HC Deb 13 June 1996 vol 279 cc487-500

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

7.51 pm
Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am grateful for the opportunity to air problems of great concern not only to my constituents, but to people throughout Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I have a sad story to tell.

A young constituent of mine, Mhairi Julyan, a schoolgirl innocently making her way home from a pantomime just before Christmas last year, was set upon by a vile pervert, a man who hated women, who preyed upon defenceless women and was violent in the extreme. He subjected her to torture and sexual assault and then murdered her. As with all crimes of violence and every tragic loss of a young life, the people of Kilmarnock were—and remain—shocked and distressed. I am sure that the House will have great sympathy for Mhairi, for her parents, the rest of her family and her friends.

What sets this hideous crime apart from many others is the fact that the perpetrator, Gavin McGuire, had been allowed to return time and again to the community, sometimes committing the same types of crime for which he had been committed to prison, but sometimes committing even worse crimes. That fact poses a number of questions that my hon. Friends and I believe require a full and independent inquiry in public.

We must ask the following questions. What treatment did McGuire undergo while in prison? What assessment was made of any such treatment? Why were police and social services not alerted when he was released from prison? What procedures are in place to oversee the behaviour of sex offenders, especially those who have shown violence, to try to prevent recidivism?

Last week, I visited the Lord Advocate, Lord MacKay of Drumadoon, and the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Paul Cullen, with my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), who is with me in the Chamber tonight, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), our Front-Bench spokesman. We were seeking an independent public inquiry, which all right-minded believe is now imperative.

We were promised an inquiry, but it will not be held in public; it will be carried out internally by the Crown Office. Although that is better than nothing, it can in no way replace the fullest of inquiries, whose participants would come from outside the Crown Office system. An independent public inquiry would provide a fresh view and a comprehensive study in order to make recommendations that might prevent a known vicious serial rapist such as Gavin McGuire from ever being free to terrorise, to mutilate and to kill again.

It is important that the House be made aware of the evil within that man, which spiralled over the years and appears to have gone unchecked, other than during his periods of incarceration. It is said that Gavin McGuire was always a loner, an outsider with few social skills and unable to make close relationships. He was the eldest of three sons of a working-class family in Stevenston in Ayrshire. His father was made redundant when Gavin was a child and seems to have spent a lot of his time drinking and gambling, leaving the three brothers to fend for themselves.

McGuire's parents separated when he was young, and he first went into care at the age of eight—that sounds like something out of Charles Dickens, but it is not. During his 25-year career of crime, and even before, since the age of eight, he had done time in every form of institution—assessment centre, borstal, list D school, young offenders institution and eventually prison, including the top security Peterhead gaol, where he shared segregation with some of Scotland's worst sex offenders.

In 1976, McGuire was arrested for assaulting three young women in Stevenston, one of whom he sexually attacked. In each of those cases either the victim fought him off or he was disturbed by a passer-by. The first attack took place five months after he left the list D school.

McGuire's first victim was a 15-year-old schoolgirl from Auchenharvie academy. He knocked her to the ground, punched her in the face and bit her nose before her screams alerted help, and he ran off. In the second attack, a 15-year-old holidaymaker was dragged on to a patch of waste ground, where he punched her repeatedly and dragged her by the hair before sexually assaulting her. Again, he ran off when passers by came to her aid. The third victim in McGuire's first phase was attacked just two days later, when he pushed an 18-year-old girl against a wall, but she escaped after hitting him with her shopping bag.

I relate those details to demonstrate that even early in his perverted career, McGuire showed no mercy and no restraint towards the women he attacked. In fact, in all three of those cases, only good fortune prevented even more serious harm.

When McGuire initially came to court in Kilmarnock, the sheriff court—rightly in my opinion—refused bail, but bail of £10 was granted on appeal to the High Court. While out on that £10 bail the following month, he assaulted a pregnant woman, kicking her to the ground, and robbed the garage in which she had been working. He also robbed another garage.

One week later, he followed a woman, grabbed her and tried to pull her to the ground, but she ran off when a car approached. Later the same day, he held a piece of glass at the throat of a 23-year-old woman whom he had grabbed in a shopping arcade. He dragged her behind a store, stripped her and raped her.

When McGuire finally came to court, he admitted eight charges, including rape, serious assault with sexual intent, assault and robbery, theft of a motor car and theft of money. For those offences he was sentenced to 10 years in a young offenders institution. His Member of Parliament at that time, John Corrie, demanded an inquiry to discover why he had been bailed for the first three offences, which had left him free to carry out further vicious attacks—but Corrie had no success in bringing about an inquiry. More is the pity.

McGuire was released on licence seven years later. Within months, that monster subjected a holidaymaker in Saltcoats, Ayrshire, to a terrifying three-hour ordeal in the dead of night. He brutally attacked, beat and raped her, then threw her into Saltcoats harbour. I do not believe that his intention was other than murder, but the murder charge was dropped, although he had watched the woman floating in the harbour for some time. During that time she feigned unconsciousness and kept herself afloat until he left the scene. She then swam for the shore and for help. It was stated in court that had she not been a good swimmer she would not have not survived that hellish ordeal.

Despite his obvious intent, the charge against McGuire was reduced from attempted murder and rape to assault and rape, for which he was sentenced in August 1986, again for a period of 10 years. The presiding judge, Lord Dunpark, in sentencing McGuire, described him as a menace to society, and particularly to women. Again he was released on licence after having served part of his 10-year sentence, and again he preyed on vulnerable women soon after his release.

The next victim we know about was a young woman who was set upon by McGuire. When defending herself, she bit his finger very hard and drew a lot of blood. She alerted the police, and drew their attention to the fact that she had injured him. He was arrested eight days later after the victim recognised him in the street. He appeared at Kilmarnock sheriff court on 21 August 1995 on a charge of assault with intent to rape and robbery. He was remanded in custody while the police and the procurator fiscal investigated.

On 28 November 1995, McGuire was liberated by the Crown on the ground that there was insufficient evidence in law to provide corroboration, which is required by Scots law. Nineteen days later he murdered Mhairi Julyan.

It was necessary to go over this man's offences—at least those that we know of—in some detail to demonstrate not only his evil intent, but the continuing nature of his crimes. For at least 20 years, he has been raping and brutalising women whenever he gets the chance. It is only very good fortune for the woman concerned that he was not facing a murder charge in 1986. Indeed, that might even be said of the other women he abused who escaped when he was disturbed. He showed no humanity to his victims, and his disregard led to escalating violence that culminated in the death of Mhairi Julyan. Forty-seven different injuries were found on this lovely young girl's body, the combination of which led to her death.

I am aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland believes that he has found a solution. "Two strikes and you're out," I think it is called. That is to say two sex offences and then prison for life, but is that really an acceptable solution? I believe it is a knee-jerk reaction of a Secretary of State backed into a corner because of criticisms of our system of justice in Scotland. The policy has not been thought out, nor has it been tested on the many strong and able legal minds in Scotland. Many organisations in the penal system are likely to have strong opinions which may be of use, and psychiatrists and others may be able to provide a much better and less wasteful solution at an early stage.

It is for that reason that my colleagues and I are again calling on the Government to set up an independent public inquiry. As well as looking at the particular circumstances of this horrific case, it could include changes that add any remission to later sentences. I believe that it is essential that the inquiry investigates the treatment of offenders and makes the compulsory completion of psychological treatment and assessment of the possibility of recidivism the main criteria for release, thus bringing about a stark change in sentencing policy for sex and violent offenders.

I am also convinced, as are my colleagues, that an inquiry must look at the law of evidence in Scottish courts regarding sex offences with a view to abolishing the mandatory requirement on the prosecution to provide corroborative evidence before a case can proceed. The tragic consequences of that requirement protected McGuire from prosecution and led to his liberation on 28 November last year. He was then free to go out and murder just 19 days later.

I would like a public inquiry to examine the possibility of introducing instead a discretionary power for judges to warn a jury in summing up about the lack of corroboration when there are no witnesses other than the victim. That should provide protection against malicious accusations, and it would bring Scots law in line with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Without such a change, women remain very vulnerable. Other offenders may be liberated—just as Gavin McGuire was, time after time—only to re-offend, perhaps with equally awful consequences.

I look forward to the Minister's response to these accusations. Without a full public inquiry, we will never be convinced that the last evil murder of this man could not have been avoided. Although we await the results of the internal inquiry in the Lord Advocate's office, we feel that such an internal inquiry will not provide the answers.

8.4 pm

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe (Cunninghame, South)

I intend to be brief to allow the Minister ample opportunity to reply to the many questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) has asked. My interest in the case is that Gavin McGuire is my constituent. That is no great distinction, and it is sad that I find myself speaking as the hon. Member who represents a man who has caused so much grief.

This debate is particularly significant for Ayrshire, as other important factors have still to come to the surface. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun made the important points, but they must be reinforced. The case demonstrates the complete and utter shambles in the Crown Office and the judicial system. I want to examine some areas of concern. First, the case has clearly demonstrated that there is a problem with resources. Secondly, constituents who have seen me in the past few weeks have suggested that they no longer have confidence in the system in Scotland.

We must consider resources, and what went on in the office of the procurator fiscal in Kilmarnock and in the Crown Office. When we realise that evidence that clearly demonstrated that this man should never have been allowed out so that he was able to murder that young girl was available in the procurator fiscal's office, we get angry at the inability of those responsible to hold him in remand and prosecute him to ensure that he was not in society. We are all aware of the lack of resources. On the basis of what he has learnt about the case, will the Minister—as the Minister responsible for the matter—recommend that additional resources be made available to the procurator fiscal's department and to the Crown Office?

The Government tell us that they are hard on crime. They have had 17 years to show us that. This significant case shows that their hardness on crime does not work in practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun mentioned the meeting that we had with the Lord Advocate, where we were promised an internal inquiry. While that signifies some success, it clearly is not what we were looking for. The public need answers. They need to know what went wrong. The most important thing tonight is for the Minister to agree at some point to an independent public inquiry, and that is what we are looking for.

8.8 pm

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) on securing an Adjournment debate on this anxious topic. He has raised some questions about the case of Gavin McGuire and I intend to answer them as fully as possible. I first place on record my sympathy for the parents and family of Mhairi Julyan. The death of a teenager is always tragic; how much more so is the callous murder of a young person with everything to live for. It leaves in its wake, as the hon. Gentleman said, shock and distress.

Of one thing there is no doubt. McGuire is a man who presents a considerable danger to women. In February 1977, he was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for two charges of rape, a charge of assault with intent to ravish and other offences. On 12 November 1986, he was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for attempted rape and serious assault. The sentence of life imprisonment, with a minimum recommendation of 30 years that was imposed by Lord Clyde on 30 May, is the best protection that women can have against such a predatory criminal.

The House knows that in the light of McGuire case, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced last week proposals that would require the courts to impose a life sentence, other than in exceptional circumstances, where an offender is convicted of a second offence involving serious violence or sexual assault. That would mean that the judge would still set the minimum time that the offender is to spend in prison, but by making a minimum recommendation rather than by imposing a determinate sentence.

Thereafter, the benefits of the life sentence become apparent, in that the parole board will then consider whether the offender can safely be released. If after release his behaviour gives any cause for concern, he can be immediately recalled to prison to continue serving his life sentence. If a determinate rather than a life sentence is imposed, release back into the community is automatic after a certain date, no matter how much of a risk to the public the prisoner might still pose, and there is no possibility of immediate recall to prison if his actions should give rise for concern.

Recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who has also raised the issue. He wrote: In McGuire's case, such a provision would have meant that he would have been given a life sentence on his second conviction in 1986, and his subsequent release would only have occurred when he had served the full period determined by the judge and the Parole Board had concluded that he could be safely released. If he had been released and there was thereafter concern about his behaviour, whether or not this involved committing an offence, he could have been returned immediately to custody. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to announce his proposals on "Making the Punishment Fit the Crime" shortly. Meanwhile, he expects to be able to count on the support of Opposition Members for that change.

Mr. McKelvey

While we understand what the Minister is saying, we are concerned about what we have described as a knee-jerk reaction. How much did the Secretary of State discuss the matter with interested parties such as the judiciary and those who work in the legal system? How much support does he have for pursuing that change and establishing it rapidly?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

Judges are always consulted before legislation goes through Parliament. We are not yet at the stage of putting a Bill before Parliament, but when proposals are published, judges will be consulted, just like everyone else. However, we are determined to ensure that there should be more emphasis on the concerns of the victim rather than on the criminal. I hope that the Opposition will support that.

Mr. McKelvey

This important issue is at the nub of the reasons why we want a full inquiry. There is a case to answer. This man was incarcerated and made a ward of the state at the age of eight. He has already spent 14 years of his adult life in prison. We are concerned about what was done with him while he was in prison. Has he been psychologically examined? Was there such a programme? If there was, how did he respond to it? If a full inquiry gave us those answers, the conditions that could be set by law to improve the position might be more readily agreed.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

The hon. Gentleman takes me off the thread of my remarks, but I shall deal with his question about the treatment of sex offenders in prison. I will happily make inquiries because prisoners come under my responsibility. I shall write to him in due course.

It is important that sex offenders are given the opportunity to address their offending behaviour while in prison. That is why many long-term prisoners convicted of sex offences are held in Peterhead prison. Grouping them together has made it possible to develop a comprehensive sex offender treatment programme there. It is widely recognised that such programmes are likely to be successful only to the extent that they engage the co-operation of the offender.

Programmes have been set up in several Scots prisons, including Barlinnie, where emphasis is placed on helping perpetrators to recognise and control the triggers that prompt offending behaviour. An important aspect of the programme is that counselling is also offered to those released back into the community through support groups run by the city of Glasgow social work department. The aims of sex offender treatment programmes are to get prisoners to accept their personal responsibility, for them to address the consequences of offending behaviour for the offender and for victims, and to develop self-corneal strategies and avoid situations likely to lead to re-offending.

The stop programme in Peterhead has recently undergone an external evaluation. The programme was viewed positively, with participants demonstrating increased victim awareness. In the light of that report and other recent research, the Scottish Prison Service is developing guidance on the management of sex offenders in prison. Those who co-operate in addressing their offending behaviour may be allowed controlled access to a range of opportunities in other establishments to prepare them further for eventual release and may be considered by the parole board for release on licence. Prisoners who choose not to address their offending behaviour are unlikely to be considered for early release. Sex offenders released on licence are required to maintain contact with their supervising officer and must observe the conditions of the licence. Failure to do so could be grounds for recalling the offender to prison. Those requirements are intended to reduce the likelihood of the offender being involved in further offences.

Mr. Donohoe

The Minister should give us a specific answer. Did McGuire go through that programme?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

This is the programme now in place. The hon. Gentleman's question is historical. I will make inquiries and write to him and to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun in due course. I shall move on to less historical, more immediate issues.

When my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate exercises his duty as public prosecutor, he acts independently of Government. He is accountable to Parliament and it is as his spokesman that I am replying tonight. I can advise the House on his behalf that he and the Solicitor-General for Scotland will examine the history of the case with the Advocate Deputes and the procurator fiscal respectively.

I should explain what cannot be done and, more importantly, what can be done. Hon. Members asked whether a public inquiry would be the best way forward. I do not believe that it would because a public inquiry into the process of decision-making by the Lord Advocate and his deputies would violate the principle of the independence of public prosecution. The constitutional position of the public prosecutor was explained to the House by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan, in 1959, in a statement concerning the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry in the Waters case. He said: It is an established principle of Government in this country, and a tradition long supported by all political parties, that the decision as to whether any citizen should be prosecuted, or whether any prosecution should be discontinued, should be a matter where a public as opposed to a private prosecution is concerned, for the prosecuting authorities to decide on the merits of the case without political or other pressure. It would be a most dangerous deviation from this sound principle if a prosecution were to be instituted or abandoned as a result of political pressure or popular clamour … In reaching his decisions the Lord Advocate's duty in Scotland, like the Attorney-General's in England, is to act in a quasi-judicial capacity".—[Official Report, 16 February 1959; Vol. 600, c. 31.] Prosecutors need to assess not only the sufficiency but the quality of evidence and the credibility of witnesses. If prosecutors' decisions could be explored publicly, the temptation would be to prosecute regardless of the outcome—because the easy decision is always to prosecute—and cases could unnecessarily or inappropriately be brought to court. That is not necessarily in the best public interest.

While I do not see a public inquiry as the best way forward, there are other ways forward and I should like to go into them. I mentioned the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which would meet the situation. They would mean that someone convicted a second time of a very serious sex offence of this nature would attract a life sentence and would then be subject to a much longer sentence.

Mr. Donohoe

That is clearly important. I do not know if the Minister heard one of the experts in Scottish law dispute that fact. He said that, instead of raping and leaving a woman, someone who had already offended would be more likely on the second occasion not only to rape but to murder.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but fear of detection has often been a source of the most devastating crimes. Fear of detection is always with criminals in all circumstances. We believe that if we impose a life sentence on a second serious sexual crime, which could amount to attempted murder or rape, the person who has committed it will be subject to much stronger control and a much longer sentence than is now possible. I look forward to the hon. Members' support for that proposal in due course.

I mentioned the other ways forward. First, a working group chaired by a regional procurator fiscal completed a full review last year of the way in which the procurator fiscal service investigates and prepares serious cases and this has resulted in detailed guidance in the form of a handbook which has been issued to all relevant staff. Procurators fiscal are encouraged to take an active involvement in the preparation of all serious cases. That is a particular feature of the Scottish prosecution system. Full details of the examination of the case of Gavin McGuire will be passed on to the working group for its consideration as part of its work of promoting good practice.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland chaired a separate working group which reported earlier this year on the role and recruitment of advocate deputes who prosecute and take decisions on criminal proceedings in the High Court. As a result, a number of changes in working arrangements are already being implemented with a view to giving them more time to consider cases at an earlier stage, but account will be taken of the results of the process of examination which I have mentioned.

It is appropriate that I should, with the Lord Advocate's agreement, set out in some detail the background to the decision which was taken to release McGuire from custody before his trial last November.

On 12 August 1995, Lorna Andrew was assaulted in a public park in Kilbirnie, Ayrshire, by a man who forced her to the ground and attempted to remove her clothing. She reported that in the course of the struggle she had bitten her attacker's left index finger. Initial inquiries by the police did not identify her attacker, who ran away.

Eight days later, on 20 August, Lorna Andrew saw Gavin McGuire by chance in the street and identified him as her attacker. She informed the police and McGuire was apprehended and examined by a casualty surgeon, who found a small injury on the nail side of his left index finger. McGuire's explanation was that he had injured his finger while sawing tree branches on 17 August. The casualty surgeon was of the view that the injury could have been caused by a tooth. McGuire appeared in court on 21 August 1995 and was remanded in custody.

In Scots criminal law it is essential for proof of a charge that the accused is identified as the perpetrator of the crime by corroborated evidence and beyond reasonable doubt. Corroboration means confirmation or support of one piece of evidence by another piece of evidence, each from a source independent of the other. The corroboration rule is regarded as a fundamental protection against wrongful conviction, and one which has thus reduced the risk of miscarriages of justice in Scotland.

In Scotland it is not possible to rely on evidence of previous convictions for similar crimes in order to prove a case, although I understand that this can be possible in England and Wales in cases of exceptional similarity under a doctrine known as similar fact evidence.

Mr. McKelvey

We should clear up the matter of the medical evidence. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General told me and my hon. Friends that the examining surgeon believed that the wound on McGuire's finger was less than 72 hours old. That was the reason why the authorities felt that they could not proceed with the case. The attack took place eight days before the examination. It is also worth seeking an explanation of why the assault and attempted rape were lumped in with the murder case in an attempt to try two cases together, when further medical examination had apparently been sought.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. I welcome to the Chamber the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) who has shown a great interest in the subject. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun asked whether the doctrine of corroboration was appropriate. I mentioned a moment ago that in England and Wales, in cases of exceptional similarity, under a doctrine known as similar fact evidence, it is possible to rely on evidence of previous convictions.

We will be studying the law of corroboration in general in the light of the recommendations of the Sutherland committee. The importance of the corroboration rule has been emphasised in the report of the committee on criminal appeals and miscarriages of justice procedures chaired by Professor Sir Stewart Sutherland, which was published on Monday.

In the case against Gavin McGuire, Lorna Andrew's evidence was one piece of evidence identifying McGuire as the man who attacked her. The casualty surgeon's evidence was that the injury to McGuire's finger could have been anything up to 72 hours old, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said a moment ago.

The medical evidence was therefore inconsistent in respect of timing with the account of Lorna Andrew and the casualty surgeon was therefore re-interviewed on the instructions of Crown Counsel and asked specifically for an opinion as to the earliest time prior to her examination on 20 August when the injury could have been inflicted, and whether it was possible that it could have been inflicted as early as 12 August. She remained of the opinion that the injury was no older than 72 hours, but considered that it might indeed have been only a day old. She said it was definitely not so old as seven or eight days, and said that she had no hesitation in confirming her opinion that it was no older than 72 hours.

Faced with this evidence, Crown counsel concluded that the medical evidence could not provide corroboration of Lorna Andrew's identification of McGuire. Crown counsel was, however, of the view that corroboration might come from the recovery at McGuire's home of clothing fitting the description given by Miss Andrew, but which consisted of common items. It was known that forensic scientific examination of clothing of Lorna Andrew and Gavin McGuire had still to be completed, and it was decided to proceed to service of an indictment while the results were awaited.

McGuire was, accordingly, indicted to appear at the sitting of the High Court at Kilmarnock commencing on 27 November 1995. The scope for forensic scientific examination was limited, not least by the passage of time before McGuire was apprehended. One matter which was explored was the investigation of a cosmetic stain on McGuire's jacket. On 17 November 1995, the procurator fiscal was advised that line of investigation had proved negative.

The case was plainly a thin one, and there is no question of anyone not appreciating that until the last minute. The case was considered carefully at every stage, particularly because of McGuire's previous record. A number of lines of inquiry were pursued, right up to 17 November. However, by then it was clear that there was only one possible line of corroborating evidence—the injury—but the medical evidence did not corroborate, but actually contradicted, the victim's evidence. If the doctor's evidence as to the timing of the injury was correct, the injury could not have been caused by a bite from Lorna Andrew.

The matter was considered closely by the Advocate Depute—the prosecutor who was assigned to the case—and he discussed the case with my right hon. noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. It was agreed that the case should not proceed to trial at this time on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. If it did, the outcome would inevitably have been an acquittal by the judge on the basis that there was no case to answer. An acquittal would have served no purpose and the case could never be brought to trial again. Keeping the case open preserved the option of bringing the matter to trial at a later date if further evidence became available. The accused was liberated on 28 November, after the situation had been explained to Lorna Andrew.

On 16 December 1995, Mhairi Julyan, a schoolgirl, was sexually assaulted and murdered in Kilmarnock.

Mr. Donohoe

The Minister has not referred to some of the evidence. We have had a meeting with the Lord Advocate. It was suggested that independent evidence was taken from the police surgeon and that a professor from one of the hospitals—I suppose it was the dental hospital—suggested that there was enough evidence to convict, and that there would have been corroboration from that evidence. The Minister has not referred to that. Is he about to? Has he received the same advice as us?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

Yes, I have received the same advice. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating what I am about to say. As a result of police investigations after this terrible murder, the police apprehended Gavin McGuire and charged him with murder. The position with regard to the earlier charges was reviewed in the course of the investigation of the murder. Nothing had changed with regard to sufficiency of evidence on these charges, except in so far as the subsequent crime might be of evidential value in relation to them and they might be of evidential value in relation to the murder case.

This arose from the doctrine of mutual corroboration, known as the Moorov doctrine after a leading case in the 1930s. This doctrine can be invoked where separate similar crimes are charged. Where an accused is tried on two or more charges alleging similar acts that are so connected in time, character and circumstances as to justify an inference that they are instances of a course of similar conduct systematically pursued by him, the evidence of a single witness in relation to one charge may be corroborated by the evidence of another single witness or from a single source in relation to another.

Crown counsel took the view that the evidence in the murder case might be capable of providing corroboration of Lorna Andrew's evidence in the earlier case. However, as matters stood, the medical evidence contradicted Lorna Andrew's evidence. Accordingly, further inquiries were instructed in relation to the injury to McGuire's finger and the regius professor of forensic medicine and science at Glasgow university, Peter Vanezis, and the professor of oral pathology, Donald MacDonald, were invited to consider a photograph and enlargements of the injury to McGuire's finger that had been taken on 20 August 1995, and to express an opinion on the origin and timing of the injury in relation to the date of the photograph. The casualty surgeon who had originally examined McGuire was re-interviewed.

The result of these inquiries was certainly to alter the nature of the available evidence about the injury to McGuire's finger and to suggest that it could have been a bite mark made in the correct time frame to be consistent with Lorna Andrew's evidence.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

Whether it strengthened the case to the point of providing corroboration of her evidence beyond reasonable doubt was another, more difficult, question. Professor Vanezis was of the opinion that the injury to the finger was entirely consistent with Lorna Andrew's story and was in the range of one to two weeks old. Professor MacDonald, who is a recognised international expert in the field of identification of suspects from teeth marks, could not state with any degree of probability that the injury was caused by a tooth, but said that it was consistent with Lorna Andrew's account in that her account could not be disproved or ruled out. Neither could wholly discount other causes of the injury.

The casualty surgeon, who remained the only medically qualified person to have seen the actual injury, was shown the photograph of the injury and now expressed the view that it was an old, rather than a fresh, injury. The medical and expert evidence taken together certainly now raised the possibility that the injury had been caused by a tooth, but it did not raise any clear degree of probability that the injury had been thus caused and there was no question of matching the injury to a specific tooth, as has been achieved in other cases involving forensic odontology.

The hon. Members have asked why these further inquiries were not carried out at an earlier stage and before McGuire was liberated on 28 November. The medical evidence available at the time unequivocally ruled out the timing of the injury as being consistent with Lorna Andrew's account. Only one doctor—a casualty surgeon—saw the actual wound. I am advised that it is very difficult to obtain expert opinion evidence from a photograph of a single small wound. Once the doctor had been re-interviewed and had stated that the wound was definitely no more than 72 hours old, there did not appear to be any benefit in bringing in experts who would not, of course, be able to see the actual injury.

The effect of the medical and expert evidence now available was to remove the contradiction of Lorna Andrew's evidence of identification of McGuire. It was now possible to put forward her evidence under reliance on the doctrine of mutual corroboration, relying on the tragic source of evidence from the murder case. It was on that basis that Crown counsel instructed that the charges relating to the assault on Lorna Andrew be included in the indictment for the murder of Mhairi Julyan.

Prior to the trial, the defence applied to separate the charges on the ground that it would be prejudicial to McGuire to be tried at the same time on both the murder and earlier charges. Although this application was opposed by the Crown and it was explained to the trial Judge, Lord Clyde, that the Crown intended to rely on the doctrine of mutual corroboration in proving the earlier charges, Lord Clyde exercised his discretion to grant the application for separation of charges.

Mr. Wilson

The Minister will understand that we want to study closely what he has just said, particularly why the second and third opinions from the most expert people in the field were not sought before McGuire was released. Given the enormous circumstantial evidence that existed that McGuire had committed the assault, what degree of observation was he under after he was released?

According to the Minister, McGuire was released only because the assault could not be proven conclusively to the point that it could be taken to court. However, a strong element of suspicion—to say the least—persisted. Were there any orders that McGuire should be kept under observation because it was possible that charges could be brought against him in relation to the assault if evidence could be put together?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

The hon. Gentleman asks a specific question. I will make inquiries and write to him. Obviously, it may be perceived that an individual is a threat to certain individuals in the community, so in certain circumstances the police have observation techniques in place. If he studies what I have already said, it explains why further expert evidence was not called. Incidentally, it is not always easy to get more than one expert casualty surgeon to examine someone after a crime. It is not always easy to lay on several experts at the same time.

Mr. Donohoe

Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

May I develop the narrative a little more? The hon. Gentleman can come back later if he wants.

As has been mentioned, the trial proceeded on the murder charge and McGuire was ultimately convicted on 30 May and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation that he serve a minimum of 30 years. Lord Clyde continued the case until the next day and said to the Advocate Depute that he wished to hear from him as to the Crown's intentions in respect of the earlier charges.

McGuire's conviction and sentence were clearly especially significant in the Crown's consideration as to the next step in the matter. The earlier charges now stood alone. The position as it existed before McGuire's release again applied, with the sole difference that further opinion evidence had been obtained in respect of the injury to McGuire's finger. That evidence did not provide the necessary corroboration and one can speculate only as to the effect of the contradictions in the evidence if it were placed before a court.

On any view, it would clearly have been inappropriate to proceed immediately to trial in respect of the earlier charges, because it would have been impossible to secure a fair trial at that time in the light of the massive publicity surrounding the proceedings in the murder case and the revelation of all McGuire's previous convictions. Lord Clyde refused the motion and deserted the case simpliciter—that means altogether. The effect was to bring proceedings to an end.

All the Crown wanted on 31 May was time to consider further the question of proceedings in relation to the attack on Lorna Andrew because the charges were serious and deserved further consideration. There was no question of the Crown attempting to gag the media. The Crown put all the charges on the indictment. It was only because two of them were "separated" that the judge made an order, at the defence's request, delaying publication of reporting in relation to the earlier charges.

The Crown never sought an order prohibiting any reporting that there were outstanding charges, except in the context of reports of what was said in court. It was the judge who decided to make an order prohibiting any reporting that suggested that there were outstanding charges.

On behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, I have given the fullest explanation that can properly be given of the decisions that have been taken. This has been a distressing matter and, as I have said, the working group will examine the case as part of its work of promoting good practice. I repeat to the hon. Gentlemen that the Secretary of State's approach in his letter to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North contains significant proposed changes to the law, which, if implemented, would give a significant degree of extra protection not only to women, but to the community in general, which should be generally supported.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Nine o'clock.