Prosecution Decision

Dominic Grieve Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Written Statements

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

Further to yesterday’s written statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and following lengthy legal argument and a 53-page judgment from the court, the prosecution of John Anthony Downey on four charges of murder and one of causing an explosion with intent arising out of the Hyde Park bombing in 1982, has been stayed.

The alleged offences arose out of the notorious bombing carried out by the Provisional Irish Republican Army in Hyde Park in the morning of Tuesday 20 July 1982. As members of the Blues and Royals Regiment of the Household Cavalry rode along South Carriage Drive on their way to Horse Guards for the Changing of the Guard, a car bomb exploded. The effect was devastating. Four of the Guard were murdered—Lieutenant Anthony Daly, who was aged 23, and Trooper Simon Tipper, who was aged 19, died at the scene; Lance Corporal Jeffrey Young, who was aged 19, died the following day; and Squadron Quartermaster Corporal Roy Bright, who was aged 36, died two days after that. A total of 31 other people were injured (a number of them seriously) and seven horses were destroyed.

John Anthony Downey was arrested on 19 May 2013 at Gatwick airport where he was en route to Greece. On his arrest he produced a letter stating that he was free to enter the jurisdiction without fear of arrest. Despite that letter he was charged by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) with four counts of murder. Before he was charged my consent was sought, as the law requires, for him to face a charge of causing an explosion. I gave that consent.

I believed then that it was right to do so and I remain of the same view today.

The allegations faced by Mr Downey were of the utmost seriousness. The bombing was an attempt by the Provisional IRA to bring their terrorist campaign to London and to attack armed forces personnel who were on ceremonial duties. Whatever the circumstances in which the letter had been sent, and it is now clear that its assurances were wrongly given, it was right that the matter should be tested in court. Neither I nor the CPS were prepared to accept that the letter and the circumstances in which it had been given were such as to automatically prevent Mr Downey’s prosecution.

The court has now heard full argument and has considered a great deal of documentation. The judgment given is a detailed and careful assessment of the case and the circumstances in which Mr Downey received his letter. The CPS and I do not consider it gives rise to any prospect of successful appeal, and I am therefore of the view that the matter cannot be pursued further.

My sympathies are with the families of those who died and with those who were injured.