It is proposed that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, speakers shall be called in Private Members' Time this evening as follows: from 7.5 p.m. to 7.15 p.m. an Opposition speaker, 7.15 p.m. to 7.30 p.m., a Government speaker, 7.30 p.m. to 7.45 p.m. a Government speaker, 7.45 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. an Opposition speaker, 8.15 p.m. to 8.20 p.m. a Government speaker and 8.20 p.m. to 8.35 an Opposition speaker.
Private Members' Business. - Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
"That Dáil Éireann calls for the release of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, and for a pardon in respect of the Maguire Seven.
—(Deputy Spring.)
Is the motion agreed to? Agreed. Deputy Barry has ten minutes.
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate and I hope by the time the debate is concluded this evening we will have a composite motion agreed by all parties. So far this House has spoken as one voice so far as these cases are concerned. I gather from Deputy Kennedy that towards the end of the debate there will be a composite motion presented which we will all be able to accept.
I want to explain why I had some problems with the Labour Party motion and felt is was desirable that these three cases should be looked at separately. They are all at different stages of the legal process in another jurisdiction. I will deal very briefly with the Annie Maguire case because it is simplest. She is out of prison, although she, her husband and son and three other people spent a number of years in prison convicted of a crime on flimsy evidence — on the test of a glove she owned which she may or may not have used or which may have been used by other people. Even understanding the very tense atmosphere there was in Britain at that time as a result of a number of bombings, that seems to have been quite flimsy evidence on which to convict her. She has served her prison term and is now free.
I have met Mrs. Maguire on a number of occasions. The most striking thing about her and the other members of the family is that they understand how they were caught up in a system which convicted them of a crime they did not commit. All they want now is to have their names cleared so that they will not go through the remainder of their lives with this tag of having been found guilty of a very horrible crime hanging around their necks.
The Guildford Four is in a different category from the Annie Maguire case or the Birmingham Six case, and this is where the problem arises for me with the Labour Party motion. They were condemned to life imprisonment for the Guildford and Woolwich bombings. They were extremely unlikely bombers or terrorists because some of them were living on the fringe of society in London, and an English girl was included in this group. That is as may be, but they were found guilty and imprisoned. As a result of the Balcombe Street siege some time later, other men tried for that crime admitted they had been involved in the Guildford and Woolwich bombings. Despite this fact, the court did not order a retrial or say that the Guildford Four were innocent of the crime but rather that they were jointly responsible for the crime with those involved in the Balcombe Street siege. There was no question, nor was it ever suggested, that the Balcombe Street people volunteered that they were involved in this crime because they wanted to get their pals released. Their very detailed knowledge of what had happened in Guildford and Woolwich left no doubt in anybody's mind that they were guilty. Probably most people would accept that they were the sole authors of those crimes, apart from the godfathers who directed them from another place. However, the Guildford Four were not released. An effort was made, but not a satisfactory one, to have them released on a retrial basis.
In the past 18 months further evidence has become available from a Miss Yvonne Fox that she was in the presence that night of Paul Hill. She thereby gave him an alibi. This new statement, together with other evidence, was submitted last year to the Home Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd, by Cardinal Hume, among others. Anybody who has been involved in making representations on behalf of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four or the Maguire family will recognise how slowly the British legal system works, particularly when there appears to be criticism of an arm of their administration.
The people who are seeking justice in all three cases include many who are not Irish. A large body of respected establishment figures in Britain feel strongly about this matter. The list of 200 people from the House of Commons and the House of Lords who signed the motion on behalf of the Guildford Four includes some who would be by no means sympathetic to Ireland or to Irish nationalism. In other spheres they have been quite anti-Irish. Nevertheless they have signed petitions in favour of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Maguire family.
As a result of the representation by Cardinal Hume and others, the Home Secretary agreed to have an investigation conducted into this new evidence. A number of Deputies from this House visited Mr. Hurd last autumn and he gave them to understand that he hoped to be in a position to review the report of this investigation around Christmas or the New Year. I wrote to him in February reminding him of this and he replied in March saying he had not yet received the result of the investigation. He emphasised it was his personal responsibility to have a look at the investigation and to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. I understand he received the results of the investigation in the middle or towards the end of April but he still has not made a decision regarding referral to the Court of Appeal. I hope the motion agreed tonight will ask him to expedite the referral of the case to the Court of Appeal. The Guildford Four should go through the full process of the law before we ask for clemency.
As regards the Birmingham Six, I have been involved in their case for a number of years. I have written to successive Home Secretaries and have also met with them. I am convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that these people are not guilty. I sat in on the trial for a number of days, including the day when the decision was announced by the three judges. It was the most depressing and disappointing day of my life because I was quite convinced of the weight of the evidence put forward on their behalf, particularly the change of evidence by police officer Clarke and the change of evidence during the hearing itself by Joyce Lynass. This struck me as being a very significant factor which should have influenced the three judges. Doctor Skuse was a most unsatisfactory witness who was entirely confused and his evidence was not beneficial to the prosecution case. Nevertheless, I had to accept the fact that the appeal was turned down.
I join Members of this House in asking the Home Secretary to exercise his right of clemency, a right which is exercised in cases across the world. In the past few months Private Thaine was released having been convicted of murder and having served only two and a half years of a much longer sentence.
A composite motion has just been handed to me which I can accept and we should join in adopting the course of action I have outlined.
I welcome the efforts being made to find a composite motion.
The Government share the anxiety which has been expressed on all sides of the House that a miscarrage of justice may have occurred in these cases. As has been very evident throughout the discussion of the motion, this is one area where there is broad consensus between the main political parties in Ireland. The debate has been characterised by a very high level of contribution from all sides of the House. I would like on behalf of the Minister to express appreciation for the complimentary remarks made in the House in regard to his and the Government's handling of this sensitive issue.
I would also wish at the outset of my reply to place on record the Government's appreciation of the efforts of the all-party delegation who travelled to Britain to meet with the Home Secretary in order to convey to him clear and united view of the Oireachtas on this issue.
I know that the concerns which have been voiced in this debate are widely felt by people throughout Ireland. It is important to bear in mind also that there are many in Britain who normally have no association with what might be regarded as Irish causes who are equally concerned about these cases. The support given to the campaigns of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Maguire family by many distinguished figures in Britain has added great authority to the campaigns on behalf of those who are imprisoned.
We should also in this debate acknowledge the particular concern of the Irish community in Britain about these cases. The representative Irish associations and societies have repeatedly expressed their disquiet at developments in relation to the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Maguire cases.
I believe that it is vital that the broadly based interest in and support for these cases should be maintained. However, we must at all times avoid the trap of ever allowing the campaign to degenerate in any way into anti-British sentiment. The real test of a legal system is not whether miscarriages of justice can ever occur but whether — when they have occurred — there is a possibility for remedying them, a point made very strongly by Deputy Spring.
There is one extremely important point which must be underlined at this stage. While concerns at any possible miscarriage of justice involved in these three cases is fully justified, we should never allow ourselves for one moment to forget the horror of the Birmingham, Guildford and Woolwich bombings. I know that I speak for all of us when I say that we unreservedly condemn the activities of those who engaged in that horrific campaign of bombing, which brought death and grevious suffering to very many innocent people. I should like also to thank Deputies Spring and Birmingham for their support in this condemnation.
I would like now to look at the cases individually because as Deputy Barry has rightly said, the cases are complex and they are at very different stages of the legal process. Let me start with the Birmingham Six. As the House is aware, the British Home Secretary referred this case to the court of appeal on 20 January last year. After a hearing which lasted seven weeks and received unprecedented media coverage in this country, the Court of Appeal, in a written judgment delivered on 28 January 1988, rejected the appellants' case. The Government subsequently issued a statement expressing regret at the decision to maintain the convictions and sentences of the Six. The statement also mentioned that this concern was shared right across the political and legal spectrum in both Ireland and Britain.
The Government raised the case of the Birmingham Six at the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference meetings in Belfast on 2 and 10 February. The Tánaiste issued a further statement on 14 April after the House of Lords refused the appellants' request to hear their case. On that occasion the Tánaiste stated that the Government were deeply perturbed that, despite widespread and continuing concern, there may have been a miscarriage of justice in these cases, the avenues of legal appeal seem to have been exhausted and the Six remained imprisoned. He pointed out that the Birmingham Six have now spent over 13 years in jail. He said that in the circumstances the Government considered that there were compelling humanitarian arguments for the Home Secretary to consider using the wide-ranging powers available to him in such cases. The Tánaiste further stated that urgent contact would be made with the Home Secretary to discuss the Birmingham Six case, as well as other cases which continue to give rise to concern.
I would like to place on record our appreciation of the recent decision to allow Richard McIlkenny compassionate parole to attend the funeral of his brother. I know that this gesture was greatly appreciated by the relatives and friends of the Birmingham Six. I would commend the authorities for their humanitarian decision, which was widely welcomed throughout Ireland.
With regard to the Guildford Four, Deputies will be aware that the Home Secretary in August last year ordered an inquiry by the Avon and Somerset police into new evidence on the conviction of Paul Hill, Gerard Conlon, Paddy Armstong and Carole Richardson for the Guildford and Woolwich bombings, as has been stated by very many Deputies who have spoken here, a most unlikely group to be involved in conspiracy and bombing. The police inquiry is complete and a report of the investigations was handed over to the Home Secretary on 13 April. The Home Secretary will examine the report and other relevant information before deciding whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. The Government would support such a referral.
The Taoiseach met with Paul Hill's wife in New York in April during his visit to the United States and I subsequently met his mother, Mrs. Lily Hill, in Dublin to discuss Mr. Hill's welfare. Our Embassy in London has made a number of consular visits to members of the Guildford Four in prison, including to Gerard Conlon whose particular problems in Full Sutton prison have been referred to by a number of Deputies and in particular by Deputy Roche. As and when necessary we will continue to make representations on welfare grounds on behalf of the Guildford Four to the British authorities. In regard to the case of the Maguire family, there are no significant developments to report in this case. However, as Deputies will be aware, the convictions of the Maguire family are closely related to those of the Guildford Four and any developments in the latter case might be expected to have implications for the Maguire family. The Government would welcome a full review of the convictions of the Maguire family.
I hope that I have provided here tonight a clear and somewhat detailed description of the current position in relation to these three cases. The Government will continue to work hard to ensure that all possible avenues are explored on behalf of the prisoners. As recently as this week, the Irish Ambassador in London met the Home Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd, and discussed these cases with him.
There is little doubt — and this was referred to by nearly all speakers — but that the campaign on behalf of the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and the Maguire family will continue. The unease about the verdicts is persistent and widely felt. If a miscarriage of justice has, indeed, occurred, the task for all involved is not to attribute blame but to do whatever we can to see that the situation is remedied. The Government's approach is a constructive, humanitarian one and we are encouraged to have the support of all Members of the Oireachtas in its pursuit.
Among those of us who have been involved in the ongoing cases of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven, there has been an all-party approach. I would be very concerned lest at the end of this debate that line would be broken. The strength of our campaign as democratically elected politicians has lain in the all-party approach. I would like to pay tribute to people who have been with me in this campaign since the beginning. It has been a campaign that has been going on now for a number of years. We have gone to London on a number of occasions and we will continue to go to London, either to meet the prisoners on the one hand, or the officers of Government in power for the time being on the other hand.
On 21 November 1972, 21 people were murdered and 60 people were seriously injured in two pubs in Birmingham — the Mulberry Bush and the Tavern in the Town. Immediately after that particular act of savagery, five individuals were picked up in transit from Birmingham New Street Station to the port that leads to Belfast. They were picked up as they were about to board a vessel to attend a funeral of a proven IRA man. In addition, a sixth individual was brought into custody that same evening. These individuals were Robert Hunter, Patrick Hill, William Power, Hugh Callaghan, John Walker — the only man not from Ardoyne, being from Derry — and the sixth individual, Richard McIlkenny. These individuals received 21 separate life sentences each and they continue to serve those sentences. The case itself is Byzantine in the sense that it is extremely intricate and complex. There have been a number of appeals, the most recent being at the end of seven weeks where we heard their Lordships of Appeal find nothing whatsoever in favour of the Birmingham Six.
On 5 October 1974, at Guildford, five people were killed and 50 people injured. On 7 November 1974, two people died and 27 were injured at Woolwich. Paul Hill of Belfast, Patrick Armstrong of London, Gerard Conlon of Belfast and Carole Richardson of London are now serving life terms for their alleged part in those particular acts of brutality. As a direct consequence of the Guildford and Woolwich bombings, seven individuals were subsequently brought into custody as being the bomb makers in those acts of atrocity. That was Annie Maguire and her husband Paddy Maguire, her two sons, Giuseppi Conlon who subsequently died in prison, Sean Smyth, a lodger in the Harlesden home of the Maguires and Patrick O'Neill, a neighbour. The two junior Maguires, aged 16 and 13 at the time, were sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from four to five years. Of all the cases — and unfortunately these individuals have served their terms of imprisonment — on fair observation by the lawyers, by the lay people and by the scribes, the Maguire case is the unfairest, in the context of a miscarriage of justice, of all of these three cases. I would like to pay tribute to Annie Maguire for the manner of her carriage and her demeanour subsequent to her release. She has been calm on her own behalf and on behalf of those other five surviving victims of this miscarriage of justice and she has approached the case with great integrity, not forgetting her obligation to the still incarcerated Birmingham Six and Guildford Four. At all times she has been extremely fair and extremely balanced in indicating her concern not only for herself and her family and for her neighbours but also for the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four.
On 14/15 July 1986 there was an Oireachtas all-party visit to London to pursue these cases with the various authorities and at that time the all-party Oireachtas group split up and we conducted various prison visits. On 16 October 1986 there were again prison visits and a visit to the British Home Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd. I must say that he received us with great courtesy and is undoubtedly a gentleman in the best British tradition. Having listened to us he gave us soothing undertakings to look into the cases. In fairness to him he did honour what he said and undertook to have a look at the possibility of reopening the Birmingham Six case. He did exercise his prerogative under the Criminal Procedure Act, 1968, section 16 of which allows him to refer cases of this nature to the Court of Appeal. Subsequently the case went to their Lordships of Appeal and their lordships, in their wisdom or unwisdom, could find nothing good to say for the Birmingham Six and their case was kicked unceremoniously out of the British legal system. They now remain incarcerated on the periphery of that system in various prisons throughout the so-called home counties.
The only way that any help can be given to these Six is for the British Home Secretary to exercise his power of clemency under section 17 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1968. Nothing else remains. As we know, there was an examination of the prospect of appeal from the Court of Appeal decision through to the House of Lords, but a committee of appeal of the House of Lords rejected their right to appeal to the House of Lords sitting as the highest court in the land. Therefore the legal procedures, as far as the Birmingham Six are concerned, are now exhausted and the only thing that remains is for the Home Secretary to do the decent thing, to go up to the prison gates and turn the key and let these individuals out. There is no other recourse.
In that regard, under the aegis of our interparliamentary union on 7 and 9 April 1987 last, we visited Westminster where again we met a very large number of all-party Members of Parliament who attended those meetings on the cases of the Maguires, the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. The case of the Guildford Four is now in the hands of the British Home Secretary. He is considering a report which he has received from the Avon and Somerset police and that report has been on his desk since 13 April last. That is a long time and it is about time the Home Secretary — with the greatest respect to the gentleman, and gentleman and reasonable man he is — made a decision whether this matter should go to the Court of Appeal or not. Being of a relatively pessimistic nature I have very little hope that, even if he does refer the matter to the Court of Appeal, their Lordships of Appeal will find anything to support the possibility of their being released.
I see a cul-de-sac situation so far as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four are concerned. If the appeal of the Guildford Four is not allowed, then it falls back into section 17 of the 1968 Act where the Home Secretary would have to exercise clemency. There is a cul-de-sac in relation to the Birmingham Six and a prospective cul-de-sac in relation to the Guildford Four. The only humanitarian thing for the British Home Secretary to do now is to exercise clemency under this legal mechanism. There is no other route for those two cases.
If the Guildford Four case succeeds through the Court of Appeal or by way of the British Home Secretary exercising clemency, then automatically the Maguire case falls because that is so tightly interlinked with the Guildford Four case. The home of Annie Maguire was described by the British gutter press as a bomb making factory. That was a grossly unfair, wrong and inaccurate charge against a woman who had yet to face the courts and who then had to serve quite an extensive period of imprisonment.
I am calling now on the British Home Secretary to exercise his powers under this 1968 Act, to exercise clemency on behalf of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four and organise a pardon for the Maguire Seven. From time to time we are critical of the British establishment and what it represents in Irish terms but there has been much support for these cases throughout the British establishment, including the churches and all political parties. I think that the letter from Lord Devlin entitled "Case for the Royal Prerogative" in The Times of 15 April 1986, Cardinal Hume's letter and the leader in The Times which accompanies it are of clarion quality. Lord Devlin said:
I have seen only a little of the material of the Maguire and Guildford cases in which convictions were obtained for revolting acts of terrorism but enough to make me doubt whether the right men were caught. In the Guildford case the IRA gang subsequently claimed sole responsibility for the crime, that was the Balcombe Street Four. Their evidence was heard by the Court of Appeal which had the power either to reject it out of hand as beyond belief or to order a new trial by jury of the whole cases. Instead of this they treated it as an issue which they had power to determine themselves and which they decided against the accused. Thus, what was truly an indivisible case was tried in two parts, one by a jury and the other by judges.
Lord Devlin continues:
So I welcome the Cardinal's request that these cases should be referred back to the Court of Appeal, but there is more to it than this.
and he concludes:
Protestations of innocence by prisoners are common enough. Support of them by distinguished persons is not unknown but the total effect must be mountainous before it can command attention. Here in these cases it is as high as ever, it has been continuous for years. It has been tested by a number of others besides the Cardinal himself. It is strengthened by all the other considerations mentioned in your Leader. It confronts what, on paper, looks to be a weak case. None of this can be admitted and weighed by a court of law but to do justice in every individual case is sometimes beyond the reach of the law. It is the very thing that, in the last resort, the royal prerogative was fashioned to attain.
We are calling on the Government to persuade the British Government to instruct the Home Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd, to exercise his power under the 1968 Act. That is not too much to ask for in these cases.
I will return briefly to the Birmingham Six case to give an example of the perverseness and the attitude which prefailed throughout the Court of Appeal hearing. An allegation was made by Mr. Chris Mullins, who wrote a definitive book on the subject, that during the hearing Chief Superintendent Reid, a star witness, and Dr. Frank Skuse, another star witness for the prosecution, contacted one another while under oath. There is irrefutable evidence that these two individuals communicated with one another during the currency of that trial and, in view of people more learned in the law than I am, that there was a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. I now charge both those individuals that, during the course of their evidence, they twisted and turned and that Dr. Skuse was less than honest in his approach to the forensic evidence. I was at the Court of Appeal hearing in the Old Bailey and I was sitting beside a prominent legal luminary who was embarassed by the evidence given by Dr. Skuse under oath. I have the gravest doubts — even to this day — as to how their Lordships could, in their wisdom and experience, accept that individual's evidence. There was not one scintilla of doubt in the minds of their Lordships at the conclusion of his evidence. It left me positively horrified.
I do not consider myself to be objective in regard to these cases, I am on the side of the individuals concerned and against a regime which allows this situation to continue. I am grateful to the Minister, the Minister of State, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Peter Barry, for the manner of their approach to the whole situation and to these cases. Chief Superintendent Reid and Dr. Frank Skuse are indicative of the type of trickery that went on during the course of the Birmingham Six case.
The allegations of Mr. Chris Mullins were correct but although they were examined by — I presume the DPP — they were rejected. He had irrefutable evidence that these two individuals conspired to pervert the court of justice but they got off scot free without any criticism. It is that sort of atmosphere which has begun to infect the Birmingham Six case. One of the six was released for the death of a relative, which was a humanitarian act, but he was accompanied by a heavy guard of police and prison officers.
Anybody who meets these individuals in Longlartin — where we saw them— in Gartree or Wormwood Scrubs knows, having spoken to the individual warders, that the warders have said that these individuals could not, in conscience, have committed the crimes with which they were charged. In one of these prisons, a very prominent and decent deputy governor — I will not name him or the prison — was quite satisfied that having been in charge of these individuals for a period of time, having regard to their general conduct, attitude and co-operation that they could not be guilty of the crimes with which they were charged.
I am asking the Minister and the Minister of State to keep up the pressure and to request the Government to continue apace because the backbenchers on all sides of the House will continue to push for justice for these individuals, the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven — now six.
I should like to pay tribute to the officers in the Irish Embassy in London who have given of their own time on a number of occasions to bring us from London to Longlartin where we spent a long weekend. The recent visit by the Irish Ambassador to the British Home Secretary was worthwhile because it keeps up the campaign. I should also like to pay tribute to the Irish societies who have done so much to highlight — and continue to do so — these cases of miscarriages of justice.
I wish to share my time with Deputy McCartan.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
If the last two days cross-Channel exchanges on extradition clearly demonstrate anything it is that judges can get things wrong. They can get things wrong as much in Ireland as they have in Britain.
We all appear to agree in this House that there is a difference between the law and justice. This has been clearly illustrated in the McVeigh extradition case in the last couple of days. It is also demonstrated in the case of Callaghan, McIlkenny, Hill, Power, Hunter and Walker.
I agree with the sentiments of the Labour Party motion. I would like to see the release of the Birmingham Six, the Guilford Four and a pardon for the Maguire Seven but I do not believe that the debate and passage of such a motion by Dáil Éireann will have any effect whatsoever on the British authorities. In the wake of the McVeigh debacle, quite the contrary is probably the case.
It is for this reason that the Progressive Democrats' parliamentary party have tabled an amendment to the Labour motion asking Dáil Éireann to call on the British Home Secretary to reconsider his decision not to grant clemency to the Birmingham Six in the light of the reasonable doubt cast on the evidence of the Crown's chief technical expert, Dr. Skuse, and to expedite the referral of the Guilford Four and associated Maguire case to the Court of Appeal. We firmly believe that most people — indeed, the Birmingham Six's lawyers included — would see our course of action as being more realistic, more practical and far more likely to be put into effect than the blanket Labour motion. Quite simply, it is not asking the British authorities to set aside or overrule the decisions of their courts.
It is proper to call for political intervention in the British justice system at this stage — just as the Leader of the Progressive Democrats, Deputy Desmond O'Malley, criticised the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, acting on behalf of the State, for failing to intervene, at two points, in the McVeigh court case in Portlaoise on Monday.
It is in this spirit that we state that the British justice system is now exhausted for the Birmingham Six and that that system has failed to reach a satisfactory resolution of their case.
I want to place particular emphasis on the Birmingham Six case in this debate because the Birmingham Six have reached the end of the legal line. Their case is setting a precedent for the Guilford Four to follow.
I understand that two options, with little chance of success, are now being pursued on behalf of the Birmingham Six since the Court of Appeal upheld the original convictions at the end of January. The lawyers for the Birmingham Six are preparing a petition to the European Commission on Human Rights in Strasbourg making the case that the men did not get a fair trial under one of the Articles of the Convention on Human Rights. They are claiming that half of the Birmingham Six case was heard by a jury; the other half was heard by the Court of Appeal judges 13 year later. They also claim that this required the defendants to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt rather than the other way round.
The second option is being pursued by Sir John Farr, the Conservative MP in the Gartree prison area, in the House of Commons in the next couple of days. He is seeking an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill in Britain which would allow for a review tribunal to be set up to examine all controversial cases, including the Birmingham Six. There is little chance, according to the Six men's lawyers, that either course of action will materially affect their position.
I would now like to deal with the substance of concern in this country about the case of the Birmingham Six. By common consent, the first trial took place while Britain was gripped, understandably, by anti-IRA/anti-Irish hysteria in the wake of the horrific bombs tragedy in two Birmingham pubs which killed 21 people and injured 162 in November 1974. Subsequent appeals in the case have been seen as putting not the six individuals, but rather the integrity of the British justice system, on trial.
This was illustrated most graphically in Lord Denning's notorious and, in my view, disgraceful pronouncement in the Court of Appeal in 1980 when he said that the alternative, that there had been an all-embracing conspiracy of perjury on the part of a substantial number of very high-ranking policemen, was "too appalling a vista to be contemplated and therefore should not be contemplated". That so eminent a judge as Lord Denning, albeit now retired, should say as he did a few months ago on a BBC television programme that it were better for innocent people to be imprisoned than the justice system be discredited, makes one very uneasy about either conscious or unconscious bias.
The two pillars of evidence on which the convictions rest are the confessions and the forensic evidence of Dr. Frank Skuse.
There is no doubt that the Six were savagely beaten while in custody. The conflict is on whether they were beaten on arrival at Winson Green prison or earlier while in police cells. Apart from the prisoners themselves, several witnesses gave evidence to the Court of Appeal of mistreatment of prisoners. They were disbelieved. What motive, for example, did Joyce Lynass have for perjury? The law requires confessions to be voluntary. Is it reasonable to doubt whether the four confessions, in this case, were voluntary?
Dr. Skuse, in the course of three-and-a-half days' evidence in the Court of Appeal, was exposed as a most unreliable witness. The uncertainties surrounding the precise procedure followed by Dr. Skuse and the discrepancies between his written and oral evidence are such that even the Court of Appeal found the contradictions impossible to gloss over. Did he, or did he not, use ethanol? Was the caustic soda solution 1.0 per cent or 0.1 per cent in strength in carrying out the Greiss test?
Dr. Skuse, at the end of the trial, used the phrase "ninety-nine per cent certain" that he had swabbed nitro-glycerine from the hands of Power and Hill. This must have influenced the jury on the day. At the appeal it was accepted that nitrocellulose is used in lacquers and varnishes for treating bar counters and even the surface of playing cards.
Like some other TDs I attended the Court of Appeal of the Birmingham Six on a few occasions in London last year. I was there on the day judgment was delivered. Unlike a great number of Irish people who believe that since the verdict is British, it must automatically be wrong, I cannot cross my heart and say with the certainty of Dr. Skuse whether the Birmingham Six are innocent or guilty. I am satisfied, however, that there is a reasonable doubt about their guilt and that the case against them has not been proven. For this reason, clemency should be shown towards these men who are in their 14th year in prison.
In this light, the Progressive Democrats are calling on the British Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, to reconsider his decision not to grant clemency to the Birmingham Six in the light of the reasonable doubt cast on the evidence of the State's chief technical expert, Dr. Skuse. If the Home Secretary does not find it politically expedient to do this at the present time, we appeal to him to facilitate the setting up of an independent review tribunal to re-examine all the evidence in the case.
There are two precedents for this in Britain. The first is the Confait case where three mentally disturbed men made full confessions which were subsequently, after such a review, found to be false. The second precedent is the Timothy Evans case where a man was hanged for a murder that his landlord subsequently was found guilty of committing.
Turning to the Guildford Four case, it is now nearly a year since the police inquiry into the new evidence commenced. I would appeal to the British Home Secretary to expedite his consideration of this case and to refer it to the Court of Appeal.
I understood that the Maguire case will fall automatically should the Guildford Four case succeed. I believe the Maguire family have been subjected to the greatest miscarriage of justice in recent British legal history. They have served their full time but are still left in a legal limbo.
I commend the wording of the Progressive Democrats' amendment to the House as the most practical way that we, in Dáil Éireann, can assist the Birmingham Six and, in turn, the Guildford Four and the Maguire family. I would appeal particularly for the support of the Labour Party and of The Workers' Party for the substance and sentiments contained in our amendment.
In my view it would be a great tragedy if Dáil Éireann, having been granted the time by the Labour Party to have this worthwhile debate on the injustices in these cases, could not agree to reach a conclusion. It would be a tragedy if this House was to so divide that the cross-party consensus on these cases could not be put to the British Government. I firmly believe that a wording along the lines I have suggested covers that consensus and constitutes a more practical step forward than the original Labour motion. For that reason I am very pleased that the Leader of the Labour Party is proposing to put forward a composite motion along those lines in his final contribution to this debate.
I might remind the House that the mover of the motion will be called on to conclude at 8.15 p.m.
I should like to thank Deputy Geraldine Kennedy for having given me the opportunity of sharing her time and being able to contribute to this important debate.
Earlier in this session I had circulated all of the party leaders and Whips, and movers of motions then on the Order Paper, by letter, asking that time be allowed between the parties, to discuss the issue of these outstanding cases. Therefore, I viewed with particular pleasure that time was found, by way of Private Members' time, for discussion of these cases.
It is particularly significant that we conclude this evening in one voice on an agreed view, that all parties in this House should join, under the terms of a common motion, to plead once again to the British authorities to act to put right that which we believe to have been fundamentally wrong from the beginning. The Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Maguire defendants must all be released and/or pardoned of the convictions wrongly visited on them.
The suggestion has been made that this debate here this evening would impact little, if not adversely, on the authorities in Britain. If that is so, it is regrettable. It was incumbent on us all in this House — who have expressed in a consistent, continuous way our support for the cause of these people — to avail of an opportunity before the end of this session to once again make a clarion call for their release, for clemency, for justice. For that reason if for no other reason it is important that we have this debate tonight. I have no doubt that what has been said here tonight, reflecting yet again continued and sustained support, will have a good and positive effect upon all involved on this issue be they in authority here or abroad.
One aspect of the motion is of concern to me as a lawyer, as someone who has been involved directly with these cases over the years and as a person who attended in the Court of Appeal from 28 January this year — one of the saddest days in my brief legal practising experience — when the judgment was handed down in the Birmingham Six hearing. The motion highlights a very fundamental belief that I and members of The Workers' Party hold, which is that we must always recognise that within the legal process errors can be made, have been made and will be made, errors of such magnitude that the courts themselves will not be able to put things right. That is particularly so with cases like the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven.
The lapse of time from the date of conviction until things are uncovered to put matters back before the authorities for a review is something that will never be adequately addressed in a court hearing or review. The written record is the basis on which a review takes place and it is difficult to infuse into it the different phenomena that existed when the case was originally heard. It is impossible, for example to write into the transcript the hysteria of the time, the animosity and the public sense of guilt that existed around the times of the trial, so shortly after the events. It is impossible to reproduce these things at a subsequent hearing so long after. The fact that fresh evidence is not evaluated by a jury and the fact that Joyce Lynass was not heard by a jury points to the difficulties of satisfactorily reviewing cases within the mechanisms available. All of that is recognised in legislation in Britain and here. There is reserved in both series of legislation the authority and right of the executive powers to intervene by way of royal or executive prerogative over and above court decisions, intervene in a recognised fashion that is not seen to be an incursion or an interference, or a reflection on the due process of justice heretofore in any particular case.
I said that 28 January of this year was one of the bleakest days in the history of cases I have attended in the courts. One other was a case in this jurisdiction, that of Eamonn Noel Kelly, the fourth appeal hearing for the 1976 Sallin train robbers. The court of appeal and the trial court succeeded in exonerating three of the four. Kelly was the last to attend an appeal and, unbelievably, on similar evidence his conviction was upheld by a court, independent and different from that of the earlier hearings. This went to the Supreme Court and the conviction stood. The executive authorities in this jurisdiction subsequently acted in what everyone in this House agrees now and then was correct, to see clemency done in this case and to release Mr. Kelly early from the sentence imposed on him. None of us here suggests that that was an unwarranted interference in the administration of justice in this jurisdiction or that that was a reflection on the courts and the way they operate. It was a clear recognition that because of the way things work in our court systems there can arise a case where the courts with their authority and powers find it impossible to put right a wrong in the cold light of subsequent review and exposure.
We are calling here tonight on the authorities in Britain telling them that we have undivided feelings in these cases that these things are not right or satisfactory and that the Government must act because the courts are inadequate to put matters right. We say that without criticism of the wheels of justice as they operate, but merely recognising what the existing legislation in that country reflects.
These cases will not go away. They will continue to bedevil the authorities in Britain. They will continue to hang as a very dark cloud over us. The multitude of organisations in Britain and in Ireland who have worked tirelessly will continue to work endlessly on behalf of these people and will ensure that these cases will not be forgotten — groups like the Irish in Britain Representation Group, the Irish Prisoners' Support Group and the various support groups for each of the cases and so on. Also involved, as Deputy Andrews said, are both the Department and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Irish Embassy in London, which has done very good work in these areas. All of these resources of organisation and people and all of the views of Deputies in this House and of representatives in the other House will see to it that the defendants in each of these cases will not be forgotten, that their cause will not be abandoned and that the cases will continue to bedevil relationships between Ireland and Britain and worry the administrators and the judicial systems in Britain until matters are put right. We call from this House at the close of these sessions to all concerned, and in particular to the Home Secretary, to exercise their authority under section 17 of the relevant legislation at the earliest possible opportunity. Our voice goes from this House and I am happy that we have achieved a unified position and that tonight all of us here are redoubling our commitment to see justice ultimately done for all concerned.
Acting Chairman
I have been informed that Deputy Spring will not commence concluding until 8.20 p.m. Five minutes extra have been allowed because of the debate starting five minutes late. Deputy Spring will conclude at 8.20 p.m. with the agreement of the House. Agreed.
If Deputy Abbott concludes earlier, which may happen, I will be happy to take on the debate and conclude at 8.30 p.m.
In speaking on what is now a composite agreed motion of this House it is extremely gratifying to see that there remains in this House the unanimity and force which has been behind the case which we have been making as a nation on behalf of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Maguire family. I congratulate the Minister and the Government, the Embassy personnel and all others who have been fighting in the cause of justice in these cases. There are various views as to what the outcome should be in relation to the Birmingham Six. There are some who will state bluntly that the decision can only be one of innocence for the Birmingham Six. Others will qualify that and say that the decision of the court should be to state technically and in legal terms that the Birmingham Six are not guilty. The tragedy is that all legal redress is gone for the Birmingham Six and we are now left in the position where we must join with the Birmingham Six in pleading for the granting of mercy through a royal prerogative and Government action in ensuring that.
The cases involved in this debate might be summed up to the extent that the evil and the trouble which beset them arose not from any initial deficiencies in the appeal procedure but rather from the inability of the trial judges to decide there and then and to exercise their lawful function to take the case away from the jury and direct a dismissal on inadequacy of evidence or on the basis that the evidence was so inconsistent and prejudicial in some way that it would be dangerous to allow it to a jury. A conventional wisdom has grown up over the years that the jury is the protection of the liberty of the system. Behind this conventional wisdom the Judiciary in Britain, and sometimes in our jurisdiction, have forgotten the fact that they are also, in their function as trial judge, a bulwark against the abuse or the loss of liberty of the citizen and especially of the accused person before the court.
I would like to think that in this debate, when we are looking for specific redress by way of re-examination by way of appeal or by the granting of mercy through a government prerogative, that it would go out to our societies, both in Ireland and in Britain, that we look to our Judiciary to continue to be a protection against the citizen so far as they have the power to take an active part in a criminal trial and ensure that a jury is not put in the position where it allows the judge to wash his hands of the rsponsibility for conviction. It is very difficult, as Deputy McCartan said, once a trial and a conviction by a jury is over to rescind the proceedings and by the appeal to have a replay as if it was a drawn game. That does not happen. It is possible for the appeal process, both in this jurisdiction and that of Britain, to somehow redress the most outrageous and grievous wrongs that might have happened to an accused person in a criminal trial. It is not possible for the appeal procedure, as designed in the jurisdictions concerned, to do any more than that.
We may have expected more than was possible from the appeal in the Birmingham Six case because the appeal procedure is deficient in that way. I and many other speakers and observers would feel that the decision of the appeal judges in the recent Birmingham Six appeal was a tragedy and that it did not reflect the requirement of proof that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I also feel that the wrong intellectual machinery was brought into play. Certainly, the intellectual appeal machinery of the appeal judges was directed in the wrong way, not to find a reasonable doubt but rather to find mere possibilities for giving a reasonable explanation for prosecution evidence which had fallen asunder and which was in tatters and a shambles. That is possibly a feature of appeal courts throughout all jurisdictions. They are coming in after the event in ease of all appeal courts.
Our deliberations, both now and last evening, have been carried out in a manner and with a temperament and demeanour which indicates that we are not attempting to undermine the British system of justice. We are not attempting to cast fundamental slurs on the British system of justice. We are merely trying to redress a situation which has arisen through the possibility of trial judges falling into lazy ways, as they can fall into lazy ways in this jurisdiction, and to look to the future. We can say to the British Government and to the Home Secretary that it would help enormously the attainment of peace and stability in Ireland, and, indeed, in Britain, if these cases and the case put forward through the motion now before the House is heard sympathetically by the Home Secretary and the British Government.
Through our debate today and yesterday, while we recognise that the Judiciary in both jurisdictions are independent, we would establish and affect the culture in which the Judiciary operate in both jurisdictions. Through our debate we would, while not having any effect of directing the Judiciary in any particular case, bring about an awareness by the Judiciary in the two jurisdictions that they have a fundamental role to play, while acting as trial judges, to ensure that cases with the dubious and ambivalent evidence are not let go to juries where the public are obviously affected and incensed. This applies not only to the particular outrageous offences in respect of which the Birmingham Six were charged but it also applies to many other offences in respect of which an accused person would be charged. We are dealing in a society now where the average citizen is frightened of violence, is frightened of acting as a jury person without actually convicting the accused. We are dealing in changing circumstances. Gone are the times when the jury person could stand aloof and view in a very dispassionate manner, in an almost academic manner, as I recollect jury persons doing 15 years ago when I commenced a practice in the courts. I find that juries in Ireland, and no doubt in Britain as well, have become impatient and worried about not convicting people. This places and even heavier onus on the Judiciary. I hope that the debate, and the manner in which it has gone out from all speakers, would help to create a new climate in both jurisdictions whereby an accused person would again have the protection that the courts traditionally were held to afford them.
In accordance with the rules of the House I give notice that I formally withdraw the motion on the Order Paper and substitute the following:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the British Home Secretary to grant clemency to the Birmingham Six, to expedite the appeal of the Guildford Four, and to seek an urgent resolution of the Maguire case.
As I said last night, I believe we have had a very valuable opportunity presented to us to discuss and to voice our concerns in relation to these three cases which have troubled many people both in this island and in Britain for many years. I thank all those speakers, both from the Government side and from the Opposition parties, who have contributed to the debate. Last night I said that I valued the arrival at consensus in relation to this discussion very highly. I said last night, and I repeat, that the seeking of consensus in relation to the collective voice of this House is far more important, and remains far more important, than any particular political gain here on the domestic scene. I believe, as we are coming to a conclusion, that we have had a very worthwhile debate. We have had a balanced considered debate and the manner of the debate can only be of assistance to those whom we are trying to help, people who time and time again if not on a constant basis, feel there is no further help to be given to them. However, I believe that in the past two days we have made a small gesture to give these people some hope that somebody out there is trying to do something for them.
Deputy Andrews contributed something of great importance in saying that perhaps at times we may all fall into the trap of lacking objectivity in these matters. That is understandable, given the make-up of this House, the background to these cases and the historical context in which they have to be seen. Notwithstanding that, there has been a great deal of honesty in the contributions. It has been quite obvious that all those who have spoken in this House have familiarised themselves with the cases in question. Many have been at the court hearings in Britain. Obviously, all have given a great deal of time to looking at the injustices which have been committed.
The question arises at this stage, what happens now? It will trouble me and, I am sure, all the people who have contributed to this debate. Needless to say, the worry will continue; perhaps for those in prison in Britain the gloom, the hopelessness and despair may be lifted somewhat but will continue. We have seen in the past 15 years and perhaps previously the intransigence of the British system, both the establishment and the Judiciary. Nothing that has happened in this House in the past 24 hours will change that. We have seen the failure on the part of the British system to admit errors or that mistakes can be made and, indeed, in these cases mistakes have been made. Surely they must realise that Governments make mistakes, judges make mistakes, the establishment can be as human as the rest of us and make mistakes. They must accept that this is a possibility, indeed a high probability, in these cases.
I recall the atmosphere in London in 1974 in the aftermath of the Birmingham bombings. I arrived in London on the train from Holyhead the very morning after the bombs had gone off and I recall distinctly that London was in a state of shock. I imagine that Birmingham, if it can be put in this manner, must have been ten times more outraged than London. We must try to familiarise ourselves with the background of these cases in the interest of honesty and showing a better understanding of the atmosphere that prevailed in Britain at the time. Somebody some years ago posed the question to me, "Who is policing the police?" That question has been in the back of my mind ever since then in relation to the conduct of the police in the run-up to the trial of the Birmingham Six. No atmosphere, no outrage, no sense of despair in a community can ever excuse the conduct of the police in the pre-trial events leading to the Birmingham Six trial and conviction.
There is often a dilemma in this country in speaking out to defend those who are brought before the system in Britain, perhaps because of the association in many cases with violence and the conduct of violent acts in Britain, but I believe for a number or years we in public life, in representative politics and constitutional politics, have managed to make very clear our abhorrence of violence and all acts of violence carried out sometimes under the pseudonym of the Republican cause and Irish nationalism. All these acts are a disgrace to anything to do with Irish nationalism or the Republican cause. However, I believe we have succeeded in making that distinction very clear. In doing so we have the right to speak for those people, to ensure they are given a fair trial and are entitled to the benefit of the doubt where the doubt exists. Throughout all the contributions made last night and this evening the expression "beyond reasonable doubt" keeps recurring. In the minds of very fairminded people in this House and not only on this island, but people of substance and character, lawyers, professionals and laymen in Britain, these cases have not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. As I said last night, the law has been framed to ensure that where reasonable doubt exists, where the prosecution of any offence cannot establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused, they must be acquitted. One of the basic tenets of our legal system and of that in Britain is that it is better for 99 guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted. The distinction has been made very clearly in relation to the three separate cases.
The Birmingham Six are now firmly in the hands of their political masters. I would like to feel that it is not too late for the Home Secretary to use the powers available to him. As has been said in contributions here, even those in charge of the custody of these people are convinced they did not commit the crimes that they were found guilty of. It has been established that other people have admitted committing these crimes. We in this House are sending a very clear signal which I would like to feel the British establishment will take note of in the reasoned manner in which it has been presented, and all we can do is urge that the Home Secretary would, at the end of the day, first convince himself that justice can be done at this late stage, and second, convince his Cabinet colleagues — which, we should not understate as an easy task. The British Government saw fit to release Private Thain after three years in jail. We view that with disdain. They claim they had their reasons. Private Thain was the first soldier in Northern Ireland to be convicted of murdering a private citizen. Surely they could look at that precedent. If they could justify that decision surely they can now look, even though in different circumstances, at what has happened to the Birmingham Six and exercise clemency.
In relation to the Guildford Four, still further processes of law can be undergone. Having studied very carefully the appeal process in relation to the Birmingham Six, I say sadly to this House that I do not hold out much hope for that process answering our deep feelings in relation to the Guildford Four. Perhaps it is better than nothing. It has some possibilities. However, given the reaction, response and experience of the lawyers involved in the appeal of the Birmingham Six and given the intransigence in the course of the seven weeks of the presentation of evidence, there was not at any single moment a glimmer of hope, a glimmer of expectation, that the judges were in the position that they were going to give the balance of doubt to the appellants. I had that confirmed to me by the Queen's Counsel involved. Never at any time in the course of the seven weeks did they feel they were going to break through the stark granite wall of the three judges sitting on that appeal. No weight was attributed to the evidence given on behalf of the appellants. Inconsistencies, collusion and evidence that did not stand up was accepted by the judges in relation to the appeal by the Birmingham Six. That is why I remain doubtful in relation to what possibilities will come out of the further court process.
In relation to Annie Maguire and her family, at this stage, given the humiliations they have suffered down the years, it should not be beyond the British system to admit that mistakes had been made. It should not be beyond the British system at this stage to show an act of clemency. I have one grave worry in relation to these matters. I recall some 15 or 20 years ago, in the course of studying law, being very impressed by the then Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, a man who had made an enormous contribution to the development of English law. Perhaps in one's younger years one is more impressionable but I felt he had made an enormous contribution, that he was one of the wisest lawyers in the land. However, having listened to his recent statements in relation to the possiblities for overturning the decisions in the Birmingham Six case, and his phrase that if this was done it would open up the appalling vista of a conspiracy by the Establishment, I have a serious doubt that when somebody so well established in the British system is of that conviction — obviously he has a major influence on the policy making and decision making process of British Governments — and makes such a statement that the system is big enough to overcome that type of conviction.
Perhaps, if nothing else in relation to our contributions in the House, it is not too late for somebody who obviously was a very wise and learned man in his younger years, to look again at his attitude and the views he has expressed openly in relation to these cases. At the end of the day if there is to be justice, and that is what this is all about, even 15 years later is not too late for a display of it. At this late stage something could be saved. There could be a small gesture towards these people. In the course of the difficulties between these two islands a gesture of compassion and generosity by the British Government would, obviously, be a healing step of enormous proportions. Otherwise, sadly, I believe that the names of the Birmingham Six — Hugh Callaghan, Patrick Hill, Gerry Hunter, Richard McIlkenny, Billy Power and Johnny Walker — and the names of the Guildford Four — Gerard Conlon, Paul Hill, Carole Richardson and Paddy Armstrong — and Annie Maguire and her family will haunt the British system of justice or any claims that there is a system of justice of substance on that island. That will be the position unless at this late stage a gesture is made by the Establishment in Britain. In conclusion, I should like to thank Members for their contributions and I commend the motion to the House.
The Chair is putting the revised composite motion and asking for the agreement of the House.
Question put and agreed to.