Neil Latimer (Hansard, 3 July 1995)

§ Sir John Wheeler

The judgment about guilt or innocence in a criminal case is entirely a matter for the courts and Ministers cannot substitute their own assessments of the evidence in a case for that of the courts.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has a statutory power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal again. There is, however, a criterion which, consistent with his predecessors, the Secretary of State would normally expect to be fulfilled before he would use this power. It is that there is some new evidence, or other consideration of substance, which has not previously been before the court and which appeared to cast doubt on the safety of the conviction.

Mr. Latimer's case has already been before the courts on three occasions. The first two were the trial of Mr. Latimer and three other UDR soldiers, Winston Allen, Noel Bell and James Hegan, and the subsequent appeal to which they had an automatic right. The third time was in 1991 when, after very careful consideration of representations made to him, and the production of new evidence, the then Secretary of State referred the cases of the soldiers back to the Court of Appeal.

In a very fully argued written judgment, delivered on 29 July 1992, the Court of Appeal unanimously quashed the convictions of Winston Allen, Noel Bell and James Hegan on the grounds that they were unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court was, however, unanimously satisfied on separate evidence, including his admitted confession statements, as to Neil Latimer's guilt, and that his convictions were safe and satisfactory.

The Secretary of State has continued to receive further representations on Mr. Latimer's behalf, all of which he gave the most careful and thorough examination. He concluded, however, that none of them was sufficient to justify him in the exercise of his statutory power to refer the case to the Court of Appeal again.