MAGUIRE FAMILY: MAY REPORT (Hansard, 3 December 1992)

Earl Ferrers

My right honourable friends the Attorney General and the Home Secretary have received the final report by Sir John May of his inquiry into the case of the Maguire family and their co-defendants, who were convicted in 1976 of the unlawful possession of explosives. Those convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal on 26th June 1991, following Sir John's interim report on the case and the decision of the then Home Secretary, now Lord Waddington, to refer the whole case to the court under the provisions of Section 17(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

This report is being published today in response to an order of the House for a Return. We wish to thank Sir John and all those who assisted him for the care and thoroughness with which his inquiry has examined the circumstances of the convictions of the Maguires and their co-defendants and issues arising therefrom.

In his report Sir John reviews the basis of the decision to prosecute the Maguire family and their co-defendants. He then examines the role of Home Office Ministers and officials in the consideration of representations received over a number of years alleging that there had been a miscarriage of justice. Sir John has also re-examined some of the scientific issues which were dealt with in his interim report, although that re-examination has not caused him to amend his conclusions on the scientific aspects of the case.

It is a very serious matter whenever there is a miscarriage of justice and my right honourable friends are determined that the lessons from such cases should be learned and applied effectively.

Sir John concluded that the criteria which successive Home Secretaries have used to determine whether intervention in a conviction can be justified are sound in law and logic and provide no grounds for criticism. We welcome his further conclusion that, within the limits imposed by those criteria, the Home Office investigated the representations it received with care and thoroughness.

Since the time when those representations were considered, the Home Office has developed its approach to the consideration of alleged miscarriages of justice—in particular by being ready to investigate the circumstances of a case more widely than the scope of representations made to it and, where there appear 103WA to be grounds for doing so, by being ready to initiate enquiries without having first received any representations. We are constantly seeking to apply the lessons to be learned from cases and we will continue to do so, taking account now of what Sir John has said in this report. It will continue to be our aim to give prompt, diligent and impartial consideration to all representations, taking whatever action may be necessary, including where appropriate the referral of a conviction to the Court of Appeal.

Sir John's report raises important questions about the part played by scientific evidence and by expert witnesses in the prosecution of offenders. Since the time when the Maguires and their co-defendants were prosecuted, there have been significant advances in procedures and quality control in the field of forensic science. Questions about the role of experts in criminal 104WA proceedings, their responsibilities to the court, prosecution, and defence, the relationship between the forensic science service and the police and access by accused persons to court evidence are being examined by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice.

In his report Sir John May concludes that there should be some new machinery independent of the Home Office to consider whether alleged wrongful convictions should be referred to the Court of Appeal. In the oral evidence which the Home Secretary gave recently to the Royal Commission, he put forward the same proposal.

The Commission, of which Sir John May is a member and to whose deliberations he is ideally placed to contribute the wider lessons of his inquiry, is expected to make its own report in June 1993.