asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government will consider taking the case of a person or persons convicted under the supergrass system in Northern Ireland to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Northern Ireland Supergrass System.
1.
I agree that this is a matter for legitimate concern and I note that this concern is shared in Northern Ireland across the community divide. I would naturally hope that it will be possible not to have to resort to such sources for evidence, particularly if there is not corroboration from other sources. I would point out, however, that informers concerned have come from within the ranks of both loyalist and republican subversive groups. I would add that, while we share the concern of nationalist and unionists about this system, we must also share the concern that murderers of innocent Catholics and Protestants are pursued and brought to justice.
We have mentioned our concern about aspects of this system on a number of occasions to the British authorities and we shall continue to do so as necessary. We do not propose in these circumstances to raise this matter in Strasbourg.
There is grave concern on the part of many of us, who, as the Minister is well aware, are as much against the crimes of violence committed by these people as he is. The whole concept of the supergrass seems to go against human rights. The import of this question is that if this continues would the Minister consider, with the Government, taking this whole matter to the Court of Human Rights and asking them to make a judgment, if necessary, even on a trial case? It is important that we are seen to be on the side of justice.
I should explain to the Deputy that the term "supergrass" is a slang term for a type of evidence which has been part and parcel of our legal system as long as we have had a criminal legal system. It is what is referred to as the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. That is evidence which is admissible in circumstances where the court must be very circumspect and extremely careful about how it is received. It is admissible evidence under our legal system.
Might I apologise to the Minister for Defence for being late? Would the Minister care to tell the House where the Minister of State is off to today?
That is a separate question. I would need notice of it.
Did he leave a forwarding address? Would the Minister agree that if in trials, up to 40 people can be summarily convicted on uncorroborated evidence of a paid informer that is not only a travesty but a corruption of justice?
I do not think that one can approach this matter in simplistic terms such as that. One cannot make a judgment on a particular trial and assess the weight of the evidence before the court unless one is present, listening to the evidence, assessing the witnesses, listening to the cross-examination and getting a general picture of the case. There is no doubt that in legal circles uncorroborated evidence of accomplices is not the best evidence and is very far from being that. However, it is admissible evidence and if it is the only evidence in a criminal case it has to be put to the court, subject to the safeguards to which I have referred and which are part and parcel of the legal system in dealing with evidence of this kind. Obviously, it would be more satisfactory to have best evidence, which would be direct evidence from an impartial and skilled observer, or even consistent circumstantial evidence. All these would be preferable but, in their absence, evidence from accomplices is admissible but requires to be extra carefully assessed by the courts. There have been cases in the Northern Ireland jurisdiction where the evidence of accomplices has been found by the courts to be untrustworthy and unreliable. In some cases it has been rejected, in other cases it has resulted in convictions of some of the accused being tried and in the dismissal of cases against others. In some cases there have been pleas of guilty and the evidence of the accomplice has not had to be taken. There has been quite a range of experience with regard to its use. Basically, it remains an unsatisfactory type of evidence, though admissible.
Would the Minister agree that this procedure offends against the Convention on Human Rights and that the supergrass system infringes, in particular, Article 6 of the Convention which guarantees everyone a fair hearing and requires persons to be proved guilty? Would the Minister agree that the supergrass system does not constitute a fair trial and that convictions obtained on such a basis do not constitute proof of guilt within the meaning of the Convention?
I could not agree with the Deputy's interpretation of the Convention. The uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is, as I said, admissible evidence within our legal system, as well as within the criminal law system of the United Kingdom. It does not contravene the European Convention. That convention bestows the right of a fair trial. Part of the process of a fair trial is the adducing of evidence. There are different kinds of evidence — this would be the lowest grade and consequently has to be received by the court with the utmost care, but it is admissible evidence.
Would the Minister agree that in cases where one has evidence from a source such as in this case about which I am speaking where the source had already been convicted of perjury, it is ludicrous that that kind of evidence would be sufficient to find a person guilty on that testimony alone? Surely the Minister would agree that this type of procedure brings the courts system in the Six Countries into total disrepute. The man referred to was also described as a scoundrel.
I would share the Deputy's concern at the courts system in Northern Ireland being brought into disrepute. It should not be brought into disrepute but should be regarded by all citizens as a place where one can go with confidence. There will be cases where the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices will be such as to cause the greatest of worry. I am not familiar with the particular case to which the Deputy is referring, but can only deal with the broad principle of the admissibility of such evidence. As I have said already and repeat, it is admissible evidence which must be treated with the greatest of circumspection. Obviously, if a person proffering that evidence has a conviction, such as for a crime alleged by the Deputy, the amount of care required in that case would be very high indeed.