MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE

HC Deb 06 March 1991 vol 187 cc342-60

'If the Attorney General for Northern Ireland is of the opinion that a conviction may be unsatisfactory or unsafe in the light of relevant evidence which was not available to the court at the time of conviction and at the time of any subsequent upholding of the conviction, he shall refer the case to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal for further consideration.'.—[Mr. McNamara.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McNamara

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The purpose of the new clause is to uncover Government thinking on miscarriages of justice in Northern Ireland. We are also thinking of the consideration that the Secretary of State is giving to the case of the Ulster Defence Regiment Four, otherwise known as the Armagh Four. The new clause also deals with possible mechanisms that could be introduced to deal with suspected failures of justice.

The report of Sir John May on the implications of the Guildford Four case for the criminal justice system in England and Wales will soon be submitted. The conclusions that Sir John reaches, having examined all the factors involved, must be tackled by Northern Ireland Ministers. The new clause seeks to explore Government thinking on that and it gives hon. Members who wish to do so the opportunity to raise issues that they believe to he relevant to the case of the UDR Four.

We do not make any pretence that the new clause represents the best or the only way in which to tackle problems of miscarriages of justice in Northern Ireland. We do not intend to suggest that such miscarriages of justice are excessively frequent in Northern Ireland. Fortunately, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland has a good reputation, particularly on the supergrass trials. There is only one case that has gone to that court that has aroused great emotion and confusion in the community —that of the Armagh Four.

There is a need to consider ways in which such miscarriages of justice can be resolved, especially given the sensitive nature of public confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. That is a fragile commodity and there is a paramount need for an effective, corrective mechanism in Northern Ireland.

The present law is embodied in section 14 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which gives the Secretary of State discretionary power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal when he believes that some new evidence or factor not available at the time of the trial has come to light. It is on the basis of that particular power that the Secretary of State is now considering the fresh material submitted by hon. Members representing Northern Ireland in the case of the UDR Four.

Our solution to the problem is to take away the Secretary of State's present role when considering possible miscarriages of justice. It is hard for the ordinary citizen to distinguish between the semi-judicial and political roles of the Attorney-General, but it is infinitely more difficult for people to distinguish between the high profile political role adopted by the Secretary of State and his quasi-judicial one when he discusses evidence before him. We believe that the Attorney-General, in his capacity as Law Officer, would be more suitable than the Secretary of State to handle such cases. It might be thought that the Secretary of State has responded to particular political pressures in certain cases.

The case of the Armagh Four is happily the only major case of possible miscarriage of justice in Northern Ireland. On this island, however, we have had the cases of the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and the Maguire family. The Armagh Four are four members of the UDR who are contesting their convictions for murder. It is not for me to declare their guilt or innocence, but the Secretary of State will know of my concern from correspondence that I had with his predecessor. Members of the families of some of those convicted have approached me and I am aware of the unease felt not only in Northern Ireland but in the rest of the United Kingdom about the safety of the convictions.

Obviously, the interests of justice and public confidence in the criminal legal system demand that the evidence collected by the supporters of the Armagh Four, some of whom may speak later in the debate, should be scrutinised by the Court of Appeal as quickly as possible. We hope that the Government will introduce a long-term mechanism that will obviate the need for my previous remarks, and prevent the need for such long-drawn-out campaigns by many people in Northern Ireland, including the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis).

7.30 pm

The interests of justice demand a self-correcting mechanism in the criminal legal system which will remove the need for outside pressure. A booklet has been produced by campaigners who support the case for the retrial of the UDR Four. Point 8 in the introduction makes an interesting and valid comment on which I should like the Minister of State to comment. The compilers of the dossier say: We contend that the referral of this case to the Court of Appeal will have been brought to the point of inevitability by the contents of this dossier. That is a matter for judgment, but it is the opinion of the people who prepared the dossier, which continues: However, the Secretary of State might also like to consider whether or not it would be more appropriate that there be a police inquiry by another force … such as preceded the resolution of the Guildford case. More particularly, not that an investigation has commenced, the scope and remit must be widened and the legal representatives of the men should be given access to all the relevant material. That is important and it is necessary for it to be carried out.

The May report will no doubt contain many important recommendations, but it is not for us to guess what they will be. It is important carefully to consider the need for an independent forensic service in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That has been shown by the English cases, and the need has also been shown by what is happening, or may have happened, in Northern Ireland.

Cases such as that of the Armagh Four always arouse great emotions. In a contentious situation the attitude of the Secretary of State or any other Minister is bound to create controversy on both sides of the community. It is vital that both sides of the community have absolute confidence in the administration of justice. Taking away decisions that have to be made by the Secretary of State because of the existing law and putting them in the hands of the Attorney-General or into some other mechanism, if one can be found—we are not bound by the details of our proposal—would make a judicial decision less politically flawed. Already, too many decisions in Northern Ireland have caused grave questions to be asked not about the judges, but about Ministers.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I am grateful to the Opposition for the new clause because it enables us to debate a case that is vital to the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland. I approached the Secretary of State about this matter and he graciously responded and said that he certainly would be prepared to consider any evidence that we would prepare and put to him. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were appointed by our party to consider the preparation of a dossier. The remit was widened and a committee of all interested parties was set up and prepared the dossier from which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has quoted.

The Secretary of State has received that document and has assured me and my colleague, the leader of the Official Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), that he is giving it careful attention. The Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role in this matter. I urge on him the necessity of a speedy decision because at the end of the day his decision is really a referral to a court which will decide whether there is a case to be answered and whether the weight of the new evidence is such that it would be unsafe to uphold the verdict of a previous court.

I am convinced that the weight of the new evidence and some of the facts that have come to light cast considerable suspicion and a shadow upon certain witnesses upon whose word the judge largely depended in his summing up. The statements of those witnesses have been challenged and seem to be seriously flawed.

I am alarmed by a matter that was brought to light by Mrs. Mairead Maguire, who was better known to many of us as Mairead Corrigan during the high days of the peace movement in Northern Ireland. Mrs. Maguire has been looking at the case of the UDR Four and at the part played by two well-known Roman Catholic priests, Father Faul and Father Murray. In a letter Mrs. Maguire says that she accepts what the dossier states about her role in this matter. There is no challenge to what is contained in the dossier.

Mrs. Maguire said that the two priests had collected certain evidence against the UDR in this case but that they would not give it to the Royal Ulster Constabulary until they had undertakings from the Chief Constable and higher authority. Those undertakings were: 1. That an entire UDR patrol, operating in the North of the city, should be arrested by Police Officers from another locality. 2. That the UDR soldiers should be taken to a holding centre other than Gough Barracks, namely, Castlereagh. 3. Interrogating Officers should be of Senior Rank and again the majority of these officers, preferably completely unknown to any of the Soldiers. Until those undertakings were given and carried out, the priests were not prepared to present the evidence that they had collected.

It is troubling to know that certain people can go to the authorities and ask for something to be done before they are prepared to bring forward evidence. I am alarmed at the fact that it has been established beyond doubt that when RUC officers and members of the Ulster Defence Regiment are brought before a court on charges relating to violence or terrorist crimes, the authorities go the double mile to make the defence case difficult to present. In prison, they even lose the facilities that are given to members of the IRA and other organisations. In case after case, I have had great difficulty obtaining even the elementary parole that was due to some police officers. I have raised that matter before and I find it difficult to understand.

I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North that all classes in Northern Ireland should feel that they have recourse to justice and that justice will not only be seen to be done but will eventually be done. Whoever it is, that should he established in their mind. But when I talk to the families of police officers and members of the UDR who have been charged with such crimes, it is apparent that even in prison their membership of the security forces is held against them, and that is not right. I trust that the Secretary of State will take that on board this evening.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for tabling the new clause, but he knows that I do not agree with it. I do not want the Attorney-General to have this power because if he did we would not be having a debate such as this. All sorts of judicial barriers would be put up and Mr. Speaker would be telling us that we should proceed in accordance with the motion and it is unlikely that I would be able to table such a motion so there would be no opportunity to discuss such a matter. Therefore, I am arguing tonight that the Secretary of State should retain and exercise the power.

I come to the authority upon which the judge seemed to rest when he gave his verdict—witness A. I am sure that all hon. Members will be amazed to hear something of what happened to witness A. Witness A had some terrible things to say when she appeared on Radio Telefis Eireann about how she found herself having to give evidence against the UDR men. There is also a typescript of a telephone conversation between witness A and Mr. Hegan. In that, she states clearly that the two officers who were interrogating her said that they were bad boys and that no judge in the land would ever let them out. He said that if they get out and they kill someone, he says, it will be your fault for letting them out … because they'll murder all round them. I said I didn't believe they done it. He said 'They done it all right'. So what d'you want me to … what do you expect me to believe? We cannot try anyone in the House, nor can anyone be tried on television, but when a question mark is placed over evidence given on oath on which the judge largely relied, and said that he did, there must be an inquiry. I urge the Secretary of State to do his level best to bring his inquiries to a speedy conclusion. As I have said, he is not passing a verdict——

Rev. William McCrea

Does my hon. Friend agree that what the UDR Four request and desire is that justice now be done and be seen to be done in their case?

Rev. Ian Paisley

Yes. That is why I say that the Secretary of State is not asked to give a verdict; he is asked to say that the court should have another look at the evidence. We are asking the Secretary of State for a referral.

7.45 pm

I am also worried about the electrostatic data analysis reports from the police. I do not know why those have riot been made available. I have talked to the Chief Constable about the matter. The fact that he has set up an inquiry into the matter arouses suspicion. If he feels that he has to appoint a high ranking officer to investigate the ESDA reports, there must be something to investigate. Those reports need to be made public. Certainly the lawyers for those four young men should have them. I urge the Secretary of State to come to a speedy conclusion on the matter.

As I have said in an early-day motion, this matter affects a wide range of people in Northern Ireland. It casts its shadow across the Province. If some members of the police force have acted wrongly and illegally, they must be brought to justice and dealt with. There cannot be and must not be any cover-up. After all, those four young men put their own lives at risk by joining the UDR. They could have had their lives taken from them; they could have been shot by the IRA if they had continued to serve in the regiment.

Bearing in mind that the four were members of the UDR, a regiment of the British Army set up by the House, and bearing in mind what the people who are not sympathetic to the Loyalist position have been saying—I salute them because they are prepared to face up to the matter—it is imperative that the Secretary of State refer the matter to the court as quickly as possible. I make that personal plea tonight with all the passion of my heart, having known the young men and their families for years and having known what they have gone through. Then the court can give them a proper trial and the allegations in the dossier can be tested in a court of law. The people against whom they have been made will have the opportunity to rebut them if they are able to do so. No man should be seen as guilty before he is proved guilty.

There are many other matters in the dossier that I could read to the House, but I will not do so. Through the extracts that I have read, I have tried to show just how serious the matter is. I urge the Secretary of State tonight to give some hope to the four young men and to their families that the country that they have sought to serve so faithfully and well is prepared to give them the right that every British citizen should have—the right to British justice.

Mr. William Ross

New clause 2 is entitled "Miscarriages of Justice". I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and to his hon. Friends for giving the House an opportunity to debate the unfortunate consequences of such incidents.

Given human nature, there is always a chance that something will go wrong with the legal process. When miscarriages of justice occur, they are blots not only on the police, as the investigating officers, but on the the defence and prosecution solicitors and barristers, the judiciary, and the community in general. We have every right to feel deeply concerned when miscarriages occur, and we should do all that we can to make amends.

I was once involved in a case in which an individual admitted to murder when questioned by the police, pleaded guilty to murder—it was a particularly vile murder at a farmhouse—and was given a long sentence. As a constituent of mine, he subsequently wrote to me. Like most Members of Parliament who are contacted by prisoners, at first I wondered whether he was not just another of the innocent men of which prisons seem to be full whenever one speaks to their inmates. That prisoner also wrote to Mr. Douglas, who represented a Londonderry constituency at Stormont—and as the murdered man was a neighbour of his, both Mr. Douglas and myself started our own investigations.

Mr. Douglas visited the farmyard where the murder took place. By then, we both had a good idea of the contents of the convicted man's statements. We discovered that he had described not the yard in which the murder had actually been committed, but one a mile or so down the road. We were left in an extremely difficult situation. Mr. Douglas and I went to see the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), who was then a Northern Ireland Minister. If the Secretary of State cares to talk to the right hon. Member for Chelsea, I am sure that he will recall this clearly. We put our views to that Minister, having discussed the case at considerable length with the police. Eventually, the right hon. Member for Chelsea, the police, and ourselves were thoroughly convinced that something was wrong, but we were in some dilemma as to what could be done.

The matter was eventually resolved when another individual made a statement to the police indicating that he had driven the car that had taken a group of robbers to the farmhouse where the murder had taken place. Unfortunately for my constituent still in prison, that witness subsequently committed suicide. We found ourselves in an even more difficult situation. We were in possession of a confession from a dead man, another man was in prison, and there was evidence that seemed to cast a deep shadow of doubt over the safeness of the conviction.

As it happened, my constituent was released some months later. Nevertheless, that experience brought home to me the necessity of collaborative evidence. It is well known that whenever a murder occurs—the more vile its nature, the more likely this is to happen—there is a queue of people waiting to claim the credit for it. That happened even when the death penalty was still in force.

Police questioning techniques have moved on, and the police can play on the psychology of the suspect and exert considerable pressure. There is a danger that people admit to crimes that they did not commit, which is why we need more than a signed confession. When the innocent are convicted, or convict themselves, the unfortunate consequence is that the guilty escape due retribution for their wicked deeds. The case that I described makes me view with somewhat less jaundiced eyes those individuals who, having been convicted, then claim that they are not guilty. I begin to wonder whether they are not further examples of the type of case in which I was involved.

I know nothing of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, or the Maguire family, because they have little to do with Londonderry, East. Nor have I concerned myself with the case of the UDR Four, to which a large part of the debate has been devoted, because they were from the constituency of a late colleague, Mr. Harold McCusker. I well remember his reaction whenever a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment was charged with murder. He was exceedingly angry that the regiment was once again being besmirched.

When Harold McCusker first talked to the UDR Four, he was a very troubled man—and he was not a fool, as those right hon. and hon. Members who knew him can testify. He undertook extensive investigations, and I understand that his wife is still associated with the committee involved with the UDR Four. The more he examined the facts, the more convinced he became of the innocence of those individuals and that there had been a grave miscarriage of justice.

I have not been personally involved, but since Harold's death, other hon. Members have taken an interest in that case—not least the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), party leaders, and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who has reported fully to the members of his party. Having myself heard the results of investigations, I have grown more and more concerned. The powerful case being made for the UDR Four should be fully investigated, and a completely fresh look should be taken at what appears to be a most dreadful miscarriage of justice, with four soldiers serving life sentences for murder.

Complaints are sometimes made about the fragility of justice in Northern Ireland. However, in the face of the most dreadful provocation and difficulties, it has proved far more robust than in England—to judge from the number of people apparently being found not guilty after serving many years in prison.

Frankly, I am not one of those to call for speedy decisions, in the light of my experience in investigating one such case. I want careful and deep consideration to be given to this matter, and not a precipitate announcement. I want the matter to be thoroughly investigated and I want the truth to come out for the good of all concerned, because that is the safest and the wisest way to proceed.

In all four cases with which we have been concerned —three in England and one in Northern Ireland—where people have been tried and convicted, it would appear that in England the police reached quick decisions and acted upon them, that people were convicted and that on every occasion the guilty have escaped.

8 pm

Certain questions follow on from that regarding police activities after the trials were over and convictions had been handed down. Did the police consider that their work was done in each of those cases? Did they stop asking questions? Did they close the files? Did they forget about the 21 people who died in a Birmingham pub? Did they forget about all the folk who died as a result of the alleged activities of the other accused? If so, people are walking around who committed those murders and who have got away with them because the police did not do their jobs properly and because, frankly, the courts and the lawyers did not do their jobs properly. That is a real blot on the legal system in this country, and it must be tackled and corrected because the people of this country cannot afford to lose faith in the judicial system or in the capacity of the police—whether the RUC in Northern Ireland or any of the police forces in England—to carry out efficient, in-depth investigations that enable them to lay their hands on the guilty, rather than condemn the innocent. It is a serious matter, which will not go away.

We are grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and to his hon. Friends for tabling the new clause. Our discussions have perhaps wandered rather far from the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill but this matter had to be aired in the House, and aired rather bluntly.

I have investigated one such case in my constituency. The individual concerned was eventually released on licence. In the light of all that has happened since, I wonder whether that decision should not also be reconsidered and a fresh trial granted to that man, who has now been free for some years. The fact that he is still under licence is not a satisfactory outcome for him.

If the four Ulster Defence Regiment men, or any of the other people mentioned, were to be released on licence, the blot would remain. That blot must be removed if they are innocent; and if they are not, proof of the guilt should be put beyond any reasonable doubt.

There is more to say, but I think that all the necessary things have been said about these cases many times over. I should prefer the matter to remain with the Secretary of State for a decision rather than going to the Attorney-General. I find it easier to talk to another politician than to a legal man. No matter how much I may disagree with the politician, at least we can keep on hammering at him, time after time, in this place. That is a good reason to let the matter rest with the Secretary of State for a decision, and that is the only quibble that I have with the new clause.

I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North will carry the provisions of the new clause into effect. In his opening remarks he said that the reason for the new clause was to explore the Government's mind. The hon. Member may rest assured of one thing—he has put his view, hon. Members representing Northern Ireland have put their views, and we now wait with interest to find out what the mind of the Government is.

Mr. Peter Robinson

I should like to add my voice to those who have thanked the shadow Secretary of State for tabling this new clause, which has given us an opportunity to speak on an issue of some considerable importance to people in Northern Ireland, none more so than the four men who have been imprisoned for the past seven years as a result of a miscarriage of justice.

At least in its more candid moments, the House will recognise that miscarriages of justice occur. Happily, however infrequently that may happen, this is not a perfect world. From time to time, either people who enforce law and order in Northern Ireland or members of the judiciary in Northern Ireland make mistakes. It is quite clear that one such mistake was the conviction of four men arising out of the murder of Adrian Carroll on 8 November 1983. Four of the six men who appeared before the court were convicted—all were members of an Ulster Defence Regiment patrol. The men were charged with murder and the basis of the Crown case against them was that together, and with others, they had conspired to murder a well-known republican, Adrian Carroll, and that they had done so in a premeditated fashion.

The Crown described the way in which they had carried out the murder. To support its contention, it had signed statements from five of the men before the court and a statement from a witness, known as Mrs. A. The Crown had another and, in my view, more important witness—indeed, the only witness who was able to give evidence that she saw the gunman. She was the only eye-witness to the killing of Adrian Carroll. She was brought by the Crown to the court and was never broken down during cross-examination or by evidence in chief. She testified that the gunman she saw on the day of the killing was smaller than she was—she is 5 ft 4 in—and that he was not the person charged with murder, Neil Latimer. That was the evidence given by the Crown's eye-witness.

The eye-witness to the event had clearly testified that, not only was the person in court and arraigned as being the gunman not the gunman; it was someone considerably smaller. Neil Latimer is 5 ft 10 in and the estimated height of the gunman is 5 ft 2 in. There were a number of other witnesses to a pattern of events on the day of the killing which was considerably different from the pattern suggested by the Crown. Mrs. A, who was not at the scene of the crime, identified Neil Latimer close to Armagh on that day in dress similar to that which Elaine Faulkner, the single eye-witness, had said that the gunman was wearing. That produced a link for the Crown between the evidence of witness A, who said that she had seen Neil Latimer, and the events that took place in Abbey street in Armagh.

To all intents and purposes, the signed statements of the men in question led to their convictions. As I said, more than four men appeared before the court, but the case against one man was thrown out precisely because the court recognised that undue pressure had been applied to him under interrogation. It recognised that the police had behaved in a way in which they were not entitled to behave to secure a signed confession from the man. The same judge could not, however, accept that the same pressure could have been applied to the four other men before him, or that their signed statements could have resulted from physical or mental torture by the RUC.

The four men gave evidence to the effect that they had not signed their statements willingly, and that the statements had not been written by them but had been concocted by others. The most important evidence against the four was represented by those signed statements of admission, which suggested a pattern of events that fitted the evidence of witness A.

As the two pillars of the case against the four were their signed statements and the evidence of witness A, the judge, in finding the four soldiers guilty, was disregarding the evidence of the one eye-witness who had testified that the accused was not the gunman, the evidence of the Archbishop's gardener, who had seen the gunman depart in a different direction from that mentioned in the Crown case, the evidence of a police patrol who had been on the road by which, according to the Crown case, the gunman had left, but had not seen him, the evidence of a resident of Abbey street who said that the man who had shot Adrian Carroll had left by a different route from that described by the Crown, and the evidence of other members of the UDR who had been in the same patrol as the four men. If the four were guilty, they were not guilty alone; nine other guilty men are outside prison. The Crown case was that the entire patrol was involved in the murder. I should add that the judge also went against the evidence of the four men.

Since the appeal, much new evidence has come to light. Like the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), I live some distance from the constituency, and I felt that the matter did not directly involve me. No one from the constituency had come to see me. Some years later, however, I met the mother of one of the four men by chance at a wedding. She told me, "My son is serving a life sentence in prison for a crime of which he is not guilty."

I confess that at the time I thought, "Well, she would say that, wouldn't she?". Naturally a mother would find it hard to believe that her son might be guilty of murder. The lady—Christian lady that she was—said that she would send me some papers to try to convince me. Of course, I expressed willingness to read any papers that she sent. I was rather surprised when, about a week later, the papers arrived. She had sent me the judgment of the Court of Appeal. It struck me as strange that someone who was trying to convince me of her son's innocence should send me the judgment that had convicted him rather than, for instance, her counsel's summation of the case in his defence.

I read the judgment. On five or six occasions, the Lord Chief Justice had had to consider whether to take the side of the Crown or that of the defence in order to settle a matter of contention. Each time, he had come down in favour of the Crown. Whenever there was doubt, he gave the Crown the benefit of the doubt. I had always thought that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the accused, especially in murder cases, in which sentences of life imprisonment can be imposed.

8.15 pm

After reading that lengthy judgment, my initial scepticism diminished. I was no longer sure that the conviction was safe. I could not and did not say at that stage, either publicly or privately, that I believed the men to be innocent, but I asked the lady to send me more documentation—a request that I regretted somewhat on the arrival of a 4ft-high pile of transcripts of both the original trial and the appeal.

As I waded through those papers, I became convinced beyond doubt that the conviction was insecure. The more I read, the more doubt I felt. I met the families of the convicted men. At that time, the only campaign for their release was the one promoted by their families. They had no new evidence then, apart from a transcript of what had been said by witness A on an RTE programme. That transcript had been given to the Secretary of State's predecessor, who had judged that it did not amount to new evidence that would justify the referral of the case to the Court of Appeal with a recommendation for a retrial.

My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was, however, promised that, if we provided a dossier of new evidence, the Secretary of State would consider it carefully. About 18 months ago, we set about putting the dossier together. We suspected then that it might take us two or three weeks, but the more that we delved into the case, the more doubt entered our minds, the more queries were raised and the more new evidence was unearthed.

At that point, the two props that had held up the prosecution case in court were pulled away. There can be only two ways of drawing the statements signed by the two men into question, both of which are forensic. The most direct is a test known as syntax analysis—a linguistic test involving the examination of the formation of words and sentences, from which it aims to determine whether the words and sentences used in the text in question could have been uttered or written by its supposed author. The authority on that test is Professor Andrew Morton, of Edinburgh university. He has considerable expertise, and has been employed in cases elsewhere in the United Kingdom, as well as in the United States and Australia. He has written many books about his work, which is considered completely accurate.

Professor Morton was given copies of letters written by the four UDR members, and their so-called statements of admission. When he compared the two, he reached a definite conclusion and when I spoke to him on the telephone, he described his findings plainly. I approached the subject almost sideways. I did not want to imply an answer in the terms in which I put my question; I made it clear that I wanted his view. I asked him whether any concern arose from his study of the letters and the statements of admission. He replied: There is cause for more than concern, there is cause for alarm. They"— the confessions— are quite unsatisfactory. Not one of them is a genuine confession of the accused. That man has considerable experience in the subject. He studied each of the confessions and determined that not one of them was genuine. In more detail, he suggested that the statements had been concocted by more than one person, which fits with the views expressed by the four men concerned, who said that their so-called confessions were concocted by the interviewing officers and that they were forced to sign them. Syntax analysis establishes that the so-called statements of confession were not made by the four purported authors of them.

The second way to assess the accuracy, and therefore the relevance, of signed confessions is the electrostatic data analysis technique. The legal representatives of the families of the four men asked the RUC to carry out ESDA tests on the interview notes. The Chief Constable of the RUC was given a preliminary report by the forensic science laboratory, presumably because of its concern about the results of the tests. The preliminary tests showed that a considerable number of alterations had been made.

The laboratory considered about 200 documents, and the ESDA tests showed that changes had been made to almost every page of the interview notes. In some cases, there was a multiplicity of changes in the interview notes.

The initial test results fuelled the concern of the Chief Constable who, rightly and properly, before awaiting the final document, asked one of his senior officers to carry out an investigation. He would not have ordered such an investigation because somebody had not spelt a word right, because their grammar was not right or because they got the name of a town or place wrong. Such an investigation would be ordered only if changes of some significance had been made. The Chief Constable admitted by his statement that the ESDA tests caused some concern about the authenticity of the interview notes. The syntax and ESDA tests question the correctness of the so-called signed statements of confession, which were one of the main pillars, if not the main pillar, of the prosecution case.

As the statements were supported by the evidence of witness A, we must consider how that evidence stands up in the light of the fresh evidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North mentioned how the process began. Witness A called in two parish priests who assisted her—I use that term having considered fully the consequences of it—to put her statement into writing. During the court case, it was recognised that she signed her name on seven blank pieces of paper and that the statement was included afterwards.

As I understand it, the priests went to the local police chiefs and said, "We have evidence which implicates members of the Ulster Defence Regiment in the murder of Adrian Carroll." The natural response of the police chief to whom they spoke was, "I hope that is not true." On hearing that, the priests felt that the police were reluctant to take action against the UDR men and said, "We shall take our statement elsewhere."

As my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North said, according to Mairead Maguire of the peace people and Mr. and Mrs. Bell, the father and mother of one of the four UDR men, Father Faul admitted to them that he went to see the Chief Constable and someone higher. I shall not abuse the rules of the House by naming that person because I have no evidence against him, but as it is an hon. Member I am being particularly cautious. They were given three undertakings before they handed over the statement: first, that the RUC would arrest a patrol of the UDR; secondly—this was a fairly understandable concession—that they would be interviewed by officers who did not know them and who were senior in rank, which is normal interrogation procedure; and, thirdly, that they would be interviewed in Castlereagh holding centre and not Gough barracks. Hon. Members are wondering why on earth Father Faul, who has castigated Castlereagh holding centre, would want the men held there rather than at Gough barracks. Presumably, he sought to get them moved further from the location in which they were known. Therefore, before the statement of evidence was given to the Chief Constable of the RUC, an undertaking had been given to arrest a patrol of the UDR.

Mr. Trimble

If the account that we have heard is correct—I believe that it is—a decision to arrest was made before the evidence was to hand. Therefore, the arrest was not only unlawful but the decision to arrest people was taken with the participation of someone higher than the Chief Constable. If it transpires that that person was an hon. Member and perhaps a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, that was grave interference by a member of the Executive in a quasi-judicial decision, which is quite unprecedented and has grave constitutional implications that should be explored.

Mr. Robinson

The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right. That incident has given rise to wide-ranging ramifications —if Father Faul's statement is true. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that the Secretary of State was being asked to refer the case to the Court of Appeal for retrial and to consider whether it might be appropriate for a further investigation to be carried out. That is an important point that needs to be underlined, especially given the special circumstances of this case.

8.30 pm

In relation to witness A's statement, the agreement had apparently been entered in before it was in the hands of the police or even of its Chief Constable. That would be very bad if it happened in connection with any member of the general public, but we are talking about a patrol of the British Army—about members of our security forces. The fact that an undertaking was given to arrest members of the security forces without seeing any evidence against them seems totally absurd. However, I shall not labour that point because my general point relates to the validity of the evidence of witness A.

After her statement was handed over, the RUC presumably started to question witness A and to get details from her. As my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North has said, a transcript is now available of a telephone conversation between witness A and the father of one of the four men who has been convicted. It is available in the dossier and I have the original tape. It contains several points of importance suggesting that witness A was pressurised at various stages when she was giving evidence.

In court, when the accused person to whom I referred earlier was discharged because it was felt that undue pressure had been applied to him, witness A telephoned the parents of one of the four UDR men and said, "I am unhappy at what is happening in court and I intend to retract my evidence." One can imagine the feelings in the home of the parents of that young UDR man when they were informed that the witness upon whom the prosecution was relying intended to retract her evidence. Naturally, the parents informed their legal representative who, next day, sought to have witness A recalled so that she would be in a position to retract. During that day, the court was informed that witness A was not available, but that she would be brought to court on the following Monday. The telephone transcript showed that witness A was not only available, but was ready to go to court. However, instead of being brought to the court, she was deliberately taken instead to Mahon road police station where she was pressurised not to retract, but to stand by her evidence.

According to witness A's own mouth, therefore, the police had deliberately obstructed justice from being done and the Crown counsel had unknowingly misled the court by stating that the witness was unavailable, no doubt on the basis of the information that had been received from the police. As has already been recorded in Hansard, the remarks were attributed to witness A because she was told that those men were murderers; that the police knew that they were murderers, and that if she did not stand by her evidence, the blood that they would shed in the future would be upon her.

If witness A is to be believed, there are serious consequences for the RUC. However, I do not believe that witness A is to be believed. It was unknown to us at the time of the trial, at the time of the appeal and until recently, but it has been established, that witness A has twice been in a mental institution for what was termed "a psychopathic personality". I am informed that her medical history notes that: (a) she is a danger to herself and to her children. (b) she is … persecuted. (c) she is inclined to be jealous. (d) she is very unstable, emotionally varying from depression to aggressive tendencies … demanding to get out of hospital yet due to her attitudes and threats one could not allow her to do so. (e) she is suffering from a mixed psychoneurotic reaction. She was recorded as suffering from:—

1. (1) Obsessional fears or thoughts.
2. (2) Disturbance of behaviour and activity.
3. (3) Delusions and misinterpretations."

I repeat that the Crown's key witness is someone whose mental history shows that she suffers from delusions and misinterpretations.

Under the new clause, it will be the Attorney-General—at present it is the Secretary of State—who has the job of referring such cases to the Court of Appeal. Knowing what we now know about witness A's background and the evidence about the confessions, I ask the House how anyone could possibly believe that, if the judge at the trial or the judges at the appeal had had that information available to them, they would not have arrived at a different conclusion. In my view, it is a probability—at the very least, it must be a distinct possibility. Furthermore, there is other and additional new evidence. Therefore, the job of the Secretary of State, or what would be the job of the Attorney-General if we adopted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, is to decide whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal so that it might consider the strengths and depths of the new evidence that is available to us.

There is no longer any need for the Secretary of State to wait for the final report from the RUC, the result of its investigations into the ESDA tests, or of the investigation into the interviewing officers who have to explain away why changes were made in the interview notes. If one sets aside the ESDA tests, there are still compelling reasons—indeed, an irresistible case—why the Secretary of State must refer that case to the Court of Appeal for a retrial. If he was to do otherwise, it would bring into discredit the whole process of law in Northern Ireland.,

I happen to believe that, simply because a mistake has been made in the judicial system or in the police system of law and order enforcement, that does not mean that the system is rotten or that it needs to be dragged down; it simply means that a mistake has been made and that it has to be put right. We damage the system more by pretending that a mistake has not occurred and that everything is all right when everybody of four years of age and upwards in Northern Ireland knows that it is not all right. If we were to suggest that our courts and our police are infallible, we might fool ourselves, but we would not fool the people of Northern Ireland or the general public anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Mistakes can be made and a mistake has been made. I urge the Secretary of State at the earliest opportunity to send this case to the Court of Appeal. He does not have to decide the innocence or guilt of the four men—and he will be glad that he does not have that onerous responsibility —but he has a responsibility to judge whether there is sufficient new evidence or significant new factors to merit the case going before the Court of Appeal. Having heard what I have said in the past few minutes outlining a part of the new evidence, the Secretary of State has an unanswerable case for passing the detail to the Court of Appeal.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

I had not intended to speak, but on reflection I felt that I should, because for some time I have been pressing at business questions for the Secretary of State or the Attorney-General to come to the House to make a statement on the case of the UDR Four. Therefore, if I do not speak now, some people may think that I am running away from the issue on the only occasion that we have been able to debate it.

I should be happier if the new clause referred to the Secretary of State rather than the Attorney-General. I welcome the understanding that the new clause has been tabled to tease out Government thinking. So long as matters are in the realm of the Secretary of State, it will be possible for hon. Members to raise them sooner or later in the Chamber. One can choose different ways of doing so. If a matter is kept strictly within the sphere of the legal fraternity, we cannot get the necessary debate and scrutiny.

I have been interested in the case since shortly after the four men were arrested and detained in custody prior to trial. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) will remember, if he reads the debate, that I was in correspondence with him about the trial being brought forward quickly, for two reasons. First, I still believe that justice delayed is justice denied. Secondly, I have had grave misgivings over the years about servants of the Crown being imprisoned in the same place as terrorists and ordinary criminals who know their background. Having spent a couple of day in Her Majesty's "hotel" at Crumlin road, and having been there when a young British soldier was brought in, I know the feeling of prison inmates that he should not have been there.

I pressed for the trial to be brought forward. I was convinced of the innocence of the four men. The case had been brought to my attention by the prison chaplain who asked me, at their request, to visit them. I listened carefully to their story, because I have been around long enough to realise that most people want to paint the best picture of their case. As I probed them, I was absolutely convinced that they had not been party to the crimes of which they were accused. Time elapsed before the trial. I will not go into detail on the trial, but several points lend credence to the belief that there has been a miscarriage of justice. The time has come to put it right by an open examination of the facts.

I think that it was a previous Secretary of State who suggested in a letter to a colleague that the retraction of the evidence of witness A was unimportant in so far as her evidence did not lead to the conviction but only to the police being able to extract confessions. I may be naive, but I am speaking now in tribute to my young colleague in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Edgar Graham, who was murdered by the IRA. He was one of the brightest young legal brains in the United Kingdom, and respected equally in the United States.

Sitting on the Assembly bench in Stormont, I said to Edgar, "I cannot understand how anyone would confess to a crime which he had not committed." He said, "I know what you are saying, but all I can say from my legal background is that I have seen it happen time and time again. People can be conditioned into saying things that lead to their conviction when they have not been party to the crime."

Thereafter, I began to look afresh at the case. We have an opportunity in the Chamber to highlight a miscarriage of justice, in the opinion of many people in Northern Ireland. There should be a proper appeal procedure to examine the evidence again and to bring out a new verdict, which I believe, in the light of the information and evidence now available, will be not guilty.

Servants of the Crown have as much right as others to the protection of the legal system. If we are prepared to allow a right of appeal to others who, so far as we can see, have been improperly convicted, servants of the Crown should not be penalised simply because they were servants of the Crown and there was a reaction because it was felt that they had let the side down. That seems to be the real reason why the case has gone so far.

I support the thrust of the new clause but dissociate myself from the terminology which would put the Attorney-General in place of the Secretary of State. I hope that the Secretary of State, who has been listening carefully to the debate, will in the near future come up with the good news that he has asked the Court of Appeal to re-examine the case.

8.45 pm

Dr. Mawhinney

We have had an important debate about serious matters. The new clause is headed, "Miscarriages of justice". It is common ground that when miscarriages of justice occur that is an unhappy state of affairs. We are also united in believing, happily, that they do not happen often.

When the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) moved the new clause, he said that he was doing so in a probing fashion, explicitly to permit hon. Members who wished to do so to comment on the case of the UDR Four, as it is commonly known. He has succeeded in that purpose.

I must deal first with the new clause. As it is a probing new clause, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with the probe and will withdraw it. If not, I will have to ask the House to reject it for two reasons. First, it is unnecessary, as it seeks to confer on the Attorney-General a power which, in substance, is already possessed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Secondly, the new clause is drafted in terms which would apply to a conviction for any criminal offence. It is in any case inappropriate for inclusion in an Act which is temporary and is concerned only with an emergency situation. The proper context within which to consider a change of the kind proposed by the hon. Gentleman is legislation on the general criminal law.

The hon. Gentleman set out the existing law. Under section 14 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a discretionary power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal. That power is not unique to Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman did not suggest that it is, but I think that he suggested that it is more difficult for someone in a political role to exercise that power. In accordance with the practice followed in England and Wales, and in Scotland, successive Secretaries of State have been prepared to exercise the power only when some new evidence or new consideration of substance which was not available to the trial court or at any previous appeal came to light.

The new clause seems to envisage a reference being made by the Attorney-General in almost exactly the same circumstances. The Attorney-General would refer a case when there was relevant evidence which was not available to the court at the time of conviction and at the time of any subsequent upholding of the conviction". The Government's view is that a power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal because there are doubts about the justification for a conviction would more appropriately be exercised by the Secretary of State than the Attorney-General. I think that I am right to say that all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, except the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North sustained that view. It is more appropriate to the Secretary of State, not least because the Attorney-General has responsibilities in connection with the prosecution of certain offences with which the new power might not sit comfortably. We further believe that it would make no sense for similar powers to be possessed by both the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General.

As the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been present throughout the debate. It is worth making that clear for the record. He has listened carefully, as I have, to everything that has been said on the case of the UDR Four. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for expressing his appreciation and, I expect, that of his hon. Friends and others, of the "careful attention"—I use his phrase—which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is giving to the dossier provided to him. That was appreciated. I have also noted that he wishes the matter to be tackled as speedily as possible. That view is endorsed by other hon. Members, but I am sure that they also accept the view of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) that processing and consideration should not be so speedy that it is not exhaustive and detailed.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not be justified in referring the case of the former UDR soldiers to the Court of Appeal unless some new and substantial evidence which was not available at the time of the trial or the appeal came to light. The dossier on the case presented to my right hon. Friend by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), to which much reference has been made and from which quotations have been given to the House, was handed over on 10 January this year. As the hon. Gentleman told us, it took more than a year to prepare. It is currently being given vigorous and detailed consideration. The dossier raised several issues on which the advice of the Chief Constable of the RUC has been sought.

As has been said, the RUC was already conducting an inquiry on foot of receipt of a report from the forensic science lab on the outcome of electrostatic deposition analysis tests on the original police interview notes from the interviews with the four men. The result of that inquiry by the Chief Constable will be reported to the Secretary of State and will be an integral part of his further consideration of the case.

The House will have heard the views that hon. Members have expressed about the case and the conviction with which they were expressed, but the House will also understand that I am in no position to comment on any of them. They reflect what is in the dossier and the dossier is being given detailed consideration as speedily as is appropriate in all the circumstances.

I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North will feel that the debate has been worthwhile—I believe that it has—that his probe has been answered and that the views of the Government have been made clear on both the substantive motion and, as far as I am able to go at this point, on the UDR Four. I hope that he will withdraw the new clause.

Mr. McNamara

I thank hon. Members from the parties of Northern Ireland for their kind words about my hon. Friends and myself. We felt that it was important that an issue of such concern should be given an airing, particularly as hon. Members from the area have tried to raise the matter in different ways. It seemed to us that to table a new clause on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill would give hon. Members an opportunity to make their points, however it was calculated and provided that it was selected. However, I would point out that the UDR Four were convicted of scheduled offences so the emergency powers legislation, which creates scheduled offences, is the right place to raise the matter.

I was not aware until now that the Secretary of State was so popular with the hon. Members from Northern Ireland. The wind of good will which has blown through Belfast town hall during the past few days must have affected the Chamber, too. They have shown their confidence that he is the right person to hold his position.

Mr. Molyneaux

Has it escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and I have been engaged in harmonious, civilised discussions with the Secretary of State for well over 13 months? It is to our mutual regret that we have not made more progress than we have, but that is the fault of others and not ours.

Mr. McNamara

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am sure that everyone involved in the discussions has had a harmonious relationship with the Secretary of State. We all hope that the discussions will be carried forward to such a point that talks will take place shortly on the three points which all parties have accepted should be the basis of any talks.

But I digress. If hon. Members are prepared to accept that the Secretary of State should have the power to refer cases, they should also be aware that there are anxieties about whether matters even come before the courts and whether prosecutions are ever carried through. There was a decision not to prosecute on the Whiterock killings and on the Armagh killings, otherwise known as the shoot-to-kill killings. The attitudes of the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions in those circumstances perhaps gave substance to the anxieties expressed by hon. Members. That may be why they preferred that the Secretary of State should have the power.

Three further points are important. I hope that the Northern Irish Members will consider them when considering other legislation which has been before the House or might come before the House in future. First, hon. Members objected to the way in which the UDR Four were originally arrested. I share their objection, but they voted to give that power to the police on Monday night when the Labour party suggested that the power to trawl should not be allowed. That power was vigorously defended by the Home Secretary.

Secondly, Northern Ireland Members are concerned about uncorroborated confessions. Opposition Members have emphasised the dangers of accepting uncorroborated confessions, whether in this part of the Kingdom or in Scotland or Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said that he had been concerned time and time again about what his friend the late Edgar Graham had told him about people being tricked or persuaded or pressured into making uncorroborated confessions.

In this context, I have to draw attention to amendments which were tabled but not selected by the Chair. Of course, I make no criticism of the Chair. I refer to amendments concerning cases involving scheduled offences. Despite some of the difficulties of which the police talk, interviews ought to be tape-recorded. That could be done with appropriate safeguards. Interviews could even be videoed. The essential point is that if the dossier evidence that we are asked to believe is true—evidence about the pressuring of the four soldiers; evidence about the intensity of interrogation—allegations of verbal or other ill-treatment would be revealed. Such recordings were recommended by Lord Colville. However, the Government refused to accept his recommendation and, regrettably, it did not have the full support of Northern Ireland Members.

9 pm

Mr. Harry Barnes

I should like to know whether the concern expressed by Labour Front-Bench Members who, by initiating this debate, have enabled the UDR to be discussed—the expressions of concern were picked up by Northern Ireland Members—is shared by other Back-Bench Members. I am one of those who have been in correspondence with two of the UDR Four. I have written to the Secretary of State. I think that there is wider concern than has been reflected in this debate.

Mr. McNamara

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. Miscarriages of justice should be the concern of all Members, and all such allegations must be examined very carefully.

We have had an opportunity to discuss the issue. I felt that we had a duty to the people of Northern Ireland to make sure that their feelings were ventilated. That having been done, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.