§ Mr. DavidsonTo ask the Attorney-General what was the date of the Appeal Court hearing in Northern Ireland at which three of the UDR Four were released; what were the recommendations of the court about prosecutions of persons involved in the case; what action has been taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland; what matters remain upon which the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland has yet to make a decision; and when the expects such decisions to be taken.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe Court of Appeal for Northern Ireland delivered its judgment in the appeal of Rv. Neil Fraser Latimer, James Irwin Hegan, Noel Richmond Bell and Alfred Winston Allen on 29 July 1992.
The court made no recommendations in respect of prosecutions. The court directed that its judgment be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland so that he could consider the bringing of prosecutions against officers who he considered had committed criminal offences in connection with the trial of the appellants.
On 5 August 1992, 10 February 1993 and 27 April 1993, the director issued interim directions to the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary requesting that further reports, information and witness statements be obtained. When these had been received, the director considered all the facts and information before him. In Northern Ireland the test for prosecution applied by the director is that criminal proceedings are instituted where he is satisfied that the evidence which can be adduced in court is sufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction and that such proceedings are in the public interest.
The director concluded that the evidence in this case was sufficient to warrant prosecution of a number of individuals. Accordingly, on 26 July 1993, the director issued a direction to prosecute three serving and two former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary for offences of perjury and doing acts with intent to pervert the course of public justice in connection with the trial of the appellants. The director further concluded that the evidence was insufficient to institute criminal proceedings in respect of any other police officers who had been the subject of report. There were a number of other matters in respect of which the director requested the Chief Constable to carry out inquiries. Additional papers have now been received from police and are presently being considered.
Subsequently, a solicitor acting on behalf of one of the persons in respect of whom prosecution had been directed, submitted a medical report. The director then arranged that this person be independently examined by a consultant physician and a further report obtained. When this report had been received and considered, the director concluded that the prosecution of that individual should not proceed. Accordingly, a direction of no prosecution was issued on 1 September 1993.