letter following the previous debate on this matter in the House. My right honourable friend considered very carefully this proposition. However, he still believes that no purpose would be served in setting up such a committee. There has been ample opportunity for scientists and others to comment. For example, we received copies of the reports by Dr. Caddy in 1982 and 1983. The fact is that no one has seriously challenged the scientific basis of the TLC test or of the results of the Maguire test.

There is no evidence to suggest that the TLC results were erroneous. When the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment has performed such tests they have always confirmed the TLC results. It was for that reason, with the results of the tests not being put in jeopardy or safety as to conclusion, that my right honourable friend reached the decision that he did.

With regard to tape recordings in police stations and the percentage of confessions resulting from them, I regret to tell the noble Lord that I do not have the figures with me today. I hoped that I had covered most of the points that he might have raised, but that point has eluded me and I apologise. Perhaps in view of the importance of this matter, if the noble Lord could put down a Question for Written Answer, that would be the best way of bringing it into the Official Report for everybody in the House who is concerned to see. I shall make sure that a prompt reply is made to the noble Lord, if that satisfies him.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred specifically to Mr. Kee's book. We pay due respect to Mr. Kee in his belief that the innocence of the Maguires is clear. He did not find grounds to discredit the scientific evidence and he allowed himself to arrive at the conclusions that the evidence must have been accidentally produced or, a far more serious suggestion, deliberately fabricated. No evidence of any kind has ever been presented to substantiate such a comment. Without that new evidence, as has clearly been supported by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Harris of Greenwich, my right honourable friend would be quite wrong to make a reference under Section 17.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Paget of Northampton

My Lords, I do not wish to say anything about the two previous cases but I should like to say a word about the Birmingham case and the decision on how to deal with it. It is of course a political case, as are all terrorist cases. It is important that one must appear to have done justice and that the measure one takes is one which will convince people in Ireland and even convince such moderate Liberals as myself. I do not find that a reference to the Court of Appeal under this Act and in these circumstances will convince anybody that a fair trial has been ordered.

What happens? The first thing which this court does is to examine the police evidence. How does it do that? It does it by a reference to the Devonshire and Cornwall Police, who judge—and perhaps "judge" is the wrong word—in a report what they think the police did. That is the issue in this case. The first impression which one gets in Ireland, and which I shall get too, is that one starts off by making the police the judges of the police. Then one goes on to make the judges in the Court of Appeal the judges of the judges.

On that matter I should like to quote what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said on the bench in a very similar case in which the issue was as to whether confessions had been obtained by brutality. He said: If the six men win [the accused] it will mean that the police were guilty of perjury, that they were guilty of violence and threats, and that the confessions were involuntary and were improperly admitted in evidence, and that the convictions were erroneous". That is precisely the position here. The noble and learned Lord goes on to say: That would mean that the Home Secretary would either have to recommend they be pardoned or that he would have to remit the case to the Court of Appeal [again]. This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say that it cannot be right that these cases should go any further". I have a strong feeling from my knowledge of the Court of Criminal Appeal that it will be very much in agreement with the noble and learned Lord. That being so, with the police judging the police and the judges judging the judges, how can any reasonable person, particularly in Ireland, think that that is a fair trial?

There ought to be an independent investigation of the facts which the Home Secretary felt to be in doubt after his most careful investigation. It should be an impartial inquiry which will convince even the Irish that it is fair.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in saying that the judges of the Court of Appeal are judges of judges. From my limited understanding of the law I have always believed that that has been the case. In some respects that is their job. I do not see that that invalidates the criminal justice system in this country.

The reason why there is no inquiry is, as I said, that my right honourable friend believes these matters are properly determined by the courts. An inquiry could not determine guilt or innocence. That can be decided only by a court of law. Moreover, there are no grounds for setting up an inquiry. The points raised in the Guildford and Woolwich case were all fully aired before the courts. In the Maguire case the convictions rests on the scientific evidence. That evidence was examined at the trial and on a number of occasions subsequently. Its scientific validity remains unshaken.

Lord Paget of Northampton

My Lords, we are not discussing those two cases. We are discussing the Birmingham case in which the judge has found very much in doubt whether or not the scientific evidence concerning the hands was correct.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I was setting the reason why there has been no inquiry into context. I was just coming to the Birmingham case, where new evidence in the opinion of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has become available. Bearing in mind what I have just said, it is right that that evidence should go back before the courts rather than an inquiry, because that is the right and proper place to do it. It is also right and proper that the Devon and Cornwall Police should make further inquiries into the statement of ex-PC Clarke. We believe that that has been the right way to proceed in the past and it is the right way now.

Lord Denning

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Paget mentioned me and read a judgment of mine, I should like to say that that judgment was given upon the evidence before the court and on what I knew then. I would not go back on one word of it. But on the other hand, if the Home Secretary has before him material on which he thinks the matter ought to be gone into anew on fresh evidence, then he is perfectly right to do it and to refer it back to the Court of Appeal so that they can look at it. I would assure my noble friend that those judges are first class. They are not judges of judges, they are judges of the case in hand and we can have complete confidence in them. If it is a proper case for review, then they will review it.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for that. He put the point far better than I did.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister accept that there are some of us who would sincerely wish to congratulate the Home Secretary on the reasoning, the wisdom and the courage of what must have been a most agonising exercise of statutory discretion on a matter of tremendous public concern? Would my noble friend the Minister agree that, in the absence of an evidential linkage, a reasoned, case-by case assessment must be made and must only be made, as indeed it was made, on the basis of two factors? First, is there a glimmer of doubt cast upon the scientific evidence by the subsequent technological advances? Secondly, is there any fresh evidence which, if believed, could make some material difference?

Is my noble friend aware that there could be any other proper test? Was it not of the essence of wisdom to decline to entertain certain siren voices and invoke prerogative powers? Finally, was it not courageous to avoid abnegation of executive responsibility by referring all these cases to the judiciary?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, although one is always concerned when anybody protests their innocence and continues to do so, my noble friend is absolutely right in saying that my right honourable friend could not refer any of the ca[...]es—and although there is a link between two of them [...]oday, they were three individual, separate cases tried at three different times—unless there was doubt on the scientific test or there was new material or new evidence. I am sure my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been absolutely right to refer the Birmingham case, taking into account those two points. In this case it would have been quite wrong for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to use the royal prerogative of mercy because that can only be used when the Home Secretary is completely satisfied as to a person's innocence. That does not apply in any of the three cases before us.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, let me preface my remarks by drawing the attention of the House to the intervention which has just been made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. He has said that in the judgment which he then gave and which has been quoted to the House by my noble friend, he arrived at that conclusion because of the evidence which he then had before him. I repeat what has been said by one of my noble friends on this side of the House, Lord Harris. If hanging had been available in the years 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976, then those convicted of the Birmingham bombings on the evidence which was considered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning would undoubtedly have suffered execution and we would not be standing here in this House 12 years on, now, accepting the fact that there are great grounds for doubt and concern in this case.

So much is that so that the present Home Secretary has referred all the circumstances of the case to the Court of Appeal. Had the executions taken place, the evidence of Mr. Clarke, the ex-policeman who has appeared on the scene within recent months, would have been of absolutely no value. The contradictions that now exist in the forensic tests which took place would all have been to no avail because the men would have been dead. I think that reinforces the argument, the point of view put forward by my noble friend Lord Harris to all those who still believe in the ultimate penalty, the death penalty.

I am only too conscious tonight that in the City of Birmingham, there will be hundreds of people—fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and indeed children—who will be reliving the agony of what happened in those two terrible tragedies, because all the publicity that has been generated by this debate, by the Home Secretary's decision, by the books which have been written, by the television inquiries into these cases, must be a terrible trauma to all those who lost their loved ones and who saw their loved ones maimed because of those dastardly and savage actions by the IRA. I know how they must be feeling tonight and indeed at a point 12 years ago I expressed to them again, as I did when I first heard of the bombs going off, my total and absolute sympathy.

There are other people, people whom I know intimately, that is the Maguire family. I have met the Maguire family, many noble Lords have met them in this House. All those who have met the Maguire family are totally and absolutely convinced of their innocence of the charges on which they were convicted. Indeed, even on reading the memorandum which has been placed in the Library and of which the Home Secretary was kind enough to send me individually a copy, it will be seen that in every single circumstance of that case the finger of innocence is pointed at the Maguires.

The only thing on which they were convicted and for which they served years and years of imprisonment was the TLC test. The noble Lord this afternoon and the Home Secretary in another place have said that the findings of that TLC test were incontrovertible and impossible to contradict. I do not accept that, because even during the course of the trial the inventor, the scientist who invented the TLC test, Professor Yallop, speaking for the defence, cast considerable doubts on the authenticity of that test. He said, in the course of his evidence, that he was not certain that there was not another substance, although he did not know what it was, which could give exactly the same reading as nitroglycerine.

From the minute that they were arrested, the Maguires proclaimed to high heaven their innocence. They were arrested on the evidence of two of the people who were subsequently charged with the Guildford bombings, a Mr. Hill and a Mr. Conlon who also said that Annie Maguire had been with them when they planted bombs. Had the court accepted that Annie Maguire planted bombs, then she could have been, and indeed was, charged with the murder of the people who were killed in Guildford. But it was subsequently found that this evidence was totally untrue, and the murder charge against Annie Maguire had to be dropped. But then the police went on and investigated, and allegedly found, traces of nitroglycerine on the hands of all those who were charged and on the gloves of Annie Maguire.

It has been said this evening by the noble Earl that Robert Kee in his assessment of the trial and the publication of his book has, in effect, said that there may have been accidental contamination, or that there may have been deliberate contamination. Throughout all the years that I have been interested in fighting this case—with the help of Sir John Biggs-Davison, a Member in another place, when our two voices were the only voices to be raised in regard to the Maguire case—I have never felt compelled to cast any doubts on the activities of the police. But whatever faith the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, may have had in the police in Birmingham, I must say that I am beginning to lose my faith in the police who were in charge of the investigations into the Maguire convictions.

The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, will remember that since the convictions took place I have made repeated representations to him. Indeed, he kindly granted me permission to go to Wormwood Scrubs Prison to visit one of those who were convicted, Patrick Guiseppe Conlon. I visited him on this Saturday, and indeed I reported back to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary then had been making his own inquiries, and it was confirmed that Guiseppe Conlon was seriously ill. I repeat the circumstances of what happened when I went to that prison to see Guiseppe Conlon. He was very ill, and he realised it.

6 p.m.

Viscount Whitelaw

My Lords, the noble Lord has been generous enough to refer to some communications with me, and indeed that is true. He will be the first to understand that for me to have to suggest to him that what he is saying cannot go on too long is difficult. My past associations with him, my interest in this case with him, all lead me to be totally lenient, but I have my duty as Leader of your Lordships' House.

I have my duty to try to see that we perform, so far as we are able in difficult circumstances, in accordance with the procedures which our Procedure Committee has laid down. I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that. Possibly, despite our understandable feelings, he will feel able to come to a fairly early conclusion of the remarks he is making.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, I fully understand the anxiety of the Leader of the House that we should not prolong this debate to any great extent. But what I was saying there was in direct relationship to the memorandum that has been placed in the Library. Guiseppe Conlon knew that he was dying. He took the oxygen mask off his face. He told me that he knew he was dying, and asked could he depend on me, after he had died, to continue to prove his innocence. He had never at any time handled nitro-glycerine.

Page 21 of the memorandum, which can now be seen in the Library, says: Protestations of innocence, however strenuously sustained, cannot of themselves provide grounds for referring a case to the Court of Appeal. It is understandable that defendants who have protested their innocence up to the point of conviction might continue to do so afterwards even though guilty". The suggestion there is that Mr. Conlon, even though he knew he was dying, had protested his innocence during his trial and was continuing to do so up to the point of his death. I would strongly contradict that.

It has already been said by previous speakers that the concern which has been expressed in this House and in another place by many people cannot go unanswered. I do not believe that the Home Secretary's decision not to refer the Annie Maguire case to a higher body will be accepted by all those who have expressed their concern. It will certainly not be accepted by me. I shall continue to do everything I can until I have proved to this House, and indeed to the world and the people of Britain, that Annie Maguire and her family should never have been convicted because they are totally innocent of any crime.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I know that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that we fully appreciate and understand the strong feelings that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has in this matter. He made reference to the Birmingham bombers, and perhaps I should make it clear, if it has not been made clear already by what I have said, that the reference to the Court of Appeal does not mean that those in custody are either innocent or guilty. That is a matter that has to be determined by the Court of Appeal. It is not a matter that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has ruled upon in making the reference to the Court of Appeal.

With regard to the evidence of Mr. Yallop, who developed the TLC test, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is absolutely right in saying that he raised doubts about some things during the trial; but of course this was before the trial and then before the Court of Appeal, so this evidence that Mr. Yallop has presented has been carefully considered on two occasions already and the judge and jury took that into account.

On the question of protestations of innocence, it is always troubling when people continue to assert strongly their innocence long after they have been convicted, and I do not seek to minimise that fact, but we believe that most people would accept that protestations of innocence would provide a very unsatisfactory and uncertain basis for interfering with a conviction.

If one did say that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary should, on the basis of a protestation of innocence, refer a case, I think it is wise to let the House know that in the Home Office we receive over 1,000 letters a year from people protesting innocence, either on behalf of themselves or on behalf of other people who have been convicted or are at trial. If we were to follow that precedent every single case would continually be referred on the protestation of innocence.

This leads us on to confidence in the judicial system. I do not think that public confidence in the judicial system is quite so fragile as has been made out by some of your Lordships by the unease that is still felt. Surely the best way of preserving confidence in, and the integrity of, our judicial system is for my right honourable friend to consider thoroughly representations made to him alleging a miscarriage of justice, and to act whenever there is new evidence or a consideration of substance which was not before the court and which casts doubt on the safety of a conviction, and not to interfere with the verdict which has been reached by the court of trial and the Court of Appeal having heard all the relevant evidence. These are the principles that my right honourable friend has followed in this case.

Lord Stallard

My Lords, as probably the only other member of the Clapham bus present here this afternoon on this short Statement, may I be allowed a couple of words and to ask a few questions on the subject under discussion? Although we accept the difficulty that the Home Secretary has obviously had in coming to any decision at all because of the complexity of the whole affair, we are puzzled.

There are many common factors in all three cases. There is the debate about unsafe evidence; there are queries about confessions; there are all the eminent scientists and learned judges, religious leaders, community leaders and so on who have expressed opinions about the Maguire case, and there are the book and television programmes that have been referred to. Why were all three not sent to the appeal court? It would seem just to ask: if one is considered proper to be sent to a higher body why, with all these common factors, are not all three cases being sent? It seems that unless we can satisfy the millions of people who have become involved in the minutiae of the three separate cases that justice is being done in all cases, we should have failed in gaining anything from the courageous decision that the Home Secretary has made in relation to the Birmingham case. My doubt is that there is a constant emphasis on the need for new evidence. The noble Earl referred to this in a number of passages in his speech.

I seem to recollect, and eminent judges have said before—I believe it was an appeal court decision made by Lord Diplock that emphasised it—that it was sufficient, as well as new evidence, to reconsider cogent arguments on the available evidence or the interpretation of available evidence as well as or perhaps in place of new evidence. One does not have to have new evidence. Will the noble Earl accept that there is an opinion that states that cogent argument of our interpretation of evidence is sufficient to send it to a court of appeal? If that is the case—I firmly believe it is—in view of all the factors that are available in all three cases, is it not now possible for both the Guildford and the Maguire cases to be sent for further consideration?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I think I have covered sufficiently the three cases, why there is not a common factor and why all three had to be considered individually. It would be wrong for me to repeat the arguments that I have already put before the House.