§ 8. Mr. LoydenTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 18 June, Official Report, column 645, how many people gave evidence on behalf of the Everton football supporters arising out of their arrest and conviction.
§ Mr. JackFollowing the conviction of the Everton football supporters, eight persons made statements to the police during the course of inquiries in 1989. In addition, statements from eight other persons have been considered during the course of our reviews of this case.
§ Mr. LoydenThe Minister is aware of the strong representations made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and since then further information from eye witnesses to the incident has been collated. It seems to those hon. Members who met the Minister that there has clearly been a miscarriage of justice. Will he look again at the evidence, to see whether he, too, becomes convinced that that is so?
§ Mr. JackI congratulate the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members on their assiduousness in continuing to make representations on an issue that I know is of sensitivity to them and to the persons whom they represent. However, all the further evidence and statements submitted to the Home Office have been meticulously studied. The hon. Gentleman knows that the case has already been before the Court of Appeal, which did not agree with those who feel that the convictions were unsafe. The criterion for any miscarriage of justice is the provision of new information not previously considered by the courts. So far, no such new evidence has been forthcoming. It is still open to those who feel aggrieved to submit a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority. They have not yet done so. If such action elicited new facts, I would of course consider the case again.
§ Mr. Barry PorterI join the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) in asking the Home Office to consider again not only the quantity but the quality of the evidence that has become available. I do not blame the present Minister with responsibility for the matter for the reply that he has just given, but some difficulty arose in the form of a general election, which allowed the previous incumbent of his office to avoid making a decision. The quantity and quality of available evidence does not leave the matter in doubt but shows beyond peradventure that the convicted Everton people are innocent. What more do we need to do? Look again.
§ Mr. JackWhat more we need is new information. All cases involving miscarriages of justice are examined meticulously by the Home Office, but I must remind my hon. Friend of the base criterion: for any case to be reopened, we must have new evidence that has not been considered by the courts before. The answer that I have just given the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) will provide a way forward, if that way forward is chosen.