HC Deb 20 March 1974 vol 870 cc1289-98

5.5 a.m.

Mr. Frank McElhone (Glasgow, Queens Park)

I rise to raise the case of Patrick Connelly Meehan, a constituent of mine, who, as I am standing here, is completing his fifth year of a sentence of life imprisonment in Peterhead Prison for a crime many people believe he did not commit. He was convicted in the High Court in Edinburgh in October 1969 for the murder in her bungalow in Ayr of Mrs. Rachael Ross.

The crime was frightful, and I do not seek to condone it. It involved the death of an elderly woman who was tied up in her own home in furtherance of the theft of her husband's savings. I am not here to condone or overlook the past criminal activities of my constituent, Patrick Meehan. Rather am I here in the interests of justice, for it matters not whether the person concerned was Patrick Meehan, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, me or anyone else in the Chamber. What matters is that it appears that the wrong man was convicted.

Patrick Meehan is a man with a long record of dishonesty but no record of violence. He was charged and subsequently convicted of the crime, albeit by a majority of nine to six. Despite the character of the crime, and despite the the character of Patrick Meehan, there is every reason to believe not only that he was wrongly convicted but that one of the likely perpretrators of the crime is known and is at large.

A person was named and accused by the defence at the original trial in October 1969, and since then that person has confessed to, and been sentenced for, giving perjured evidence at the original trial. He has subsequently confessed in detail to the actual crime of which Meehan was convicted, a confession which he denied on ascertaining that it had been surreptitiously recorded by the BBC.

There can be few, if any, other cases in legal history in Scotland or in England of a man serving a sentence of life imprisonment for a crime to which another man has confessed in uncontrovertible detail. Even if there had been no such defence and no such confession, the events which emerged and the evidence which has become available since the conviction cast the greatest doubts upon the validity of the original verdict.

The Crown case was never more than circumstantial. It depended in the main upon five factors or circumstances. Two of those five were provided by Meehan himself to the police at a very early stage in their inquiry, even before Meehan had been arrested and before suspicion had focused upon him in any way.

Meehan told the police that he had been in the proximity of Ayr and in the company of James Griffiths on the night of the crime. Following upon his arrest he gave the name and address of James Griffiths to the police in support of his alibi. When the police went to arrest Griffiths a gun battle ensued in Glasgow, in the course of which Griffiths, who was armed, was shot dead.

At the trial, the first two circumstances of the Crown case were that Meehan was in the proximity of Ayr on the night in question and that he was in the company of Griffiths, who had attempted to shoot his way out when being arrested for the crime, and who had a criminal record for violence, which the jury was allowed to hear in the course of Meehan's trial.

The third circumstance was the identification of Meehan by his voice. At an identification parade Mr. Abraham Ross, the widower of the deceased, asked that each member of the parade say the words "Shut up, shut up. We'll get an ambulance." Meehan, who was in the first position on the parade, spoke the words and was immediately identified by his voice. No other person on that parade spoke those words.

The fourth circumstance was that the men involved referred to each other as "Pat" and "Jim"—the Christian names of Meehan and Griffiths. The fifth circumstance was that there were found, some six weeks after Griffiths' death, in a car coat belonging to him, scraps of paper which could have had a common origin with paper in Mr. Ross's safe. Thus, the Crown relied heavily on Griffiths' presence, Griffiths' violence, Griffiths' record, and Griffiths' voice.

Subsequent to Meehan's trial, and prior to his appeal against conviction, it was discovered that the BBC had in its possession a recorded interview with Griffiths in an English prison. I asked constitutional experts in the House whether I could play this tape, because it would have a very important bearing on the case. Although I have the tape in the House, I am, of course, responding to the wishes and practice of the House and I am depending upon the oral case I am presenting to influence my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am delighted to see that even at this late hour my hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is also present, and I am extremely grateful to him.

As I have said, subsequent to Meehan's trial, and prior to his appeal against conviction, it was discovered that the BBC had in its possession a recorded interview with Griffiths in an English prison. In the course of that interview, Griffiths stated that he could never face prison again and that if ever any attempt were made to arrest him he would shoot his way out. He also spoke with a pronounced North of England accent. This is very important because in the course of the trial Mr. Ross, himself a Glaswegian, claimed that the two raiders had Scottish accents and that the one referred to as "Jim" spoke with a Glasgow accent.

None the less, the Appeal Court, when Meehan's appeal came before it, refused to allow the recording of Griffiths' voice to be played to Mr. Ross. Such was the Crown case that the raiders were either Meehan and Griffiths together or neither. Had Mr. Ross, on hearing the tape, excluded Griffiths, he would thereby have excluded Meehan and, indeed, would thereby have excluded all the evidence which there was against Meehan.

At the trial, Meehan impeached Ian Waddell, an unemployed labourer. Waddell gave evidence at the trial, during the course of which he denied having paid £200 to a Glasgow solicitor as a retainer in the event of his being charged with the murder. Mr. Ross, who, in the course of the trial, heard Waddell use the words Shut up. Shut up. We'll get an ambulance stated that Waddell's could have been one of the voices heard in the house during the robbery.

Despite considerable evidence pointing towards Waddell, the presiding judge withdrew from the consideration of the jury the special defence impeaching him. Recent clarification of the law in the case of Her Majesty's Advocate against Lambie has made it clear that the special defence ought not to have been withdrawn from the jury.

Subsequent to the dismissal of Meehan's appeal against his conviction, Ian Waddell was charged with and pleaded guilty to having given perjured evidence at Meehan's trial in that he denied having paid the retainer to the Glasgow solicitor concerned. When he was sentenced for perjury, the presiding judge, Lord Cameron, gave it as his opinion that had Waddell told the truth at Meehan's trial the jury in Meehan's trial might have come to a different conclusion.

In February 1973 Ian Waddell on two separate occasions gave blunt and detailed confessions to members of the BBC, that he was responsible for the crime, along with another man, the identity of whom was the one detail of the crime that he refused to divulge. Unknown to him, the members of the BBC staff to whom he was speaking in a Glasgow public house were surreptitiously recording his conversation. When the existence of these recordings became known, Waddell attempted unsuccessfully to interdict the BBC from making use of them, and denied indeed ever having made the confessions.

Waddell gave detailed descriptions of the design and content of the house, facts which could only be within the knowledge of someone who had been in the house, and facts which were subsequently confirmed by Mr. Ross's daily help.

As though that by itself were not enough, it is now apparent that the conduct of the identification parade at which Meehan was identified by his voice was highly irregular. But that was not the only irregularity in this affair. No sooner was James Griffiths dead than, in contradiction of the supreme principle of our law of the presumption of innocence, the Crown Office issued the following statement: With the death of Griffiths and the apprehension of Patrick Meehan, the police are no longer looking for any other person suspected of implication in the incident concerning Mr. and Mrs. Ross at Ayr. With such prejudice, what need is there for evidence? But such prejudice was carried into the evidence, and the criminal record of James Griffiths was put before the jury. Had Griffiths been alive and sitting in the dock instead of being dead and named in the indictment along with Meehan, his record would not have been used against himself, far less against his co-accused.

In the time available to me I have been able to give a mere outline of the paucity and frailty of the evidence of the Crown, of the prejudice surrounding the trial and the evidence, of the wrong withdrawal of the special defence of impeachment, and, above all, of the weight of the evidence now to hand which suggests strongly the guilt of another perpetrator and scuttles entirely any evidence implicating the man who is at present serving a sentence of life imprisonment in respect of this crime.

Our law and our legal system are intended to protect the individual, however good or however bad he may be, against wrongful conviction. Where it fails, as it has failed here, it is the duty of us all to admit our mistake and strengthen our law and our legal system by admitting our mistake rather than deny our mistake and pretend that our law and our system are perfect.

Who in the House would ever say that upon the evidence now available a jury would ever convict Patrick Meehan? This is a unique case. It has disturbed the conscience of many persons within the legal profession, persons of standing and responsibility. It should now disturb the conscience of the House and of the nation. I earnestly urge the Secretary of State for Scotland to set up with the utmost urgency an impartial inquiry to recommend the Queen's Pardon for Patrick Meehan and thus ensure that justice is done.

In conclusion, I wish to put on record my most sincere thanks for assistance and guidance in preparing the case on behalf of Patrick Meehan to Mr. Nicholas Fair-bairn, the QC at his trial, to Mr. Leonard Murray who prepared this brief and, especially, to Mr. Joseph Beltrami, a solicitor at the trial, who has been convinced of the innocence of Patrick Meehan ever since he was convicted five years ago.

5.19 a.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Milian)

I very much recognise the concern which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) feels about this matter. I accept the sincerity of the views which he has expressed. I do not go along with everything that he has said. Nevertheless, I recognise that my hon. Friend and lots of other people feel strongly about the case.

When considering this case it is important to remind the House of the constitutional position of the Secretary of State. When a person has been duly convicted and sentenced by a court of law the primary responsibility of the Secretary of State is to ensure that the orders of courts of law are carried out. This is a case in which a final determination has been made and only action within the powers of the Secretary of State could re-open it. To re-open the case would be, in effect, to re-open a jury verdict. I think that my hon. Friend will accept that this is not a subject which we wish to take lightly.

Apart from any general powers to set up an inquiry—I understand that my hon, Friend has been asking for such an inquiry—it would be useful if I were to describe the formal powers granted to the Secretary of State for use in exceptional circumstances. They are two. First, he has the right to recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. Secondly, he has statutory powers under Section 16 of the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act 1926 to refer the case to the High Court of Justiciary. He can do that in either of two ways. He can remit the whole case to be heard and determined as if it were an appeal or he can seek the opinion of the court on points raised by him to assist him in the determination of any representations which have been made to him. These are powers which can be used only in the most exceptional circumstances.

If a reference to the High Court is to be made it can be justified only when some new matter of grave substance has been raised which should be the subject of judicial scrutiny before a proper determination of the case can be made. In the exercise of these powers we must bear in mind the Secretary of State's rôle. He is not given the authority of judge or jury. It is not for him to pass judgment on Patrick Meehan's guilt or innocence. He cannot re-try the case himself and decide on the relative merits of conflict-Mg evidence, nor can he appoint someone to re-try it on his behalf. All that he can do is to consider whether he is justified in any particular case in exercising these extraordinary powers.

On the basis of the information which was before the previous Secretary of State he found himself unable to recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in Meehan's favour or to take any of the other exceptional steps already mentioned. I shall have to mention the previous Secretary of State on a number of occasions. In a way it is a pity that he is no longer in the House. I shall describe the facts up until the present moment.

The case itself is one in which the evidence against Meehan was largely circumstantial. That was a point which was made by my hon. Friend. I shall go over the facts of the case quite briefly. In doing so I shall pick up a number of the points which my hon. Friend made.

The house of Mr. Ross and his wife was broken into in the early hours of Sunday 6th July 1969. Mr. Ross and his wife were treated roughly by the intruders and tied up. They told the thieves where there was money in the house—a considerable amount of money. After the thieves had left Mr. and Mrs. Ross were unable to attract the attention of anyone during the whole of Sunday and they were not freed until they were found by the cleaning woman when she arrived at the house on Monday morning. Mrs. Ross, who was an elderly lady of 71 years of age, died on Wednesday 9th July as a result of her experiences. As my hon. Friend has said, it was an appalling crime. The thieves probably wore masks. They covered Mr. and Mrs. Ross with blankets, and visual identification was not possible. Mr. and Mrs. Ross were aware only that there were two intruders. Both spoke on one or two occasions, once addressing each other as Pat and Jim respectively.

Meehan was arrested on 14th July and was placed the same day on an identification parade. At the parade Mr. Ross identified him by his voice as one of the two intruders. He was thereafter charged with the robbery and murder on an indictment which alleged that he was acting in company with James Griffiths. James Griffiths was an admitted associate of Meehan for criminal purposes and he was also being sought by the police in connection with the robbery and murder. He was killed by the police on 15th July after a gun battle in the streets of Glasgow in which a number of people were injured, one of them fatally.

The trial of Meehan took place at the High Court in Edinburgh on 24th October 1969. He was found guilty on a majority verdict by the jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. An appeal against conviction was lodged on four counts, to some of which I shall refer. After hearing and examining the grounds for appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal on 25th November 1969.

Since the dismissal of his appeal, representations have been made on Meehan's behalf not only by my hon. Friend but by others. My hon. Friend has mentioned one or two of them tonight. The representations were for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in Meehan's favour. I think that it may be convenient if I comment on the main points which have been raised in these representations, since most of them have been gone over by my hon. Friend.

It has always been clear that there was some conflict of evidence at the trial—about the timing of the robbery in relation to the state of light during the night and what effect it had on Meehan's claim that he could not have committed the crime, and about the fact that Mr. Ross identified both speakers he heard as having Glasgow accents, whereas it was known and not disputed that the late James Griffiths had an English accent.

But these conflicts were fully before the jury when it reached its verdict. An attempt was made at the appeal hearing to introduce as evidence the BBC tape of James Griffiths' voice, to which my hon. Friend referred, but the court held that the fact that Griffiths did not have a Glasgow accent had been fully put to the jury at the original trial.

A new point has, however, been raised since the original proceedings relating to the conduct of the identification parade. Doubt has been cast on whether the parade took the form in which the jury were told of it. The previous Secretary of State and Lord Advocate had inquiries carried out into this aspect of the trial, and, while there remained a conflict of evidence, the results of those inquiries did not cause the Secretary of State to alter the view which he had previously taken.

I come now to Mr. Ian Waddell. He was formally impeached for the robbery by Mr. Meehan at his trial. The jury, after hearing evidence bearing on the question of his alleged involvement in the crime, did not uphold the impeachment but convicted Meehan. Waddell was subsequently convicted of perjury in respect of part of the evidence which he had given at Meehan's trial.

Last year Waddell made statements to various persons, including two BBC staff, to the effect that he had committed the robbery, and he described items in the interior of the Ross's house, with the implication that he could know of these details only through his participation in the robbery. He offered, in return for a payment which I understand he put at £30,000, to undergo a truth drug test about his involvement in the crime, an offer which the BBC refused. He subsequently attempted to interdict the showing of a BBC film based on its inquiries, including conversations with him, and in the proceedings he denied any involvement in the crime and retracted the statements which he had already made.

Again, the previous Secretary of State and Lord Advocate had investigations carried out in the light of these activities of Waddell and the possibility that he was involved in the crime to the exclusion of Meehan. As a result of these investigations, the Lord Advocate reached the decision that no criminal prosecution would be raised against Waddell, and the Secretary of State reached the conclusion that the investigations justified no further action on his part.

None the less, having given that description of what has happened so far, I accept that many people who have interested themselves in this case, including my hon. Friend, still feel considerable disquiet.

This is a difficult and anxious case. I repeat that it is the prime function of the Secretary of State to carry out decisions reached by a court of law. He cannot re-try a case or appoint another to re-try it for him. So far I have necessarily been outlining the decisions taken by a previous Secretary of State and a previous Lord Advocate. It is not for me to comment on these decisions one way or another except that I should say, and I hope my hon. Friend accepts this, that obviously this case has already been carefully considered.

The responsibilty now lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I can undertake on behalf of my right hon. Friend that he will make a full examination of the case in the light of the available evidence and the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend today. I cannot say what decision my right hon. Friend will reach after he has carried out this investigation but I can say that he will look into the case carefully and most thoroughly and reach a conclusion as soon as he reasonably can, given the complexity of the matter. I think my hon. Friend will understand that it is not possible for me to go further than that. He has the assurance that the matters he has raised, and other relevant matters, will be most thoroughly considered by my right hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Six o'clock a.m.