HL Deb 16 January 2003 vol 643 cc60-2WA
Lord Hylton

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the Written Answer by Lord Goldsmith on 23 July (WA 43–44), since the Appeals Committee refused on 14 November leave to appeal to the petitioners in the case of Regina v. Alami and Regina v. Botmeh how many instances of human error affecting full disclosure occurred and when, both at first instance and on appeal, in the criminal cases tried in consequence of the bomb explosions on 26 July 1994 at the embassy of Israel and Balfour House; and whether anyone has been disciplined on account of these errors. [HL452]

The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)

It is impossible at this distance of time to reconstruct the complex series of events in this case so as to identify with any degree of accuracy how many instances of human error occurred in relation to disclosure. I can however say that no one has been disciplined as a consequence of any such error. This is because any errors were made in good faith and did not constitute misconduct. Moreover, in so far as the question suggests that errors affecting disclosure occurred on appeal, it is incorrect; the errors occurred at the pretrial or trial stage.

I refer the noble Lord to the decision of the Court of Appeal, which expressed itself entirely satisfied about five things. First, prosecuting counsel had access to everything they wanted to see and examined all relevant or potentially material matter in accordance with the relevant legal tests. Secondly, the trial judge was correct to rule as he did in relation to the disclosure and non-disclosure of the matter before him. Thirdly, no one attempted to conceal from the Court of Appeal any relevant or potentially material matter. Fourthly, public interest immunity was rightly claimed in relation to matters which the court saw, because it affected national security at the highest level and would. if disclosed. present a clear and immediate threat to life. Fifthly, apart from two matters, there was nothing of significance before the Court of Appeal which was not before the trial judge.

Having ordered disclosure of those two matters to the appellants in a suitable form and having heard submissions in relation to them, the Court of Appeal was satisfied that no injustice was done to the appellants by not having access to them at trial.

The two matters which the court ordered should be disclosed were further information prior to the bombings suggesting that a terrorist organisation unconnected to the appellants may have been contemplating an attack on the Israeli embassy and an explanation as to the circumstances in which a document was not shown to counsel and a later document was not shown to the trial judge. As to the information, the court was satisfied that this would have had no impact on the trial. As to the documents, the court accepted the explanation put forward and said that this explanation disposed of any sinister implication.