Oral Answers to Questions

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have run late. I want to accommodate the Member with the last question on the Order Paper, but no other.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

10. What recent assessment he has made of the extent to which sentencing of people convicted of burglary has been unduly lenient.

[The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)]

Last year the Attorney General and I referred 11 cases for burglary as unduly lenient and achieved an increase in sentence in seven of those. Only the most serious types of burglary offence currently fall within the unduly lenient scheme, but we have recommitted in our manifesto to extend its scope and we will work with my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor to implement that commitment.

[Mr Robertson]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer and for the welcome news. Only 10% of first-time burglars receive immediate custodial sentences. Does that not encourage them to carry on their crimes? Burglary is quite a serious crime; will he have a look at that statistic?

John Downey

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Attorney-General to make a statement on the background to yesterday’s judgment on John Downey.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. As I set out in a written statement to the House this morning, and further to yesterday’s written statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, 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. I apologise to hon. Members who have read my written statement because, of necessity, a large part of what I say will repeat it.

Hon Members will know that the alleged offences arose out of the notorious bombing carried out by the Provisional IRA in Hyde park on 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.

Mr Downey was arrested on 19 May 2013 at Gatwick airport when 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 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, and I gave that consent. I believed that it was right to do so, and I remain of exactly the same view today.

As acknowledged by the judge, the allegations faced by Mr Downey were of the utmost seriousness. The bombing was an attempt by the Provisional IRA to bring its 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 prosecution of a very serious offence of that kind is plainly in the public interest.

The court heard full argument and 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. It is worthy of note that the defence offered four grounds on which they argued that the case should be stayed, and that on three of those grounds the judge found for the prosecution.

At no point did the judge suggest that it was inappropriate for the prosecution to be brought—indeed, he noted that

“the public interest in ensuring that those who are accused of serious crime should be tried is a very strong one”.

My own very strong view is that it was entirely appropriate and proper for this matter to be considered in a court of law.

Notwithstanding that, the judgment has now been given, and the CPS and I accept that judgment entirely. We do not consider that it gives rise to any prospect of a successful appeal, and we have therefore notified the court that we will not be appealing. My sympathies above all are with the families of those who died and with all those who were injured on that day.

[Mr Robertson]

I should like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question, and I thank the Attorney-General for his statement. May I explore some of the background to this matter? It has been clearly stated that the letter did not constitute an amnesty, but if that is the case, why did the judge take the decision that he took? In these circumstances, it would surely be appropriate for the Government to consider making an appeal.

May I also explore how we have arrived at this situation? I was a shadow Northern Ireland Minister when the Northern Ireland offenders Bill was withdrawn because it was obviously not going to get through Parliament. There was no mention at the time of any other deal being likely. Does the Attorney-General not consider what has happened since then to be a discourtesy to Parliament? Does he, like me, wonder who authorised the scheme that seems to have replaced the legislation? That must surely have been the then Prime Minister. Will the Attorney-General tell us who wrote the letters to the people who are often referred to as on-the-runs? What was in the letters? And I am afraid that I have to ask why the Police Service of Northern Ireland gave an assurance to Mr Downey that no other police force in the United Kingdom had any interest in him, when it knew that that was not the case.

May I also ask the Attorney-General how many people have received letters under the scheme? Will he tell me whether all those who have received such letters are from a republican background? At a time when the PSNI is advertising for Bloody Sunday witnesses to come forward, does he not think this situation risks undermining the entire criminal justice system of the United Kingdom?

[The Attorney-General]

May I first make the point that it is clear from the judgment and the supporting material that the administrative scheme was not, and never could be, an amnesty? That might have been what the previous Government sought at one time, but an amnesty could be achieved only through legislation, and no such legislation was put through the House. Parliament never approved an amnesty.

This was an administrative scheme that operated independently of the Government and was intended to identify those individuals who, although they might believe that they were unable to return to the jurisdiction without fear of arrest, would in fact face no prosecution or arrest if they were to return. The PSNI would check whether individuals were wanted for arrest or for questioning. If the individual had already been considered for prosecution, the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland would make a careful assessment of its files to determine whether any prosecution would follow if the individual were to return. Many of the offences were historical, and in some cases, with the passage of time, essential witnesses might have died or forensic evidence might be no longer available.

The test applied by the Public Prosecution Service and approved by my predecessors in office was not simply whether the evidential test was no longer met, but whether it could no longer ever be met. Only in those circumstances would an individual be told that they were free to return. The position was also conditional on no further evidence subsequently coming to light of involvement in an offence. As to what happened in this case, it is quite plain that a serious error was made within the PSNI in relation to the information that it collated and provided to the Government. So far as the number of letters is concerned, I think that the better course would be for me to write to my hon. Friend, as I would not wish to give a figure that subsequently had to be adjusted, even very slightly.