Guildford and Woolwich Bombings (Hansard, 20 May 1991)

§ 29. Mr. Tony Banks
To ask the Attorney-General when he expects Sir John May to complete his inquiry with the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings case.

§ 30. Mr. Cohen
To ask the Attorney-General when he expects Sir John May to complete his inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings case.

§ The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew)
Sir John May's inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich case extends to the Maguire convictions. He is expected to resume his inquiry into this aspect once the Maguire appeal is decided. He cannot complete his investigation of the circumstances surrounding the convictions of the Guildford and Woolwich defendants until criminal proceedings against members of the Surrey police force have been concluded.

§ Mr. Banks
Is it not a fact that the Birmingham and Guildford stitch-ups have done great damage to the concept of British justice? The people want someone brought to account for those perversions of justice. We are talking not about humble coppers at the bottom, but about the people right at the top. Will the Attorney-General give a guarantee that if Sir John May's inquiries point the finger at Lords Havers, Donaldson and Roskill, he will not nobble Sir John May?

§ The Attorney-General
I regret the language with which the hon. Gentleman referred to cases which are now sub judice. He said that the British people are anxious to get justice. That will be done according to the rules and not to prejudged statements, which are not helpful. Last week, the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police delivered a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. As I said in my earlier answer, proceedings are now in train against certain former members of the Surrey police regarding the Guildford case.

§ Mr. Cohen
It is not a matter of language but of people being imprisoned falsely and of the people who did that having a cover-up in their favour. Will the Attorney-General confirm that the original convictions were based on false confessions and phoney forensic evidence? Have not the Government and other influential figures within the state been keen for Sir John May's inquiry to be half-hearted and slowed down? Is not the reason for that the fact that many senior police and legal officers, including people in the DPP, knew right from the start of the case that innocent people had been convicted?

§ The Attorney-General
The Court of Appeal has allowed appeals in the Guildford and Woolwich cases, as well as in respect of the Birmingham matter. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can sensibly expect me to go beyond the words of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in each case. As for his remarks about the purpose of those 633 who set up Sir John May's inquiry, I can give an authoritative answer, as I was one of them. The answer is no.

§ Mr. Favell
Every conviction of an innocent person is a tragedy, not only for the person concerned but for his or her family and, of course, for the British judicial system. But it is also a tragedy when a person guilty of crimes as abhorrent as these gets away scot free. People worked hard to establish the innocence of those who were convicted. How much help has my right hon. and learned Friend received from these people to identify those who were guilty of the crimes?

§ The Attorney-General
I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his question. Those who have had their appeals allowed in these circumstances are entitled to the presumption of innocence, as is everybody else in this country. Equally, of course, when very serious crimes go unpunished, that is a very serious matter, and very much against the interests of justice. My hon. Friend made his point in the concluding part of his question.

§ Mr. Hind
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hon. Members, in their capacity as members of the British-Irish parliamentary body, have been to Dublin and had discussions with members of the Dail and senior Ministers in the Irish Government about the Birmingham, Guildford and Woolwich cases? The Irish authorities are more than happy about the result and recognise the strength of the British legal system in its ability to rectify mistakes, regrettable as they are. It is a credit to the system that that has been achieved.

§ The Attorney-General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, I know, takes close interest in these matters. I have close contact with Dublin—particularly with my opposite number —and I know that there is ready appreciation there of the fact that the judicial system in this country led to the overturning of these convictions. There is also very ready understanding of the fact that all criminal justice systems depend upon the quality of the evidence that is presented.

§ Mr. John Morris
Will the Attorney-General confirm that, despite Sir John May's membership of the royal commission, the Government expect him to move swiftly to establish the facts and to report as quickly as possible? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that Sir John's report on the facts will not be subsumed in the royal commission's inquiry into wider policy or procedural questions? Can the Attorney-General say when the trial of the three police officers will take place? Can he assure the House that those trials will not be unduly delayed and that, in respect of those aspects of Sir John's inquiry, there are no other complications and that we can expect interim reports?

§ The Attorney-General
I am glad that Sir John May has agreed to serve on the royal commission. There is very widespread admiration for the quality of the work of his inquiry so far. The appointment of the royal commission will not preclude a very full inquiry by Sir John into the Guildford, Woolwich and Maguire matters. I cannot say when prosecutions, if any, will take place, but no one is the slightest hit anxious to delay any matter of this kind.