Timothy John Evans (Hansard, 4 February 1965)

§ 5. Mr. Ian Gilmour
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make an official declaration of the innocence of Timothy John Evans; and if he will take steps to make arrangements for the transfer of his body to his mother's keeping and for any other appropriate restitution.

§ Sir F. Soskice
Even if the innocence of Evans were established, I have no power to make an official declaration of it. I shall, however, be ready, if the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill becomes law, to consider sympathetically an application in respect of any executed person for a licence under Section 25 of the Burial Act, 1857, authorising the removal of the remains for private burial.

§ Mr. Gilmour
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the first part of his answer will be particularly disappointing to those who recall his attitude to the case when it was debated in the House on 15th June, 1961? Would he not agree that virtually nobody outside the Home Office who has closely studied the case has serious doubts about the innocence of Evans on the charge of murder—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and will he not accept that until the Home Office is prepared to make this declaration and stop taking refuge in technicalities its word on similar matters will inevitably lack weight?

§ Sir F. Soskice
When the matter was previously debated I pressed for an inquiry. That was some three or four years ago. I really do not think that an inquiry would serve any useful purpose at this stage four years later. It would be impossible to arrive at the truth. I certainly think it would be kinder not to express views one way or the other as to whether this unfortunate man was or was not guilty of the offence with which he was charged, and I do not propose to join in the controversy.

§ Mr. Will Griffiths
Does not my right hon. and learned Friend recall that he and many hon. Members on both sides of the House were thoroughly dissatisfied with the outcome of that inquiry three years ago, and that being so, ought he not, now that he has some executive responsibility, to set up a further inquiry to probe the validity of the views that he held three years ago?

§ Sir F. Soskice
If I thought that an inquiry really would elicit the truth about this tragic case at this late time, I should certainly feel favourably disposed towards setting up such an inquiry. But I am convinced, having carefully considered it, that it really is not feasible many years after the event now to arrive at any reliable view, and, therefore, I think it is much better that the matter should be left as it is.

§ Mr. Gilmour
Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what event has taken place between 15th June, 1961, and today which makes it inexpedient now to hold an inquiry if it was expedient to have an inquiry then? Would he say why it would be kinder to the relatives of Timothy Evans not to say that he was innocent if he was, in fact, innocent?

§ Sir F. Soskice
If nothing else has taken place, the passage of three and a half years has taken place, and each year that goes by makes it more unlikely that the truth can be ascertained by reopening the inquiry. Therefore, I really do not think it would be in the public interest to do so, nor do I think it would be conducive to any useful purpose to engage in public controversy at this stage as to what the true facts underlying that case were.