HC Deb 04 December 1990 vol 182 cc89-90W
Mr. Irvine

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has completed his review of the cases of the three persons convicted of the murder of Police Constable Blakelock; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Baker

I have been considering very carefully a number of representations which have been made to me about the case of Mr. Mark Braithwaite, Mr. Engin Raghip and Mr. Winston Silcott. Each was convicted of murder and riot.

I would normally only consider intervening in a case if there were presented to me some new evidence or other consideration of substance which had not previously been before the courts and which might cast doubts on the safety of the conviction.

Amongst the matters submitted to me was a statement from a psychologist who had, at the request of the defence, assessed Mr. Raghip's mental condition before his trial. The psychologist now says that, in the light of subsequent tests carried out by another psychologist, he now regards the assessment which he then made of Mr. Raghip's mental condition as mistaken. He now takes the view that had he, at the time of the trial, been aware of the later findings of the other psychologist whose tests were carried out in what he regards as more appropriate circumstances than those which he himself had encountered, he would have agreed that Mr. Raghip possessed a significant degree of mental incapacity, suggestibility and compliance.

The psychologist's changed view amounts to fresh material which I think it right that the Court of Appeal should have the opportunity to consider.

Accordingly, in the exercise of my powers under section 17(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, I have today referred the case of Engin Raghip to the Court of Appeal for determination in respect of conviction. Under the provisions of that section, his case now falls to be treated for all purposes as an appeal to the court by Mr. Raghip himself, and it will be for those representing Mr. Raghip to seek to raise with the Court of Appeal any matters which they feel may be of relevance to his appeal.

I have also looked very carefully at the representations made on behalf of Mr. Mark Braithwaite and Mr. Winston Silcott, but I have found no grounds on which I would be justified in taking any action to intervene in respect of their convictions. I am, however, always prepared to consider any further representations about the safety of these convictions.

Back to