HL Deb 24 March 1986 vol 472 cc1174-83

3.55 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Evelyn Glenholmes being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"Nine endorsed warrants for the return of Miss Glenholmes were first issued on 31st October 1984 and submitted to the Irish authorities for endorsement in accordance with the UK-Irish extradition legislation. The offences covered by the warrants related to various terrorist offences committed between 1981 and 1982, including murder, attempted murder, firearms and explosives offences. The original warrants were returned by the Irish authorities, who asked for some technical changes to be made to their wording. Fresh warrants were accordingly submitted on 6th November 1984, but by that time details of the extradition request had been disclosed in the press and Miss Glenholmes disappeared from view.

"She was subsequently arrested in Dublin on 12th March 1986, and the hearing of the extradition request opened in the District Court of Dublin last Wednesday on the basis of the warrants issued in November 1984.

"Throughout last week's court hearing, there was close co-operation between the Irish prosecuting authorities and officers from the Metropolitan Police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

"On Saturday morning, having heard submissions from defence counsel that the extradition warrants were defective, the court discharged Miss Glenholmes. I understand that the principal consideration which underlay the court's decision was that, whereas the standard wording printed on the warrants referred to information on oath as having been laid on the day the warrants were issued (i.e. 6th November 1984), the court considered that the relevant information was that laid when the original warrants had been issued on 31st October 1984. I understand that the magistrate in London treated the further application on 6th November as having been made under oath adopting the information already laid but not resworn. The information required for both sets of warrants was identical, but was not sworn again on 6th November, which would have avoided the difficulty which later arose.

"Even before Miss Glenholmes was released, the United Kingdom authorities had made arrangements for the issue of a fresh warrant covering one of the charges of murder. On the basis of this fresh warrant, the Garda obtained a new provisional warrant for Miss Glenholmes' arrest. Once Miss Glenholmes had been re-arrrested, she was brought back to the District Court. I understand that Miss Glenholmes was then released, this time on the grounds that the court was not satisfied, in spite of a telephone call from New Scotland Yard to the Garda, that there was evidence that a fresh warrant had been issued in London that morning or that Miss Glenholmes had in effect been at liberty between her earlier release and her re-arrest.

"Following Miss Glenholmes' second release, the fresh warrant was sent to Dublin this morning. Earlier today, additional warrants were obtained covering the remaining eight charges and these will be sent to the authorities in Dublin later today.

"My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General and I have looked carefully at the information so far available to us. On the basis of that information it is clear that the extradition application failed because of a technical objection taken by the Dublin court. My right honourable and learned friend and I regret that this technical objection was not foreseen in time and fresh warrants obtained. We are considering urgently the need for a review of procedures and the handling of this sort of case. My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General has instructed the Directors of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales, and for Northern Ireland, to ensure personally that all outstanding warrants in respect of terrorist offences are checked at once for accuracy and sufficiency. Under the auspices of the intergovernmental conference work has already begun on a range of legal matters relating to extradition; the lessons of the past few days will be studied in that context.

"I should also inform the House, for the sake of completeness, that our inquiries have shown that in giving evidence to the court in Dublin an officer from the Metropolitan Police made an error in referring to the dates on which the warrants were issued. I understand that he sought to correct this error, but that an opportunity for him to do so was not forthcoming. This does not, however, appear to have influenced the court in its decision to release Miss Glenholmes.

"It is deeply disappointing that it has not so far proved possible to obtain the extradition of Miss Glenholmes to face justice in a British court. It is essential that we all learn the right lessons for the future from this failure".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs in another place, it really is my duty to say from these Benches that this discloses a most scandalous state of affairs. I say this with every sense of responsibility. We were dealing here with a case of alleged murder on our streets. One would have imagined that the most consummate care would have been taken to see that everything was in order in regard to this application for extradition. In saying that, I realise that we are all human, and human error can occur in the best-regulated circles. But this is a chapter of errors in regard to this most important case.

First—and I ask the noble Lord the Minister to correct me if I am wrong—warrants were issued on information in October 1984. They were found, says the Statement, to have some technical errors. I think that this House deserves to know what those technical errors were. My information—and I am open to correction—is that among the errors was a complete mis-spelling of the alleged defendant's name. I ask the Minister to disclose what the first set of errors was.

Then, when the warrants were sent back it was decided to apply for fresh warrants. One would have thought that anyone, let alone someone in a professional legal office, would assume that if fresh warrants were to be issued as against an amended warrant the information had to be up to date with the warrant that was issued.

An official of the director's department (again, will the noble Lord the Minister correct me if I am wrong?) went along to the magistrates' court without the person available to swear the information, and relied upon past information, as, indeed, the learned magistrate must have done. Whether or not it was in the immediate past was irrelevant, because the information was sworn in respect of different warrants; but he relied upon the past information and had no fresh information sworn before him. The warrant reads that information is to be sworn relevant to that warrant on the day on which the warrant is issued.

After that what happened? We are told in the Statement that throughout last week's court hearings there was close co-operation between the Irish prosecuting authorities and officers from the metropolitan police and the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. There the Statement ends. There must be a point in mentioning that there was this co-operation. Did the co-operation extend during that week to pointing out to those in London that a fresh error had apparently been made and that the fresh information may not have been sworn as it should have been? I ask the noble Lord the Minister: was any hint of that given?

I next ask him: when did the Director of Public Prosecutions have the first hint that this technical point was being taken? Was any step taken to secure an adjournment so that the Director could himself put the matters right and go over to Dublin; or did he send an official, and of what rank was that official?

It is not enough to say that lessons have been learned. This is too bitter an experience and too bitter a lesson. Will the noble Lord the Minister consult with the Secretary of State with a view to an immediate inquiry being held and a report given to Parliament as to what really occurred? I repeat that it is a scandal.

Lord Wigoder

My Lords, three matters are quite obvious, are they not? First, extradition proceedings are invariably full of technicalities. Anyone who has ever been involved with them knows that perfectly well. Second warning was given (if warning were needed, and I do not believe that it was) some 16 months ago, when these very warrants were returned from Dublin because they contained some technicalities. Third, I think that anyone who does not live in a political vacuum must recognise the fact that there are some Irish Judges who, in the course of perfectly properly exercising their judicial independence, are likely to look somewhat more enthusiastically for irregularities and technicalities than some of their colleagues.

In that situation, was it not completely self-evident that any warrant for extradition, particularly of a person charged with these appallingly serious crimes, should have been checked from start to finish by a very senior person here in this country? I believe that the blame—and unhappily one has to say this—lies very heavily on the shoulders of somebody on this side of the water.

There is one matter in this Ministerial Statement with which I venture to disagree. It is the observation: it is clear that the extradition application failed because of a technical objection taken by the Dublin court". That is quite wrong. It failed because of a mistake made in this country. I hope that we shall be brave enough to admit that fact and not seek to put the responsibility on the Irish in any way, as this Statement appears to do in that sentence.

I have only two other observations that I wish to make. First, I have seen comments in at least two newspapers today to the effect that the Irish court, on discovering that the warrant was apparently defective, might have adjourned the proceedings and remanded the defendant in custody in order that a valid warrant might subsequently be produced. Would the noble Lord the Minister not agree that that would have been totally improper behaviour by any court? Indeed, any court seeking to do that would have had no answer to a writ of habeus corpus if it had been moved straightaway.

The only other observation I would wish to make is this. I believe in facing up to our responsibilities in this matter. The very great majority of Members in your Lordships' House expressed their enthusiastic support of the Anglo-Irish agreement when it was entered into, and we should not allow our support for that agreement to be weakened in any way.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments on this serious matter, and I shall endeavour to answer the points which have been raised by them. The fact is that to a very large extent we are concerned with technical matters when it comes to the issuing of warrants, and I can assure both noble Lords that in the opinion of those concerned here the greatest care had been taken over the question of the deposition—the statement of facts—that was attached to the warrants. It was our view that the date on the deposition could precede that on the warrants, which it did. The original deposition—the statement of facts—was on 30th October, and the warrants themselves referred to 6th November.

The warrants first issued in 1984 conformed to the information that the police had available at that time, but the main concern was to satisfy new requirements by the Irish authorities on the terminology used. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked me directly when the Director of Public Prosecutions heard that there was any problem about these warrants. I have to say to the noble Lord that the Director learned about this issue on Friday, and a senior lawyer from the department of the Director of Public Prosecutions was sent to Dublin immediately.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister forgive me for interrupting? I promise I shall not interrupt him again. I asked the Minister a very relevant question; namely, for this House to be informed of the errors in the first set of warrants. I told the Minister what I had been informed, and I asked him if it was correct.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I shall endeavour to return to that point in a moment. The point which I was answering and about which the noble Lord asked me was when we learned that things were not in order. I told the noble Lord just now that we heard on Friday and that a senior lawyer from the DPP's office was sent to Dublin immediately. As for the suggestion that a magistrate or some other person should have gone to Dublin, I have to say that it is not certain that that would have affected the outcome in any way at all.

As to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, I point out that when the new warrants were obtained on 6th November they were sent to the Republic and the terms of those warrants satisfied the authorities there. I hope that the noble Lord will understand that, in our eyes, to have the knowledge or the clear understanding of the fact that the authorities there were satisfied with them was a point which had to be taken into account. However, the fact is that technical matters were raised on the warrants by the Irish authorities, and the Irish of course were helpful in what they suggested so far as those technical matters were concerned. I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, precise details of those technicalities. I am sorry that I cannot give him that information, but it is really a matter which has to be considered in the light of the fact that we are talking about two separate legal systems.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord has made me break my promise not to interrupt him again, but I was taking it for granted that I would receive a full and frank answer. I am sure that the noble Lord is frank with the House, but I absolutely decry the lack of information which has been given to the noble Lord the Minister. I have asked the following question: what is the nature of the technicalities in the first set of errors which occurred with the warrants? For example do they include a misspelling of the defendant's name?

4.15 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

No, my Lords, apparently they do not include a misspelling of the defendant's name; that information is not correct. We understand that the errors were matters of technical terminology—nothing greater nor less than that. For example, the term, "The Central Criminal Court, London"—or words to that effect—were used in the warrants, and it was felt by the Irish authorities that they should have referred to, "The Central Criminal Court, England and Wales". Those were the minor points upon which the Irish authorities based their rejection of those warrants. I can reassure the noble Lord again by saying that so far as I am aware there is no question of the name being spelled wrongly.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested to me that this was a matter upon which I should consult my right honourable friend about holding an inquiry. Of course I shall take his comments away to my right honourable friend. However, I am not sure that my right honourable friend would agree that it would be necessary or right to have an inquiry, because we know the facts and we know the lessons for the future which have been learned from this experience. The discussions taking place in the context of the inter-Governmental conference will also take in the deficiencies in the warrant procedure which this case has highlighted.

There may well have been other questions raised, but I think that the bulk of the questions which have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, have been taken into account in the response that I have made. I realise that this is a matter which arouses the very greatest feeling. I certainly stand here responding with all sincerity to the criticisms that have been made. Noble Lords will be aware that a case like this, which involves other countries as well as our own, is a matter of the very gravest concern, but it is also one as regards which we have to bear in mind with very great care the issues which the different legal systems of two countries can take into account.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, since the onset of the present IRA campaign, would the Minister not agree that the question of extradition has been the most crucial question that has arisen between the two Governments, often amid roaring and raging controversy? Would he also agree that the only two groups of people both in Ireland and in Britain who can take any solace from this development are the Provisional IRA and those Unionists in the North of Ireland who never believed that the Irish authorities would co-operate on the question of extradition?

As this matter was of such crucial importance, would it not have entered the minds of the authorities in Britain that only persons of a most senior rank in the department of the Director of Public Prosecutions should have the final say on the extradition warrants? Is it possible that one of those officials could have gone to Dublin and could have been in the court when the application was being made? Is it a fact that there was an official from the department in Dublin but that he left before the court appearance? Is it a fact that that official was known, rather incongruously, as Mr. Gerry Adams and was in the employment of the department of the Director of Public Prosecutions?

In that situation, let me reinforce with all the vehemence at my command—because I think it is of the most crucial importance, not only to this case but to the whole future of the whole Anglo-Irish agreement—the words which have been repeated by the Minister; namely, that in the three or four days in the run-up to this case coming before the courts last Saturday there was the utmost co-operation with the Irish authorities. Is it a fact that that is so? Could the Irish authorities, looking at this warrant, not have advised the British that the warrant was invalid in its present form? The only people, it appears to me, on the Republic of Ireland side who have come out of this acting in a fair and courageous way have been the Irish police.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. I agree with him that extradition is crucial. I do not feel, as he will not, that the Anglo-Irish agreement is in any sense worthless. On the contrary, I think that the incident underlines the need for a forum such as the inter-governmental conference within which matters of mutual concern can be discussed, and Article 8 of the agreement provides that the conference shall be concerned with legal matters, including policy aspects of extradition. I can say that officials are already undertaking work on this extremely important area. The fact that it is crucial is one reason why it should be, and is being, undertaken by the inter-governmental conference.

So far as co-operation by the authorities is concerned, I can assure the House that this has been most helpful. There is no indication that it would have been otherwise. As for the person who attended the court, that is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide. I assure the noble Lord that there was absolutely no reason to suppose—indeed, there is no reason to suppose—that the person who went was in any way inadequate.

An official was also in Dublin, but the guidance of the Irish prosecuting authorities was that it was not necessary for him to appear. That is a question for the Irish prosecuting authorities to decide, and it is advice which naturally those concerned have to follow. I recognise the force of the noble Lord's concerns but I hope that what I have said in relation to the Anglo-Irish agreement in particular will reassure him.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, is not this about the most incompetent piece of bungling by somebody for a very long time? A woman who is charged with the most serious possible crimes is now loose, and God knows where she is! Somebody has made the most frightful error, and I sincerely hope that that somebody, or those same people, will never go on to earn their index-linked pension. I sincerely hope that they will be sacked, if they do not resign forthwith, because we shall not be making Irish jokes; we shall be making "DPP" jokes.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I simply say to my noble friend that nobody for one single moment underestimates the significance of this matter. I can also assure him that those who set out to perform the task that they were given, based upon the warrants which were issued in 1984, would have done so only on the perfectly clear advice that the interpretation of the law that was made was the correct interpretation. That is what was done. The fact that things have come to pass which show that now there is scope for tightening up is a matter to which I referred when I read the Statement. No doubt the point that my noble friend makes will be considered, as will all the other points that have been raised in your Lordships' House.

Lord Hunt

My Lords, the whole House will have noted the warm approval given to the concluding remarks of my noble friend Lord Wigoder in regard to the Anglo-Irish accord and the effect that this affair may well have on that accord. Do not the exchanges that have taken place since the noble Lord concluded his comments on the Statement, and the tendency for it to be put about that the blame somehow lies with the Irish Government, underscore the importance of the Government accepting, and accepting quickly, full responsibility for what has happened to bring this about?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, what I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was that the incident underlines the need for a forum such as the inter-governmental conference, because matters like this can be taken into account. What I certainly cannot do, because it would be entirely wrong for me to do so, is to comment on the decision of the Irish courts, and I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that.

I believe that what comes out of this Statement, as indeed my right honourable friend in another place said, is that we must urgently look at the need for a review of procedures in the handling of this sort of case. Indeed, my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General has set in hand instructions to the Directors of Public Prosecutions both for England and Wales and for Northern Ireland. I do not think that that needs to affect in any way, other than to highlight it, the importance of the Anglo-Irish agreement, which I believe will add greatly to what is hoped for in these areas.

Lord Renton

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the correct description of the whereabouts of the Central Criminal Court is London, and that nobody on this side of the Irish Sea can be blamed for using that description?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that observation. As he is aware, that is not the view taken by those who looked at this document in Ireland. I can go no further than to tell my noble friend that the interpretation placed upon the warrant was that it should have related to England and Wales. I can say no more.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that the feeling of the House is so strong about this that we should have a much more detailed answer as a result of a full inquiry. I agree with him absolutely that at this stage to start saying that the Irish are guilty or not guilty, or the English are guilty or not guilty, is quite wrong. We ought to have the things done step by step so that we can see who to blame, and then blame them.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. What I said was that I would pass on the concern that had been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that there ought to be some sort of inquiry. I went on to say that I did not necessarily feel that my right honourable friend would be able to agree to that because most of the facts had been deduced already, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will appreciate. Lessons will have been learnt—they always are from these things—and I very much regret that this arose. But I stress to the noble Lord that one or more of the reasons for the issue to have arisen was very much the point that my noble friend Lord Renton raised.

Lord Wigoder

My Lords, will the noble Lord make it clear so that there is no confusion that the question as to where the Central Criminal Court is arose in 1984, and has absolutely nothing to do with the reason why the warrants on this occasion were found to be invalid?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the fact is that they are related. The question that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked me was precisely what were the errors contained in the warrants, and I gave him an example of what those errors were. My noble friend Lord Renton did not agree that the judgment made upon the warrant was the correct judgment, and he pointed out that so far as he was concerned that court was in London and should not have been referred to as "England and Wales".

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, to abbreviate this matter will the noble Lord be good enough to have a list of the technicalities complained of in regard to the October warrants presented in the Library of the House?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I shall look into the matter. I cannot tell the noble Lord here and now whether it will be possible to produce that list.

Lord Mishcon

Why not, my Lords?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the answer to that is that this is a judgment made by the Irish authorities and it may not be possible to do so. I shall endeavour to do so, but I cannot promise standing at this Box to guaranteee that it will be possible. What I can guarantee to do, if it is not possible to produce a list, is to explain fully why not.

Lord Monson

My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister perhaps agree that whereas the police in the Irish Republic seem to be unreservedly opposed to the IRA, the same zeal is not always evident in other circles in the Irish Republic?

Lord Glenarthur

I note the noble Lord's point of view, my Lords.

Lord Wilson of Langside

My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister acknowledge that the situation disclosed both by the reports in the press and by the Statement made today that what is now required to satisfy those both within the House and the public outside is not just some sort of inquiry, as the Minister suggested, but a most thorough and comprehensive inquiry which will make the position and the responsibility for that position clear beyond peradventure?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, all I can say to the noble Lord is that in conjunction with the request that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made that I draw those views to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that I shall do so.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that no one who is aware of the critical situation in Northern Ireland wants to create trouble between London and Dublin? Is he aware that that would be the height of irresponsibility? Is he also aware of the fact that there is concern in all parts of the House about how this sad situation arose? Will he agree that it is desirable to have as early as possible a more detailed factual statement? It would be far better to have an inquiry but if we cannot have that many of us feel that there should be a detailed factual statement on this whole matter which will undoubtedly take some time to compile, but it would enable Members of this House and another place to form a far more balanced view of this grave situation than they can this afternoon.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I believe that the facts have largely been adduced. I am not sure that it would serve any useful purpose to produce a more detailed statement because what has been said is already detailed and explains what has happened. Nevertheless, I am sure that my right honourable friend will note the noble Lord's remarks.