THE CASE OF JAMES HANRATTY

HL Deb 04 August 1966 vol 276 cc1542-73

7.40 p.m.

LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL rose to call attention to the case of James Hanratty, who was convicted in 1962 of the murder of Michael Gregsten at Deadman's Hill on the A6, and duly executed; to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will set up an independent commission to inquire into the confession of the said murder made by Peter Louis Alphon, and to consider any further information which may have become available since the conviction of James Hanratty, and to report whether, in their opinion, there are any grounds for thinking that there has been any miscarriage of justice in the conviction of James Hanratty for that murder; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to make it clear from the outset, and put the matter beyond any doubt, that I am not asking your Lordships to retry the A6 murder case. I hope this may save some of your Lordships getting up to tell me, as I have often heard before, that once a case has been tried in a criminal court, and an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal has been turned down, then (unless, of course, there is some reason to go to the House of Lords on a matter of law) there is nothing further that can be done. Whilst I do not necessarily accept that, because I think it is an over-simplification, I do not propose to enter into the argument to-day, because it has no relevance whatsoever to my Motion.

Another thing I hope is that on this occasion no one will accuse me of impropriety for bringing this Motion before your Lordships' House simply because a similar Motion was discussed in another place, almost exactly two years ago, on a Motion introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, then a Member of another place, before he came to join us here. In my submission, there are ample reasons for bringing the matter up before your Lordships' House and for asking that a commission he appointed—and those reasons I propose to give to your Lordships in due course.

Some of your Lordships may have observed that my original Motion was slightly different in wording from that which appears to-day. It referred to the confession by "another person", whereas now, your Lordships may have noticed, it refers to "the confession…by Peter Louis Alphon". Perhaps I should explain the reason for the change. I discussed this matter with the noble Lord who is going to reply and, after we had talked about it, I came to the conclusion that there was no point in not mentioning the name in the Motion, for this reason. During the debate in another place, he was referred to throughout as "Mr. X", but on the following morning, in one of the London newspapers, the Daily Sketch, right across the front page, there was the heading: I'm Mr. X says Alphon". His identity is now common knowledge, and there seems to me, therefore, to be no valid reason for keeping up a mystery which no longer exists.

Now in that report, which was the report of an interview which he had with two of the Daily Sketch journalists, he said that he was Alphon, and he said: I don't deny it—I am Mr. X. That must be obvious to everybody. But I did not make a confession. If one exists, it is a forgery. I did make some notes on the Hanratty case but they were stolen. I shall be dealing later with that statement. These could, I suppose, be considered—in some perverted way—a confession. After all I went to the police and satisfied them"— that did not mean that he went to the police afterwards, but that he had gone to the police, because, your Lordships may remember, he was the first suspect in this case— and I am still suing them for wrongful arrest". He also said this: A few hours ago I did not know whether there was to be an inquiry or not, but I was not worried. I just wish to heavens that an inquiry could be held". My Lords, I am quite certain that an inquiry can be held now, should the Home Secretary decide that it is in the interests of justice and, indeed, in the interests of Mr. Alphon himself that such a course is desirable; and the object of my Motion on the Order Paper is to try to put forward a number of reasons why I think this should be done.

I have already made it quite clear that, although I myself am persuaded that Han-ratty was not properly convicted upon the evidence at the trial, I am not going to refer to that to-day. The only two references to the trial itself that I shall have to make will arise when I am dealing with certain things which were said in the debate in another place by the then Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, which enabled him to say that he thought it was impossible that Mr. X could have been the murderer…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 682, col. 831; 2/8/63.] I have, of course, given the noble Lord due notice that I am going to deal to-day with certain parts of his speech, and I am sure we are all very much looking forward to his maiden speech in your Lordships' House. If I might leave for a moment the austerity of your Lordships' House and go to the more congenial atmosphere of the race-course, I should like to say that, although this is his maiden race, I know perfectly well that he has been trained up to the minute, but I hope he will not mind my saying that I hope he is pipped at the post, even though it may be by a short head.

As I have said, I do not propose to go into that part of the case, but I also do not propose to read out to your Lordships in detail the confession that is said to have been made by this man. It was in the form of voluminous notes dealing with the full details of the long journey, which, as some of your Lordships may remember, began in a cornfield not far from Maidenhead, or near Taplow, at 9.30 in the evening, and ended up about 2.30 the next morning at a place called Deadman's Hill, seven miles south of Bedford, with the murdering of Gregsten and the raping and seriously wounding of the girl who was with him in the car, Miss Valerie Storie.

I do not think anyone has ever suggested that these notes were a forgery, and what was said by the Home Secretary in reply to Mr. Brockway (as he then was) was that there was nothing in the confession that Alphon could not have known by reading the reports of the Han-ratty trial in the national Press, and that it could not possibly have been a true confession because Alphon had a complete alibi and at the time of the murder was occupying a room at the Vienna Hotel—which is in Maida Vale, I think—and could not, therefore, have been on Deadman's Hill when Gregsten was killed.

Mr. Brockway pointed out that this alibi rested solely on the evidence of a man called Nudds, who was the manager of the Vienna Hotel, and who, when giving evidence at the trial, admitted he was a liar, to which Mr. Brooke replied—and when I say "to which Mr. Brooke replied", I mean replied to what Mr. Brockway had said, and not to what Mr. Nudds had said— The main thing about the evidence of Nudds is that he made three statements, and he gave evidence after. The jury accepted, and I have no reason whatever to doubt, that the first and third statements were true and that the second statement, which he admitted was a fabrication, was untrue. There is also the evidence from the hotel register, and so forth, very convincing evidence."(col. 829.) In regard to that statement I should like to say this. I do not myself know, I cannot understand, how it was that the Home Secretary could have known for certain that the jury accepted the third statement in preference to the second statement. Having regard to what Nudds said when cross-examined by Mr. Sherrard, who was the defence counsel in this case, I cannot conceive that any reasonable jury could have believed either the second or the third statement unless one of them was corroborated by reliable, independent evidence; and the Court of Criminal Appeal said that they did not consider the verdict unreasonable, having regard to the evidence.

I think it is much more likely that they convicted Hanratty for a number of other reasons, including Valerie Storie's evidence of identification—although she had, of course, as your Lordships know, identified some other person on a previous identification parade—possibly the evidence of a man called Langdale, who said that Hanratty had confessed to him in Brixton gaol, and the fact that Hanratty had very foolishly lied about his first alibi. But it is not correct to say that the hotel register, such as it was, cor- roborated the third statement; because, in fact, it corroborated, if it corroborated anything, the second statement.

I am afraid that in order to clarify this to your Lordships I shall have to deal with the evidence of Mr. Nudds fully. I hope your Lordships will pardon me if I do so. In fact, he made three statements. The first is of no consequence because it referred only to the fact that Hanratty himself had slept in Room No. 24 on August 21. That was the night before these events took place which led to the murder. There was no dispute about this. The only relevance that that first statement had was that it was in that same room, about seven days after the murder, that two cartridge cases were found which happened to be of the same calibre as the murder weapon.

Nudds's second statement alleged that Alphon had not spent the night of the 22nd in his room; and the statement was put to him by Mr. Sherrard in his cross-examination. Nudds said in cross-examination that he and his wife sat up, late that evening watching television. They were in the lounge, from where they could see or hear anyone entering or leaving the hotel. But at two o'clock in the morning they decided to go to bed. By that time, only one guest staying in the hotel had not returned. That was a Mr. Durrant. Durrant is the same person as Alphon; because Alphon, when he signed in and took room No. 24, gave the name of Durrant. Before he went out, because room No. 24 was a double room (exactly the same room in which Hanratty had stayed the night before) Durrant had asked for a single room. Before Nudds and his wife—her name was Mrs. Snell but she was living with him as his wife—went to bed, Nuddsleft a note on top of the pen tray at the reception desk, and left the light on over it so that it could be seen. This is what the note said: I have been able to change your room to a single, No. 6. Herewith the key to the door. Manager. Nudds went on to say that the following morning he and his wife got up at seven o'clock and went to the kitchen to prepare breakfast for the guests. At eight o'clock his wife went upstairs to the dining room to serve the breakfasts. Nudds remained in the kitchen until 9.50 a.m. when his wife came down and said that everybody had had breakfast except Durrant.

Nudds then continued, and I quote from the official transcript of the trial: I went upstairs, knocked at the door of No. 6 but got no reply so I opened the door with my pass key and looked inside the room. I saw Mr. Durrant standing by the bed pulling on his trousers. I asked him if he wanted any breakfast. He appeared to be agitated and said, 'No, I don't want any. 'I asked him what time did he return last night and he said, 'Eleven p.m.' I left the room and went back to my wife in the dining room and said, 'No. 6 does not want any breakfast. It looks as if he has been drinking last night. He told me he came in at eleven p.m.' What she said in reply to that is, I think, very significant; because she said this: He could not"— that means he could not have come in at eleven p.m.— or we should have seen him. He could not have got our note then and would not have been in No. 6 now. When this second statement was put to Nudds by Mr. Sherrard—and again I am quoting from the official transcript—this is what Nudds said: I cannot keep admitting I am a liar. I am a liar. I have lied right through, except for the last time here on oath. Nudds was then asked to explain why he had made this false statement, the second statement, and why he subsequently withdrew it. He gave this explanation: I am a man with a criminal record and since I left prison I have been going straight. As a matter of fact, he did not go straight for long, because eight months after this he was sent to prison for six years on a charge of fraud. He went on: In order to keep straight I have always wanted to help the police with information. When they came to the Vienna Hotel making inquiries about the murder I jumped to the conclusion that they wanted Durrant for the murder. After I and my wife had made our first statements, the police continued to question us and when we had said that Durrant had stayed that night in Room No. 6 this information did not fit in with their investigations. It was then that I decided that I could do myself a good turn by helping the police in an important job by giving them the information they appeared to want. He then made the second statement. However, later, after being further questioned by the police, he thought the matter over and told his wife that it would be necessary for them both to make an- other statement. He then withdrew the second statement and told his wife what he had said in the third statement, because, he said, he had to make sure that she knew it well before she went to the Yard to make her statement.

Your Lordships may think, after what I have told you, that what Mr. Sherrard said in his closing speech about Nudds's evidence was not far from the mark. Some of your Lordships, at any rate, will think it was not unjustified. He said: Mr. Swanwick suggested in his opening,"— Mr. Swanwick was the leading counsel for the prosecution— and I agree with him. 'Do not rely on Nudds unless there is documentary corroboration available'. He went on to say: The only documents available corroborated statement No. 2. Of that there can be no doubt. That, in my submission, should dispose once and for all of the complete alibi, beyond challenge, which the Home Secretary said made it impossible that Alphon could have been on Deadman's Hill at the time of the murder. I should have thought that that alone makes it imperative, in everybody's interests, that this should be inquired into. That I think is the real crux of the case.

I intend, with your Lordships' permission, to mention three other things that were stated by the Home Secretary as reasons for dismissing Alphon's confession as spurious. First, he stated that there was nothing in it which Alphon could not have learned from listening to the trial (which, in fact, he attended) or by reading the newspaper reports. It is perfectly true that a lot of it could have been obtained in this way. But there is one thing I am quite sure could not have been obtained in that way: that was the exact position of the cornfield, at a place called Marsh Lane, where all of this thing started at 9.30 by the murder of Gregsten with Valerie Storie in the car. The exact location of it was not mentioned at the trial; it was not mentioned in the Press.

One evening Alphon took two men, whose names I shall mention in a moment, along in a car and took them directly to this field. I have myself been to the field and I can assure your Lordships it is not a field to which you could take anybody directly unless you had already been there and knew it. If you go down the lane there are a number of fields; and they all look the same. But he took these men directly to this field and then described what happened. In the debate in another place the Home Secretary referred to these two men. One of them was a Mr. John Justice, whom he described as a business man, and the other a Mr. Fox, a member of the Bar. He also described the business man as a heavy drinker. I do not know exactly what was the object of that remark: but, anyway, I am pleased to tell your Lordships that that heavy drinker has for the past three years been a teetotaller. I do not know what is meant by the remark. In any event, no such allegation is made against Mr. Fox.

I may also mention that it was the voluminous notes which really formed the basis of the confession; although I will tell your Lordships later it was added to on subsequent occasions by remarks in telephone calls. The original voluminous notes were handed by Alphon to Mr. Justice in the presence of Mr. Fox on May 15 (that was about a little over a month after Hanratty's execution) in the Imperial Hotel in Russell Square. Of course, if there were to be an inquiry they would be two very important witnesses and the Commission of Inquiry would be able to see them and judge how reliable they are.

The second point which the Home Secretary mentioned referred to something in the confession of Alphon: that he was at the greyhound races at Slough on August 22 and that he left immediately after the 9 o'clock race—that was, about five minutes past nine in the evening in which a dog he was interested in called "Mentals Only Hope" was running—a strange name. He then, according to the Home Secretary, walked to Taplow and from there to the field. The Home Secretary said that this could not have been done in half-an-hour, and of course it could not have been done in half-an-hour on "Shanks's pony". I know the road; it is 6½miles from Slough to the field. But it certainly could have been done had he got a lift in a car, or even taken a bus. On the main road from Slough to Maidenhead, and about a mile before you get to Taplow, which is on the road to Maidenhead, is the Marsh Lane.

There is certainly ample evidence that Alphon frequently attended the greyhound races and certainly it also happens to be quite true that "Mentals Only Hope" did run in that race. It is also interesting to know that the Station Inn at Taplow, which is only about a mile, as I have said, from the corn field, is the place where Gregsten and Miss Valerie Storie frequently used to spend the evening before going out for one of their evening rides in cars, and that Mrs. Lanz, who is the wife of the landlord of the Old Station Inn at Taplow, whom I have myself interviewed, certainly remembers (and has told the police a long time ago that she does remember) that Alphon was at the Old Station Inn on the night of the 21st. She is not quite sure whether he was there on the night of the 22nd, but he frequently used to go there.

The third point, and this is the only other one I am going to mention, because I think the one dealing with the alibi is the most important—another point made by the Home Secretary was this—and again I quote from column 829 of Hansard for August 2: At the time of the murder Mr. X could not drive a car. He had never held anything more than a provisional driving licence, and that was a number of years before. He went on to say: It is quite inconceivable that Mr. X could have been the man who drove the car that night after the murder, from seven miles south of Bedford until the car was seen in Ilford some hours later."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Commons, Vol. 682, col. 829; 2/8/63.] My Lords, again I feel I must say that there is nothing whatever in this point. Indeed, if it does anything, it confirms the fact that it could not have been Hanratty who drove away in Gregsten's car after leaving Valerie Storie seriously wounded.

As the Home Secretary also stated, Hanratty was able to drive a car. He was, as many people are prepared to say, a competent driver. Gregsten's car, the one that was seen near Ilford the following morning round about 7 o'clock, was being very badly driven and that is why it was drawn to the attention of another witness at the trial, Mr. Skillett. He said at the trial that just as he was approaching some traffic lights, and slowing down because the lights were against him, the car came along on his left, swung across his bows, skidded, and very nearly hit another car in front. Mr. Skillett said then that he tried to overtake the car, and managed to do so, because he wanted to give the driver a piece of his mind. And he did give him a piece of his mind. He asked his passenger to turn down the window and he shouted out through the window, "Are you f—ing mad or something? You ought to get off the f—ing road. "Excuse the language, my Lords. I dare say that Mr. Skillett was very annoyed at the time, and that rather expressed his feelings. The driver of the other car, he said, stared for a second or so and just laughed, and as the traffic was going on he just pulled off.

There is one other thing with regard to that point which was made by the Home Secretary—

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)

My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, he is continually referring to the "Home Secretary". Am I right in thinking that up till now in the course of his speech he has been referring always to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor?

LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL

My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make that clear. I did say originally "Lord Brooke of Cumnor". I did not think that either the House or the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, would mind my calling him the Home Secretary, as he was at that time; and of course, I thought it was also quite clear to your Lordships that I was dealing with that time and that I am still dealing with that time. However, I am sorry.

The other point I wanted to mention about this same remark, which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who was at that time Mr. Brooke, and was then the Home Secretary in Her Majesty's Government and who said it in another place (I hope that now explains it quite fully) is this. It is hardly likely, even though Alphon was a bad driver, that if he had wanted to get away from the scene of the murder quickly it would really have worried him very much that he was not in possession of a driving licence. In his evidence Mr. Skillett said what I have just told your Lordships. He identified Hanratty as the driver of the car, but his passenger, Black all, who was, in fact, nearer the car than Mr. Skillett was, did not identify Hanratty at all. There are also, in respect of that, two independent witnesses who have seen Alphon drive a car, and they are both prepared to say that he is a very bad driver. So much for the other three reasons which I have just dealt with for dismissing the confession; three of the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for dismissing the confession as entirely without credibility.

My Lords, that is not the whole of the story. Other strange things have happened since the debate in another place in August, 1963, which, in my submission, reinforce the necessity for holding an inquiry. I expect that some of your Lordships may know that I wrote a book about this case which was published last October. I hope, as our proceedings are not yet being televised, that I shall not get into trouble and be told that I am trying to advertise the book. As soon as it was announced in the Press that I was writing the book I began to receive—and this went on for many months—a number of telephone calls, in which I was threatened, among other things. About a week before the publication of the book those calls ceased, and then the person who was calling began to telephone Mr. Fred Warburg, of the firm publishing the book.

The man who made these calls certainly fitted the description by Superintendent Acott (he was the police officer in charge of the case) of the murderer as being erratic and excitable; for he frequently threatened me, shouting "I will come and do you in", and at other times he spoke in a quiet voice. He told me on several occasions, "I got away with murder, didn't I? "Perhaps I ought to interpolate here (because your Lordships may wonder why I went on talking to him) that I was asked by the police to do this so that they could get through on another telephone and try to trace the calls. On another occasion, the same man asked, "Who do you think committed the murder?" I said that it was not for me to say, but I was sure that Hanratty had not. He replied, "There is no third party, don't you know—it is either him or me. At any rate Hanratty was expendable." He also said that the police would not take any action against him because he was protected by them.

I knew the identity of the caller. It was this man Aiphon, mentioned in the Motion, and I can produce evidence to prove his identity which I am sure would be accepted in any court. All these calls were reported to the police during those months, and they were reported by Scotland Yard to the present Home Secretary, Mr. Roy Jenkins, and to his immediate predecessor, to whom I gave notice that I was going to mention this to-day. But no action has been taken to prosecute the caller.

When I first asked that some action should be taken I received a letter endeavouring to discourage me from taking further action, though it was said that I could do it myself, and though it was admitted in the letter that there was satisfactory evidence of the identification of the caller. I was told that the police authorities did not think that it would be a good thing for them to prosecute because—and I quote: if we prosecuted it would have been open to a defence construction that you had enlisted police assistance primarily to gain publicity for your forthcoming book on the A6 murder. I know that some noble Lords have not a very good opinion of me, but I hope that no one of your Lordships will think that I would stoop quite so low as that. But that is one of the reasons I was given. I think that it causes one to think a little about this. The last reason I was given was: There continues to be great difficulty in tracing the man who makes these calls. He is believed to be in North London and inquiries are being made in this area. His exact whereabouts are unknown. What further action could he taken when he is traced would very much depend on what facts are established when the police find him. Mr. Warburg was also threatened and it was obvious from the conversation—we have compared notes—that the person was trying to stop him from publishing the book.

Before I finish, my Lords, I want to mention another case—there have been quite a number of them—in which a person, after the conviction of another man for murder, confessed to having committed it. This case, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will remember, was one in which Walter Graham Rowland was convicted in 1946 of murdering a woman called Olive Balchin by attacking her with a hammer and hitting her on the head a number of times. Shortly after he was convicted, a man called Ware confessed to the Governor of Walton Jail, Liverpool, that he had committed this murder. As a result art inquiry was held, presided over by a Mr. Jolly.

At the inquiry, Ware withdrew the confession, but a great deal of other evidence was given, and the court of inquiry reported that there was no reason to believe that Ware could possibly have committed the murder. But what happened a few years later is rather disturbing. Four years later, Ware was found guilty, but insane, of the attempted murder of a woman whom he had hit on the head with a hammer many times, though, fortunately for her, she recovered. Ware gave himself up to the Bristol police and then said: "I don't know what is the matter with me. I keep on having an urge to hit women on the head. "Who killed Olive Balchin? No one will ever know. Did Rowland or Ware murder her? No one will ever learn. A jury found Rowland guilty on the evidence which was given at his trial, but there will always remain a doubt about it, and it is inconceivable that to-day a reasonable jury would convict upon the evidence as it is now known.

For this reason I hope that your Lordships will perhaps agree that an inquiry should now be held to investigate the matter set out in my Motion. Whatever the result, it will be too late to save Hanratty from the gallows, but surely that is no reason for refusing an inquiry. I appreciate as well as anybody else in your Lordships' House the heavy responsibility which falls upon any Home Secretary placed in the position of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who had to decide whether he should set up an inquiry or, as in this case, refuse to do so. Now that the death penalty has been abolished, there is an equally heavy responsibility, though perhaps not such an agonising one.

I am not suggesting that the present Home Secretary should set up a commission of inquiry in order to evade this responsibility, but I do say, and say sincerely, that this matter is so complex and so important that a decision should not be made until the Home Secretary has had an opportunity of studying the report of a commission of inquiry whose members have heard all the evidence now available. The present Home Secretary has informed me that he still has an open mind on this question and that he will not come to a final decision until he has studied what has been said during this debate. I hope that what is said here to-night will cause him to decide that an inquiry should now be held. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

8.19 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I ask the indulgence of your Lordships on two counts. This is the first time I have ventured to address your Lordships' House, and though I have not been unaccustomed to speaking in another place I well realise that the standards of behaviour here are more exacting. Secondly, no one of his own free choice would wish to make a maiden speech on so tragic, so macabre, a subject as this. But as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has referred to several passages in a speech of mine three years ago in another place, I feel that your Lordships might think it somewhat strange if I sat silent throughout this debate and volunteered no contribution at all to the discussion. I might, indeed, be taken as assenting to everything the noble Lord has said.

Hanratty was executed in April, 1962. It was not until three months afterwards that I became Home Secretary, when I succeeded the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. It became my duty to make a close study of all the facts of this case, in view of the allegations that a terrible miscarriage of justice had taken place. Of course, I in my present position can claim no special knowledge of later events or any fresh information that may have come to light since the time that I left the Home Office. But I am bound to tell your Lordships that, although I started my study of all the information that was available at the time with a completely open mind, with no pre-judgment and no previous commitment to any point of view, I ended by being entirely convinced that the so-called confession was a spurious one.

To your Lordships, it may seem fantastic that anyone should voluntarily and untruthfully declare himself to be a murderer. But the records in the Home Office show that this is by no means uncommon. One can only speculate at the queer motives of a man who makes a false confession of murder. But some of the people involved in this particular story were, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said in another place, queer people—decidedly queer. This particular confession that we have been discussing was not, in fact, the only confession to the murder of Mr. Gregsten that was received. Two other confessions of the same murder actually reached the Home Office. But they were anonymous, and although the police made every effort to discover their authors, they were unsuccessful.

One particular test of the genuineness of a confession, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, realises, is to see whether it contains an account of anything that happened which proves to be true and which could not have been known to the author of the confession from any source except his own personal experience. Despite what the noble Lord has said this evening, the confession by this man to have murdered Mr. Gregsten, in my judgment, contained no new fact or piece of information of such a character that it could not have been picked up by attending the trial of Hanratty or reading the newspapers. This man attended the trial and he certainly read the newspapers. Incidentally, newspapers and Press cuttings, with references to the case marked in red ink, were found strewn about his room, along with the notes which were afterwards produced as the confession.

The noble Lord said that there was one thing which must have come from this man's own personal knowledge. This was that he led the other two people direct to the field where the meeting had taken place. But surely the noble Lord will agree that by the time of this incident the location was known to a great many people. And, indeed, it was said by one of his companions, at a much earlier stage, about that visit: "I cannot honestly remember who suggested we should stop where we did". It really seems a thin argument to suggest that the fact that the three of them did stop at a particular place proved that the person who is said to have made this confession had unique knowledge of the location which he could not have gained from anyone else.

It is quite true that at an early stage of the police investigations he had been suspected of the crimc. It is quite true, as the noble Lord said just now, that I said in another place that he had a complete alibi for the night of the murder. I still think that he had a complete alibi: and my reading of the proceeding sat the trial certainly suggested that it was accepted by the jury that he had an alibi. Certainly they convicted Hanratty. I think they convicted Hanratty rightly. While the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, made some reference to the proceedings in the Court of Criminal Appeal, he did not quote the statement by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice of England on that occasion, when he said: The Court is of opinion that this was a clear case. According to the man's subsequent confession, or pretended confession, he left Slough greyhound racing stadium at a time which can be established as five minutes past nine in the evening, because that was a time when a particular dog with an odd name had just run. He said that he walked out into the country—he did not say anything about taking a bus—and stopped at a pub. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, will agree, if he had done this walk, stopped at a public house at Taplow, and then walked on to the field where he came upon Miss Storie and Mr. Gregsten sitting in a car, that would have been a walk of some 7½ miles. It is clearly quite absurd to suppose that, if the statement in his confession—that he walked—is true, he could have done it within a period of 25 minutes, because it was established that it was at half-past nine in the evening that the murderer surprised the two of them in the car.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, also questioned the argument that I had based on this man's ability to drive a car. What we know is that the murderer forced Mr. Gregsten to drive the car from the neighbourhood of Taplow to the neighbourhood of Bedford. He then murdered him, and raped and grievously wounded Miss Storie. He then took the car and drove it right round North London to Ilford, where it was spotted. This is quite an extensive and complicated cross-country journey, undertaken at night. In my view, it is a fact that the man in question could not drive a car at that time; certainly his knowledge of driving could not conceivably have enabled him to drive all that distance through the night without running into anything or anybody until strange driving was detected in Ilford.

My Lords, my investigation ranged over a great deal more which I will not go through in detail. There appeared to me to be a number of other facts which cast grave doubts on the genuineness of this confession and helped to prove it spurious. It is known that the murderer had difficulty in pronouncing "th". He pronounced it as "f". It is quite true that in a telephone conversation some time afterwards, when this man was pretending to be the murderer, he pronounced "th" as "f". But long before that, while he was originally under investigation by the police, he was questioned by them for no less than five hours, and there was no indication at all at that time of his inability to pronounce "th". It is quite possible to pretend that you cannot pronounce "th" and to pronounce it as "f", if by that time you know that the actual murderer did have the habit of making that mispronunciation.

Again, not, I think, in the actual confession, but in one of the telephone conversations that are on record, this man claimed that he had known Miss Storie before the fatal night. There is not a shred of evidence that that is true. There is a good deal of evidence that it could not possibly have been true.

These, my Lords, are some of the facts which convinced me that the so-called confession was a spurious one, and that it could not possibly be held to establish the case that there had been a miscarriage of justice, as the noble Lord's Motion suggests. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the present Home Secretary have been through the documents and all the additional information which may now be available with as great care as I gave to what was available at that time.

I must stress that I have no current access to those papers. I can simply testify to your Lordships that, on all the information available to me as Home Secretary three years ago, I was entirely satisfied that there was nothing which pointed to a miscarriage of justice. If there is more recent information or research which now points to the need for a new inquiry—which would presumably have to be a public inquiry if it was to carry conviction—then so be it. It is always right that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. But I trust that your Lordships will convince yourselves that there really is substance in the arguments for re-opening the case, before pressing Her Majesty's Government to do so.

One may contend that a new inquiry by an independent commission could do some good, and could do no harm. I wonder. Miss Storie, who by a miracle escaped with her life after being raped and shot, would surely have to be one of the principal witnesses at a fresh inquiry. I have never met her, but I cannot help thinking that society, having failed to protect her from a most dreadful crime, owes it to her now that she should have every opportunity to forget that ghastly night and to put it utterly out of her mind, if that be possible. If there be any fresh information which appears to disclose a miscarriage of justice and the need for a fresh inquiry, she must once more face all the anguish and the publicity. I submit to your Lordships that there must be a really strong case made out before your Lordships should press for the murderer's living victim to be subjected to the torture of recollection yet again.

8.34 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, it may seem a little ironical that I should be called upon to acknowledge the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I do so with great sympathy. He has had to-night, I think, the almost unique task of delivering his maiden speech in response to a Motion which refers to his responsibility in another place. It must have been very difficult for him to address this House. He had a long and distinguished service in the London County Council, and he became a member of the Cabinet, and Secretary of State for Home Affairs in Government. From all that experience, however much we differ from his politics, this House would have welcomed his contributions to the broader aspects of our debates and, because of that, I feel for him that he should have been asked to make his maiden speech on an issue of this kind. I hope very much that he will not feel that these circumstances will prevent his speaking to this House on broader subjects at a very early point.

I should like to express to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, my appreciation of the fact that he has raised this issue to-night. In an earlier debate, I once described him as the Ombudsman of the House of Lords; and I think the fact that he has challenged us on this issue this evening confirms that description. I have been interested in this case from the first, because it was closely associated with the constituency which I represented in another place. Both the victim of the murderer and Miss Valerie Storie, paralysed as a result of the shooting, worked in my constituency. Miss Storie still lives there. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that, because of my associations with those who were my constituents, I certainly should have no desire to bring thoughts of terrible incidents in the past to their living memory again.

But I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and to the Members of this House generally, that one cannot decide the issue as to whether there should be an inquiry into this case on those grounds only: that one must think also not only of the memory of the man who was executed but of those to whom his memory is dear, his parents, whose anguish must be just as deep as that of those who were the victims. Therefore I think we have to put aside, as we are looking at this issue, the moving appeal which the noble Lord made in concluding his speech, and, indeed, the emotional feelings of those who were close and were related to James Hanratty.

My concern to-night is not to indicate that anyone else was guilty of this murder. I should not want any words of mine in this debate to be interpreted in that sense. I am concerned only in speaking now because I think this House, Parliament as a whole, and the Secretary of State for the Home Office more particularly, have a terrible responsibility when a man has been executed for a crime and there are serious doubts as to whether that man was guilty. We have a responsibility to his memory and to ourselves as a society if there seems to be some doubt as to whether a right decision was reached.

As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is aware, as Member of Parliament for that constituency I investigated these issues in the greatest detail. I discussed them, as he is aware, with the superintendent responsible at Scotland Yard, and I was very ready indeed, because I had nothing to hide, that a verbatim report should be taken of my discussion with that superintendent and provided to the noble Lord. In addition to that discussion with the superintendent at Scotland Yard I bad discussions with officials at the Home Office, of which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is also aware. I am quite prepared to acknowledge to-night that he will, in the most conscientious way, have looked at all that evidence, but I am bound to say this: that when I re-read the speech which he made concluding the debate which I initiated in another place, I was surprised that a man of his experience, and after that kind of study, should have made such a weak case in rejecting our appeal for an inquiry of that type.

My noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool has with great detail met the only reasons which the noble Lord put forward in another place for rejecting an inquiry. I say all those reasons have fallen down. I will not even put it as strongly as that: I just say to this House that there is such an element of doubt about the reasons which the noble Lord put in another place for rejecting an inquiry that this House to-night has no right—no moral right—to resist the appeal which the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has made for an inquiry into this subject.

May I just remind the House of what happened when I first raised this issue in another place? Every speaker except the noble Lord urged that an inquiry should take place: two speakers from the Conservative side of the House, one of them who afterwards became a member of a Conservative Government; another, one of the most respected Members of the House of Commons. On the Labour side of the House, from the Front Bench of the Labour Party, committing the Labour Party to an inquiry, a speech again by a member who is now a distinguished member of our Government; another speech from another member of the Government who is now in the legal department of the Government, who endorsed the case for an inquiry. Every speech in that debate except the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, supported the case for an inquiry because of the doubts about the decision reached.

I want to put it to my noble friend Lord Stonham, representing the Home Office, that even if there may seem to be some balance of evidence on the basis that this judgment was correct, the element of doubt about it is so great that if our society is to be proved as a just and tolerant society an inquiry should take place. The present Home Secretary was asked publicly if he would hold an inquiry into this case. He replied, publicly, that he would consider it. I have had from him a similar letter to the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has referred, saying that he would reach his decision after the debate in this House. Therefore the responsibility of this House cannot be over-emphasised. It is upon what we say that the Home Secretary will reach a decision. I do not think 1 have even known a moment when I have wanted to speak more persuasively. I just say to my noble friend Lord Stonham that if we are to take pride in our society it must be because we take infinite care that justice is done to any individual. That is the test of a liberal and civilised society. If there is any reasonable doubt that James Hanratty was executed when he did not commit this murder, then the duty of holding an inquiry cannot be shirked.

We have now suspended capital punishment. May I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, if I may, how tremendously I appreciated the speech which he made on this subject, which showed that he had a mind which could change according to evidence. I am only going to ask him this to-night. I believe he has conscientiously looked at this case; I do not believe he can conscientiously say that there is still no reason for doubt. And if there is reasonable grounds for doubt, I put it to our Home Secretary, through my noble friend, Lord Stonham, that he cannot shirk it. I do not think he would want to shirk it, because I appreciate his liberal attitude. I am going to appeal to him, for the reputation of our country in believing in personal rights, and for justice, to ask that the Government will institute the inquiry for which the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has appealed.

8.50 p.m.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I wish to say only a few sentences. My reason is the speech to which we have just listened, which suggests that the present Home Secretary may come to his conclusion by looking at what was said in this debate. It might therefore be rather misleading to the Home Secretary, if a word were not said on other matters to which I think he should pay attention. Of course, not having studied this matter at all or read what happened in another place, and not even having had the advantage of hearing the whole of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, I do not wish to say anything whatsoever about the merits. All I wish to say is this: that I think one very important matter the Home Secretary must consider—I am sure he will—is that there was a trial before a judge and jury, who came to a conclusion that the accused man was guilty, and that the matter went to the Court of Criminal Appeal, who thought it a perfectly clear case.

Those being the facts, there may be, by a miracle, a case for looking further and having another inquiry; but the burden of proving that must fall on those who allege there is such a case. I hope that the Home Secretary while, of course, if he reads our debate, he will pay most careful attention to what the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Brockway, said, will also consider the plea that I am now making and the most impressive speech of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I regret that the case has come on at such a late hour, because for many hours the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, was present in this House to-day, but he could not stay for this late debate. I do not know what he would have said, but I am sure that he would have been present to give us the benefit of his advice, had the debate come on earlier. That is all I wish to say.

8.55 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity to add to the gracious words of my noble friend Lord Brockway, my own mead of thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, on his maiden speech in your Lordships' House, and I hope he will not regard it as inappropriate that the first speech from the Front Bench on the Government side should come from a Home Office Minister, however junior I may be. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has an experience in government which I imagine is scarcely surpassed in this House, because he had almost a lifetime of experience in local government before achieving eminence at Westminster. I recall that he was the Chief Secretary of the Treasury before becoming Home Secretary. I am sure that we all look forward to many contributions from him, arising from his great and varied experience over the whole gamut of political life.

I am also sure we shall agree on one thing about this debate, and that is that there was not the slightest vestige of impropriety in the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, should raise this case. I am sure it will never be the case in your Lordships' House that we shall be unwilling to listen most carefully to a case on behalf of any individual, alive or dead.

This is an exceptionally complex case, and although I have studied it carefully I would not claim to have in my memory all the many facets to which the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has referred this evening, although I must confess that most of them are very familiar. This dreadful case, and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, illustrate the weight of the burden borne by Home Secretaries in the days of capital punishment. Whatever our views, many noble Lords will share with me a profound sense of relief that one man, the Home Secretary, no longer has to decide these matters of life and death.

The noble Lord's Motion, if I may say so with respect, as distinct from his speech, rightly concentrates on the new material which he says has come to light since Hanratty's conviction. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said, confessions by people other than the accused are by no means unusual particularly in murder cases—indeed, there was more than one in this particular case. And every such confession, I would assure your Lordships, is very carefully examined to see whether there is any substance in it; and that was certainly done in this case. But as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, recognises, the case for reconsidering this conviction, for reopening it, must turn on the strength and validity of such new material as he has adduced, and our evaluation of it must be against the framework of the evidence at the trial on which Hanratty was convicted.

I should like first to give a very brief summary of the case as it stood at the trial. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said, Mr. Gregsten, the murdered man, and Miss Storie had stopped their car just off the road in a field near Taplow on the evening of August 22, 1961. A man held them up, took some money, made them drive to the A.6, near St. Albans, where he shot and killed Mr. Gregsten, and raped and shot Miss Storie. He left Miss Storie and drove the car to Ilford, where it was abandoned.

In proving that Hanratty was this man, the prosecution relied on his identification by Miss Storie and on the identification of two men who saw the car between St. Albans and Ilford; on Miss Storie's account of the murderer's appearance and statements; on evidence connecting Han-ratty with the places where the gun used in the murder, and its cartridges, were found; and on a report by a prisoner that Hanratty, in prison on remand, had told him, in detailed and callous terms, that he had committed the crime. The defence attacked much of this evidence and produced an alibi (which was different from the alibi Hanratty originally gave the police). The trial lasted 21 days, and the jury found Hanratty guilty after a retirement of over 10 hours. The conviction was upheld in the Court of Criminal Appeal, where the Lord Chief Justice said that the Court was of opinion that it was "a clear case".

That is an abbreviated summary, but it will serve to indicate the background. I know that many share the view expressed by the noble Lord in his speech, and in his book, that the jury should not have convicted on the evidence before them. He has mentioned many points in that evidence, and it would be wrong for me to go over all, or indeed many, of them. That is not the purpose of this discussion to-night. But I should not like your Lordships to think that Lord Russell of Liverpool's review of some of the incidents in the case is accepted. For example, the noble Lord dealt in some detail with the alleged journey of Mr. Alphon from the Slough greyhound track. He said, quite properly, that if Mr. Alphon had gone by bus he might have done so in 25 minutes. But what the noble Lord did not say was that in this alleged statement Alphon him-himself said that he walked.

Then again, the noble Lord had a good deal to say about the three statements of Mr. Nudds, who of course had a criminal record and is now in prison. But he said that the first and third statements of Nudds were not supported by evidence. In fact, the hotel register shows that Alphon booked into room 6, and not room 24 where Hanratty slept and where the cartridges had been found. However much of a liar Nudds may have been, there is no suggestion that he knew of the murder that night, and therefore for some reason could have falsified the record in advance.

But, my Lords, we are not here tonight to reopen this case and have a retrial. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, devoted the major part of his speech to a review of the evidence, all of which was before the jury, and all of which was considered. I hope that your Lordships will recognise that we really are not concerned with that now. As the noble Lord, Lord Cones ford, so rightly pointed out, our judicial system provides a full and careful procedure for testing criminal accusations, and it would be quite wrong for the Home Secretary, or Parliament, to seek to substitute their view for the verdict of a jury on the same facts.

I must make it crystal clear that before any Home Secretary (and no fewer than four different Home Secretaries have had some connection or other with this case) could consider reopening a case, by holding the inquiry for which the noble Lord has asked, or by any other action, he must have before him new material which was not before the jury and which would justify reopening the case. I listened with the utmost sympathy to the moving speech of my noble friend Lord Brockway, and I listened most carefully for something new, something that I had not read before, because these are terrible cases and one cannot neglect any point that might lead to a different conclusion.

But if we are going to be justified in reopening the case, it must not be just any new material—for new material of some marginal relevance to a case is relatively easy to come by. It must be new material of substance and of real significance. There would be two quite real dangers in applying too lax a test of the strength of the new evidence. First, it is important to maintain the principle of finality in criminal proceedings, and not to allow convictions upheld on appeal to be freely challenged without adequate justification. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, mentioned, we must remember that an inquiry such as the noble Lord wants would almost certainly involve a re-hearing of the evidence at trial, and I am sure we should all hesitate a long time before subjecting Miss Storie to giving evidence again of the tragic and frightening events of the night of the murder. In any event, so far as I can see there would be no power to compel witnesses to attend or take evidence on oath. Let me make one thing clear, however: that if new material warrants it, some cases must be reopened; and I now turn to examine such new material as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool has produced.

At this point I must confess to being in some difficulty. The Home Secretary and I have studied most carefully all the material in the Home Office. I would say that in this case the material is of such magnitude that it would be impossible to bring all the files over here to-night, though I assure your Lordships that the resources of the Home Office are such that arrangements have been made to refer to the files, should any point requiring this have been made. But it was apparent to us from the terms of the noble Lord's Motion, that he had particularly in mind the confession by Mr. Alphon to which he has referred; and of course we have read Lord Russell of Liverpool's book about the trial itself. But we did not know in detail what information he would adduce this evening, or what arguments he would use to demonstrate the significance of this material, which really boils down to repeated telephone conversations in which Alphon, to use the words of the noble Lord, said that he had "got away with murder".

I would express our deep regret that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and others, should have been annoyed by these most objectionable and, indeed, frightening and worrying telephone calls. But I take exception to the statement or complaint by the noble Lord that no action has been taken to prosecute the callers and that the excuse was made that there has been great difficulty in tracing the men, or the man, making the calls. That is not an excuse. It is an extremely difficult matter, and the police have tried very hard. But I would assure the noble Lord that I have seen all the correspondence which he has had with the Home Secretary, and the Commissioner has assured me that continuous, renewed and vigorous efforts are being made to trace the man who is making these calls. What action is then taken, if we trace him, must depend on what facts are established when we do find him. I would make the point that at this stage at least we do not accept categorically even that the man making the calls is Alphon. Certainly it seems likely, but it is a fact which would have to be conclusively established.

LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL

My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, that is one of the reasons why there should be an inquiry, so that these things can be found out, as they cannot at the moment.

LORD STONHAM

I should have thought that before we could establish that this man has been in fact making the calls, we should have to find him and question him. One would hope that we could do that without an inquiry of the kind required by the noble Lord—not that that is an argument against holding the inquiry he wants.

I hope the noble Lord will understand that I cannot give a final reply to his request for an inquiry to-night. I will give the position as we see it, and my right honourable friend will study the debate most carefully before he reaches a final decision. As the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Brockway said, my right honourable friend has not reached a conclusion, and it would clearly have been discourteous to your Lordships' House to have done so before the debate.

Let me deal briefly with the alleged confession of Mr. Alphon. It takes a number of different forms. There are notes on hotel paper—unsigned, but apparently in Mr. Alphon's handwriting—which describe how the writer committed the murder, and his thoughts at the time. There is the noble Lord's statement that Mr. Alphon has confessed to him on the telephone; and there are tape-recordings taken by some friends of Mr. Alphon (to whom I shall refer again) in which a man who appears to he Mr. Alphon hints that he is the murderer. A confession by another man is not necessarily sufficient justification in itself for reopening a case. If it were, a great many cases would be reopened every year. In extensively reported murder cases it is relatively easy for anybody to become sufficiently familiar with the facts of a case to give the appearance of personal knowledge. Each confession has to be examined carefully for real evidence of genuineness. There are a number of difficulties about accepting Mr. Alphon's confession as genuine, quite apart from the fact that it did not take the form of a signed statement.

Comparison has been made, in considering this case and the possibility of an inquiry, between the Hanratty case and the Evans case, but the demand for an inquiry into the Evans case derived almost entirely from the subsequent discovery that Christie, an occupant of the same building, had himself been a multiple murderer over a period spanning the time of the Evans murders, and had confessed to the murder of Mrs. Evans. It was contended that the jury would not have convicted Evans of the murder of his child if they had been aware of this. Mr. Alphon was not called as a witness at the trial of Hanratty, but he featured prominently in it, and defence counsel suggested that he, and not Hanratty, might well have committed the murder. But the jury convicted Hanratty in the full knowledge of this possibility, and after ascertaining that they must be certain of Hanratty's guilt before returning a verdict of guilty.

My noble friend I ord Brockway said that if there is any reasonable doubt that James Hanratty committed this murder there should be an inquiry. So far as the jury were concerned, if there was any reasonable doubt in their minds that he had committed the murder, he should not have been convicted. That is the major difficulty with which the Home Secretary is confronted at present. The only change in the situation from the trial is that Alphon has made some further attempts to implicate himself. But the demand which is now being made is, in effect, that the verdict of the jury in 1962 should be regarded as perverse, and that the defence should have a second opportunity to prove their case.

My noble friend Lord Brockway—and I have every sympathy with him—said that he was not concerned to suggest that anyone else was guilty of that murder. But the Motion before us really does not take that stand. We must bear in mind that Mr. Alphon's involvement in this case was to a large extent an issue at the trial. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has reminded us, Mr. Alphon was at one time regarded by the police as a suspect, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has mentioned that he was interrogated for five hours continuously when he was a suspect. Indeed, the defence argued strongly at the trial that the police did not press their inquiries sufficiently.

Secondly, Mr. Alphon's guilt would be inconsistent at a number of points with firm evidence by Miss Storie, and others, about the characteristics and behaviour of the murderer. At the trial Superintendent Acott gave twelve points of difference, and, while I would not regard them of equal weight, I would mention a point which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, about diction and the use of the dipthong "th". Miss Storie's evidence, is that the murderer's Cockney accent impressed itself on her. Indeed, Hanratty spoke with such an accent, and Mr. Alphon, I understand, does not.

LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I have no wish to go into any of these matters in detail, to reopen the trial and so on, but I do not know how it is that the noble Lord says that Mr. Alphon does not speak with a Cockney accent.

LORD STONHAM

I have not met the gentleman myself, but I am advised that he does not. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, is aware, the police and others have had many conversations with him.

Lastly, I would refer to Mr. Alphon's alibi for the night of the murder. I recognise that this, as has been said, depends partly on the evidence of the hotel manager, Mr. Nudds, who has a criminal record, and who made one statement to the police, which was later withdrawn, in which he implicated Mr. Alphon. The only point I want to make is that this, too, was before the jury, and it is difficult to see how they could have convicted Hanratty if they had not accepted the manager's withdrawal of this statement; and, as I have already mentioned, the prosecution produced the hotel register and the receipt book.

The whole crux of the matter which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has to decide and which is really before the House is whether there is anything new in the noble Lord's arguments which have been adduced tonight which was not before the jury at the trial. These statements were not the first evidence the police had in support of Mr. Alphon's alibi. He was seen by them, first on August 27, four days after the murder, when he said that he was with his mother on the evening of the 22nd, the fatal evening, and then went to the hotel. This was verified with the hotel at the time and with his mother.

Finally, the unsigned confession gives times for Mr. Alphon's movements on the evening of the 22nd, which it seems cannot be reconciled with Miss Storie's evidence that the murderer first surprised her and Mr. Gregsten at 9.30 p.m. Apart from the confessions, the other new material has little value, and I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, would himself claim, if it stood by itself, that it could be regarded as significant. It consists largely of uncorroborated assertions by the two associates of Mr. Alphon whom I mentioned earlier.

I have to come back, therefore, to the test which I posed at the beginning: is there new material of substance and real significance which was not before the jury, or is the real position that any inquiry would in substance be no more than a re-trial of the evidence before the jury? The noble Lord opened his speech by assuring us that he was not asking for a re-trial, but would not the inquiry for which he asks really amount to a trial of Alphon while pretending that it was doing something else? Certainly it cannot be said that there is a clear case for such an inquiry, and I have already mentioned the compelling objections to holding one without sufficient justification—of which the one that must weigh most heavily with all of us is the very real hardship and distress that could be caused to those who would again be caught up in the toils of this terrible murder.

However, my Lords, if on studying this case again there should appear solid reason for thinking that there has been a miscarriage of justice, then no effort must be spared to get at the truth. I can assure your Lordships that in this spirit my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will now anxiously study this debate, and in particular the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and will, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, come to a decision.

9.19 p.m.

LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL

My Lords, I should like to follow other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, on his maiden speech. I am sure we look forward to hearing from him on many other occasions. I should also like to assure him that I do not think anyone has suggested—and I certainly do not suggest—that when he considered this case he did not do it with complete thoroughness and did not come to a conclusion which he thought was consistent with his conscience.

Not only is the hour late, but it would be quite absurd to go further into all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I am perfectly prepared to leave it as he said: if there is anything new—and I have tried to show your Lordships that there are certain considerations which are undoubtedly new—there will be a commission of inquiry. I am perfectly prepared to leave it (of course, I have no alternative) to the Home Secretary to consider the matter very carefully, and I sincerely hope that when he has done so he may find that this is a case where there should be an inquiry. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.