INTERIM REPORT ON THE MAGUIRE CASE (Hansard, 12 July 1990)

§ Mr. Speaker
Before I call on the Home Secretary to answer Question 1, I wish to make a brief statement. During the exchanges in the House yesterday, reference was made to the possibility of the Maguire case being raised at Home Office questions today. I am informed that. at 11 o'clock this morning the case was formally referred to the Court of Appeal. It is therefore now sub judice, and in accordance with the resolution of the House relating to sub judice matters I must ask hon. Members not to refer to it during questions today.

§ Mr. Hattersley
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I first make it clear that the Opposition accept, without qualification, the principle that the House must neither influence the courts on individual decisions nor appear to be attempting to do so? That being said, we are presented this afternoon with a real denial of hon. Members' rights. At 2.30 pm today the Home Secretary published the interim report from Sir John May. Everybody in the world is entitled to comment on it except the British House of Commons. That is intolerable, particularly as yesterday you, Mr. Speaker, told hon. Members, in perfectly good faith, that an opportunity for raising these matters might. arise today. Will you confirm that the reason why your proper prohibition applies concerns not the way in which the May report was published but the simple fact that the Home Secretary chose to refer the Maguire case to the Court of Appeal this morning? Will you further confirm that had he chosen to refer it this afternoon, the House would not have been denied its proper rights? As the Home Secretary has behaved in that way, both sides of the House would welcome your guidance on what can be done to preserve our proper rights.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the House is aware that I answered a question yesterday saying that I was going to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal. In those circumstances, it is somewhat difficult to see how I could fail to do that which I said I would do. I know that you, Mr. Speaker. 437 have some latitude in these matters, and if you would allow me some latitude I shall do my best to answer questions on the point.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The matter is clearly sub judice, and it is an important constitutional principle that Members of the Legislature should not pronounce on the guilt or innocence of individuals facing criminal charges during the course of their trial or appeal.

§ Mr. Waddington
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course I would not challenge that proposition for one moment, but I am wondering whether it would be possible for me, in answer to questions, to give the grounds on which Sir John May decided that it would be right to ask me to refer the case.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am not certain that that would be in order under our sub judice rules. It would be an evaluation of the matters before the Appeal Court.

§ Mr. Maclennan
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty that the House is in this afternoon stems from the fact that the Secretary of State, in making his answer yesterday, did not at the same time publish the interim report and make a statement. That would have enabled the House to ask him questions about it at that time before the matter of sub judice arose. This situation is entirely due to the Home Secretary.

§ Sir John Wheeler
Further to that point or order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I am the constituency Member of Parliament representing the Maguire family, so I am especially familiar with the circumstances of the case. The Maguire family are modest people who seek only that this issue is proceeded with in the proper judicial way. I have no cause to raise any point on the Floor of the House this afternoon.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have made—[Interruption.] Order. I have made my ruling on this matter. It is important that we uphold the major and important constitutional principles regarding matters which are sub judice. We should proceed with Question Time.

§ Mr. Hattersley
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to pursue the matter further—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No. I hope that my hon. Friends will take the same course so that we can pursue questions. I rise only to clarify the request made to you, Mr. Speaker, by the Home Secretary. As I understand it, the Home Secretary, in a mood of apparent reasonableness, asked whether the rule could in some way be eroded. My understanding is that the Home Secretary was, like me, told before he came to the House that no erosion was possible. Posing in that way does him no credit.

§ Mr. Stanbrook
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not it correct that the Home Secretary has expressed the position correctly on this matter because the essence of the sub judice rule is to prevent juries from being affected in their consideration by external comment? It does not apply in respect of the same matters to a court of learned judges who are well enabled professionally to discard such matters and to disregard public comment.

§ Mr. Speaker
I assure the House—and I share the concern expressed on the matter—that I have looked most 438 carefully at this issue. I am satisfied that the sub judice rule does apply to this matter. We must uphold the sub judice rules of the House.

§ Mr. Waddington
I think that I might be able to help the House because I am anxious, first, to do what is correct and, secondly, to follow the precedents set by my predecessors. My right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary made a statement in the case of the Guildford Four after the decision had been made by the Court of Appeal. I am perfectly prepared to say here and now that I shall be more than willing to make a statement at that juncture.

§ Mr. Flannery
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Is this on a different matter?

§ Mr. Flannery
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said precisely the opposite to what he has just said. He said that, as Home Office questions were today, hon. Members would be able to ask all the questions. Yesterday, there was a written question No. 220. The question and the answer came from the Home Secretary, yet now we are forestalled by the Home Secretary in a squalid and crude manoeuvre.

§ Mr. Speaker
We should get on with Question Time now.