HC Deb 28 October 1971 vol 823 cc2050-2
4. Mr. Whitehead

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to announce the result of his examination of new evidence in the case of James Hanratty; and if he will make a statement.

17. Mr. Willey

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now make a further statement on the holding of a judicial inquiry into the conviction of James Hanratty.

27. Miss Lestor

asked the Secretary of Slate for the Home Department if he will announce his decision on the request for an inquiry into the A6 murder.

Mr. Maudling

I have reviewed the facts of this case, particularly in the light of Mr. Paul Foot's book and the letter which he has sent to me at my invitation drawing attention to points which he considered to be of special significance. I cannot, however, find that Mr. Foot has brought out any important point which has not already been fully considered, and after most careful consideration of all the detailed information before me, I have concluded that I should not be justified in appointing a public inquiry. The reasons which have led me to this conclusion cannot be stated briefly; and I will, with permission, circulate a fuller statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Whitehead

May I put one general and one political question to the right hon. Gentleman? May I say first of all that this ghost will not be laid by this decision and that the concern of many hon. Members in all parties in the House will not be allayed? May I beg him to think again about setting up a public inquiry into this business? More specifically, may I ask him what correspondence there was between the Home Office and a plaintiff who issued a recent writ, which was announced publicly on the day of my last Question in this House on this matter?

Mr. Maudling

On the first point, I would ask the hon. Member to await seeing my fuller statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I understand and respect the continuing anxiety on this matter, which I believe cannot ever be fully solved. On the second point, I have been to some extent inhibited by recent legal action and I must be very careful in anything I do not to cut across the courts.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

Could the Home Secretary say whether he has had access to any documents or witnesses not available to Mr. Paul Foot? Could he say particularly whether he had access to the first statement made by Miss Valerie Storie which was not available either to the court which committed Hanratty or to the court of trial?

Mr. Maudling

The hon. Member is well aware that there is information in the Home Office which has not been made publicly available, to which I have had the same access as my predecessor. As for Miss Storie's identification, I have found no basis at all for the suggestion that she has materially altered her description of the murderer.

Following is the information:

James Hanratty was convicted in February, 1962, after a long trial in the course of which the jury heard extensive evidence and argument. It was for the jury to reach a verdict upon that evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeal subsequently dismissed Hanratty's appeal. It is not for the Home Secretary to set aside the verdict of the Courts. But I have considered whether there are any grounds for my intervention on the basis of material which was not before them.

The case has already been closely reviewed on that basis by successive Home Secretaries, and over the years a great deal of information has been accumulated. After full examination of all the information available to me I cannot find that Mr. Foot, despite his very extensive research, has brought out any significant aspect of the case which has not already been thoroughly considered.

Mr. Foot has not had full access to all the available material, and in some respects his arguments are based on premises that are not supported by the facts. I cannot, for example, find any basis for the suggestion that Miss Storie materially altered her description of the murderer, and accordingly I cannot accept any inferences sought to be drawn from this suggestion. Nor is it the case that the police were put on the trail of Hanratty as a result of information received from Mr. William Ewer.

Other material which has been described as new evidence has proved upon examination to relate to matters which have already been the subject of investigation. I find, for instance, that inquiries were made of Mrs. Lanz at the time of the crime and shortly after the trial about persons she had seen at the Old Station Inn, Taplow, and her present recollection of events is not consistent with the statements she made nearer the time.

My predecessors gave special attention to the possibility that Hanratty might have been at Rhyl at the time of the murder, and I have for my part examined with care all the additional evidence tending to support this alibi. At a trial, alibi evidence is subject to searching cross-examination to verity its relevance and reliability; and after close scrutiny I remain unpersuaded that any of the evidence produced since the trial could stand up to such a critical examination, bearing in mind that the recollection of witnesses must necessarily become impaired by the passage of time.

I recognise and entirely respect the doubts which still remain in many minds, and I have considered carefully whether the appointment of a public judicial inquiry would help to resolve the issues. I have concluded for two reasons that it would not. I do not believe that any judicial tribunal can be expected to arrive at a convincing opinion as to the facts on the basis of the recollection of witnesses as to specific details ten years after the event. Mr. Justice Brabin, in his report on the Evans case, has graphically described the fallibility of any such process. Secondly there are fundamental objections to the use of such a procedure as a means to the informal trial of some other person outside the normal processes of law which would be inevitable in this case.

After an exhaustive review, I have therefore come to the conclusion that there is no further action which I should take in a case which, I fully recognise, has given rise to much genuine anxiety.