HL Deb 20 April 1998 vol 588 cc919-21

2.54 p.m.

Lord Burnham

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What was the decision of the court in the judicial review on 25th March of the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)

My Lords, although the hearing of the judicial review concluded on 26th March the judge, Mr. Justice Coghlin, reserved judgment.

Lord Burnham

My Lords, I am disappointed by the noble Lord's Answer because we had a fairly firm assurance that the judgment would be given before Easter, and, if not, certainly in the week after Easter. However, as that has not happened can we have an absolute assurance, as we have been promised in the past—some of us are unhappy about that—that whatever decision is reached, either by the judge or by the Secretary of State, the decision about the release of these men will in no way be governed by political considerations?

Lord Dubs

My Lords, on the first point, the Government cannot control a decision of the judiciary, nor should we do so. We shall have to await the judge's views. On the second point, I give the noble Lord that assurance.

Earl Alexander of Tunis

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is a disgrace that these serving soldiers have languished in prison for doing what they considered to be their duty?

Lord Dubs

My Lords, the Government are not able to agree with that proposition. Those two soldiers were sentenced through a due process of law in the courts. We have to say that justice was done in that case.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the release of these guardsmen—I take his point as regards his previous answer—will not be delayed by arrangements for the release of prisoners under the peace process? I seek a categoric assurance.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I shall explain the relationship between prisoners such as Fisher and Wright and the decisions made under the agreement reached last week in Belfast. There will be established, subject to legislation, a sentence review body which will consider the situation of all prisoners who have been convicted of scheduled offences. Fisher and Wright were convicted of scheduled offences. Therefore this process will be subject to the decision of the sentence review board. We hope that the legislation, subject to Parliament's wish, will pass through Parliament by the end of June this year. It will then be for the independent sentence review body to decide in what order and under what priorities it proceeds to consider various prisoners' cases.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, on a point of clarification, I seek an assurance. I listened with the greatest attention, but surely the noble Lord can give that assurance in view of his answer.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, if we leave the decision to an independent body it is difficult for me to give an assurance as to how that independent body will work. However, in general terms the answer is yes. If the sentence review body takes a long time to reach the case we are discussing, the Government have already given a commitment that the Life Sentence Review Board—which will stay in existence—will reconsider the case in October 1998. I gave an undertaking that 12 months after the previous occasion on which the body considered the case, the Secretary of State would ask it to reconsider the case. That still holds good. These bodies are independent. The decision about Fisher and Wright will not be delayed as a result of the peace process; indeed it may be accelerated.

Lord Ackner

My Lords, will the Minister concede that the embarrassment which has arisen out of the case of the two guardsmen is the inevitable consequence of a politician exercising the judicial function of deciding how long a person convicted of murder should stay in prison?

Lord Dubs

My Lords, no, I would not concede that point.

The Earl of Carlisle

My Lords, should the sentence review body make a decision which was not in favour of the early release of the two guardsmen, would Her Majesty's Government consider putting the case to the Sovereign so that she could exercise her prerogative of mercy?

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I have indicated that two procedures will be running in parallel: the Life Sentence Review Board procedure which is already in existence; and, subject to new legislation, the sentence review body. Either will be able to make a decision about the two guardsmen. In the circumstances, I think that it would not be appropriate to refer the case elsewhere.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, how can soldiers do their duty if, in the course of doing it to the best of their ability, often in very difficult circumstances, they are rendering themselves liable to be sued for murder if they kill someone in error?

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I agree that of course our soldiers and the RUC in Northern Ireland have carried out a very difficult task over many years in a brave and exemplary manner, and that their lives have been at risk. Indeed quite a few of them have been killed in the course of doing their duties. That has to be clear and accepted by all, as I am sure it is.

However, we also have the rule of law. We also have independent courts. It was the court that decided that these two men were guilty of murder. It is part of our system that the courts make those decisions and not governments.

The Duke of Norfolk

My Lords, it is all very well to reply, as the Minister has done, but we who have served in the Army ourselves are taking a great interest in the lives of the two guardsmen. I am proud to have marched with the infantry for 30 years of my life. We do not wish to have the judicature interfered with in any way, but these two guardsmen have been in prison for five years. They did an act in the heat of the moment in the discharge of their duty. We should like the Government to recommend to the judicature that those guardsmen should get off as soon as possible.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, when prisoners are given life sentences in Northern Ireland the Life Sentence Review Board normally does not look into their cases until they have served 10 years. In this particular case, and quite exceptionally, the LSRB was asked to look into the case after five years. It will be asked to look again at the case a year later—that is, next October. I should have thought that that goes quite some way towards meeting the noble Duke's point. Each case has to be considered in the particular circumstances relating to it. That has been done in the case of Fisher and Wright.

Lord Burnham

My Lords, in the light of what the Minister said, on the last occasion of a judicial review of these cases, which was some time in the middle of last year, was not the recommendation that the two guardsmen should be released last October? Was that recommendation turned down by the Secretary of State and not by the judges?

Lord Dubs

My Lords, last October the Life Sentence Review Board gave its confidential recommendations to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State considered those views and all other facts relating to the case and asked the Life Sentence Review Board to look again at the matter a year later. As I said earlier, that is next October. I do not think that the judicial review decision urged release. I believe that the decision related to the procedures surrounding the way in which the case had been handled.

Forward to