Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 May 1985

Vol. 358 No. 12

Adjournment Debate. - Maguire Case.

Mr. D. Andrews

This relates to Question No. 329 on the Order Paper which was:

To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the grave miscarriage of justice in the case of Regina Vs. Maguire and others, as screened and debated on a recent "Today Tonight" programme on RTE and on the Frost programme on Independent British TV—AM; and if he will make representations to the British Home Office and elsewhere with a view to reopening the case so as to establish the innocence of the Maguire family.

I cannot be privy to what the Minister for Foreign Affairs may or may not have done in relation to the Maguire case but witnessing the huge barrage of public concern on behalf of the Maguire family by British parliamentarians of both a Conservative and Labour hue, and a number of members of the British House of Lords in addition to a number of well known people in the area of jurisprudence in Britain, one can only be concerned that there has been a grave miscarriage of justice in this instance. The 20 minutes allotted to me will be less than adequate to complete the picture of what may have been a serious miscarriage of justice. Basically, I am asking the Minister for Foreign Affairs to lend his political clout to convincing the British, authorities that there is a case to be made for the reopening of the Annie Maguire case. For the benefit of those who might not be familiar with the full facts of the Maguire case, it involved more than Annie Maguire, it involved a substantial part of her family.

Just under three months ago a prison gate opened and Annie Maguire came to freedom for the first time in ten years. Eight of these ten years were spend in a maximum security A status prison. This meant that she had few privileges and few visits and had the constant vigilance of two prison officers every time she strayed outside her prison cell. The ordeal was compounded by the fact that she was aware that members of her family were dispersed in other prisons throughout Britain. She was committed to a prison cell for an offence for which she considered herself to be not guilty. The evidence will show clearly that she could not have been guilty of the offence on the evidence that was produced to convict her at her trial. This term of imprisonment would have been realistic if the evidence produced had been satisfactory. In the circumstances evidence which was less than satisfactory and which was subsequently proved to be less than satisfactory by persons far more prominent than myself in matters of this nature was used to convict her.

Anyone who heard Annie Maguire on the first class "Today Tonight" programme will have been impressed by her dignified uncomplaining demeanour. All she seeks is to establish her innocence. Well before these programmes were produced I took an interest in this case and the concern expressed in these programmes precipitated me into taking genuine action on behalf of this family. I also felt that if the British politicians and lawyers in their wisdom were so concerned about what they considered to be a miscarriage of justice why should not we on this side of the Channel activate ourselves on behalf of this Belfast woman and her family. I took the liberty of addressing the following letter to the British Home Secretary:

16th May, 1985

Mr. Leon Brittan M.P.

British Home Secretary.

House of Commons,

London.

Dear Home Secretary,

I am writing to you in my capacity as a member of Dáil Éireann in connection with what has become known as the Annie Maguire Case.

You will have the facts of the case at your disposal and I am now formally requesting you to re-open the case on a number of grounds including the following:

(a) That the presiding Judge misdirected the Jury.

(b) That the chemical test to detect the presence of explosives, as used in the Maguire case, is now in disrepute and has been proved to be scientifically unreliable.

(c) That the new evidence you suggest you require to re-open the case is surely the fact that the scientific test used in the case is now known to be flawed and descredited and no longer used by the British authorities in prosecutions of a similar nature.

I would be glad to meet with you to discuss the matter in more detail and look forward to a response to my representations as soon as is convenient.

The Private Secretary to the Minister acknowledged receipt of my letter dated 16/5/1985 about Annie Maguire's conviction and stated that it was receiving attention. I am looking forward to the ultimate response to my representations to the British Home Secretary on behalf of the Maguire family.

A sub leader in The Irish Press dated 15 May 1985 headed “The Maguire case” goes into this case well. Unfortunately The Irish Press are not now functioning and I genuinely hope that the Press group generally will be back in circulation in the not too distant future because in addition to providing news it also provides jobs.

However the sub leader in The Irish Press dated 15 May 1985 runs as follows:

The announcement by the British Home Secretary, Leon Brittan that he will look very carefully at any new evidence about the conviction in 1976 of Annie Maguire and members of her family for possessing explosives only emphasises the unease which many people feel about the scientific evidence on which they were convicted.

That is the burden of my case. It is quite clear that the scientific evidence produced in this case is bogus. It is not bogus in the sincerity of its presentation but bogus in its reliability. That is fundamental to the whole conviction of this family. The article runs on:

The Maguires were arrested at a time when Britain was still suffering the hysterical aftermath of an IRA bombing.

That refers to the Guildford bombings. I can understand the British people being hysterical at the mindless campaign conducted by that organisation, on behalf of the Republic presumably, but not on my behalf or on behalf of my Party or on behalf of the majority of the people here. That is not central to my argument that these people quite clearly were not guilty of the offence for which they were convicted on unreliable evidence. This type of evidence is no longer used in cases of this nature. I responded to the Maguire case editorial. Unfortunately the editor, Mr. Tim Pat Coogan, is out of business at present and my letter reached him when the newspaper was in suspension. I wrote to Mr. Coogan on 16 May 1985 as follows:

I note that you have featured the Maguire case in one of your sub leaders of the 15th May, last.

For the information of your readers I have placed a Parliamentary Question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the matter and have been in direct touch with the Maguire family who have given me permission to pursue the matter through Dáil Éireann. In addition, I have commenced correspondence with the British Home Secretary, Mr. Leon Britan MP with a view to discussing with him what appears to be, on the facts, a very serious miscarriage of justice.

I have spoken to Annie Maguire and she is a woman who has the demeanour not of a wronged woman but of a woman to whom an injustice has been done and she was uncomplaining. For that reason alone — it is not a good enough reason — maybe the Minister for Foreign Affairs will have a look at the case with a view to making the necessary representations on behalf of an Irishwoman and her family. I was in touch with the Maguire family, Annie in particular, and she was glad that I was raising it on this side of the Irish Sea in addition to the efforts being made on the other side. The scenario was that Annie Maguire left prison three months ago. She was sentenced to 14 years. Her husband, Paddy Maguire, was sentenced to 14 years, their eldest son, Vincent got five years and their youngest son, Peter got four years. Séan Smith, the brother who stayed with her at the time, got 12 years, Pat O'Neill, a visitor to the Maguire house, got 12 years and the saddest case of all, if one case can be sadder than another, is that of Guiseppe Conlon, Paddy Maguire's brother-in-law who got 12 years.

The story began in north London where she and her family live and they were arrested under suspicion of bombmaking and were eventually charged with possession of an explosive substance called nitroglycerine. They were tried over a year later at the Old Bailey. The trial lasted two months and all seven accused were convicted and sent to different jails throughout Britain. The most extraordinary feature of the case is that none of them made incriminating statements. No explosives were ever found. Today, ten years later, Annie Maguire continues to protest innocence on her own behalf and on behalf of those other accused. One of those accused was convicted on what is now suspected to be unreliable and unconvincing evidence and he died in a British prison protesting his innocence.

I have mentioned the Guildford bombing and I should place on the record of the House that the presiding judge in Great Britain was Sir John Donaldson and he tried Annie Maguire and her family. Sir Michael Havers acted as chief prosecutor for the Crown in both the Guildford and Maguire cases. One significant aspect of the case is that this was the first time in Britain where possession of explosives was to be proved on scientific evidence alone. We know that Sir Michael Havers was a British conservative MP and he was then shadow Attorney General. Today Sir Michael Havers is British Attorney General. He opened the case to the jury and in cross-examination Sir Michael described Pat O'Neill as "one of the homing pigeons going down to Paddy Maguire's". The only evidence of bomb making produced by the prosecution counsel was the presence of nitro-glycerine indicated by forensic testing. It is fair to say that no explosives were ever found despite the fact that sniffer dogs and sniffing devices were brought into the house at the time and there was no evidence of explosives good, bad or indifferent. Sir Michael Havers contended that there were traces of nitro-glycerine on the hands of the accused. The hands of each of the accused was swabbed with cotton wool and then the swabs were taken for testing. The evidence was that the test was carried out under a technique known as Thin Layer Chromotography or TLC and by a 17 year old apprentice trainee technician who had just completed his O levels. Again there were no complaints in relation to schooling qualifications but we must ask ourselves what his scientific qualifications and scientific reliability were. The test itself and the apprentice who conducted it were to become key issues in the case. TLC is a relatively unsophisticated technique which has been in common use for many years. The application of the TLC test in explosives cases has brought about reasonable doubt and these tests are now no longer used in such cases. The tests were not reliable or reliably guaranteed and these questions were central to the trial which lasted for seven weeks. The defence attacked and discredited this TLC test and they had an extraordinary witness, Mr. John Yallop, who showed that what the accused had on their hands was not necessarily nitro-glycerine. Surely there we come to the test for all criminal trials that the individual accused must be proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, and surely here was doubt.

Independent forensic experts in Britain familiar with the case have also questioned the validity of the TLC test. Professor Brian Caddy of Strathclyde University who had studied all the forensic evidence in the Maguire case cast doubts on its veracity.

These are some of the reasons why I ask the Minister with the greatest of respect to express from this side of the Irish Sea our concern. He may have done it privately, although I am not aware of that because I am not privy to what goes on in the Department. We would be doing a service to the cause of justice but more particularly to a family who, let me say without becoming emotional, have been humiliated by a judicial process at which the British consider themselves to be supreme. In this non-political, non-partisan fashion, I ask the Minister to address himself to the case in the interest of justice for this Irish family.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. P. Barry)

The Maguire case is one which has caught the attention of the media and many citizens in recent months, notably since the RTE "Today Tonight" programme last April. I welcome this opportunity to emphasise the Government's concern about the case which has been ongoing since the original conviction. This is an opportunity for me also to emphasise the Government's concern to advance the welfare of all Irish people in Britain and to do all in our power to ensure that in the enjoyment of their civil rights the Irish in Britain suffer no abuse or discrimination under the British legal and penal system.

It is fair to say that this Government have been more active than any in the history of the State in pursuing these aims and are working more closely than ever with concerned Irish organisations in Britain on issues affecting the welfare of Irish prisoners with positive results. Today I had a further meeting with the Federation of Irish Societies in Britain— a meeting which was part of the regular and constant contact with Irish organisations in Britain which I initiated when I came to office. The Maguire case, together with the problems of Irish prisoners and detainees in Britain, were among the issues we discussed, as was our concern about the operation of the British Prevention of Terrorism Act.

I informed the Federation of Irish Societies in Britain that so long as the Prevention of Terrorism Act obtains my Department and the Embassy in London will be watching for abuses and will be concerned to help the Irish persons in need. As a measure of our concern it should be noted that the Embassy in London and my Department maintain a 24-hour service for this purpose amongst others. We had about 200 contacts from friends, relatives and representatives of Irish PTA detainees in the first quarter of this year. I want to turn back to the case raised be Deputy Andrews relating to Mrs. Annie Maguire, members of her family and friends were convicted of explosive offences in 1976.

I appreciate and share the Deputy's unease about this case which has been the subject of renewed attention since the release of Mrs. Maguire on 22 February last. The two recent "Today Tonight" programmes on RTE, the edited version of the RTE documentary on Channel 4 and other programmes by Robert Kee and David Frost on Independent Television have generated considerable concern in Ireland and Britain and have prompted demands for a review of the court proceedings in Britain and for exoneration of those convicted, one of whom, Giuseppe Conlon died while in prison.

The trial took place in February 1976. Both prosecution and defence accepted that the case rested on forensic tests which the prosecution alleged showed traces of nitro-glycerine on the hands of all the accused. The tests were conducted on the basis of the so-called Thin Layer Chromatography — TLC — technique. Cotton wool swabs and ether were wiped over the hands of the seven accused and their nails picked with Cherry picks. Laboratory tests proved positive in all cases save one, leading to the allegation that the hands of the defendants concerned had been in contact with explosives during the previous 48 hours. One of the accused, Mrs. Maguire herself had clean hands. However, kitchen gloves found in a drawer and alleged to be hers gave a positive reaction.

During the subsequent trial the defence case was that the TLC tests were not conclusive proof of possession of nitro-glycerine and that testing was carried out by an 18 year old apprentice without acceptable experience who destroyed the evidence during forensic examination. Forensic scientist John Yallop who had originally designed the tests, appeared for the defence but as the House is aware, all seven defendants were found guilty by a jury. Mr. and Mrs. Maguire received a sentence of 14 years. Their sons, then aged 16 and 13, got five and four years respectively. Pat O'Neill got 12 years, Guiseppe Conlon 12 years and Seán Smyth 12 years.

All have now been released but Guiseppe Conlon who had been in bad health even at the time of his arrest died in custody in 1980. All had applied for leave to appeal against their convictions and sentences. The appeals were duly heard but the Court of Appeal upheld the verdicts of guilty.

Several aspects of the case have given rise to recurring concern since the original trial. The first is that the Maguires were convicted principally on forensic evidence without any corroborative circumstantial evidence. Indeed, although the police made an intensive search of the Maguire house and the area in which they were living using both sniffer dogs and mechanical devices for detecting explosives nothing was found. Even a nearby canal was dredged but to no effect. So, as I have said, the conviction rested principally on minute traces of nitroglycerine allegedly found on the hands or gloves of the seven defendants.

It is largely on the forensic evidence, that is, on the question of the reliability of the Thin Layer Chromatography tests that the subsequent public commentary has been based. In particular the evidence that vital tests were carried out by an apprentice, that the results were destroyed during the tests, that the method of testing was inherently unreliable and capable of giving a false result and that the person who actually invented the testing technique, Mr. John Yallop, was called to the defence during the trial has been raised to strongly question the fairness of the conviction. These are indeed aspects of the case which would worry any fair-minded person.

Reference has also been made in public to the more recent findings of Dr. Brian Caddy of the University of Strathclyde who, on the basis of research carried out by him, concluded that there was no unequivocal identification of nitro-glycerine in the case and that, therefore, one could not say with any certainty that the accused actually were handling explosives. In this respect the "Today Tonight" programme interviewed a scientist in Ireland, Professor Boyle of Trinity College, who had come to the same conclusion. Scientific doubts have been expressed by other qualified persons also.

None of the members of the Maguire family or their co-accused has ever admitted to having been guilty of the offence for which they were accused, either singly or as a group. They did not admit guilt either at the trial or subsequently and have continuously and vehemently protested their innocence. It has been asserted in their favour that they were exemplary citizens and had no connection with any paramilitary groups. Mr. Maguire was an ex-British soldier who had lived in England for 20 years and I understand that both he and his wife resisted all attempts to become associated with terrorist prisoners while in prison.

Another factor which has surfaced again and again in the recent public discussion of the case is the question of the climate of opinion existing in Britain at the time of the trial. It has been alleged that the decision of the court in this case was influenced by the rightful outrage of the people of Britain in the face of the Woolwich and Guildford bombings and other terrorist offences and that the Maguires were punished because the climate of public opinion demanded a conviction. This argument is inherently difficult to assess, especially at a remove of so many years.

Furthermore, I want to say here that one of the things which always impresses me on my regular visits to the Irish communities in Britain is their view of the tolerance of their neighbours, even in the wake of such outrages as the Brighton bombing. Yet I feel that the degree of understanding and sophistication which the British people in general show in distinguishing between the evil of the IRA and their ordinary decent Irish neighbours is now at a much higher level than it was ten years ago.

Indeed, one of the impressive things about recent television coverage of the Maguire case was the obvious strength of conviction of their English friends and neighbours that they were incapable of the actions with which they were charged, and still less of those — the Guildford bombings — of which they were suspected.

I move now to the position of the British Government which is very clear for, as Deputies know, several Members of Parliament in Britain have raised the case in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords. In debates on 4 August 1980 the then Minister of State in the Home Office, Mr. Leon Brittan, with whom Deputy Andrews has corresponded over the past few weeks, now the Home Secretary, informed the House of Commons that the Home Secretary could consider intervening in the Maguire case "only if some significant new evidence or other material consideration of substance comes to light that has not already been before the Courts". In saying this Mr. Brittan argued that the Home Secretary could not act as a Court of Appeal and noted in particular that the testimony of Mr. Yallop, the inventor of the forensic test involved, had been considered both at the trial and the appeal.

Furthermore the British Home Office recently issued a statement which, though it acknowledged the concern expressed in many quarters, repeated the view that the scientific evidence in the case had been considered in great detail at the time and that no grounds had been found which would justify the Home Secretary in using his powers under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1968 to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. The matter was also debated on 17 May in the House of Lords at the request of Gerry Fitt, who has had a long-standing interest in this case. In reply to that debate, the British Government again acknowledged the many representations of concern made by respected figures who considered that a miscarriage of justice had occurred, but their response remained the same so far as the scientific evidence and other matters were concerned. I am aware that it has been alleged that the trial judge was biased in his conduct of the case. In this respect the Government spokesman in the House of Lords said that the Court of Appeal "at the end of a most detailed judgement... concluded that it saw no reason for disturbing any of the convictions either on the basis that one of them was unsafe or unsatisfactory or that the learned judge was guilty of any misdirection or that his summing-up was in any way unbalanced".

I can assure the House that the Government continue to take a close interest in this case and will monitor any developments with a view to taking the matter further with the British authorities. If Deputy Andrews or other Deputies consider that they have important new evidence in the case I will be glad to receive it. I know Deputies will share my wish that the British authorities should not take an over-rigid view of their requirements in the light of the long-standing and widespread concern in this case which they themselves have frankly acknowledged.

The British authorities are aware of my concern about the case. They are aware of the "Today Tonight" programme, as well as the Channel 4, Robert Kee and David Frost programmes. They have considered all representations but do not find that any new, important issue has been presented which was not dealt with in the courts. Deputies will appreciate that the Government must be reserved in their public comments on the court decisions of another jurisdiction. I repeat, however, that if important new evidence becomes available in this case, I will consider it with a view to taking up the matter further with the British authorities, and I will certainly continue to take a close personal interest in all developments which may offer such an opportunity.

The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 29 May 1985.