HL Deb 17 June 1976 vol 371 cc1374-6

3.9 p.m.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the recommendation of the Devlin Committee that a judge should direct a jury to acquit an accused where the prosecution rests mainly on identification evidence, they will review the case of James Hanratty who was sentenced to death and hanged for the A.6 murder.

The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)

My Lords, all the important issues raised in this case were thoroughly examined by Mr. Lewis Hawser, Q.C., in a report published last year. Mr. Hawser concluded that the case against Mr. Hanratty remained overwhelming and that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the jury's verdict. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary said that he accepted this independent assessment and that, so far as he was concerned, that must be an end of the matter. There is nothing in the Devlin Report to lead my right honourable friend to a different view.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, is the Minister aware that this was a constituency case when I was in another place and that I investigated it very carefully? Is he aware that I am absolutely convinced of the innocence of James Hanratty? Was not the report of Lewis Hawser published a year before the Devlin Committee's recommendation was made? Further, did not that recommendation say that a judge should direct an acquittal when the prosecution case rests mainly on identification, unless there is substantial evidence of another sort? In the Hanratty case, did not the judge direct the jury that the evidence of Miss Storey was the linch-pin of the prosecution case? In those circumstances, would not Hanratty have been acquitted had the Devlin recommendation been in force?

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I note the view of my noble friend on the question of Mr. Hanratty's innocence, as he has described it. I also know of the keen interest he has taken in the case. But all I can say is that a distinguished member of the Bar was asked by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to conduct an inquiry into this matter, and reached a contrary conclusion. In our view, there is no reason to suppose that Hanratty would not have been convicted even if the Devlin recommendations had been in force at the time of the trial. It is important to bear in mind that the evidence against Mr. Hanratty was by no means confined to visual identification.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, is it not the case that in the Hawser Report such doubt is thrown upon identification of Hanratty that it strengthens the opinion of Lord Devlin that a man should not he sentenced in those circumstances?

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I think the fairest thing I can do is to quote the last paragraph of Mr. Hawser's Report, paragraph 389, which reads in these terms: My conclusion is that at the end of the day the case against Mr. Hanratty remains over whelming and that the additional material, set into the framework of the case as a whole, does not cast any real doubt upon the jury's verdict.