Annie Maguire

HL Deb 17 May 1985 vol 463 cc1384-408

2.11 p.m.

Lord Fitt rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reopen the case of Annie Maguire and her family who were convicted and sentenced in 1976.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is nearly 10 years since I first became involved in what is known in Northern Ireland as the Maguire and Conlon case. It has not been an easy 10 years for all those people, both in Ireland and in England, who are totally convinced of the innocence of all those involved. It has been frustrating. I have been a member of deputations to a succession of Home Secretaries and we have been met with the usual Civil Service jargon from those civil servants who accompany the Minister. Whatever they may themselves think and whatever I may think, they tell us that there must be some new evidence before the Home Secretary would be permitted to review the case. Therefore, after 10 years of being concerned with this particular case I should be very happy to see all the Benches in your Lordships' House packed, because I believe that if the majority of Members of this House were to hear some of the salient facts of all the circumstances in this case, they, like myself and others, would make representations to the Home Secretary for a review of this case.

I am quite certain that if your Lordships are aware of the circumstances of this case, what stands out in your minds is the newspaper reports of "Auntie Annie's bomb factory"—that Auntie Annie was allowing bombs to be made in her house. When I first became involved in this case, when I read those headlines in the popular press in 1975, I, too, was filled with loathing and contempt for the person known as Auntie Annie, because I was inclined to believe that such a person existed, as that was the way it was reported in the newspapers.

Since then over many years, and particularly over this past number of months, I have got to know Auntie Annie. I do not talk to terrorists. I have stood up against terrorism all my life. I do not make any apologies for any terrorist act, no matter on what grounds it is carried out. I stood up in this House when I was a new Member and agreed with criticisms that were made when a Member of another place brought someone who had been convicted of a terrorist offence into the House of Commons. It was a regrettable and dangerous thing to do.

I do not associate with terrorists. But I am proud to stand here today and to tell your Lordships' House that I have Annie Maguire, her husband, and her young son in the Gallery of this House, and I make absolutely no apologies for having her sitting there to hear me put forward a case to which there can be absolutely no answer.

My Lords, 1974 was a bad year in the United Kingdom. It was a year in which the IRA brought their campaign to these shores. In the latter months of that year in Guildford, on 5th October, a bomb went off in the Horse and Groom. It killed five people, and 52 were injured. On the Saturday in the same town another lot of bombs went off and 10 people were injured. In Woolwich on 7th November the King's Arms was blown up, and two people were killed and 22 injured. In 1974 there was the awful coach blast on the M.62 in which 12 people were killed, and probably worst of all was the Birmingham bomb on 21st November 1974 when 21 people were killed and 182 injured.

I can well understand the mood which swept across everyone in these islands. I felt it myself, and I lived in Ireland. I felt the terror that must have been eating into the hearts of the British people when such an indiscriminate campaign of murder was brought to these shores. I can understand what the mood of the police, the judiciary, and everyone else was in their attempt to get convictions.

The IRA would put forward the plea that in such a situation where there was a mood almost approaching hysteria the police would go out and indiscriminately arrest whatever Irish family happened to be convenient. I have never accepted that. I do not believe that it would be in the interests of the police to arrest the first Irish family which came to their hands, because by doing so they would be letting the guilty people run free and they would be able to perpetrate further crimes.

I believe that the police who were involved in this case honestly believed that they were dealing with people who had been engaged in preparing substances which could be used to cause explosions. I believe that the judge was right in his own belief that these people were guilty. I believe that Sir Michael Havers, who was later to become a target of the same IRA, was totally convinced of the guilt of Annie Maguire and her relatives. What I am saying to them all today is that they were all so terribly wrong.

Let me in a few moments paint a picture of the person with whom they were dealing. Annie Maguire married Paddy Maguire in 1957 in Belfast. Paddy Maguire was an ex-soldier. He had served three years in the Inniskilling Fusiliers. On the day that they were married, recognising that the economic future of Northern Ireland was as bad then as it is today, they got on to the Heysham boat that night and came to settle down here in London. That in itself would indicate that they were not anti-British.

From 1957 until the present day that family have lived here; it is a London-Irish family now. Annie Maguire had four children: three boys and a little girl. Three of them were born in London. One of the little boys was born when Annie was home on a holiday in Belfast. Anyone who has seen a recent television documentary on this case will realise that they speak like Londoners. They regard themselves as English. They do not regard themselves as being in any way caught up in the present campaign of murder, or the present campaign of troubles and divisions which have existed between these two islands for so long.

But in 1974 the IRA by their actions brought about a set of circumstances in which a totally innocent family found themselves being convicted and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. They have all now completed those sentences. Annie Maguire was sentenced to 14 years; with remission she served 10 and was released last year. Had Annie Maguire been guilty she could have left Durham Prison and kept her head down. She could have gone back to Ireland if she had thought of doing so. Her husband, who was sentenced to 14 years, was also released. He could have gone back to Ireland and they could have kept quiet. But they know, and I know, of their total innocence and, quite rightly, as citizens of this country they are determined, no matter how long it may take, that at the end of the day British justice will be seen to have prevailed. I repeat there has been a dreadful mistake made in the conviction of these five people.

When I first became involved in this case I was coming from mass in Belfast on a Sunday in 1975. I was approached by one of my constituents, whom I knew to be as opposed to violence as I was. He told me that his wife's brother had come to London, that he had been arrested and was on remand. He told me the story of Guiseppe Conlon, another ex-serviceman, who within recent years had been suffering greatly from ill health. He arrived at his own home on 1st December 1974 and was told that his son, Gerard, had been arrested and brought to Springfield Road barracks. He immediately went to Springfield Road barracks. He was on friendly terms with the police in this RUC station. They told him that his son had been arrested on the instructions of Scotland Yard and that he had been taken to England suspected of having something to do with the bombing of the bar in Guildford. It would appear that someone called Paul Hill had been arrested and he had mentioned Gerard Conlon.

I do not blame the judge, the jury or the police. The first person to involve Annie Maguire in this terrible ordeal was her own husband's nephew, Gerard Conlon. A good deal of guilt for all the sad years that have elapsed since then must rest fairly and squarely on the shoulders of Gerard Conlon because in talking to the police he told them that his Auntie Annie made bombs in her home in Third Avenue, London. It was that statement which brought the police to the door of Annie Maguire.

Let me come back to Guiseppe Conlon. The godfather of Guiseppe Conlon was an Italian cafe-owner in Belfast and that is how he got the name Guiseppe. He went to the Springfield Road barracks. He was told that his son had been arrested and taken to England. He went to a solicitor and sought his advice. The solicitor advised him to go to London to see what he could do, to keep in telephonic communication with him and the solicitor would arrive over here the next day, which would have been 2nd December 1974. Guiseppe Conlon packed his case. He told his wife that he was coming to London, got off the boat at Liverpool and came to London. He was going to his sister-in-law Annie Maguire's house at Third Avenue as it was the only base that he knew in London.

He arrived there and went into the house. In that house was Annie Maguire, her husband, her brother, Sean Smith, who had been living with them and Annie Maguire's children—one of them was not at home—John, Patrick and the little girl. Sean Smith was not at home. He was still working but he arrived later that evening. Guiseppe Conlon had already sent a telegram, by the way, from Belfast to tell them that he was coming. They sat there and discussed the ease of Gerry Conlon and decided they would have to get a solicitor the next morning. In the course of that afternoon, a Mr. Pat O'Neill, who was a friend of the family, who had three children and whose wife was expecting the fourth, brought the three children down to Annie Maguire's house. He asked Annie Maguire if she would look after his three children while his wife had the fourth baby in hospital.

Annie Maguire, friendly as she was, certainly made no objection. Later on that evening the men decided—and this is understandable in any community—to go to a bar known as "The Royal Lancer" for a drink. They left and they went to "The Royal Lancer". Annie Maguire began to do her washing in her washing machine. In the course of doing the washing, she heard footsteps in the hall. She went to the hall and saw some strange men. They had dogs with them. She asked them what they were doing in her house. One of them invited her into her own sitting room and said, "You know why we're here". She answered, "I don't know why you're here". They said, "You are Annie Maguire". She said, "Yes". They said, "You are the aunt of Gerry Conlon". She said, "Yes".

At that time Annie Maguire was totally unaware of the damning statement that had been made by Gerry Conlon. She said, "Yes. In fact, his father has just arrived over here this afternoon because Gerry is in some sort of trouble". The police officer said: "Where is the father?" She replied, "They have just gone out. You couldn't have missed them. They've just gone down to 'The Royal Lancer' ". She got her own little son to take them down to "The Royal Lancer". The young son took the police down into "The Royal Lancer" public house and pointed them out saying, "There's my father and Sean Smith and the others". They were all immediately arrested and were taken to Harrow Road Police Station. Then the police went back to the house and arrested Annie Maguire and her two young sons. They were taken to Paddington and swabs were taken of their hands. Annie Maguire was totally amazed by this. It was totally bizarre, the whole situation. She did not understand what was happening because at that time she was totally unaware of the damning statement that had been made.

She was kept in the police station and swabs were taken of her hands. She kept asking, "What do you hope to find there? Do you think there is something there?". They looked at her. They were of the opinion that this was a great big act by Annie Maguire and that she knew very well what they were looking for.

The woman was totally innocent and had absolutely no idea of what was happening. The next day, she was taken to Guildford and the men were taken to Guildford as well. Traces of alleged nitro-glycerine were found on the hands of all the men who had been brought to the police station. No trace of glycerine or any other substance was found on Annie Maguire. Annie Maguire was charged with murder—with murder, my Lords!—on the evidence of her own husband's nephew. That was when I first read about it in the press in Belfast. As I say, I was absolutely filled with loathing that any woman, particularly when there were young children in the house, could allow herself to be engaged in such activities. There was no evidence whatsoever except the statement of Gerry Conlon, which he later retracted.

When he came before the court at his own trial, he stated it was under severe interrogation. I do not want to use the word "brutality" or appear to be anti-police, but in the atmosphere which prevailed then in the wake of these dreadful deeds, it may be understandable that the police were anxious to try to find the people who were carrying out these dreadful deeds. I have talked to the young boys since and I am totally convinced that they were not exaggerating when they said that it was anything but an easy ride from the police.

On the evidence of the swabs, they were charged with possessing nitro-glycerine for an unlawful purpose. There was no such evidence against Annie Maguire, but five days later suddenly a pair of plastic gloves, which allegedly were found in the house, were taken from Scotland Yard to Woolwich and tested for nitro-glycerine. From what I have heard, and the report of the court cases and the files will not contradict me, it would appear that on one glove was a little piece of contaminated substance. It has been likened to me, and described in the courts, as "one-millionth part of a sugar lump". That was the way it was described in court. It was not on Annie's hands.

After the arrest had taken place originally on Tuesday, 2nd December, the police with their sniffer-dogs and all the other paraphernalia that they have in such an exercise, searched Annie's house from top to bottom, together with the adjoining houses and the adjacent canal. No substance of any kind was found in the house, the surrounding houses and district or in the canal. And that evidence was given to the court—no substance of any description was found in that house at 43 Third Avenue and nothing was found on Annie Maguire's hands. But on the evidence of the glove which had lain in Scotland Yard for four or five days, there was one-millionth part of a sugar lump which was allegedly nitro-glycerine. Annie Maguire was charged as well with being engaged in the preparation of bombs, and the popular press certainly had a heyday with that.

Annie Maguire was held until May of the following year, when all the charges of murder were withdrawn. She was released on bail but the Guildford bombers, who were Gerry Conlon, the original statement-maker, the other fellow, Paul Hill, and others, were charged in September or October of that year, 1975. And during the course of that trial the original statement made by Gerry Conlon to the effect that his Auntie Annie taught him to make bombs was again put forward because it was part of the evidence in the trial that was given by the police. I have files containing copies of the Sun and the Daily Express, which refer to, "Auntie Annie's bomb factory" and, "teaching them to make bombs".

I suspect that the whole of England was as filled with loathing as I was; and Auntie Annie had still to undergo her trial; but in the public mind and in the minds of all the decent people in this country, here was an Irish terrorist helping children and others to make bombs to kill innocent people in this country. It is not an exaggeration to say that Auntie Annie was found guilty when those headlines appeared.

But, my Lords, such a bizarre situation! After that trial took place in May, when Auntie Annie was charged with possessing gelignite, she was released on bail, and her two sons were released on bail with her. Had there been any trace of guilt in that woman or her two sons they would have left the country. They would not have spent weeks and months living with this over their heads if they had known that at the end of the day a court was going to hand down a verdict of 14 years on Annie and other sentences on her husband and sons. Would they not have been foolish to allow themselves to stand if they expected such a verdict at the end of the day?

Auntie Annie was on bail until the very day the jury found her guilty. She went to the court during the day. She went home on the tube that evening. She went to the court the next morning. She listened to the evidence. She went home again on the tube. Does that indicate in any way to your Lordships the guilt of that person? I suggest to your Lordships that it does not. I suggest that every action of Annie Maguire from the day the police first entered her house indicated an innocent woman and an innocent family.

I come back again to Guiseppe Conlon. When I was first approached about Guiseppe Conlon by a person in whom I had great faith, I decided then that I would go and visit Guiseppe Conlon in prison—something which I very rarely did because I am terrified of terrorists, to coin a phrase. I detest terrorism. I do not want to be within a million miles of them or their supporters. But in this case I was convinced that there were some questions unanswered about Guiseppe Conlon.

I went to see Guiseppe Conlon in Brixton Prison where he was on remand. He was a very ill man. He had to take lots of tablets every day for a heart complaint. He had only one lung because he had had one lung removed in earlier years. After talking to him for five minutes I was totally convinced of his innocence. I visited him on a number of occasions, right up until January 1980. In the meantime I was going to the then Home Secretary, who is now Leader of this House, and to his predecessor, Merlyn Rees, and I was putting forward the case of Guiseppe Conlon. That was the only case about which I could be dead certain.

I was myself not terribly sure about the others because I had read those headlines and I had convinced myself of the guilt of Annie Maguire. But in January 1980 I went to Wormwood Scrubs. They had been sentenced by this time. Guiseppe Conlon had been taken rather ill and was in the adjoining Hammersmith Hospital. It was on a Saturday. He was very ill and had an inhaler on his face. There were Special Branch men at the end of the street, at the end of the ward and at the end of the corridor, guarding this Irish terrorist.

He took off his oxygen inhaler and said, "Gerry, this is the last time that you will see me because I know I am going to die. I feel it in my chest". I tried to comfort him and to tell him that he was not going to die, that the doctor had told me that it was only a spasm and that he would recover from it. He said, "Gerry, I have had this all my life, so I know. But I want you to promise me something. I want you to promise that when I die you will continue the campaign to prove that I am innocent of any crime". I shook hands with him and made a commitment. I cling tenaciously still to that commitment. I shall not desist for a single second until I have proved Guiseppe Conlon innocent of all the crimes for which he was convicted.

Guiseppe Conlon died on the following Tuesday and I had to make arrangements to get his body returned to Belfast. Even then, after the death of Guiseppe Conlon, I was still doubtful about the rest of the people involved in the case. Perhaps I should say even at this late stage that I deeply regret having those doubts; but it was my honest opinion that I could not be too sure of the facts.

I then began what I can only describe as a campaign. I spoke to Sir John Biggs-Davison. Sir John is a Conservative. I believe he could be described as being on the Right of the Conservative Party. I do not believe that anyone could in any way believe that Sir John would have any time for anybody involved in the commission of acts of terrorism. He and I discussed the case. Sir John and I then began to lead deputations to the Home Secretary.

Sir John first took an interest in this case not through me but through a Unionist lady whom he knew in Northern Ireland. This lady was acquainted with a Catholic priest from St. Peter's Church in West Belfast. This Catholic priest, whose name was Father Vincent McKinley, made the headlines as a result of another terrorist act. In that case a terrorist by the name of Delaney carried a bomb on a train from Lisburn to Dublin. The bomb exploded prematurely and killed the terrorist himself and three or four innocent people. When the remains of that terrorist's body were found, his relatives wanted him to be buried from St. Peter's Church. Father Vincent said, "I'm not letting the remains of that terrorist inside the door of my church". That shows how opposed Father Vincent is to acts of terrorism.

That action by Father Vincent caused great controversy, and he went through an awful time for a number of months because he refused to allow the remains of that terrorist in his church. So Father Vincent knew the Unionist lady of whom I spoke, and she then spoke to Sir John Biggs-Davison.

I shall detail just a few of the people who have become involved in this case. The Belfast Telegraph is not a supporter of the idea of a united Ireland. The Belfast Telegraph is a Unionist paper constitutionally but it has gone to any lengths to support the case I am submitting to your Lordships today. That newspaper commissioned two of its reporters to spend a number of days examining every aspect of this case. They produced a full-page assessment, and were driven to the conclusion that Guiseppe Conlon, who had been convicted on forensic evidence, was totally innocent.

If Guiseppe Conlon was convicted on forensic evidence then all the others, and particularly Annie Maguire, who had no forensic tests or swabs taken from her hands, were totally innocent as well.

The Belfast Telegraph has maintained its interest in this case. As I have said, that newspaper is a supporter of the present status quo in Northern Ireland. It is not in favour of a united Ireland. Yet only recently the Belfast Telegraph again published an editorial on this case, in which it stated: The Home Office has re-examined the case several times in the light of growing public concern, following extensive media coverage of the conviction of Conlon and his sister-in-law, Anne Maguire, on terrorist charges. But it will only act, it says, if fresh evidence is produced. Now perhaps it will concede that circumstances, and the credibility of the old evidence, have changed". The Irish News says exactly the same.

Sir John Biggs-Davison has taken an interest, and so has the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Basil Hume. I spoke to Cardinal Hume's secretary this afternoon. He has maintained contact with the whole Maguire family, both inside and outside of prison, and is totally convinced of their innocence. He has been in touch with the Prime Minister on a number of occasions and received the same reply as I have received from the Home Office—that there must be some new material evidence.

The BBC in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom cannot be said to be supporters of terrorism. They have gone out of their way to put their reporters on to investigating the case of Guiseppe Conlon and the Maguires. One of the investigations which they carried out appeared on "Panorama". It was only a small clip of about five minutes and watching that "Panorama" programme was a Professor Brian Beechey, a very eminent forensic scientist. He is now Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Wales in Aberystwyth.

I had never heard of Professor Brian Beechey. I think he must have heard of me, because I appeared in that short clip. Professor Brian Beechey was watching the "Panorama" story of how the forensic evidence was used to convict this family. He was so astounded at what he was seeing that he telephoned all his scientific friends and said, "Watch 'Panorama'. It is unbelievable". All his friends watched "Panorama" and afterwards exchanged notes. They all said that it was absolutely ridiculous to convict people on such flimsy evidence.

Within two or three days—I was a Member of another place—I began to get telephone messages asking would I please ring Professor Beechey. As I said, I had never heard of him. I rang him. I went to his home and I have been in contact with him ever since. Professor Beechey's first observation to me was, "I do not know if they were guilty. I do not know if they were not guilty. What I do know as a scientist is that they should never have been convicted on such flimsy evidence."

What was that evidence? A young, 18-year-old apprentice was working in the Government forensic laboratory at Woolwich when this evidence was brought to him. Evidently it was extremely minute, but the contaminated material, as it was referred to, was put into a solution and it turned red. This was supposed to indicate the presence of nitro-glycerine. However, after having obtained this result it was then up to the forensic people to put any other contaminated material through confirmatory tests; but there was none left. There was only the one small sample—the millionth part of a sugar lump—to put into the solution and it gave a positive reading. There was no more material left to put through further tests to confirm whether it was nitro-glycerine or otherwise.

On that single test—one millionth part of a sugar lump—Annie Maguire went to prison for 14 years. Her husband also went to prison for 14 years. Their two sons went to prison for five or six years. Her brother, John Smith, went to prison for eight years. Pat O'Neill, who had brought his children to be minded by Annie Maguire, was also sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

I am trying to be brief; but that gives the background to the case. The Minister will say that we need some new evidence. Let me give him what I consider to be new evidence, or matters of consideration of substance. This was the one and only case in modern times in which persons were convicted and sentenced to such terms of imprisonment on such flimsy evidence—evidence which has now been contradicted by Professor Brian Beechey at the University of Wales, Professor Brian Caddy at the University of Strathclyde and Professor Boyle at Trinity College, Dublin. Professor Beechey has told me that he will be able to mobilise scientific opinion throughout these islands to support his claim that no one should have been convicted on such flimsy evidence.

I ask the Minister a specific question. Was that the last time that a case was brought before the court merely on the evidence of a swab taken from an individual? Is it a fact that the rules have since been changed and that it is now not possible for the police to bring a person before the court purely and simply on a swab test without having corroborative evidence? I am aware that there has been a change in the rules. Before someone can be charged with handling explosives, there must be enough material found to cause an explosion. There certainly was not in this case. Is it a fact that when positive hand swabs were taken from a PLO terrorist in this country but there was no other corroboration he could not be brought before the courts? He was deported from this country, and rightly so if he was identified as a terrorist.

I think there are new matters of substance to consider. I heard a BBC radio broadcast in Northern Ireland in which Professor Brian Beechey was interviewed. He said that he was prepared to put his whole academic and scientific reputation on the line and say that had the young boy who carried out that crucial test at Woolwich been a member of his staff, he would have been immediately dismissed. One test should not be carried out if there is not sufficient material to carry out a further test. Professor Beechey is quite prepared to mobilise opinion. I have had lots of letters in response to the television broadcasts. A great deal of doubt exists in scientific circles as to whether nitro-glycerine gives a unique response. Many other substances could give a similar reading.

I am delighted that some of my noble friends have stayed here this afternoon to listen to me give, in as brief a way as I possibly can, the background to the Annie Maguire case. Nineteen-seventy-four was a bad year, and we have lived through terrible times since. I remember, in recent times, the Regent's Park and the Hyde Park bombings, and the terrible events in Brighton last year. I live with those memories. I hope that the perpetrators of those dreadful acts, not if, but when they are apprehended, will be brought before the courts in this country.

When they are, I shall not be pleading that they were in some way justified in carrying out those dreadful deeds because of the 800-year history between Britain and Northern Ireland. I shall not be saying that they should be given political status or allowed to go to prisons in Ireland. I shall be saying that, in the absence of capital punishment, people who commit such terrible acts should be sentenced to terms of imprisonment that will ensure that they die in prison. But having said that, and having totally committed myself against murderers and maimers, I take the same stand in defence of Annie Maguire and her innocent family.

I know that there is a theory going around in the establishment—I have heard it front different sources—that this family may have been innocent, but they have already served their sentences and it may be a bad thing to open up what people have referred to as a can of worms: if those people are found to have been wrongly convicted the IRA—as it undoubtedly would—will jump in to say that all the other people who have been convicted on forensic evidence are innocent. If one believes IRA propaganda, no one imprisoned in these islands for acts of terrorism is guilty, but that is patently untrue. However, in this case I am totally convinced that these persons, who have given up years of their lives, were totally innocent.

I conclude with a statement that was made by the youngest member of the Maguire family. She was nine years of age when her mother was taken from her and incarcerated in a series of prisons throughout the country. That little girl appeared on television on Monday of this week. Her name is Ann Marie Maguire and she is now 19 years of age. She said: My family, my father, my mother and my brothers, have all been convicted. A lot of years out of their lives have been taken away from them for no reason at all. Nothing will ever fill the gap that we have lost between each other. The truth has to come out because we are innocent and we will always keep saying that we are innocent. And if the truth does not come out while my Mum and Dad are still alive, then I hope that one day I will have children and my brothers will have children and they will keep continuing in this campaign until it has proved once and for all the total innocence of my family". From your Lordships' House, I tell that little girl that on that campaign on which she has embarked she will have my full support.

2.56 p.m.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I am privileged to follow the noble Lord. Lord Fitt. I think we will all agree that we have heard a testament of unshakeable belief. As far as I know, I have never met or talked to a terrorist or a bomb-maker. Last Monday I met Annie Maguire, her husband Paddy and their young son Patrick. I talked to Annie Maguire and her son. I say I still have never met a terrorist or a bomb-maker.

I think there is a danger, which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, mentioned, that people will climb on the band wagon and suddenly, for reasons of their own, will start supporting Annie Maguire and her family. I am involved. I am only involved because I went to Channel 4 television because I have the honour to remember the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, as a good personal friend. I am no psychologist or psychoanalyst. I am probably not a very good judge of character. Certainly, just over three years ago an Irish-born crook cost me a lot of money. Having said that, when I talked to Annie Maguire I found that she was a gentle, sweet person and that she was a loving wife and mother. I felt that I was talking to a lady; and I use that term in the true sense of the word. I talked to her son Patrick. I was amazed that he has managed to come through his terrible ordeal in such a sensible way.

I know, for instance, that it is said that the commandants of concentration camps in Nazi Germany were kind to their dogs and so on and were probably loving husbands. I will accept that, because if you are a good mother and a good wife it does not necessarily mean that you are incapable of making bombs. However, anyone who has talked to Annie must feel, as I do, that she could not be guilty.

I talked at some length to Patrick. When he went to prison, he was of a very tender age. He told me that on his cell door there was a little board which gave his name, his crime, etc. On this card he wrote the word "Innocent". After a little while he was told that unless he stopped doing this, he would get into serious trouble. So then he started to write the word "Innocent" on envelopes in which he sent out a few letters. Again, it came back to him to stop this; otherwise he would be in trouble. So this young boy took the card out of its holder, and on the back he wrote the single word "Innocent", and replaced it. No one looking at that card could see or would know what this lad had written on the hack. He knew it, though; and that was sufficent for him. Talking to Patrick I felt that if a young lad could believe so strongly that he is innocent and could actually get comfort from having written that one word where no one else could see it, that would help to convince me.

Everyone knows that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has been fighting terrorists all his life. Everyone who has watched Robert Kee, the television reporter, knows that he can be a very tough "cookie". I have talked to Robert Kee and he is convinced, too. At one time, I must be honest, I thought that the police had "fitted up" (I think the expression is) Annie and that for obvious reasons they needed a conviction and that therefore they had planted nitro-glycerine on her gloves. But mature consideration proves that this could not be so. Although it has been known for the police to do this kind of thing, if they had in this case, they would certainly have used a lot more than one-millionth part of a sugar lump. Where the substance came from I have no idea. I have no idea whether or not it is, or was, nitro-glycerine. I do not know how we can ever prove that it was not. But having met Annie Maguire and her family, I am convinced, in my own mind, that there was a miscarriage of justice.

I should like to conclude with these remarks. If, as John Bright said in 1865, England is the mother of Parliaments, then, my Lords, one or two of England's children are crying out for justice. Let us respond by saying clearly and loudly that Annie Maguire and her family are innocent. Let us give them back their mod name which was unjustly taken from them.

3.3 p.m.

Lord Stallard

My Lords, I, too, want to congratulate my noble friend Lord Fitt and thank him for placing this Unstarred Question on the Order Paper so that it can be discussed. I certainly cannot claim to have the immediate contact that my noble friend has had with this particular case. I am sure, however, that those of us who are involved in trying to seek a peaceful solution to the tragic problems of that part of the United Kingdom must know that if we are to succeed in the end, it is going to be a long, hard slog, built on goodwill. One of those planks of goodwill must be that justice has to be seen to be done in all cases, no matter what the crime is or not.

My involvement arose as chairman of the Northern Ireland group in another place for many years, covering the period of all these cases. I know only too well the background of most of these cases, and the people involved. I know of the atmosphere which existed in those days immediately following the Birmingham and Guildford bombs, the bombing of the Old Bailey—and no one would underestimate, as my noble friend Lord Fitt said in his contribution, the atmosphere almost of national hysteria and panic which exists after an incident like the Harrods bombing and which one can understand. There is an element of hysteria around, and a lot of anger and resentment. In those circumstances, people are looking for someone to blame and the nearest one, if necessary, will sometimes sadly, do. I am not saying that that happened here, but it is possible, and we all understand it to be possible in certain circumstances.

I remember the questions raised at that time in another place. I remember the questions from Sir John Biggs-Davison which were referred to by my noble friend Lord Fitt; I remember, too, my colleague Christopher Price, MP, who did his level best to get the Home Secretary to reopen the appeal procedure in this case. There were a great number of people who certainly were not involved in any activities that could be even remotely connected with terrorism, or Ireland in fact, but who, like some other people, were certainly concerned about justice and the credibility of the courts, the credibility of evidence and the sensitivity of the situation in which this evidence would be judged back in Northern Ireland.

I should have been happier if more noble and learned Lords had been here today, although I fully accept and understand why they cannot be here. I hope that at some future date, when and if we come back to this subject, we shall have the benefit of the legal experience of noble and learned Lords who have sat in the Appeal Courts, because there are many unique circumstances in this particular case, outlined by both my noble friend Lord Fitt and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee.

I, too, watched that programme on Channel 4 with those honourable Members. I also recall seeing a copy of a letter from the Prime Minister in reply to His Eminence the Cardinal of Westminster, who was also very concerned about the case of Guiseppe Conlon. I do not think anyone would say that these people just pick up every case that comes to them. None of us does. We have thousands of letters on thousands of cases and we have to be selective. When you are selective, you are doing it on the basis of some kind of judgment, some kind of evidence, and, as laymen, we look at these things before we go as far as the Prime Minister to raise questions; otherwise, for obvious reasons, we should be made to look foolish if there were no substance in these matters.

His Eminence the Cardinal of Westminster wrote to the Prime Minister, and I will quote from her reply. She said: You will know that neither I nor any Minister has power to reassess a case on the basis of evidence that has already been before the courts. Nor can we act as a further Court of Appeal when the normal avenues have been exhausted. As you say the Home Secretary is empowered under Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to refer a case to the Courts of Appeal (Criminal Division). But it would not be right for him to do so unless significant new facts or considerations of substance had come to light which threw doubt on the rightness of the conviction and which had not previously been before the courts". That has been repeated since by the present Home Secretary. We are saying that the evidence which has now come forward fits into that category of evidence of a substantive character and should be considered. These are the new factors which have emerged as a result of a great deal of research, and much consideration has been given to them by many experts in these affairs, some of them already mentioned here.

I watched the "Panorama" programme some time last year in which Ludovic Kennedy, noted for his meticulous research in some of these cases, appeared. He has been fairly successful in persuading the authorities that some mistake has been made. He had researched aspects of the case and came up with exactly the same position, that there was scope for a further look at this. Then we saw RTE who did similar research. We have heard about the Belfast Telegraph and other papers which contributed to that research. More recently, we have seen an edited version on Channel Four—edited of necessity because it is a very long film. Ali those programmes and all that research have brought forward further evidence, comments and opinions from forensic scientists.

The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has mentioned Professor Beechey. Others have come forward who have written articles in professional journals and magazines, which I could quote at length; they have said that the evidence that was given in that film and in the television series certainly suggests that there are some doubts. There are certainly doubts which merit the case being looked at again. I would say that that is substantive. I think that if people not connected with the case and who have nothing to do with it but who are simply bringing a professional approach to such a problem are of that opinion, then the case certainly merits another look.

I am certainly not a lawyer and nor do I have a legal background, but as a layman who has listened for what seems like thousands of years to lawyers speaking on all kinds of problems, another point puzzles me. I listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Fitt when he mentioned the gloves. I know from my long reading of the case and from what I have heard about it since that as regards the incident of the gloves the house was thoroughly searched. No one can say that the police do not make thorough searches using sniffer dogs, detection equipment, pads, brushes, films and God knows what. The whole paraphernalia was gone through during that search and nothing was found in the house or on Annie Maguire.

Yet a week later the police found this minute speck of something on some gloves that were in a drawer. Why was that not found by the sniffer dogs, or the detection equipment? The gloves were in the house in the drawer and they should have been found. Or is it being said that the police were not thorough and did not carry out a proper search? I do not believe that. I believe that they carried out a proper search.

Therefore, I am left wondering how the speck got there. Like the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, far be it from me to say that it was a plant, but one can understand why people begin to think in that way. They say that if the police had searched and found nothing and took the items away to some other place and then returned and said that they found something on one of those items, why did they not find it before they took the items away? They were using all the equipment, and it would have been the same equipment. Therefore, we are bound to be puzzled by that.

In addition to watching that programme, I have seen correspondence that a Dr. Solomons has had and is having with various professional journals. One of them is the Monthly Index of Medical Specialties. Before I read an extract from that publication, I should like to read the letter that Dr. Solomons sent to the managing director of Channel Four Television. I shall not read it all, but merely a couple of paragraphs. It reads: Dear Sir, I have just been watching your programme on the Irish people who were convicted of involvement in bombing offences on the evidence that traces of nitro-glycerine were found on their hands or on objects that they had handled. I did not see all the programme, but they should know that nitro-glycerine is used extensively in medicine, in the form of nitro-glycerine tablets, which are taken by mouth for anginal conditions of the heart. In times past, and to a far lesser extent today, it used to be inhaled from ampoules which a sufferer would carry in his pocket or her purse, and crush into a handkerchief when needed for relief from angina. Sometimes it was swallowed in the form of long-acting tablets, also". Then later in the letter he want on: In addition, there was until recent years a hand barrier cream containing guncotton (nitrocellulose), a substance chemically closely related to the nitro-glycerine which was allegedly found on the gloves of one of the accused and convicted persons. She had been using a hand cream for skin trouble". It was common knowledge that she suffered from dermatitis and was using a hand cream. However, this was never fully brought out in the way that this new evidence would seem to suggest.

Dr. Solomons then wrote to the editor of the Monthly Index of Medical Specialties in the following terms: I remember that some years ago, perhaps as long ago as 15 years or maybe more, a firm of pharmaceutical manufacturers produced and marketed to the medical profession in this country a barrier hand cream containing silicones and among its other ingredients nitro-cellulose, or perhaps nitro-glycerine. I am unable to find the preparation in your current issue, and my recollection is that it went out of the pharmaceutical list some years ago. Could you help me [further]? He is seeking further information which hopefully will emerge in the not too distant future. He is an eminent specialist in his field and in this field.

That kind of evidence has to be looked at when we get it from experts of that character and nature, posed against the tests done by this young apprentice. There is nothing wrong with the apprentice, but it seems that he was limited to the amount of stuff that he had to test. He was young. We know also that further tests have since proved that there are other substances which do exactly the same. I saw a detailed film outlining these tests as well. They did further tests on other substances which had exactly the same effect as this speck of nitro-glycerine.

That has to be investigated. We cannot be certain. It is because they are so uncertain that the tests are no longer acceptable. I understand that nobody else can ever be convicted on those simple tests. The professor who developed the tests has said that they are now suspect and will never be used again. That by itself would merit a further examination of somebody who was convicted and sentenced for as long as that on the basis of those tests.

Something else which bothered me as a layman and as someone who sat on many committees in the other place and more recently here, and who has listened to legal opinions, is that it seemed to me that when charge after charge against Mrs. Maguire was dropped we were almost reversing the whole process of what we have come to know in our judicial system where you are innocent until proved guilty. You could infer from the films and the reports we have seen that she had been almost found guilty and that the onus was on her and her people to prove that she was innocent. It was almost reversing the whole process. This comes through quite clearly from research and from reading a transcript of the evidence and the judge's summing up. If time permitted I would go further into this—and I see that we shall probably go into this in another stage—but from the judge's summing up there is an inference, or there seems to be, that the onus is being put on her to prove herself innocent rather than the other way round. As a layman, that bothers me. I am one of those who has upheld British justice as having no equal anywhere else in the world, and it is based on that principle. But if that is once shaken in me and many others, then we ought to look at it again and take it seriously. There is something that has to be looked at again in this instance.

If I was not persuaded, certainly my views were strengthened when I heard and read about two neighbours, English people, who lived next door to Mrs. Maguire. Probably my automatic reaction if I had suddenly discovered that there was this bomb factory next door would have been to be up in arms, and probably I would have bombed the house, or done something. It would have been a terrible thing to find out that these people next door were secretly manufacturing, and so on.

The neighbours did not do that. On the contrary, they are brave people. I have the greatest admiration for people who are prepared to stand up for what they consider to be right and just. Both the husband and the wife are convinced that Annie and Paddy Maguire and their two sons are innocent. They say that from their intimate knowledge of living next to that family for years, having been in and out of the house and knowing their habits, where they worked, what they did, and how they went about their normal business, there is no way that those people could be guilty of any offence.

That must merit another look at some fresh evidence. Together with all the other things there is the forensic evidence, the new evidence that is coming forth about other substances and these tests, and the inadequacy of these tests. If we are going to almost panic and say that whatever happens when there is an incident we have to get people and we will worry afterwards about guilt, but get a conviction because that calms down the feeling throughout the country, that is almost like totalitarian summary justice. I do not think we ought to let it be felt that we have been tempted down that road.

I hope that the Minister will give us more hope that there is some substance in what we are saying, to the extent that he will ask his right honourable friend the Home Secretary to use his powers under Section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1968 to have this appeal procedure reopened. These matters should be examined, under whatever procedure may be open to the Minister, in the light of the new evidence, facts and doubts that have been cast on these people's convictions, and the fact that even after serving all those years they are out, still moving among the community, still protesting their innocence, not in any way bitter but rightly demanding that they ought to be given justice. I hope that justice will not only be done but will be seen to be done in this case.

3.22 p.m.

Lord Annan

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, because anyone who listened to his moving and powerful speech should be convinced there is a case to answer. However, the person who persuaded me to speak today was not Lord Fitt but my friend Mr. Robert Kee. It is exactly 50 years ago this spring that I got to know Mr. Kee. After the war, in which he served as a gallant bomber pilot, I had the luck to have him as my publisher. As your Lordships know, he is a distinguished journalist and broadcaster, and no one among his peers has a higher reputation for integrity and seriousness of purpose. But Mr. Kee has another qualification. He has lived in Ireland; he knows Irishmen and Irishwomen. He has written a first-class history of the country, and his a shrewd judge of character. He has talked at length to the Maguire family, and, knowing him as I do, I do not believe he would take their part if he thought that this was a case of Irish blarney. Mr. Kee is convinced that the Maguries are telling the truth, and I trust his judgement.

Although Mr. Kee may persuade me that the Maguires are honest and wronged people, that is not a reason which is likely to persuade the Home Office. The Home Office will, as usual, argue that the only ground for re-opening the case is the production of new evidence, which was not available at the time of the trial. By now this is exceedingly unlikely if we take that point narrowly. I shall not go over the forensic evidence again—other speakers this afternoon have dealt with that point thoroughly—but the point at which I think the credulity of the ordinary man, the man on the Clapham omnibus, is over-stretched is that if the Maguire family were making bombs in their kitchen, why was no trace of nitro-glycerine ever found in their house?

No explosives were ever found, despite the play which the prosecution at the trial made with the shape of a piece of chalk. No detonators were ever found. Nor were they found in any place with which the Maguires were associated. The police dogs sniffed everywhere; they found nothing. The police dredged the neighbourhood; they found nothing. Mrs. Maguire's nephew, under interrogation, said that his aunt made bombs in her kitchen. Her kitchen was spotless. It really is too much to believe that the whole family's fingernails were stinking with the stuff, that Mrs. Maguire's washing up gloves were minutely impregnated, and yet not one speck was found in the house.

What is more, Mrs. Maguire's neighbours knew how she lived, how her days were spent keeping her house clean and bright and her large family fed and looked after. If she did not make bombs in her kitchen, she had no time to make them elsewhere. Neighbours look, neighbours talk, neighbours notice if someone in their street slips out and is away for hours on end elsewhere. If Mrs. Maguire did not make bombs in her kitchen, where else is it alleged did she make them? Where did her young sons go allegedly to make them? Where was this bomb factory? It has never been found and no serious attempt was ever made to find it.

What happened to the Maguire family has often happened here in this country, especially in time of war. At such a time, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has said, the atmosphere becomes charged with emotion and reasonable men do not behave reasonably. In fact, they behave so unreasonably that years later it is hard to believe that they can ever have said and done what they did. It happened in 1914 when people with German names were hounded and persecuted.

It happened again in 1940 when all male enemy aliens were imprisoned—unfairly, but to my mind perfectly justifiably. I think that such an atmosphere formed in 1974. Justifiably, every decent person was outraged by the Guildford and Woolwich bombings. Rightly, decent people longed for the guilty IRA men to be caught and sentenced. Understandably, the police must have rejoiced when they obtained a statement from that miserable fellow Gerry Conlon that his aunt was making bombs at her home. They are not to be blamed for raiding the Maguires' house. When the family say that the police put them under pressure under interrogation, I am afraid that they are telling the truth. Yet it is perfectly comprehensible why they were put under pressure and even possibly just that the police put them under pressure—because they believed that they had caught the gang and that one of them would crack under bullying.

But, why, if they were put under such pressure, especially the young boys, did none of them crack and confess? And why, during their time in gaol, did the IRA never boast of their bravery? The IRA are not slow to glorify their so-called troops. But the trauma of those days ate into the minds of the police, the court, the jury and even possibly, I may say, the judge himself. I accept that the police genuinely believed that they had identified a dangerous gang of terrorists but, as can happen when evidence is scarce, may they not have gone too far to obtain it?

What happened to those swabs we shall never know. Were they really the ones taken from the Maguires, or was there some mix up? Perhaps the most incredible part of the whole business is what happened to Mr. Pat O'Neill, who came to the Maguires' house as a visitor, as we have heard, that afternoon. Someone, surely, who tried to incriminate him, and succeeded in so doing, had a bad attack of conspiracy theory. It is a wonder, in fact, that everyone in the Maguire street was not immediately put into gaol.

I know what will happen. The Home Office will say that in default of new evidence the case cannot be reopened. They will say that the case went to appeal at the Court of Criminal Appeal and that that court rejected the plea. They will argue that to reopen the case will hearten the IRA and dispirit the police. In such cases authority never gives way until, 50 years later, it admits that perhaps there might have been an element of doubt. People think that justice is the same thing as right. That is not so. Shakespeare, as usual, got it right. Shakespeare was on the side of authority and he said that if authority was shaken, Force should be right; or rather right and wrong, Between whose endless jar justice resides, Should lose their name, and so should justice too". Justice is something between right and wrong; it is neither one thing nor the other. It is simply the best we can do in this imperfect world; and in 1974 the scales of justice were weighted in favour of authority and the safety of the state. Today, is it too much to ask that, in the absence of all circumstantial evidence, the Maguire family, who were never associated with any terrorist or suspicious groups, should have the scales tipped in their favour this time?

Good men never harm themselves by admitting they have pressed their case too hard. Good men never harmed the cause of justice by ordering an inquiry, as eventually good men were forced to do in the famous case at the beginning of this century, the Archer-Shee case. And if that naval cadet could clear his name of the imputation that he was a thief, surely this family, who have all served long sentences, could at the very least be told that the charge against them had not been established beyond all reasonable doubt.

In 1974 authority got what it wanted and it put the Maguire family behind bars at a time when the public longed for signs that the IRA were not going to have everything all their own way. But if authority has any conscience, it will now concede that the case which 11 years ago looked so watertight has sprung a leak. I believe my countrymen to be, in the main, good and fair-minded men, and so, I hope, are those in authority who wield power in their name. I await the noble Lord's reply with intense interest and with boundless despondency.

3.32 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, this Parliament is a wonderful place. Here we are, on a Friday afternoon—I wish there were more Members of your Lordships' House present—devoting some hours of our time because this is the place where justice rules, not only in our courts but in our Parliament, when we legislate and when we revise, as we do in this House. It is a wonderful example of our traditions that pleas should be listened to on behalf of people who have been convicted in our courts before a judge and jury, and whose appeals have been dismissed before the Court of Criminal Appeal, as it then was: that there is still the right of the citizen to ask people who are public-spirited—and all those who have participated in this debate have been public-spirited—to come and plead the cause of a review of the situation because they believe that justice was not done.

If I may say so, I speak in a completely personal capacity this afternoon. I have no right to speak on behalf of my party; this is not a political matter. I speak as a lawyer and purely as a Member of your Lordships' House. I pay my tribute (and, if I know the Minister aright, I believe that he will also pay tribute) to those who have participated in this debate, and especially to my noble friend Lord Fitt, who, when he has a task to which he dedicates himself—whether it be that of a peaceful Ireland or whether it be that of resistance to terrorists—is second to none in your Lordships' House in that dedication.

I shall not make a long speech, but I wonder whether I might be allowed possibly to capture the atmosphere—and not just as it was portrayed so eloquently after the bombings that we all remember; and the atmosphere of hysteria, almost, at that time. To capture the atmosphere, I wonder whether I might read a short excerpt from The Times which reported the conviction and the sentence of the Maguires. I am reading from The Times of 5th March 1976: To neighbours and friends, Mrs. Annie Maguire, jailed yesterday for 14 years for possessing an explosive, was a wonderful mother and kept open house to anyone who needed help. To the Provisional IRA, however, she was a senior armourer who taught their half-trained recruits the art of making bombs when they were posted to London on 'active service'. Throughout the six-week trial at the Central Criminal Court she maintained that explosives were never stored at her home and that she wanted"— this is in quotation marks— 'nothing to do with these murderers' who were detonating bombs in London and the Home Counties. In fact, she said, the day she was arrested and the police searched her home she was caring for three little children whose mother was in hospital. That day, however, according to the police, she had helped to hide a large quantity of nitro-glycerine that had been stored either in or near her home. It has never been found". I think we get the atmosphere and I think we get even the pen picture of Mrs. Maguire, even after the day that she was convicted.

As I said, I am not going to make a long speech. I am going to appeal to the noble Lord the Minister who carries, if I may say so, a weight of responsibility this afternoon well beyond his years in endeavouring to speak for his right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Many of us who know the Home Secretary know that he is a man of mercy, even if we do not always agree with some of his policies.

I do not think we need talk in terms which are technical about new evidence. There are factors here which, in my respectful submission, ought to make the Secretary of State himself inquire whether there is not new evidence since he is in the best position to do so. The days are new; the same hysteria of which we have been reminded does not now obtain. The situation is different because the press had almost convicted this lady and the members of her family before the trial came by the description that was given of her home and her kitchen.

The forensic evidence upon which this lady and the members of her family were convicted was the only evidence. Everything else was purely circumstantial. I have tried to examine part of that circumstantial evidence in a limited time as far as I can, and I had the video played over to me so that I could see the programme to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred, as did others. That forensic evidence has undergone a great deal of expert criticism since the days of the trial.

There is another factor. I believe that as a matter of national policy—especially at this time—this country wants to assure every Irish citizen who lives in the United Kingdom (whether it be in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales) that they are safe from prejudice; that if they are good, peaceful citizens they will be safe in our midst from all authority. These are the factors which I believe the Secretary of State would want to consider.

This is what I will ask him and the noble Lord the Minister to do—and I am not as pessimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I shall not ask for the section to be invoked at this moment. I will ask the Secretary of State whether, because of the great anxiety and concern that exists, he will appoint independent scientific advisers to look into the evidence that was then given and to advise the Secretary of State whether there are grounds under the section for him to consider that there is new evidence. Given all the concern and anxiety, that is not much to ask the Secretary of State to do.

I have not given proper notice of this request to the Minister. I hope that he will be able to deal with it affirmatively this afternoon and will meet my request affirmatively. If, however, he feels that this request—made on my personal behalf, but I believe it is a request that would be shared by all who have participated in the debate this afternoon—must be reported to his right honourable and learned friend so that it may be properly considered, and so that an announcement may then be made in some form or another in your Lordships' House or in another place, then I will be content. I regard this matter as being so serious and so vital to the traditions that we have that I should not wish to rush it through and thereby risk a wrong result.

3.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Glenarthur)

My Lords, I have listened with the greatest care and interest to what has been said about this case. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is not alone in the concern that he feels and which he has expressed so powerfully, for so long, over the conviction of Mrs. Annie Maguire and her co-defendants. Certainly I appreciate the sincerity and beliefs of others who have spoken—as well as the belief of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that their case is one in which a miscarriage of justice has occurred.

I believe, therefore, that I should begin by outlining the functions of the Home Secretary with regard to individual cases where a miscarriage of justice is alleged to have occurred. This may be familiar ground to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and to others but I make no apology for covering it again because it is of such central importance to the issue under discussion.

Under our constitution, the duty of administering justice in individual cases is placed upon the courts. Accordingly, while the Home Secretary does have certain powers to intervene in a criminal case—either by recommending the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy or by referring a case to the Court of Appeal under Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968—he must not exercise them in any way which might tend to usurp the functions of the courts.

What this means in practice is that the Home Secretary can consider intervening only if some significant new evidence or other material consideration of substance comes to light which has not already been before the courts. What the Home Secretary may not do is to review the decisions of the courts on the basis of facts or arguments already considered by them or seek in any way to act as a further court of appeal. It would be quite wrong for him to use his powers of intervention merely because, if the decision had rested with him, he might have taken a different view of the facts. As I have said, what has come to light has to be new; the Home Secretary cannot act on the basis of an opinion—whether his own or another person's—on issues which the courts have already considered. To do so would be, in effect, to prefer his own view to that of the jury and thus to undermine a vital principle of our constitution.

As has been said, Mrs. Maguire and six others (including the late Patrick Joseph Conlon) were convicted in 1976 of the unlawful possession of nitro-glycerine. The case against them rested almost entirely upon expert evidence of the results of thin layer chromatography tests (TLC for short) carried out on samples taken from their hands and fingernails and, in Mrs. Maguire's case, on household gloves. The defence challenged this evidence and fielded their own experts including, as their main scientific witness, Mr. John Yallop, a former principal scientific officer at the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment at Woolwich.

They argued that the TLC tests could not eliminate the possibility that some substance other than nitro-glycerine, but having similar characteristics, was present, and that further tests should have been made. Furthermore, even if nitro-glycerine had been detected, it was argued that the tests did not establish that the defendants had not been innocently contaminated. However, the Crown maintained that further tests were unnecessary, and it produced evidence of research which, it claimed, showed that the possibility of innocent contamination was too remote to be seriously considered.

The scientific evidence was central among the issues considered in July 1977, at exceptional length, by the Court of Appeal. Once again, the validity of the TLC test, the possibility of other substances giving similar test results and the way in which the technique was used in this case were closely scrutinised. At the end of a most detailed judgment the court concluded that it saw no reason for disturbing any of the convictions either on the basis that any of them was unsafe or unsatisfactory or that the learned judge was guilty of any misdirection or that his summing up was in any way unbalanced.

It is clear that the courts considered this case at great length and with the utmost care. Nevertheless, throughout the years which followed the Home Office received a large number of representations, many of them from eminent people who, like the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, maintained that Mrs. Maguire and those convicted with her were innocent. As one might have expected, these representations centered largely on the scientific evidence, although in Mr. Conlon's case it was pointed out that at the time of the alleged offence he was in poor health and that his sole purpose in coming to England had been to inquire about his son, Gerard, who had been arrested in connection with the Guildford pub bombings. However, the fact that he had an innocent reason for his journey does not rule out the possibility of his participation in the offence of which he was convicted.

The point was, in any case, put to the Court of Appeal which, while accepting that he had only recently arrived in the Maguires' house because of his son's arrest, commented that, whatever the period of his stay there, he must have known perfectly well what was going on and have lent himself to the activities.

One non-scientific point made frequently on behalf of all the defendants was that they had been placed at a disadvantage because of the possible connection between their case and the Guildford and Woolwich bombings. In fact, the prosecution case against Mrs. Maguire and her co-defendants did not depend upon linking them with any particular act of terrorism but was concerned solely with the charge of handling nitro-glycerine.

However, as I have already indicated, the main thrust of the representations which the Home Secretary has had to consider has been directed at the scientific evidence, and that is what has concerned your Lordships more than anything else this afternoon. Much has been made of the fact that an 18-year-old apprentice was involved in the forensic tests carried out by officers from the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, that some tests, principally of swabs taken from furniture and fittings and the gloves at the Maguires' house, were made by the apprentice, but these took place under close supervision. The tests of the swabs and scrapings from the hands of the suspects were carried out by a very experienced officer of senior scientific officer rank and most of the other tests were made by officers of similar standing.

Another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and others was that no confirmatory test was undertaken. As I understand it, it is standard practice nowadays for such a test to be made, but it is interesting to note that in all cases where the presence of nitro-glycerine has been detected by the TLC method, that result has been upheld by the further tests. In any event, the point about the absence of a confirmatory test is not new. This was an issue both at trial and on appeal.

I listened to what the noble Lords, Lord Fitt and Lord Stallard, said, that following a recent television programme, Professor Beechey of the University of Wales and Professor Peter Boyle of the Department of Chemistry at Trinity College, Dublin, have questioned the validity of thin layer chromatography as a means of detecting the presence of nitro-glycerine. Mobilising public opinion, which is the way it was put by one of your Lordships, is one thing, but I can do no more than give an undertaking that if the professors concerned will make their findings available to the Home Office, they will be looked at very carefully to see what light, if any, they throw on those convictions.

At this stage I ought to refer to a report prepared by Dr. Brian Caddy—who was mentioned—of Strathclyde University and submitted to the Home Secretary in 1982 in support of representations made on behalf of the seven convicted persons. The most significant point to have emerged from Dr. Caddy's work on the case was his suggestion that the TLC test could not have distinguished nitro-glycerine from either of two other explosive substances, PETN and EGDN.

So far as PETN is concerned, the possibility of confusion with nitro-glycerine was known both to the court of trial and the Court of Appeal. It came to light at the trial when the defence produced a note written earlier by one of the prosecution expert witnesses. The note was made available to the jury with a covering explanatory note, approved by both prosecution and defence, which made it clear that neither side suggested nor accepted that PETN was a substance found on either the swabs or the gloves. On appeal the defence argued that the trial judge had failed to appreciate the significance of the note and should have explained how it cast doubt upon the TLC method. But the Court of Appeal found no fault with the judge's summing up on this point. The possibility of similar confusion between nitro-glycerine and EGDN was not, so far as I am aware, a point taken up in the courts, but I do not think that it takes us very far, and, indeed, it was not raised this afternoon.

This case is one in which the evidence was examined at great length, as I said, and in painstaking detail both at trial and on appeal. Subsequent representations made to the Home Office have also be given the fullest consideration, and it is difficult to see what purpose will now be served by an inquiry along the lines of some of the types which have been mentioned.

However, I note with care the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and his suggestion that perhaps an independent group of scientific advisers might examine the facts before the section of the Act to which I referred, Section 17, is looked at. I cannot give an undertaking in quite the way the noble Lord would like me to, but what I can tell him is that I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the suggestion that he has made.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister continues, may I immediately thank him?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The points that I have described are just some of those which the Home Secretary has had to consider before deciding whether any action was called for on his part, either by way of the Royal Prerogative or by the use of his power under the Act of 1968. He may recommend the grant of a free pardon only where there are convincing grounds for thinking that a defendant has been wrongly convicted and that he was innocent of any crime. Having considered all the material assembled on behalf of Mrs. Maguire and the others, my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary concluded at the end of 1983 that there were no grounds on which he would be justified in making such a recommendation. Similarly, he felt that the new material which had been advanced did not constitute the significant new evidence or consideration of substance on which a reference to the Court of Appeal might be founded.

This remains the position of my right honourable and learned friend, but I must stress again that if anything new emerges he will ensure that it is considered with the greatest possible care to see whether it provides grounds for departing from that earlier decision. So far as comments made in recent television programmes about the case are concerned, suggesting that those campaigning on behalf of Mrs. Maguire and her co-defendants may have assembled further material such as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred to, with some bearing upon the scientific evidence in the case, I can only call upon them (and I do so in all seriousness) to submit it without delay to my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary. As I have already made clear, he will ensure that it is properly examined.

I should be the first to recognise the strength of feeling expressed this afternoon. I shall most certainly draw the attention of my right honourable and learned friend to what has been said today and to the way in which it has been said.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for a minute? The noble Lord will recall that I asked three specific questions during the course of my remarks. They were to the following effect. Is it a fact that at the present time no case can be brought before the court without corroboration? Is it a fact that now, if a person had positive swabs, the case cannot be brought before the court? Is it a fact that before one can be charged with handling explosives, there must be sufficient material to cause an explosion, even a very small one? More importantly, is it a fact that a PLO terrorist in the United Kingdom was found to have a positive reaction regarding swabs which were taken from his hand, but that there was no other corroborative evidence and therefore he could not be brought before the court and was deported from this country?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the noble Lord did ask three questions. I am sorry that I did not answer them in my speech. As I said, so far as I know, it is standard practice that tests are corroborated. So far as the other two points are concerned, I am afraid that I do not have the information with me but I shall find out and let the noble Lord know the answers.

I was concluding when the noble Lord intervened. I repeat that I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable and learned friend to what has been said and to the way it has been said. I also assure your Lordships that any further consideration of the case will take full account of the points raised by your Lordships today.

House adjourned at one minute before four o'clock.