Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Jul 1991

Vol. 410 No. 6

Adjournment Debate. - British Court of Appeal Decision.

Mr. Andrews

The political background in Britain at the time in question was as follows: 5 October 1974, Guildford pub bombing, five dead; 7 November 1974, Woolwich bombing followed by the Balcomb Street siege; 28 November 1974, Birmingham bombings, 21 dead. The Prevention of Terrorism Act was also passed that year. On 4 March 1976 Annie Maguire who was then aged 40 and her husband Paddy, an ex-British soldier, were each sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for possession of explosives. Her two sons, Vincent who was aged 13 and Patrick who was aged 16, were sentenced to four and five years imprisonment respectively for possession of explosives. Her brother William Smith, her brother-in-law, Guiseppe Conlon, and a friend, Patrick O'Neill, each got 12 years imprisonment for possession of explosives.

It is important to recall that the nitroglycerine test, in the context of the recent decision of the British Court of Appeal, allegedly reveal traces, not more than a microgram, that is, equivalent to a millionth part of a sugar cube, on plastic gloves which Mrs. Maguire used. The defence was refused permission to have independent tests done. Tests were done on each hand and on scrapings from under nails of the accused persons. A positive result was recorded from every scraping. All the samples were then destroyed. The forensic expert from Woolwich Arsenal who carried out the nitroglycerine tests was an 18 year old apprentice with two months experience.

The explosives test used was the TLC test, or thin layer chromatography test, a modification of the now discredited Greiss test. The TLC test was invented by Mr. John Yallop who had worked at Woolwich Arsenal for 30 years. Mr. Yallop appeared for the defence and stated that "no competent scientist could do otherwise then conclude that the ...results are not due to presence of nitroglycerine". Mr. Yallop stated that positive tests can be got using the TLC test from household products like washing powder, air freshner, nail varnish and polish and also stated that cigarette smoke is capable of giving TLC test positive results. Mr. Yallop was also critical that corroboration or control tests were never carried out at Woolwich Arsenal.

To put the matter in perspective the verdict of half innocent, half guilty by the Court of Appeal in the Maguire case has no precedent in English law. When the Sir John May inquiry does what the Court of Appeal could not do, that is, introduce a verdict of absolute blamelessness, the Maguires will be found not guilty of the remotest association with the crimes with which they were charged. The Court of Appeal could not find the seven innocent. Neither could they hand down a not guilty verdict.

As the House is aware, a towel was produced from somewhere unknown. It was suggested by the Court of Appeal that that article was responsible for the contamination of the hands of all of the accused — what a farce and a travesty of justice. This infamous towel had never been heard of before and has not been seen since, yet it allowed the Court of Appeal to give a so-called face saving verdict, to save the faces of the British Judiciary. In the opinion of eminent practioners of the law, it is the verdict in the Maguire case which will end the role of the Court of Appeal in cases involving glaring miscarriages of justices. It was a wretched verdict handed down by judges in the best tradition of Lord Lane in the case of the Birmingham Six appeal.

Apart altogether from the need to place this case and this infamy on the record of the House, my intention in raising the matter is to ask the Taoiseach and the Government to protest to the British authorities in the strongest possible terms within whatever mechanism is available to them, in particular the Anglo-Irish Conference, about this verdict. As the House is aware, the Conference is due to meet on the 16th of this month and I genuinely ask the Taoiseach, his Ministers or whoever will represent the Government at the Conference — presumably, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice — to do what I ask.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Tá an t-am istigh.

Mr. Andrews

Recent cases involving miscarriages of justice remain but this is the most obvious one for a not guilty verdict.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Calleary)

I thank Deputy Andrews for raising this very important issue. It is appropriate and important that this House should consider the tragic and protracted case of the Maguire family and their friends. Their plight has deservedly evoked much sympathy in this country from people in all walks of life and all parts of the political spectrum. In this regard, I wish to commend the sustained humanitarian interest taken in the case over the years by so many Members of the Oireachtas, including Deputy Andrews. I believe that their interest has helped in no small way to maintain the pressure for a satisfactory resolution. It is extremely important that this pressure and interest is maintained in the future.

The Maguire case, as Deputy Andrews set out, is one of a small number of cases dating from the seventies — and sharing a number of the same disturbing features — which have been a matter of deepest concern to the Government. In the last two years, as the House is aware, major developments have taken place in two of these. The first was the sudden and dramatic conclusion in October 1989 of the Guildford Four case, so closely linked to that of the Maguires. A few short months ago, we saw the overturning of the convictions of the Birmingham Six. Both these events were a cause of joy and relief in this country, in Britain and beyond.

Justifiably, there was general hope and indeed optimism that the Maguire case would follow the same pattern and that, in this case too, a great wrong would — however belatedly — be put right. However, to the grievous disappointment of those who had followed the courageous efforts of the Maguires and their friends to clear their names, this is not, as Deputy Andrews pointed out, what happened.

As Deputies will be aware, these convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal on 26 June — and the Government welcomed this development. However, the rejection by the court of all the grounds of appeal except for the limited grounds of "innocent contamination", which had earlier been conceded by the Director of Public Prosecutions, meant that this judgement was far from being the unambiguous vindication which the appellants had sought for so long. In their statement following the judgment, the Government made clear that they shared the disappointment and dissatisfaction of the appellants at this outcome.

Clearly — and I believe that I speak for the House on this point — it is imperative that consideration of this case must not end with the narrow grounds on which the convictions were overturned. The Maguire family and their friends, after so many years of struggle against so tragic a miscarriage of justice, are entitled to have their good names rehabilitated without qualification. The Government share the widespread admiration for the courage, perseverance and dignity with which they have sustained this struggle. They are also conscious that Guiseppe Conlon, who so tragically died in prison in 1980, could not see his claim of innocence vindicated.

The Government have made clear that the Appeal Court judgement has not removed their deep concern about this case and they remain committed to seeing it fully and satisfactorily resolved. As indicated in the Government statement, we will be pursuing the matter with the British authorities as a matter of priority.

This Government and their predecessors have consistently sought to have rectified this and the other miscarriages of justice I mentioned. It will be recalled that, over the years, we have pressed the British authorities with a strong sense of urgency to have these cases reconsidered. We will continue this approach until the Maguire case, like the others, is brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

It is a matter of considerable encouragement that the inquiry headed by Sir John May is to continue its consideration of the broader aspects of this case. The Government would like to express their appreciation for the very valuable work done to date by Sir John and his inquiry in bringing to light so many vital aspects of the case. We are conscious that it was the work of the May inquiry on the forensic evidence which paved the way for the case being brought back to the Court of Appeal and we hope that the continuing work of the inquiry will lead to further positive developments.

Another ground for optimism is the recent establishment of the Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Runciman of Doxford, who are charged with examining criminal investigation, prosecution and appeal practices in England in the light of the quashing of the Birmingham Six convictions. It is greatly to be hoped that the work of the Royal Commission will help ensure that the circumstances leading to such miscarriages of justice as befell the Maguires will never recur.

I am sure I am right in saying that there exists in this House a broad non-partisan desire to see justice fully done in the case of the Maguire family and their friends. The Government share this desire, and — I repeat — will avail of every appropriate opportunity to pursue the matter with the British authorities until the Maguire family have been vindicated.

Mr. Andrews

I think the Minister for the courtesy of his reply. It was much appreciated.