HC Deb 14 June 1994 vol 244 cc465-7W
Mr. McMaster

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names of the police officers involved in the original prosecution of Raymond Gilmour who were not interviewed in the investigation following his application for prerogative of mercy; if he will give reasons in each case; if he will detail the dates and place of any interview in which these officers participated prior to the submission of the application; if he will give the name and official designation of those conducting these interviews; and if the(a) recording and (b) transcripts of these interviews are available for public inspection.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

My right hon. Friend's letter of 18 April 1994 explained to the hon. Member that six of the seven police officers involved in the original investigation were interviewed last year and that the other officer had died in the intervening period. None of those officers was interviewed on behalf of my right hon. Friend prior to the submission of the application. The interviews were conducted by the regional procurator fiscal at Paisley and senior officers of Strathclyde police. Statements made in the course of investigations carried out on behalf of the Secretary of State are confidential.

Mr. McMaster

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his normal practice when considering applications for the prerogative of mercy in respect of evidence which could have been presented during original or appeal trials; how he applied this practice during his consideration of the application for the prerogative of mercy by Raymond Gilmour; what such evidence in this case he dismissed; and if he will make a statement.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

My right hon. Friend may refer a case to the Court of Appeal in terms of section 263(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 where he considers that a miscarriage of justice may have taken place in the case of a convicted person. Exceptionally and alternatively, he may recommend an exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy. My right hon. Friend exercises his powers of reference only where new evidence or fresh considerations of substance can be identified in relation to a person's conviction.

The High Court has held that before it will consider new evidence on appeal it must be shown that the additional evidence was not available or could not reasonably have been made available at the trial. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend would not normally refer a case to the Court of Appeal in terms of section 263(1) of the 1975 Act on the basis of evidence which could reasonably have been led at trial.

All aspects of the petitions submitted on behalf of Mr. Gilmour last year were carefully considered, as my right hon. Friend's letter to the hon. Member of 18 April this year explained.

Mr. McMaster

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, during his consideration of the application for the prerogative of mercy by Raymond Gilmour, he ascertained what scientific means investigating officers used to estimate the distance between the murdered body of Pamela Hastie and the tree referred to in Gilmour's alleged confession; and how he accounts for the discrepancies between the various statements of the distance.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

Evidence about the location of the victim's body was before the court of trial and was therefore a matter for the jury to assess.

Mr. McMaster

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the investigative procedures which were followed during the consideration of the application for the prerogative of mercy by Raymond Gilmour; if he will list the departments, agencies and other bodies involved in the investigation; if he will list the name of each person interviewed during the investigation; if he will give the dates and purposes of each interview; and if he will make a statement.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

At the request of the Scottish Office, matters raised in the representations submitted by solicitors acting on behalf of Mr. Gilmour were thoroughly investigated by the regional procurator fiscal at Paisley with the assistance of senior police' officers. The results of these investigations were duly referred to the Crown Office, which provided reports for my right hon. Friend; details of such inquiries are confidential.

Mr. McMaster

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date the application for the prerogative of mercy was submitted on behalf of Raymond Gilmour; when it was referred to the Crown Office for investigation and assessment; when the investigative process was completed; and what date the case was referred back to the Scottish Office for decision; and what date a decision was taken.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

As explained in my reply to the hon. Member on 7 December 1993, a petition was submitted on behalf of Mr. Raymond Gilmour on 8 January 1993; this petition was referred to the Crown Office on 22 January 1993. Further representations on Mr. Gilmour's behalf were submitted on 12 March and 27 May last year. Reports were received from the Crown Office on 26 August and 2 September 1993. Further investigations were requested on behalf of the Secretary of State on 13 October 1993, the results of which were received from the Crown Office on 8 December 1993. A decision was taken on this case on 15 April 1994 and my right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member on 18 April 1994 to inform him of that decision.

Mr. McMaster

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the majority verdict given by the jury in the original trial of Raymond Gilmour; and what was the reasons for the absence of one of the jurors.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

This information is not normally known. I understand in this case however that the guilty verdict was 8:6, one juror having become unfit to continue to serve through illness.

Mr. McMaster

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he gave during his assessment of the application for the prerogative of mercy to the apparent inconsistencies in the explanation given by Raymond Gilmour as to his whereabouts on the day that Pamela Hastie was raped and murdered; if he will detail precisely what these apparent inconsistencies are; and if he will make a statement.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

This matter was not raised in the petitions submitted on Mr. Gilmour's behalf last year.

Mr. McMaster

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what detailed reasons were given to him by the Minister of State for his decision to withdraw from further consideration of the application for the prerogative of mercy submitted by Raymond Gilmour; on what date he was notified of this decision; if he will detail the sources from which the Minister of State sought and obtained advice; what recollections of involvement in the original prosecution led the Minister of State to decide to withdraw from consideration of the application; on what date he first reported these recollections to him; and if he will make a statement.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

Following receipt of a report on Mr. Gilmour's case in February this year, my noble and learned Friend advised the Secretary of State in March that he intended to withdraw from consideration of the papers. My noble and learned Friend advised the hon. Member on 30 March this year of his reasons for his withdrawal and the limited nature of his earlier involvement in his previous capacity as a law officer. Decisions on such cases are taken personally by the Secretary of State.