Vol. 113 No. 16
I move the adjournment of the Seanad on the following specific and important matter of public interest requiring urgent consideration:
In the light of continuing disquiet and concern with regard to the Birmingham Six, compounded with the most recent revelations, the need for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to undertake new initiatives to press on the British Government the necessity for a re-trial in this case.
The time limit on the debate is an hour and a half and may I suggest that the Minister be allowed 20 minutes to reply?
I thank the House for affording me the opportunity to speak on this very important matter. We are asking the Minister for Foreign Affairs to invoke a number of new initiatives in regard to the Birmingham Six. I know that a number of Members have expressed the view that this is not the time to raise it in the House, but I should like to put on record that I feel that this matter has long since left the realms of speculation, that there is a growing body of opinion here and abroad that the Birmingham Six are innocent and that it will take a very considerable co-ordinated effort on the part of all those interested to persuade the British Government to take appropriate action.
I condemn, as all the other sane people have to do, the bombing atrocity committed in Birmingham in November 1974 in which 21 people were killed and more than 160 people were injured. No cause would warrant such devastating consequences for so many innocent victims. However, the issue in this motion is whether the so called Birmingham Six perpetrated this heinous crime or whether, as many believe, they are innocent.
According to criminal appeal law, new evidence must be produced before the case can be reheard. The Home Secretary in Britain has discretionary powers to investigate and review if he feels that considerations of substance exist. Powerful forces need to be at work not only to persuade him but to conclude investigations which, we understand, began some months ago to exonerate and secure the release of these innocent victims.
Our task here this evening, in as responsible a way as possible, is to try to help and to convince our Minister and the Government that something urgent needs to be done. Individual Senators have been endeavouring in their own way to heighten public awareness and bring to bear on the British Government the necessity to reopen this whole sordid affair. For the first time, an all-party delegation, of which I am happy to be one, representing both Houses of the Oireachtas, will travel to London to express our deep concern in the matter. A comprehensive programme has been arranged by the Department of Foreign Affairs at our request, involving a visit to the prisoners and to people in London who have not only shown a deep interest in the Birmingham Six but have carried out exhaustive investigations into the events leading up to and during this infamous trial. We hope to have a meeting with the Home Secretary.
Many people genuinely believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice in this matter. To deprive innocent persons of their freedom and impose life sentences in prisons creates a tremendous loss of respect for authority and ultimately weakens democracy, but it is more important for the individuals involved. Having to suffer the misfortune of spending years behind bars, living through the killing boredom of prison life when they are innocent is not only appalling but a heinous travesty of justice.
We can think for a moment of the consequences for any one of us, at a young age taken away from our families, with little or no contact with home life, with no job opportunities. It would bring home to us the necessity to ensure that as far as possible no innocent person would have to suffer such loss of freedom.
Lingering doubts were expressed at the time of the trial. These doubts have lived on. They are now cushioned and padded by an overwhelming body of evidence which leaves many convinced that the Birmingham Six are innocent and have been imprisoned for crimes they could not have committed. These men have consistently claimed that they were brutally battered in prison prior to the trial and that the confessions they signed were literally dragged from them. During the trial the judge admitted that the six defendants had been subjected to a series of quite outrageous assaults at Winson Green Prison in which prison officers had taken part. These allegations of brutality by the police have never been cleared up satisfactorily.
The forsenic tests carried out on five of the six men threw up evidence on which it was concluded that two of the men had recently been in contact with commercial explosives. During the trial Dr. Black who appeared for the defence stated that the traces allegedly found on two of the men could have come from a range of other non-explosive substances. A "World in Action" programme on 28 October 1985 confirmed this and presented further evidence which virtually demolished the forensic evidence on which so much had earlier hung in this case. The two scientists on that programme set out to prove that contact with playing cards or leatherette surfaces found in train furniture could produce the same result as nitroglycerine under the test by the scientists who carried out this test for the Home Office and on whose evidence in the court so much depended.
Anyone who reads through the confessions will find a variety of different contradictions. They indicate that a number of different types of bombs were planted in different places and are inconsistent with what took place. These confessions were subsequently contradicted by the forensic evidence which showed that the bomb used was carried in either a briefcase or a suitcase. The confessions indicate it was a plastic bag. No identification of fingerprint evidence was introduced. None of the six men serving the sentences was at any time member of the Birimingham IRA. The IRA has claimed that the volunteers who committed this atrocity are walking free.
I want to read an extract from the book "Error of Judgement" which to me sounds extremely convincing. It is at the stage where the writer of the book is interviewing one of the people who allegedly planted the lethal bomb. I quote:
Again I drew a rough sketch of the pub and asked him to mark the site of the bomb. Without hesitation he marked a spot at the rear. For good measure he also drew in a rear exit which I had omitted. On my diagram I had inadvertently drawn in a staircase and he remarked that he could not recall any stairs in that place. When I returned home and examined the plan of the pub, I saw that he was right. It is hard to see how someone who cannot possibly have access to the forensic evidence at the trial could accurately mark the spot where the bomb was placed unless, of course, he was present when the bomb was planted.
The prison authorities where the Birmingham Six are held appear to be convinced also that these men are innocent. They have long since abandoned, as far as these prisoners are concerned, the strict visiting criteria and other regimes which apply to prisoners to whom similar sentences apply. So much for the circumstances. What is to happen now? I would like to ask the Minister of State if this matter has been raised at the Anglo-Irish Conference? Will it form part of the agenda for future meetings between the Taoiseach and Mrs. Thatcher? Can the House be told what the response was to earlier attempts by the Minister? I understand there has been correspondence between the Irish Embassy in London and the Home Office.
Following on whatever action is taken by the Government, it will be necessary to mount continuing and enormous pressure. This has to be generated here and at home. It is far more expedient for the British Government to keep those men in prison. As has been stated in other places, they fear that to open up this case would bring a vista of wrongful convictions. It is abundantly clear that the police do not come out well from this saga. Perhaps, at the time because of the nature of the atrocity, there was an anti-Irish prejudice. There now appears to be an establishment continuing to cover up what is involved. We should not stand for that appalling travesty of justice.
However, a momentum has to be reached to ensure that it is not possible for the British Government to withstand that pressure, that they will have to ensure that justice is done and there is a speedy release of the men involved. In any system of justice, mistakes can be made. They can be made with the best will in the world but, when it reaches the stage where overwhelming evidence has been provided, one should get a decent response. It would be extremely sad if our failure to protest at unjust convictions should lead to continued misery behind bars for these unfortunate men who have already served 12 years.
Before calling on Senator Ryan, Senators will understand we have one hour and a half. The Minister of State has 20 minutes of that to conclude. I have four speakers: Senators E. Ryan, O'Mahony, B. Ryan and O'Leary. The Senators should divide the time remaining giving the Minister of State 20 minutes. The Minister will be called on at 9.15 p.m. I say this to help the four Senators.
I should like to support the motion. Sufficient facts have been made available in recent years to throw serious doubt on the guilt of these men. They were convicted on two bases, one being the confessions which they made. The judge said there was no doubt that the men had been subjected to a series of quite outrageous assaults and, to accept confessions in view of that fact, was a very doubtful procedure. The other evidence was forensic which has now been shown to be very doubtful. The other aspect about this case is the consistency with which the men have repudiated and denied their guilt.
Opinion in general and the opinion of those within the jails where they are serving their sentence is that they are not guilty. A number of features of this case including the evidence on which they were convicted, the general belief that they are innocent and their whole background before the case which shows that they were not members of the IRA and not likely to have been involved in this, add up to the conclusion that there must be serious doubt that they are guilty. At the very least this justifies an investigation into the case.
It is a regrettable fact that this is not the first case where British police have sought a victim at any cost and have been determined to find a scapegoat for a crime of this kind. I suppose this is not surprising because it was a horrific crime and public opinion was demanding that the police find those who perpetrated it. The police were, I suppose, under tremendous pressure to find somebody. It seems unlikely that they found the right people. This adds another question mark as to whether these men are guilty.
From the point of view not only of British justice but of the men concerned the time has come when there should be an investigation to see whether in all the circumstances these men are guilty. I am very glad that a delegation is going to the UK to talk to some of these men and to members of Parliament to ensure that there is an investigation. I feel fairly confident from the facts that I know that if there is an investigation there is a very good chance that these men will be allowed to go free.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute briefly to this debate. Like other Members of the House and of the public at large, I have studied the case of the Birmingham Six as carefully as I could in recent months. I must admit that it was a rather belated study on my part but I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the men concerned have been the victims of an appalling miscarriage of justice. Because I am so convinced I am glad of the opportunity to join an all-party delegation to the House of Commons next week to seek to have the case put to the Court of Appeal by the British Home Secretary, Mr. Hurd.
On the basis of the information available to us since last year at least, I believe that a grievous wrong has been done to these men and it is incumbent on all of us to do everything we can to redress that wrong in so far as it can ever be redressed at this stage. I do not believe that it will be easy for the British Government to admit that their country's system of justice was roundly abused on this occasion, as it was in my view in the case of Annie Maguire and the Guildford four. It is better that this admission be made by the British Government than that six innocent men should remain incarcerated in jail and that the system of justice as a whole which, generally speaking, serves the British people well should itself be brought into disrepute.
Any reasonable person reading the evidence now available concerning the case of the Birmingham six must come to three conclusions. The first is that the confessions made by the convicted men were made following serious beatings in Morecambe police station and as such should not have been admitted by court in evidence. Secondly, the Greiss test used in forensic evidence to prove that the men's hands had been in contact with explosive substances we now know can be misled, as was said by the defence forensic expert during the trial, by a whole series of substances including the surfaces of playing cards. We know that five of the men played cards on the train on the way to Belfast. The third factor taken on its own would not necessarily be credible but taken in conjunction with the other two factors I have mentioned it can be thought to be credible. This third factor is that the IRA have officially denied that the men were members of that organisation. The men themselves, their families and their friends have consistently denied membership of that organisation.
As the matter stands a review is underway at the Home Office to see whether in the light of the new evidence the case should now be referred to the Court of Appeal. Anyone who has studied the case believes that sufficient new evidence is now available to justify such a referral. The proper legal option is now obvious.
The problem, however is in nature a politico-legal one. It is precisely for this reason that we are going to the House of Commons next week. As has been said by Senators Smith and Ryan, it will not be easy for the British Government to admit that a miscarriage of justice has taken place on this occasion but it is incumbent on all of us to do all in our power to convince them that this is the case and to show to them that any redress that is made not only will not undermine the credibility of the British political system but will in fact enhance it.
Like Senator O'Mahony and most other Senators, I was probably so outraged by the bombing campaign in Britain in the seventies that notwithstanding my sympathies for people who end up in prison I probably tried, if not consciously then quite subconsciously, to stay away from some of these issues. However, it is to the great credit of the families and friends of the Birmingham six, the Maguires and the Guildford four that as they persisted with their efforts the evidence presented to me and the alternative interpretation of what happened became so convincing, both in terms of the admitted violent assault on the Birmingham six and the ample evidence that the allegedly conclusive forensic evidence was anything but conclusive, as well as the fact that no other evidence was evinced against any of the six persons convicted of the Birmingham bombings, that I was led to the inescapable conclusion that a profound miscarriage of justice resulted.
It is easy to understand why a conviction could have been entered in, in spite of the evidence. Britain must have been a very frightened place in 1974. There had been a considerable number of outrageous bombing attacks. The police must have been under enormous pressure, as must political figures. I have no doubt that figures in the Judiciary respond to that pressure, not consciously or deliberately. I am not implyng any misconduct but they are part of the society they live in. It is evident in our own society in the way members of the Judiciary respond in terms of the penalties they impose to crimes that become more apparent. That was the situation in Britain at that time. There was a need for someone to be convicted.
There is and has been in recent years in Britain a rather unhappy and unhealthy tolerance of a form of racism towards the Irish which it could do without. I found it extraordinary that when the Greater London Council, so ably led by Ken Livingstone, withdrew advertising from a newspaper which they felt to be consistently hostile to the Irish community, the British Press Council took great exception to what they thought was a tremendous interference with the freedom of the press because of the fact that the advertising was withheld.
It was understandable that somebody would be sought to be convicted of these bombings. It is tragic, however, that the understandable public pressure, the understandable sense of outrage and the understandable sense of fear, should have resulted in the conviction of six people who, to anybody looking at it with reasonable detachment from this side of the Irish Sea, seem to be clearly innocent. One of the consequential tragedies that has sprung from that is the fairly substantial evidence of, to put it mildly, a less than helpful attitude on the part of Irish public authorities. The activities of the Irish Embassy in the United States when a United States Congressman took an interest and where rather than confront the evidence, the embassy attempted to undermine the status of the source of the information, Father Raymond Murray, was regrettable to say the least. I would still welcome an attempt by the Minister present to confirm or deny the existence of the letter from the then Ambassador attempting to undermine Father Raymond Murray. At the time nobody was in a position to confirm that this letter was issued; nevertheless, nobody has denied it. I would be interested to know if the letter published in The Sunday Tribune of 3 November 1985 is authentic or is it a concoction or a forgery generated by somebody with presumably less than admiral objectives.
Now that we have got to the stage where we are all concerned, it would help a lot if the Minister could tell us if the Government now accept that the Birmingham Six have been unlawfully convicted. I know they have expressed concern about their convictions, but expressing concern seems to me to be a reasonably large step away from saying they accept that they are innocent. If the Government are prepared to accept that these people are innocent, then the steps they must take consequential on that will have to be very serious. If we accept that in the case of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four that there are at least ten people, not all of them Irish, serving sentences in Britain for offences that they most manifestly did not commit, then a very serious matter of relationships between this country and Britain arises.
Expressions of concern are only one step along the road. What we need now is for the Government to say whether or not they accept that these people are innocent. If they accept that these people are guilty, or do not accept that they are innocent, they should explain to us why they differ from the rest of us, and I think a large spectrum of Irish opinion ranging through Church and political figures including John Hume, Séamus Mallon, the Cardinal and all sorts of people. They should explain why they take a different view from all those people and on what evidence their conclusion is based. If the Government accept that these people are innocent, let them say so clearly and unequivocally. There is the capacity and the possibility of "yes" or "no" here. Do the Government believe that these people were wrongfully convicted?
Without diverting too far, I would like to say that I think that at this stage there is an equally overwhelming case in the case of the Guildford Four. To suggest that the four people, one of whom obviously had a serious drugs problem, were the stuff of a ruthless IRA bombing cell is to push imagination to the limit. The people portrayed in the recent British television programme in connection with the Guildford bombing seem to me to be the direct antithesis of what you would expect for a ruthless IRA bomb squad capable of such co-ordination of activity, speed of response and so on. When the Government begin to make up their mind about people convicted of alleged terrorist offences in Britain they should not ignore the Guildford Four. Even though the Maguires have been released, it does not in any way reduce the need to reconsider their case.
This debate is particularly worth while. It is necessary to accept that even if our Government believe that these people are innocent, even if there is some new evidence and even if, as is the case at present, the Home Office is reconsidering the whole issue, we must remember that very serious matters are at stake for the Government, the police and the Judiciary of the United Kingdom. When Lord Denning was giving judgment on a civil case taken by the Birmingham Six against the police he said:
If the six men win it, it will mean that the police were guilty of perjury, violence and threats, that the confessions were involuntary and were improperly admitted and that the convictions were erroneous. The Home Secretary would have either to recommend that they be pardoned or remit the case to the court of appeal. This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say "it cannot be right that these actions should go further".
That is the quality of the legal opinion about the consequences of reopening these cases. On the other hand, it is true that if these cases which are now under reconsideration are not dealt with favourably now they may never be reopened again. This is probably the most critical time in the history of these cases. If the British Government now choose to decide that there is no reason to reopen the cases, it may well be many years before a situation can arise again in which the cases will be reopened.
Therefore, what we need from the Government at this stage is far more than expressions of concern. The Government should make their position known. Do they believe that these people are innocent? Expressions of concern at this stage do not go half far enough. If the Government believe these people are innocent they may well have to take steps they do not want to take. I sincerely hope that, if the Government have come to the position where they recognise the innocence of these people, we will have no further evidence of the retreat from the capacity to act and think independently that we saw here on another issue of foreign affairs earlier today. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to make their position clear as to whether they believe these people to be innocent and then to take the necessary consequential action on behalf of innocent people, action that most of us at this stage believe should be taken.
Before addressing the problem of the people it is fair to say that it would be giving an incomplete picture of the situation if one were not to draw attention to the massive contradictions which exist in the leaks and reported statements of various figures in the IRA regarding this matter. In the extract from "Error of Judgment" published recently in the Sunday Press, for example, there was a very interesting and informative extract. It said:
It was eleven years before the IRA could bring themselves to admit that their men were responsible for the Birmingham pub bombings. The first public admission came from Joe Cahill, a senior figure in the IRA and a former commander of the IRA's Belfast Brigade. He was speaking on Granada's "World in Action" on 28 October 1985.
The report stated that Mr. Cahill said:
These volunteers who did carry out these operations are walking freely about today.
I do not think we should place any credence whatsoever on what the IRA say. Anybody who is capable of killing and injuring people indiscriminately or selectively will have no difficulty whatsoever in telling lies. Anybody who can justify shooting their neighbour, whether coming from or going to church, will have no difficulty in saying afterwards that they did not do it if it suits them to say so. Any appeal with regard to this case which is based on the statements of the IRA is totally and absolutely with credibility. It rests with the IRA, of course, if these men are innocent. I will deal with that matter later. It rests with the IRA to name the people who did it, because they are in a unique position to know that injustice is being perpetrated on these individuals. They, more than anybody, know what the position is. The fact that none of us in this room is childish enough to expect them to do so is a recognition of the lack of principle for which the members of that organisation are famous.
I look on these people as just what they are, Irish people in jail for whom there is a genuine concern about their convictions. They are Irish people, even though they are probably not just at this moment citizens in the sense of having Irish passports. As far as I am concerned, the fact that they were born in the Six Counties qualifies them for the full concern of the Irish Government. I think the Irish Government are quite right to be expressing that concern and doing what they can to bring about a re-examination of their case. Secondly, the fact that their conviction is largely based on confessions — confessions which allegedly were wrung out of them as a result of violence —gives me a problem with regard to their conviction straightaway. I am on record, and I take this opportunity of repeating, that I think convictions based on confessions got with or without violence, but after prolonged questioning in conditions of oppression are worse than useless, even if they are genuine, even if they are true, and they reflect less credit on the society which extracts those confessions than no confessions at all.
I note that the Government have been expressing concern in this matter and I think their attitude is right. I could imagine no more unhelpful approach than the approach of Senator Brendan Ryan in this matter. It is not necessary for the Irish Government to say whether these people are innocent or guilty. It is not necessary for the British Home Secretary to arrive at that conclusion before taking the steps which we all hope he will decide to take. The more we put it up to anybody to definitively decide whether these people are guilty or innocent, the less the likelihood is that they will get out of prison. That was the most irresponsible portion of an address that I have heard in the civil rights area from Senator Brendan Ryan. It is only necessary for the Irish Government to come to the conclusion that there is a reasonable case to be answered that they were wrongly convicted. That is all that is necessary for the British Home Secretary, too. But if we raise the level of expectation with regard to the conclusions of the Irish Government to the extent that they must decide before they go any further whether these men are really innocent and we convey that feeling to the United Kingdom Government, by doing so we are inviting the Government not to take the action which we want them to take. It is not necessary for anybody who wants this case to be reviewed to arrive at a definitive decision as to whether these people are guilty. It is not even necessary for the judges, who, I hope will eventually consider the case, to arrive at that conclusion. It would be quite sufficient if they arrive at the conclusion that they were wrongly convicted. Anybody who thinks that a British Home Secretary will be encouraged to refer these matters to the court of appeal on the basis and in the threat that by doing so he is going to expose members of the police force to all types of accusations, is attacking this problem in a most childish and unrealistic way, and in a way that is most unhelpful to those people we are all trying to assist in their difficulty.
I hope the Irish Government do not raise this matter in the context of the Anglo-Irish Conference. It is not a matter for the Anglo-Irish Conference. It is a matter we can raise on a bilateral Government to Government basis and it is right and proper that this should be done. We should not be using the Anglo-Irish Conference, which has a specific job to do. We should not be diverting it into areas in respect of events which happen on the mainland of Britain. I do not think that is the purpose of the conference. It has other very serious purposes. We are an independent country and we are entitled to make representations without hanging our hat to any Anglo-Irish Conference. I note that the Government are doing that.
I am convinced that there is reason to be genuinely concerned about these convictions. Because of that I think it is appropriate for the Government to continue vigorously to press the United Kingdom Government to refer the matter to the judicial authorities. That is the most constructive approach we can adopt. By doing this and not arriving at half-baked and ill-conceived conclusions based on hearsay, and by confining ourselves to raising serious doubts, we are doing the best we can at present, because this matter can always be looked at again. We are doing the best we can at this time to try to ensure that these matters are reexamined in accordance with the judicial process of the country in which these people were living and the country in which they were convicted. Our interest must recognise the fact that they are Irish. That is our concern. I would have concern even if they were English people and had nothing to do with the IRA, even if they had nothing to with an Irish crime, if you like. I recognise that at Government level the fact that this is an Irish related problem and that these are Irish people gives the Government a special stamp of authority in bringing the matter to their attention. For that reason, and only for that reason, I hope the Government continue in their worthwhile efforts to have this matter resolved.
I want to add my voice to support this motion which has received agreement from all parties in the House. Many speakers have outlined the facts as we see them. I agree this is an unbelievable position. Confessions were taken after serious beatings and since no fingerprint evidence was produced in court it leads us to question the wisdom of that trial. Many speakers have said that because of the pressure at the time of public opinion these men were probably the scapegoats. I support the all-party delegation who are to travel to Westminster next month. As Senator O'Leary said, there is a reasonable case to be answered as to whether these men are guilty. It is up to the British court system to prove this matter beyond all doubt. Twelve years is a very long time for one person but 12 years is an enormous amount of time when it is for six men.
I will be brief, but nobody should take that as indicating any lack of attention to the subject. I can be brief because I find myself very largely in agreement with what Senators from different sides of the House have been saying. I commend Senator Smith for tabling this motion, his party colleagues, Senator Cassidy and Senator Ryan for their contributions, and the contributions of Senator O'Mahony and Senator O'Leary. With none of what they said did I find myself in disagreement.
I disagree very strongly with the contribution of Senator Ryan. I regret that he left the Chamber before I had an opportunity to reply and to indicate just how irresponsible——
Senator Brendan Ryan. We have two Senator Ryans.
We have three.
Of course. Senator Eoin Ryan was responsible, helpful and constructive in his contribution. Senator Brendan Ryan was ill-informed and unhelpful to the extent that his contribution must be damaging to those six men involved.
I said I can be brief and for this reason. The issue that arises now is a net issue. Six people have been convicted of the largest mass murder in British history. Doubts have been expressed and cast about the correctness of those convictions, and the question is now whether it is appropriate that the legal remedies available within the British system should come into play and specifically whether it is now appropriate for the Home Secretary to exercise his powers to refer the cases back to the Court of Appeal. I am satisfied entirely that sufficient doubt has been cast on the convictions to warrant the intervention of the Home Secretary.
I do not know that it is really necessary for me to review in any detail the facts of the case because Senators have dealt with them. In so far as some Senators concentrated on forensic and some on confessions, it is worth putting the picture in the round, as it were, and summarising the case against the accused.
The case against the six men rested on those two matters, confessions and forensic evidence, and both of those elements have given rise to grave doubt about their reliability. I share those doubts and the Minister, Deputy Peter Barry, has said in the Dáil that he too shares them. Let me reiterate what Senator O'Leary made clear, that what is at issue at this stage is not any individual's belief in guilt or innocence, nor was that ever the issue. The question originally was whether the six who stood accused could be convicted beyond reasonable doubt. The question that arises now is whether sufficient doubt has been raised for the Home Secretary to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal, and if the Court of Appeal are then asked to reconsider the matter the question they have to consider is whether it was open to the Court of First Instance to form the view that beyond reasonable doubt these men were guilty. On the basis of the present state of my knowledge I believe it is appropriate that the Home Secretary should review the case and refer the matter again to the Court of Appeal. That that is the Government's view has been made clear personally by the Minister, Deputy Barry, to the Home Secretary.
Why that view? Because serious doubt has been cast on the reliability of the confessions and the forensic evidence. In regard to the confessions, doubt arises from the fact that when on the train— as Senator Smith mentioned — five of the men were playing cards. The relevance of this is that when tested by Doctor Frank Skuse, the forensic scientist employed by the Home Office, he used the so-called Greiss test for nitrates. Then two of the accused, Patrick Hill and William Power, tested positively. Robert Hunter and Noel McIlhenny tested negatively and one accused's, John Walker's, test was not conclusive either way.
The concern arises from the fact that evidence has now been adduced to show that someone who has handled playing cards for even a brief time can test positively. Evidence has now emerged that the Greiss test for nitrates can give positive results with a wide variety of substances, including leatherette and nitrocellulose. Also of relevance is the fact that positive results can be obtained from certain paints because some of the accused had a background in the painting and decorating area. Thus the doubts on the forensic testing.
With regard to the confessions that were obtained, the undisputed fact is that when in Winson Green Prison in Birmingham the six were assaulted. There has never been any controversy or doubt about that assault. There was at one time an argument about who perpetrated the assault, but that the six men were seriously assaulted in Winson Green Prison was clear. That fact had the effect of rendering it more difficult for the defence to establish the existence of a beating prior to the confession. They could establish that the accused had been beaten but they were not in a position to establish at what time the beating had taken place and in particular whether the beating had taken place so early as to influence the confessions. It might be said fairly that if it was established that beatings take place it must raise some doubt at the minimum as to whether the confessions were affected.
Therefore, on both the grounds on which the convictions were obtained, the forensics and the confessions, serious doubts exist. Since the conviction of these men the Embassy in London has been involved in relation to the conditions in which they were obtained. One Senator referred to the fact that an improvement has taken place there, and that is to be welcomed. However, there remains the central question whether there is a need to have a second look at the conviction. It seems at this stage, following the "World in Action" programme, following the recent publication and the various interventions that have taken place over the years from people of standing whose opinions are to be respected, that, indeed, sufficient doubts have been cast in order for the matter now to go back to the Court of Appeal. It is my earnest wish that that would happen as soon as possible.
For our part we will continue to do everything possible. We welcome the fact that this delegation are going to London. The Department will co-operate with them and facilitate them in every way in connection with their visit. I am pleased that this debate has taken place here this evening and that there has been such a degree of interest. The numbers attending and participating in the debate are perhaps greater than one would have expected at this time of the evening on the eve of a recess, and that reflects the degree of public concern that exists and the degree of concern that exists within the House.
I notice Senator O'Leary's reluctance to rely on any statements in regard to the matter made by the IRA, and I agree with that view. I am sure many Senators in this House will do so too, recalling the fact that when a former Member of this House was murdered by the IRA, the IRA thought it appropriate while denying responsibility to send a mass card and a wreath. An organisation capable of that kind of conduct scarcely deserve marks for credence and credibility.
Their statements aside, on the two essential matters on which the original convictions were based serious doubts now exist. The Home Secretary has power under the legislation to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal and it seems that it is an appropriate case in which he should do that and we will continue to do what we can to assist that course of action.
Before I adjourn the House I would like to report to the Members that I met officials of the Office of Public Works today who informed me that they are commencing work tomorrow morning on the ante Chamber and the House. They are hoping to keep to the times agreed. We expect that the ante Chamber will be completed by mid-September.
As I was in the Chair when a few words were being said I would like to add my voice to that of the other Senators for the tremendous atmosphere in this House in the term just gone. I should like to thank the Cathaoirleach, the Clerk, Mr. Tobin, the Clerk Assistant, Mr. Coughlan, all the staff, the Press and indeed the Ministers and their advisers, not to mention the very effective Government Senators and my colleagues on this side of the House. When you are facing a general election you do not think in terms of going home on holidays for six or seven weeks. I am grateful for all the assistance I got, I thank everybody, especially all the people who deputised for me when I was missing for some of the hours when I should have been in the Chair and particularly this week when I decided to nearly row boats up and down the Shannon on my own.
I hope the Senator is coming back.
I have every intention of coming back.
The Seanad adjourned at 9.5 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 1 October 1986.
