Neil Latimer (Hansard, 18 March 1993)

§ 9. Mr. Hunter
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the imprisonment of Neil Latimer of the UDR Four, since July 1992.

§ Sir Patrick Mayhew
My hon. Friend will recall, because I mentioned it a few moments ago, that I have received a range of representations about the case of Mr. Latimer, mostly seeking a further reference to the Court of Appeal. I have found that none contained material to justify making a reference.

§ Mr. Hunter
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to take to heart that on this particular subject many people fear that he is making a dreadful mistake and that any conviction based on the testimony of witness A is unsustainable. They are therefore deeply disquieted by the continued imprisonment of Mr. Latimer. I beg my right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider.

§ Sir Patrick Mayhew
I know the strength of my hon. Friend's feelings. I hope that he will pay careful regard to the letter I sent him yesterday containing citations from the Lord Chief Justice's judgment, which I have already mentioned in the House this afternoon. I repeat that the basis for that judgment was by no means limited to the evidence of witness A; it was founded also on the evidence given in the trial by Mr. Latimer himself. I shall not repeat what I said earlier, but I must assure my hon. Friend that I have given great attention to the matter and I do not find any grounds on which I can properly refer the matter once again to the Court of Appeal.

§ Mr. Maginnis
While three of the UDR Four have been freed on the basis that police notes used in evidence were tampered with, is it not a total injustice that Neil Latimer remains in prison solely on the alleged identification by witness A, a person who has been medically diagnosed as having a psychopathic personality, subject to delusions and misinterpretations?

§ Sir Patrick Mayhew
As I have already tried to make clear this afternoon, it is not the case that the judgment of the Court of Appeal said that Mr. Latimer's conviction depended solely on the evidence of witness A. I do not wish to repeat what I said this afternoon, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about it. I know that he has already signed the early-day motion on this matter.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley
Has the Secretary of State no concern for the case that we are discussing? Is he aware that 13 people were arrested, six of them were charged, one charge was not proceeded with, five came to court and the judge threw out the charge saying that the police had put undue pressure on the prisoner to make a confession? But is it not a fact that all the prisoners made confessions? Is it not a fact that four were condemned, that the cases went to appeal and that they were still condemned, yet when the Secretary of State's predecessor passed the cases back for review, three were discharged and one was kept in? Now the Secretary of State is saying that that one is kept in on his own confession when in fact they all made confessions.

§ Mr. Mayhew
The facts of the case are a matter of public record and may be discovered within the extensive judgment delivered by the Lord Chief Justice in the Court of Appeal. I have to exercise the discretion that Parliament has given me by reference to consistent principles. I have already today described those principles. It is essential that I continue to apply them and that I do not yield to campaigns, however sincere or however loudly delivered, because it is not by reference to decibels that justice is done in this country.