HL Deb 19 October 1989 vol 511 cc1041-55

4.25 p.m.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat the Statement which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary about the quashing earlier today by the Court of Appeal of the convictions of Patrick Armstrong, Gerard Conlon, Paul Hill, and Carole Richardson of murder and other offences connected with the bombing of two public houses in Guildford on 5th October 1974, and of Patrick Armstrong and Paul Hill of murder arising from the bombing of a public house in Woolwich on 7th November 1974.

"I informed the House on 16th January this year that I had decided to refer these convictions to the Court of Appeal. This was because I had received representations alleging that a miscarriage of justice had occurred and putting forward matters which had not previously been considered by the courts. Inquiries were carried out by the Avon and Somerset police into the new issues which had been raised as a result of which I concluded that there were grounds to justify my intervention. Accordingly, I referred the case to the Court of Appeal under the provisions of Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

"Following my decision the case became, for all intents and purposes, an appeal to the court by the four convicted persons. In preparing the Crown case, the Crown Prosecution Service asked the Avon and Somerset police to carry out further inquiries which entailed scrutiny of the large quantity of police documents. The information provided by the Avon and Somerset police led the Crown to take the view that misleading evidence had been given by officers of the Surrey police at the trial, and that this was sufficient to undermine the reliability of the confession evidence on which the convictions had been based.

"I understand that notes of interviews with Patrick Armstrong have been found which indicate that a record which was presented in court at the original trial could not have been the contemporaneous record which it was claimed to be by a number of police officers. Also it appears that officers gave misleading evidence about circumstances in which they obtained information from Paul Hill after he had been charged. This seriously undermined the credibility of the confession evidence on which alone the convictions were based. Detention records additionally showed serious inconsistencies. None of these matters was made known to the then Director of Public Prosecutions or to the prosecuting counsel at the trial.

"In view of these matters the Crown concluded that it could no longer support the convictions as having been safe. Accordingly it asked the Court of Appeal for an expedited hearing at which it invited the court to quash the convictions. This has now been done.

"Separate confessions were made by Armstrong and Hill to metropolitan police officers investigating the Woolwich offence. The Crown has, of course, carefully considered the reliability of those confessions. Nothing that has come to light cast the slightest doubt on the integrity or conduct of any metropolitan police officer concerned. But it is necessary to put the separate confessions into perspective. They were made following interviews by Surrey police officers, in which initial confessions to involvement in the Woolwich bombing had been recorded, and they were made in Guildford police station after Armstrong had been in continuous custody for seven days and Hill for two days.

"In all the circumstances the Crown concluded that the factors undermining the reliability of the confessions recorded by certain Surrey officers extended to undermine also the reliability of the confessions repeated in the same police station to the metropolitan police officers.

"The new evidence was explained fully to the Court of Appeal this morning and the Attorney General will place in the Library a copy of the transcript as soon as it is available.

"Mr. Hill is being returned to Northern Ireland to continue serving the life sentence for murder to which he was sentenced in June 1975. I understand his sentence will be reviewed under the normal life sentence procedures in Northern Ireland.

"Mr. Speaker, this is a grave matter for all who care about justice. A number of issues arise. As the Court of Appeal has quashed the convictions on the basis of newly discovered facts, the four persons involved will be eligible to apply to me for compensation under the provisions of Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The amount of the compensation will be determined by an independent assessor.

"The Director of Public Prosecutions has already set in train a criminal investigation so that he can determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify prosecuting the police officers involved. It is not possible at this stage to predict how long this urgent task will take. Of the three officers concerned who are still in the police service the Chief Constable of Surrey has suspended two, the third being in hospital.

"My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General and I have decided to establish a judicial inquiry into the circumstances leading to the trial of those convicted of the Guildford and Woolwich offences to establish as far as possible the details of what occurred. Because it has been claimed that the police were led to Anne and Patrick Maguire and their sons, Vincent and Patrick, and to Patrick Conlon, Patrick O'Neill and Sean Smyth by statements made to the Surrey police by Paul Hill and Gerard Conlon, my right honourable and learned friend and I believe it is right that the judicial inquiry should also look into the circumstances leading to their trial in March 1976 for possessing explosives.

"We have considered carefully whether the judicial inquiry should be postponed until the completion of the criminal investigation. But the length of this investigation cannot at present be estimated and we have concluded that such is the importance of this case that it would be right to establish the inquiry straight away, recognising that it would have to adjust or adjourn its work as the interests of the administration of criminal justice might require.

"The inquiry will be presided over by the right honourable Sir John May, who was until last June a Lord Justice of Appeal. It will conduct its work on a non-statutory basis. Its terms of reference will be: 'to inquire into the circumstances leading to and deriving from the trial of Patrick Armstrong, Gerard Conlon, Paul Hill and Carole Richardson on charges arising out of the explosions in public houses in Guildford on 5th October 1974, of Patrick Armstrong and Paul Hill in relation to charges arising out of an explosion in a public house in Woolwich on 7th November 1974, and of Anne and Patrick Maguire, their sons, Vincent and Patrick Maguire, and Patrick Conlon, Patrick O'Neill and Sean Smyth on charges of possessing explosives and to report to the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General'.

"Mr Speaker, there has been a serious miscarriage of justice which has resulted in wrongful imprisonment for many years. Even though that wrongful conviction has now been righted as a result of police investigations and the decision of the Court of Appeal, we must all feel anxiety, regret and deep concern at what has happened. The House will, I hope, support the Government's response".

My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.

4.37 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating one of the gravest Statements ever made in this Parliament of ours concerning the administration of justice in our country, in respect of which we rightly have a very proud tradition. There will be some measure of comfort in the fact that the Secretary of State for the Home Office has had the courage to bring this matter out at this moment, although some of us would have hoped it would happen before 14 years and more had been served of these prison sentences. I think, too, we would want to couple with that measure of comfort the courage of the present Director of Public Prosecutions and that of the police who investigated this matter currently and who brought to light what had transpired in the past by those in the police force who appear to have let down the great tradition that our police have always had. All praise is due to them for bringing to light what their colleagues, who do not deserve that name, appear to have done in this case.

It has rightly been described in today's copy of The Times as a landmark in legal history, that the Crown has decided, before any Court of Appeal looked at the matter, that it cannot sustain and does not wish to sustain these criminal convictions. That was followed earlier today by the Court of Appeal quashing them. As it is a landmark, I hope that your Lordships will grant me some indulgence if I raise six short issues as they appear to me and do so in a more lengthy way than we are normally accustomed in dealing with Statements in your Lordships' House.

The first obvious point is that of compensation. Your Lordships may agree with me that there is no money in the world that can compensate for the 15 years that the locusts have eaten into the lives of at least three of these four accused. I am sure that the independent assessor who so properly has been appointed—he has not necessarily been appointed as yet, but the matter is being left to an independent assessor—will behave with the generosity that our nation will expect.

The second issue is that we must consider, and consider very soon, the justice and propriety of a system which allows people to be convicted according to the present state of our criminal law on police confessions without any material corroborative evidence at all. In the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor I pay tribute to Scots law, which is in advance of ours in this situation. I do not have the right to ask him at this moment, and I do not do so, but it may very well be that his encouragement may come in regard to the alteration of the law in that respect.

The third issue that was thrown up in this case concerns the fact that the Court of Appeal listened to fresh evidence that was adduced before it, where others admitted guilt in regard to the crime in respect of which these four people were convicted. The Court of Appeal, consisting of honourable judges—however honourable and learned they may be, like myself and your Lordships they are but human—decided that that evidence was not acceptable and was false. We now realise that possibly it was not false at all. Your Lordships may think that there should be another alteration in our system where, if material fresh evidence is available to the Crown or to the defence, these matters should be tested by a jury which should hear the whole of the evidence—a case should not be divided into two parts. That is a point which is not one of my own creation but one which has been mentioned in the course of the years so eloquently and so emphatically by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Scarman and Lord Devlin.

The next issue to which I turn is the Maguire case. The Secretary of State said in his Statement that there would be an inquiry into the circumstances of that case as well as the circumstances of the case which forms the main subject of the Statement which has just been read. Was there not such an obvious link between the two cases, even if the evidence was different? Have not enough pleas been made, articles written, submissions made and petitions signed in regard to the Maguire family to warrant the generous act of a pardon? I suggest that the noble Earl should convey to his right honourable friend that the inquiry into the facts could continue, and possibly as a result convictions may be quashed even though the sentences have all been served, but that we owe that amount of humanity to the members of the Maguire family.

I turn now to a matter of a serious nature. It is the fifth and penultimate issue that I wanted to raise. It is a very grave matter which one of our national newspapers, the Guardian, yesterday headlined on its front page: Bomb trial alibi was withheld". I must read two paragraphs of what is alleged in the newspaper, of which there was no mention in the Statement, perhaps properly so. Nor was there any mention of it in the terms of the inquiry. The paragraphs read: The former Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Norman Skelhorn, withheld crucial alibi evidence from defence lawyers at the 1975 trial of the four people convicted of the Guildford pub bombings … Although there was no official explanation for the decision there is written evidence that a conscious decision was taken at the office of the DPP to withhold alibi witness statements—together with other records—from Mr. Gerard Conlon's lawyers". I make no accusation against the office of the DPP and the former holder of the distinguished office of Director of Public Prosecutions. I merely say that any inquiry must cover those allegations. They must be immediately denied as a result of the inquiry, if they are to be denied. Parliament and the public are entitled to know whether there is a grain of truth in the allegations and what is to happen if it is found that there is.

That brings me to the last issue before I sit down, namely whether the inquiry which is to be held according to the Statement which we have heard is appropriate. I noted that it was to be presided over by a judge who has the affection and respect of all who have ever known him, Sir John May. I have no point to make in regard to that appointment except to express my respect. However, I noted that the inquiry is to be conducted on a non-statutory basis. As I understand it that means that no witness can be compelled to give evidence on oath. Having regard to the serious charges, which no one has had a chance to answer, is it appropriate that the inquiry should be on a non-statutory basis? Ought it not to be a tribunal of inquiry which has the right to administer oath? I should welcome it if there were lay assessors sitting with the learned judge.

Those are the only issues which I felt it proper to raise. Everyone in your Lordships' House will have a feeling of regret, as I said at the outset of my remarks, that the system of which we are so justifiably proud has faltered and stumbled and that others have fallen as a result.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

; My Lords, all of us would agree that this has been a deplorable business. The episode has done grievous damage to the lives of people who we now know to be entirely innocent. It has also done serious damage to the reputation of our country.

I have a number of questions to put to the noble Earl. To pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with whose views I find myself largely in agreement, many of us would be firmly opposed to a tribunal of inquiry. We all know what has happened on previous occasions when tribunals of inquiry have been established. They have often led to damage, sometimes irreparable damage, to entirely innocent third parties. One has only to look at the case of Mr. J. H. Thomas before the Second World War, the bank rate tribunal and the Vassall tribunal. I do not believe that on any of those occasions people were satisfied with what occurred. Therefore, speaking on behalf of my noble friends, we should not go down that path.

Regarding the other issues, is the noble Earl aware that we unreservedly welcome the appointment of Sir John May? Those of us who have had the advantage of working with him know that he is a man of the highest principle who will undoubtedly conduct the most rigorous inquiry.

I should like to ask some questions about the form of the inquiry. First, will it sit in public? That is a critically important issue. After the damage done by this episode I do not believe that any of us would be satisfied with anything other than people being seen to give evidence in public and being cross-examined on their evidence. I should be grateful if the noble Earl would deal specifically with that point.

Secondly, is it not a fact—and there may be no way of resolving this problem—that if a criminal investigation takes place at the same time as the inquiry conducted by Sir John May is sitting, some of the police officers involved, whose conduct may be being examined by fellow police officers to find out whether they have committed a criminal offence, will have to be warned that they cannot be obliged to give evidence? Perhaps the noble Earl will tell me whether I am right or not.

Then I come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. We cannot allow the very serious allegations concerning the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to be investigated as rigorously as the conduct of the police. Can I take it that, notwithstanding the Statement that has been made on their behalf, their conduct too will be subject to examination in the inquiry?

The noble Earl will no doubt tell us in his reply that many of the grave errors of judgment—to put them at their very least—which occurred during the investigation of this whole business could not now take place because of some of the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. That may be true, but is he aware that the process of establishing tape recording suites in police stations is still going desperately slowly? Can he assure us that, as a result of this and other cases, this process will now be speeded up? Can he also assure us that the introduction of video recordings, which are now being introduced in the West Midlands police area on an experimental basis, will be evaluated by the Home Office with a view to having this system extended to the rest of England and Wales?

Finally, does not this whole tragic business indicate in the clearest way what an appalling situation would have arisen if the death penalty had been retained in this country? Is it not quite obvious that these people would have been executed? Indeed, there would have been no point at all in re-introducing it if they had not been executed. Can we now imagine what the character of the debate would be if those people had been led out and executed? Perhaps I may express the hope that we shall hear less in the future about the need to re-introduce capital punishment.

Earl Ferrers

Perhaps I may just answer the two noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite. I am grateful to both of them for the way in which they answered the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that it was one of the gravest statements that has had to be made. We all share that view. We are all proud of the British system of justice and of the way in which in almost all cases every conceivable effort is made to ensure that a miscarriage of justice does not occur. There has been, so it would appear, a miscarriage of justice on this occasion, but I think that there are two nuggets of gratitude that we can express.

The first is that, although there was a wrong conviction, that wrong conviction has been found out, albeit after a long time, because my right honourable friend the Home Secretary referred the matter to the Court of Appeal. The second is that when police officers are concerned there is all too much of an inclination for people to criticise the whole of the police force. I feel that we have a very proud and upright police force, one which is fundamentally full of integrity. It is no bad thing to remember that it is the police officers themselves who, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly said, investigated the problem and found that there was error. One must never forget how difficult it must sometimes be to have to investigate some of one's own colleagues.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that he hoped that generous compensation would be paid. As I said in my Statement, the amount of compensation will be determined by an independent assessor. He is in fact Mr. David Calcutt Q.C., who is master of Magdalene College, Cambridge. I am sure that he will take into account all the circumstances. My right honourable friend will accept whatever amount is recommended by the assessor.

The noble Lord said that the Scottish system might be better because one can only take corroborated evidence. One section of PACE—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act—which came into effect on 1st January 1986 requires the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a confession was not obtained by oppression or in circumstances likely to render it unreliable before it may be given in evidence. That safeguard was based on the recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. I hope that the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act will help in ensuring that that kind of thing does not happen again. Scottish law imposes a general requirement that evidence should be corroborated before it can be used to convict an accused, but there are major differences between what constitutes corroboration in English law and what constitutes corroboration in Scottish law. We shall of course look at that issue in the light of the inquiry's findings.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested that there should be a jury and not a court of appeal. That is an interesting suggestion, but one upon which I do not think that I could venture to comment at the moment. It has been decided that the inquiry should be set up, and it will be set up and will proceed.

The noble Lord also referred to the Maguires. He asked why the Government do not give a generous act of pardon. I am bound to tell him that the Maguires were convicted on a narrow charge of possessing explosives. That was based on forensic evidence and not on confessional evidence. That forensic evidence was tested before the Court of Appeal and was upheld by the Court of Appeal. In view of that, I do not think that it would be satisfactory to refer their case again to the Court of Appeal or to give them an act of pardon. But, as the investigation of the Maguires began in the first place with their being named by two of the defendants who were in the custody of the Surrey police for the Guildford and Woolwich bombings, it would be right for the inquiry to include their case in its work. The noble Lord will be aware that they are not now in custody. We shall of course look at their case again in the light of the inquiry's findings.

The noble Lord also referred to the excerpt from the Guardian. He will realise that not everything that is written in newspapers is always true or correct. If what the newspaper said is true, any matter of that kind—and it is a grave matter—should be considered by the independent inquiry and if anyone has relevant information of any kind it should be made available to the inquiry in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, then raised the question of the method of inquiry and whether it should be a non-statutory tribunal. Obviously, when an occasion like this arises, my right honourable friend considers very carefully the best kind of inquiry and the most apppropriate kind of inquiry to be used. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in that he did not wish to have a statutory inquiry. That method has worked well in the past. It has worked, for instance, in the famous cases of Timothy John Evans and Hanratty. In my right honourable friend's judgment, a statutory inquiry would be too cumbersome and not appropriate to an inquiry of this kind.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked whether the inquiry will sit in public. That will be a matter for the judge holding the inquiry, but there may be some occasions when the nature of the evidence makes it necessary to sit in private. The noble Lord also asked whether the inquiry and the criminal investigation can go hand in hand. If he reads the Statement carefully, he will see that it says that, it would be right to establish the inquiry straightaway, recognising that it would have to adjust or ajourn its work as the interests of the administration of criminal justice might require". We did not think that it was right to postpone the inquiry because of the criminal investigation, but obviously the inquiry must not tread on the toes of the criminal investigation.

The noble Lord also asked whether, because of that, tape recording will be speeded up. He will understand that that has only recently started and that I cannot give an undertaking that, because of what has happened, tape recording will be speeded up. However, I can assure him that there is every desire to have tape recording used as quickly as possible in all places because of the benefits that it gives.

In his last remark the noble Lord referred to the death penalty. I do not think that I should embark down that path again today but I understand his views.

5 p.m.

Lord Carr of Hadley

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in this dreadful and pressing affair, the fact that action has been taken so quickly and that an inquiry is to go ahead without delay, together with all the other reported intentions, will bring much relief and be regarded as nuggets from which to take comfort in this business. I should like to ask him one question only. Can he tell the House whether the terms of reference of the inquiry will permit it to examine and, if necessary, make recommendations about the ways in which in future in this country inquiries into serious allegations of miscarriage of justice take place? Although there may be much comfort taken from the way in which this matter has eventually been brought out, there must also be very grave concern about the length of time that it has taken to bring it to this stage. I feel that the methods used should be examined and if improvements can be suggested they should be made.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for re-emphasising that at least, although we are all deeply disappointed at what has happened, there is comfort in the fact that the judicial process in its totality has resulted in a wrong being discovered. I am grateful to him for his remarks about my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

With regard to the terms of reference given to the inquiry, they do not in fact include reporting on what the judge thinks might be suitable alterations to make in the future. What the judge decides to report as a result of the investigation is of course entirely up to him.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, there is one short point about which I should like to ask my noble friend. Will there be power for the inquiry to apply to the High Court for an order to compel the attendance of any witnesses and to administer the oath?

Lord Fitt

My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware that over many years I and others have expressed great concern about the convictions in the Guildford and Maguire cases. Indeed in both Houses of Parliament I have repeatedly drawn the attention of noble Lords in this Chamber and the Government in another place to what was undoubtedly a very grave miscarriage of justice.

It is therefore with a sense of relief that I heard today the decision of the appeal court. I join in no chorus of nationalist criticism of the British judicial system but I believe that there is something very much lacking if it takes 15 years and the endeavours of so many eminent people to put pressure on the Home Secretary before in fact he thinks fit to refer this case to the Court of Appeal. I do not think it is possible to isolate the Guildford case from the Maguire case. Indeed in a debate in this House that was made very clear by many noble Lords representing various interests.

The noble Earl said that there is a difference in the Guildford case because they were convicted on alleged confessions, whereas in the case of Annie Maguire and her family there were no confessions. I can confirm that. From the day and hour that Annie Maguire and her family were arrested they have vehemently denied any involvement in any crime whatsoever. Before and during their case, during all the years that they were in prison and now that they have been released they have vehemently denied any involvement in any crime.

I also noticed that the noble Earl has laid suspicions against officers of the Surrey police. I think he should also have a close look at some members of the Metropolitan Police. I do not think that they should be absolved so easily. The Maguire family was interrogated by the Surrey police—the same people who interrogated the Guildford four who have been found innocent and whose convictions have been quashed. They were also interrogated by members of the Metropolitan Police. Notwithstanding every denial that they made, it was said that they allegedly had nitro-glycerine on their hands and as a result of a chromatology test they were found to have been handling explosive substances.

Many eminent people, scientific and otherwise, over the years have questioned the legitimacy of those findings and whether there was some other substance that could give the same reading as a chromatology test on nitro-glycerine. If there is no other substance, the question must arise of how that nitro-glycerine got on to the hands of a completely innocent family. Was it by accident or was it deliberately placed there?

I say this with a great deal of regret because, as noble Lords will know, my political career would indicate that I am not anti-police. In no way am I opposed to the establishment, the judiciary or the police force. Indeed, it is quite the reverse. I am vehemently opposed to terrorism. However, I am totally convinced by the words of a dying man, Guiseppe Conlon, two days before he died in Wormwood Scrubs. He made me enter into a commitment by saying to me, "Gerry, I know I'm going to die but after I am dead will you continue to prove that under no circumstances was I involved in any way with bomb-making material". I have said that in this House. I have repeated it to many people throughout the years. I said in 1985 in the debate in this Chamber that the case of the Maguires called out to high heaven for justice.

I support the request that has been made by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. No matter how long it takes, whatever the terms of the judicial inquiry and whatever the terms of reference they have, I believe that the Government must look very seriously at the circumstances in which that nitro-glycerine was allegedly found on the hands of those who were convicted. I personally believe that it was planted there.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway asked whether there would be a power for the inquiry to go to the High Court and ask for administration of the oath. The answer is that there will not be that power for the inquiry.

The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, if I may say so, made a very moving intervention because of his personal experience in this matter. Understandably he asked why it had taken so long to come to light. He will know that there have been a number of occasions in the past when it has been said that these people were convicted wrongly. It is up to my right honourable friend to decide whether there has been fresh evidence. Up to this point it was his onerous duty—it is an onerous duty—to consider that there had not been fresh evidence.

However, the new evidence undermining the conviction in fact only came to light quite recently. Evidence first came to light in May 1989 and more was discovered in July. My right honourable friend was informed of the Crown's decision by the Attorney-General on the afternoon of 16th October. So once the new evidence had come to light everything happened with a lot of speed.

The noble Lord also said that he was concerned about the Metropolitan Police. I can only emphasise what the Statement says; namely, that nothing has come to light to cast the slightest doubt on the integrity or conduct of any Metropolitan Police officer concerned. However, of course the inquiry will be free to examine the whole matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said that he hoped the Government would look carefully at the question of how the nitro-glycerine got on to the hands of those people. That is not the responsibility of the Government, but it will be a responsibility of the inquiry which has the capacity and the ability to inquire into the Maguire case.

Lord Hutchinson of Lullington

I wonder whether the noble Earl agrees that two lessons have been learnt already from this case. One is that ultimately the only protection the citizen has against the corruption or dishonesty of the police is his right of silence. Will the noble Earl reiterate the Government's support of that fundamental constitutional right of the individual, and that the Government will do everything to see that every person who falls into the hands of the police is told of that right?

I wonder also whether the noble Earl will agree that the second lesson that has been learnt is the necessity for the Government to set up a review tribunal to deal with these allegations of miscarriages of justice. That proposal was put forward by the Devlin Committee (of which I had the honour to be a member) over 15 years ago and was supported by two reports of Justice and by the Home Affairs Select Committee for the reason that the Court of Appeal and the Home Office have been shown simply not to have any appropriate powers or methods of inquiring into this type of allegation. Will the noble Earl confirm that in this case the Court of Appeal started by refusing leave to the appellants to have their case heard by that court? Will he tell the House whether the Government agree that those two lessons have been learned and that they will do what they can to see that those two measures are dealt with?

Earl Ferrers

The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, is taking us down some fairly long roads regarding the totality of the criminal justice system. He is inviting us to set up a review tribunal. I believe we should go one step at a time. We have set up a tribunal in relation to this problem. We must wait and see what that tribunal says.

It may say all kinds of things which will encourage us to take different steps in the future. We should wait until that happens. He also asked about the Court of Appeal refusing leave to an appellate. I believe that this is going too much into what one might call the nitty gritty of the problem. This is something that the inquiry will look into in order to see whether what was done was right or wrong.

Lord Annan

My Lords, will the noble Earl bear with me when I say that I was a little disappointed with his response on the Maguire family? He may recall that some of us—the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, particularly—spent a long Friday afternoon and evening debating an Unstarred Question on this matter. I spoke then as advisedly as I could. As I remember I said two things: first, the only reason that the police ever came to that family was because of the alleged confession of Mr. Gerry Conlon. I then said that it was scarcely credible that in that house the whole of this family could have been found with nitroglycerine under their fingernails. I said that I thought what might have happened was that the police, in an understandable sense of zeal and outrage at what had happened in Guildford, had followed a lead and had, in some way, convinced themselves that the Maguire family was involved in the manufacture of bombs.

I should like to second what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said. There is now almost incontrovertible evidence that the Maguires were fitted up. Such things will happen under the stress of emotion at these times, but I very much hope that the Maguire case will not be considered solely by the rules that have obtained up to now. The rule is that a case cannot be considered unless there is fresh evidence. There cannot be fresh evidence concerning the nitroglycerine.

I very much hope that the kind of family that the Maguires are should be taken into account and other circumstantial evidence about those unfortunate people, including the young boy who was sentenced to years in goal and who was reproved for protesting his innocence. He wrote on the back of a card in his cell "Innocent" and turned it to the wall.

5.15 p.m.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has said. I realise his concern about the Maguires. He will realise that there are two things happening as a result of the Statement. The first is a criminal investigation of those people to see whether people have misdirected their evidence. That is a criminal investigation which the Director of Public Prosecutions will undertake. The other is a judicial inquiry. I understand what the noble Lord said about the connection between the Maguires and Conlon; but he will also understand that when the Maguires were sentenced it was not on the confessional evidence, but on the evidence of forensic science. That forensic science evidence was upheld even though it went to the Court of Appeal. The tribunal of inquiry can look into the Maguires' case. It has specific reason to do so and I have no doubt it will take into account what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has said.

Lord Annan

My Lords, I wonder whether it will also bear in mind the book written by Robert Kee, one of our best investigative journalists, who gave up months of his time to write a book on which he can hardly have had one penny of profit.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, that may well be so; but I suggest to the noble Lord that he make sure that the inquiry is apprised of the book.

Lord Havers

My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to correct one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said? Not every member of the Maguire family was found positive in the nitroglycerine test. One of the sons who was in and out of the house during the afternoon—which turned out to be a significant factor in the case—was not there the whole time and his hands were clean.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that those of us who are not in the legal profession but are lay people are most concerned about this case? Indeed, we are concerned about the length of time that it has taken to come to real justice. These people have been in prison for the past 15 years and but for the persistence of some would still be there. Is the noble Earl aware that some people believe that this case may be just the tip of the iceberg? I and others would like to hear from the Government—perhaps not today—just exactly what measures will be taken to prevent, as far as possible, this kind of thing happening?

I am concerned too that the judiciary in this case failed properly to remind the jury of the risk of conviction on simple confession alone. Some of us wonder whether the judiciary and the jury were led by public hysteria to fail in their duty to defend the rights of the defendants and justice itself.

I hope that all those matters will be addressed most seriously. I hope too that we shall be assured that in future confessions, where they are sought and elicited, are taken only under one of three conditions: first, by means of a tape recording; secondly, in the presence of a solicitor nominated by the defendant; thirdly, by a magistrate. I believe that only under those conditions can confessions be taken correctly and be regarded as genuine. There exist many serious matters which I hope the House will debate in the future.

It is dangerous to act, whether through a court or by legislation, as a result of public hysteria. We have heard that the right of silence is most important but in this Session we undermined that right.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, expressed an anxiety that 15 years have elapsed. We all have that anxiety. As I have tried to explain, as soon as new evidence arrived the system was put into action in order to ascertain whether there was a miscarriage of justice.

A number of noble Lords have spoken of their concerns about various aspects of the case. I believe that we are in danger of going too far down the line of individual considerations, anxieties and points of view. The judicial inquiry has been set up for the purpose of looking into all the difficulties, to ascertain the best way of overcoming them and to make recommendations to my right honourable friend. We should let the judicial inquiry get on with its work and make our comments after it has reported.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, will the judicial inquiry take into account the conduct of the case itself?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, it is looking into the whole of the case.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead)

. My Lords, we have had a good go around the course on this enormously important Statement. I suggest that we take the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, who has been wishing to speak for some time, and conclude with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, from the Cross Benches. We should then proceed with the Report stage of the Bill.

Lord Stallard

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I agree that we have had a good innings and I shall not prolong the business.

I also took part in the 1985 debate and others. I endorse the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, about the debate and about the book by Robert Kee. I am concerned that in reading the original Statement about the Guildford case the noble Earl repeated the words, "because it has been said". He said that that was the reason for linking the two cases but I believe that it is more definite. When writing to me and others in 1987 the Home Secretary said: There were of course connections between the Guildford bombings case and that of the Maguires". That statement is more definite. I believe that there is now an attempt to downgrade the inquiry which will take place into the Maguire case because no one will want another upset if it can be avoided. The present Home Secretary then clearly and specifically spotlighted the connection between the two cases. That must be the basis. Further, the police who interrogated the Maguires should also be involved in a judicial inquiry.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the noble Lord is incorrect in believing that the inquiry is being downgraded. I shall repeat the terms of reference, omitting the middle part. They are, to inquire into the circumstances leading to and deriving from the trial of… Ann and Patrick Maguire, their sons, Vincent and Patrick Maguire, and Patrick Conlon, Patrick O'Neil and Sean Smith on charges of possessing explosives and to report to the Home Secretary and the Attorney General". That does not appear to be downgrading.