Guardsmen Fisher and Wright (Hansard, 12 January 1998)

§ Marjorie Mowlam

[holding answer 22 December 1997]: The two Guardsmen were each provided with a written gist of my considerations of their cases at the time that my decision was conveyed to them by the Northern Ireland Prison Service. A copy of the relevant extract from the letter is reproduced as follows. Gist of the Secretary of State's considerations The Secretary of State carefully considered all the currently available information and reports about your case in the knowledge of the confidential recommendation of the Review Board. She also considered at length all the available information about the other cases identified. However, the Secretary of State concluded that while it was useful to recall the other cases and to be aware of their outcomes, and the reasons for them, in so far as they are known, they lent little assistance to the deliberations given the full facts of your particular case. The Secretary of State also felt that the information relating to Manslaughter cases and other serious crimes other than murder covered such a wide range that they were also not particularly helpful or relevant. The Secretary of State also considered the formal representations from your Solicitor along with the other correspondence received about your case. Looking therefore at your case on its own individual merits the Secretary of State weighed up the various competing mitigating and aggravating factors. The Secretary of State noted that there was no agreement as to who fired first. She concluded that this factor, which could be variously viewed as mitigating or aggravating, was of minor significance. She concluded that a gravely serious crime had been committed which resulted in the death of an unarmed youth who was running away from your patrol in circumstances where the 83W Courts found that there was no lawful justification for the shooting. She also acknowledged, however, the difficult background against which the offence had been committed in which you were operating during the course of your duty and the fact that there was no premeditation. She decided that, given all the available facts of your case, you have not yet served a period sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the crime. She therefore decided to invite the Life Sentence Review Board to consider your case again in one year's time when you will have served approximately six years. I must of course, advise you, without prejudice to whatever recommendation that the Review Board may come to next year, that a deferral of your case for this period is not an indication that release will be appropriate at that time.

I would assure the House that the consideration that has been given to these cases by all those who are involved in the life sentence review process has been scrupulous. These are very serious matters and the cases have been carefully and thoroughly considered on the basis of the facts as adduced by the Courts. They have been dealt with strictly on their own merits and I can assure the House that no extraneous considerations, political or otherwise, have been permitted to influence my decision.