HL Deb 25 January 1988 vol 492 cc423-31

3.42 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General on Directions given by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) following the investigations carried out by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson. The Statement is as follows:

"In November and December 1982, in three separate incidents in County Armagh, six persons were killed and one person was seriously wounded by shooting by members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

"The circumstances of each shooting were investigated by the CID of the RUC and three files reporting the results of these investigations were submitted by the Chief Constable of the RUC to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland for his consideration and decisions.

"In relation to the incident which occurred on 11th November 1982 at Tullygally East Road, Craigavon, in which three persons, Eugene Toman, James Gervaise McKerr and John Frederick Burns, were killed, the director directed that three members of the RUC be prosecuted for the murder of Eugene Toman. These three members were subsequently tried for murder and acquitted.

"In relation to the incident which occurred on 12th December 1982 at Mullacreevie Park, Armagh, in which two persons, Peter James Martin Grew and Roderick Carroll, were killed, the director directed that one member of the RUC be prosecuted for the murder of Peter James Martin Grew. This member was subsequently tried for murder and acquitted.

"In respect of the other incident, which occurred on 24th November 1982 at Ballynerry Road North, Lurgan, in which Michael Tighe was killed and Martin McCauley was seriously wounded, the director concluded that the evidence did not warrant criminal proceedings and directed no prosecution.

"Upon consideration of the evidence and information in the files initially submitted to him, the director required further investigations to be undertaken and the results of these reported to him. When the results of such further investigations were reported to the director it appeared to him that in certain of the statements of evidence furnished for his consideration material and important facts had been omitted, and that matters which were untrue and misleading in material and important respects had been included.

"In consequence of this on 11th April 1984 the director formally exercised his statutory power to request the chief constable to ascertain and furnish to him full information with regard to the circumstances in which false or misleading evidence was provided by any member or members of the RUC. He also requested him to investigate whether there was evidence to suggest that any person was guilty of an offence of perverting, or attempting or conspiring to pervert, the course of justice, or of any other offence in connection with the investigation of the three shooting incidents.

"On 24th May 1984 the Chief Constable of the RUC appointed Mr. John Stalker, Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, to conduct an investigation. Mr. Stalker was furnished with a full copy of the director's request dated 11th April 1984.

"On 18th September 1985 Mr. Stalker delivered to the Chief Constable of the RUC an interim report on the investigations which he had conducted up until that date. On 13th February 1986 the Chief Constable of the RUC furnished to the director Mr. Stalker's interim report together with the chief constable's observations upon it.

"On 4th March 1986 the director directed that further investigations be undertaken. On 29th May 1986 Mr. Stalker ceased to have responsibility for the investigation which he had undertaken. Mr. Colin Sampson, Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, then undertook responsibility for the continuing investigation, assisted by the same team of detectives and by an assistant chief constable from West Yorkshire Police.

"On 22nd October 1986, 23rd March 1987 and 10th April 1987, reports were delivered by Mr. Sampson to the Chief Constable of the RUC and on the same dates to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

"The interim report by Mr. Stalker and the reports subsequently delivered by Mr. Sampson together provided the chief constable and the director with full results of detailed and thorough investigations undertaken by the investigation team of Greater Manchester Police, initially under the leadership of Mr. Stalker and subsequently under the leadership of Mr. Sampson.

"In regard to the shooting incidents to which I have referred, the director has considered all the facts and information ascertained and reported by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson and he has re-examined the original RUC investigation files. He has concluded that the evidence does not warrant any further prosecution in respect of those shootings which occurred on 11th November 1982 and 12th December 1982, which have already been the subject of prosecutions. He has further concluded that the evidence does not warrant any prosecution in respect of either the fatal shooting or the wounding which occurred on 24th November 1982. I have considered the director's conclusions and I agree with them. He has given directions accordingly.

"The director has however concluded that there is evidence of the commission of offences of perverting, or attempting or conspiring to pervert, the course of justice or of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty and that this evidence is sufficient to require consideration of whether prosecutions are required in the public interest; and he has consulted me accordingly.

"I have therefore taken steps to acquaint myself with all relevant circumstances, including matters concerning the public interest and in particular considerations of national security which might properly affect the decision whether or not to institute proceedings.

"I have informed the director fully with regard to my consultations as to the public interest, and in the light of all the facts and information brought to his notice the director has concluded, with my full agreement, that it would not be proper to initiate any criminal proceedings. He has given directions accordingly.

"The director has arranged to discuss with the Chief Constable and Deputy Chief Constable of the RUC safeguards to ensure that in the future facts and information reported to the director are in all respects full and accurate, whether or not any security interest is involved.

"In respect of other matters arising from these investigations, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already informed the House that he would wish at the earliest opportunity to make a statement on those issues that affect his responsibilities. Now that the decisions on prosecution have been taken, I understand that he hopes to report shortly to the House".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating the grave Statement which was made in another place by the Attorney-General. The Statement which has been read out to the House discloses a most unhappy—that is putting it mildly—matter of public concern. This is a case involving grave allegations arising out of three separate incidents in which six persons were killed and one person was seriously wounded by shooting by members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

There followed first of all an inquiry by Mr. Stalker, the Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, into the circumstances of those tragic events. As I understand it, before the Deputy Chief Constable had concluded his investigation he was suspended from duty. Why? I think the House will be interested to know. However, it is only fair to say that later Mr. Stalker was reinstated. We do not know what happened to his initial report and what the nature of that report was.

Mr. Sampson, the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, took Mr. Stalker's place and conducted the inquiry. There followed a remarkable course of events. They were remarkable because, at the very least, they were unusual. It is unusual that the Director of Public Prosecutions, having considered a matter in which allegations were made (presumably against members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary) of perverting or attempting or conspiring to pervert the course of justice, should respond by saying that he thought there should be proceedings. That is as I understand it.

The matter then went quite properly to the Attorney-General. We see on page 5 of the Statement that: The Director has, however, concluded that there is evidence of the commission of offences of perverting, or attempting or conspiring to pervert, the course of justice … and that this evidence is sufficient to require consideration of whether prosecutions are required in the public interest". The Statement then says that the Attorney-General has been consulted in those circumstances. Apparently, the Director of Public Prosecutions was at that stage of the view that there should be proceedings. However, the matter having been discussed and following further consultations, the Attorney-General concluded that there should be no proceedings in respect of those matters.

In my experience of the great office of Attorney-General, it is not without precedent for the Attorney-General and the Department of Public Prosecutions to disagree with one another. However, the matter has arisen against a most grievously worrying background of allegations which must inevitably put the standing and reputation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in some danger of being adversely viewed by the public. It has been running through my mind, against that background—which is unprecedented; I cannot think of any other episode in our criminal law which is quite as complex and unhappy—that the Government or the Attorney-General should review the circumstances again and take what is perhaps the safest course in the circumstances, and the one most likely to maintain the reputation of the RUC in particular, by ordering a wholly independent judicial inquiry into the whole matter.

I put that suggestion forward with hesitation. However, the situation is without precedent; and I fear that unless there is something more substantial than what we are left with at the moment—which is disagreement all round—the uncertainty and the remaining question marks will not have been satisfied. I put that suggestion forward cautiously because I appreciate that what I am suggesting may appear to be casting doubt upon the independence of the Attorney-General. I should not wish to imply that. However, in the exceptional circumstances which have arisen in this case of conflict between two senior police officers initially in this tragic and grim story, perhaps an inquiry by an independent member of the judiciary of the highest standing may be the better course.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that many of us in all parts of the House will be as concerned as is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, about the character of the Statement? Is he aware that all of us recognise that the Royal Ulster Constabulary do a most difficult job in most dangerous circumstances and that it is imperative that we do everything we can to assist them in carrying out their duties? Is he also aware that there is a clear need for them to demonstrate that they conduct themselves at all times properly and within the criminal law?

Is the noble and learned Lord aware that many of us will be reasonably satisfied with one part of the Statement. That part concerns the changeover between Mr. Stalker and Mr. Colin Sampson in the earlier stages of the investigation. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that the general circumstances which are set out in the Statement make it fairly clear that the conspiracy theory which was prevalent a few months ago (that Mr. Stalker had been removed because he was getting embarrassingly close to the truth) has been demonstrated to be a fiction? It is quite obvious that Mr. Sampson continued to conduct the inquiry with great vigour. All of us who know him know perfectly well that he would never have been party to any cover up of the kind that was suggested in some parts of the media.

Having said that, is the noble and learned Lord aware that many of us will be deeply concerned about the statement made by the Attorney-General that the Director of Public Prosecutions has concluded that there was evidence of the commission of offences of perverting or attempting or conspiring to pervert the course of justice or of obstructing a constable in the exercise of his duties? I am sure the noble and learned Lord is aware that on conviction anyone charged with an offence of that kind would be rightly sentenced to a very long term of imprisonment. Is he aware that it appears to be clear that the only grounds on which the Attorney-General has decided not to pursue the prosecutions are public interest grounds? I recognise that those grounds may be compelling. However, is the noble and learned Lord aware that it would be quite remarkable if no further action was taken, given the view of the matter taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions?

I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord specifically whether it is intended to take action against the officers concerned under the police disciplinary regulations. I very much hope that he will reassure us on that point. Otherwise, I am afraid that the reputation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be seriously affected.

Finally, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord whether he is aware that the statement made in the penultimate paragraph of the Attorney-General's Statement—namely, that: The Director has arranged to discuss with the Chief Constable and Deputy Chief Constable of the RUC safeguards to ensure that in the future facts and information reported to the Director are in all respects full and accurate"— is in itself a fairly remarkable statement? Is he aware that many of us would expect that in all cases such reports by the police would be both full and accurate? On this point as well, is it intended that those who did not make full and accurate reports should be proceeded against under the police disciplinary regulations?

4 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, it is important at the outset in seeking to respond to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that I should emphasise that I am repeating this Statement, which was made by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General in his capacity as an independent Law Officer with responsibility for prosecutions. The Statement deals with that as fully as it was in his judgment proper for him to do so.

I ought to make clear that the Statement is not exactly in accordance with the way in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, put the matter. I should like to read the precise terms of that part of the Statement for the sake of accuracy. I know that the noble and learned Lord received it only very recently indeed and I have some advantage over him in that respect, having had it for longer. However, the matter is important and therefore I want to be sure that all your Lordships understand clearly that the Statement says: The director has however concluded that there is evidence of the commission of offences of perverting or attempting or conspiring to pervert the course of justice or of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty and that this evidence is sufficient to require consideration of whether prosecutions are required in the public interest; and he has consulted me accordingly.". The Statement does not suggest that the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) had himself concluded that there ought to be prosecutions. The Statement is careful about precisely what the situation was.

The Attorney-General goes on to say that he had taken steps to acquaint himself with all the relevant circumstances, and continues: I have informed the director fully with regard to my consultations as to the public interest, and in the light of all the facts and information brought to his notice the director has concluded, with my full agreement, that it would not be proper to initiate any criminal proceedings. He has given directions accordingly". Therefore the Statement makes it clear that after all the relevant consultations had been carried out the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) and my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General were of one mind on the matter.

The noble and learned Lord asked me about the circumstances in relation to Mr. Stalker. As your Lordships will appreciate, that is not a matter which falls within the responsibility of the Attorney-General as the independent Law Officer responsible for prosecutions. So far as concerns the other matters that have been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as your Lordships will remember, the Statement concludes: the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already informed the House that he would wish at the earliest opportunity to make a Statement on those issues that affect his responsibilities". It says that now that the decisions on prosecutions have been taken the Attorney-General understands that he, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, hopes to report shortly to the House.

The matters that have been raised, apart from those with which I have expressly dealt, are within the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I think that we may expect those matters to be dealt with in the Statement which he will make to the House in due course.

Lord Wigoder

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that it is clear from the Statement which he has repeated that evidence has been found that some officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have committed criminal offences in the way of attempting to pervert the course of justice or matters of that nature? In that case does he agree that it would not be practicable to leave the matter there? Those individuals may well find themselves in future giving evidence as witnesses for the Crown in serious cases in Northern Ireland. Is it fair to them to leave them in a position in which the substance of the allegations has not been tested independently? Indeed is it fair to the reputation of the courts in Northern Ireland? Is there not much to be said for the proposal of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich that in some way or another an attempt must be made to resolve these allegations?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I think that the correct course for me to take is to undertake to bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the observations made by your Lordships about the matters falling within his responsibility including the matter to which the noble Lord has just referred.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, following what has been said by way of questioning the Statement, I think there is one aspect that ought to be taken into account if any message is to go from this House to the Government. Unless we accept the general guidance that the report gives, it appears that we are deliberately doubting the considered judgment of both the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General. Their words were very clear. They leave no room for doubt.

They said that they had examined and re-examined all aspects of this case. All of it may not have been brought out in earlier stages but they now have the benefit of everybody's views, both those of Mr. Stalker during the time that he was responsible and of Mr. Sampson when he carried on afterwards; they also have the results of conversations with the Chief Constable and all the other investigations. What amazes me is the immediate reaction from the Opposition Front Bench, from someone who is very learned in these matters and with past experience. The comment that ought to have been made to begin with is that the Statement shows that there has been no attempt to cover up anything from the point of view of the Attorney-General. The matter has been examined and re-examined and things that may have been disclosed by the turning over of stones have been taken into account.

The Lord Chancellor has said that he intends to report what has been said here. I think that in addition to what he may have had in mind to say, we ought to find some way of letting it be known that we have confidence, and that we have no reason to have anything other than full confidence, in the way that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General have investigated every detail in this case as far as they can.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I was very heartened that in his response to the Statement the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, made it clear that he was in no way questioning the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions in their ultimate decision. I shall certainly indicate that as being the situation in any report of mine. What I was proposing to draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are the suggestions as to how the matters which lie within his responsibility should be taken further. I do not think that there is a suggestion from any noble Lord who has spoken so far that anything in the responsibilities of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) is open to further question.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I very much welcome the fact that he will discuss this matter with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? But is he also aware, as I am sure he is, that the Northern Ireland Secretary cannot himself prefer any charges or cause any charges to be preferred against any member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary because he is the ultimate appellate authority in any such disciplinary proceedings? As I understand it, the only decision that could be made would be made by the Deputy Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I repeat that we welcome the fact that these matters will be discussed between the noble and learned Lord and the Secretary of State but at the same time we recognise that the Secretary of State is not responsible for making a decision in such matters.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, it has been made abundantly clear by my noble and learned friend, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has paid tribute to it, that no one in this House, as far as I know, would ever want to cast aspersions on the integrity of the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is not in issue.

What is in issue on the Statement is whether it has been made abundantly clear to those who ascribe all the praise that should be ascribed to the Royal Ulster Constabulary in their difficult duties will be satisfied with the results of these inquiries, which would appear from the Statement to show that the Director of Public Prosecutions first of all felt that there was evidence upon which a prosecution could be based. He then consulted the Attorney-General, who obviously as part of his duties is interested in matters of security and the public good, and came to a conclusion, in agreement with the Attorney-General, that no prosecution should be brought. The gap in the sequence is whether the evidence was found to be deficient in some respect or whether the evidence was there but matters of public importance and public security dictated that no prosecution should be brought, even though evidence existed. That is the lacuna in the Statement.

The noble and learned Lord said that he was repeating a Statement made by the Attorney-General for which the Attorney-General is responsible. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord can fill in that lacuna. There is one way of doing so, which was suggested wisely by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. If a member of the judiciary, independent as he always is, was asked to conduct an inquiry into the matter, I think that many people who want to protect the Royal Ulster Constabulary (but only the good members of it, not the bad ones) would be satisfied. I believe some public interest would be served if that course were taken.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I perceive no lacuna in the Statement of the Attorney-General which I have read. The other matters fall outside the responsibility of my right honourable and learned friend and I undertake to report the suggestions that have been made to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Lord Monson

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that, with the exception of public figures important enough to be provided with bodyguards, and with the possible exception of police officers in the Basque region of Spain, RUC officers are unique in the Western world in being murder targets 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 52 weeks in the year? Is it not right that this fact should be taken into account in judging their actions and reactions?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I am sure that all Members of this House appreciate the circumstances in which the Royal Ulster Constabulary are called upon to act. I am sure that we all very much appreciate the personal dangers to which so many of them are for such a high proportion of the time exposed.

Lord Diamond

My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble and learned Lord has made it fairly clear that he considers this matter incomplete and that the Statement came to us as a matter of courtesy rather than as a matter of right, I hope that your Lordships, and in particular the Leader of the House, will appreciate that we shall not be able to deal with a further Statement made on behalf of the Secretary of State in another place unless that Statement is repeated here without question.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord's observations inevitably follow, but consideration of whether a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should be repeated in this House is a matter that we can leave until the problem arises.