High Court Judgment (John Downey)

Debate between Laurence Robertson and Dominic Grieve

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robertson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is a valuable member of the Select Committee and I am grateful to him for his support on this and many other issues. The point he makes is correct. Not being a lawyer myself, I cannot make a judgment on whether that is normal. My suggestion is that perhaps it is not normal. I understood courts always to look at the facts before them, but in this case the court seems to have relied on this letter, which concentrated on the fact that the PSNI did not want to question Mr Downey. It said only that in the PSNI’s belief no other police force in the United Kingdom wanted to question him—it was not a categorical assurance. That letter, weak and flimsy though it may sound, seems to have taken on a greater importance because of the political process. I would be the first to say that it is very important that we do not unravel the peace process or undo the enormous achievements in Northern Ireland, but the rule of law applies here, as well as the separation of powers between the Executive, Parliament and the courts, which has to be observed. I suggest that all the inquiries have that as the central motivation behind their opening.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

I may be able to help my hon. Friend. The judgment in the Downey case speaks for itself, and one needs to read it. It is very straightforward in its language about the terms of what had happened and the impact that the judge felt it had on the fairness of any prosecutorial process. Beyond that, to pick up a point that was raised earlier, that judgment was considered with great care by the Crown Prosecution Service, using independent lawyers’ advice, and the CPS was clear that it was not possible to appeal against it. CPS staff came and explained that to me and, having listened carefully to what they had to say, I shared their view.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that clarification of the possibility of appealing in that case. That certainly was the advice that I received yesterday from an eminent QC—

[Mr Robertson]

My understanding from our discussions yesterday was that a stay cannot be appealed.

[The Attorney-General]

The decision of the judge was capable of being appealed. I hope I made that clear when I made my statement in February. It was possible to appeal against the decision but, for the reasons I have just given, the view was taken that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

[Mr Robertson]

I am again grateful to the Attorney-General for that clarification, although it is in some contradiction to the advice I received from Queen’s counsel yesterday. Perhaps this matter could be taken up further, but at this stage it is probably better to move on from the case.

[Mr Robertson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is why the conflicting advice we have received has to be explored further. If a stay cannot be appealed, it cannot be appealed, but if—as the Attorney-General suggests—the issue is that there is no prospect of overturning the judgment, my view as a non-lawyer is that we should consider an appeal. It is extraordinary that a letter, which appears to be ambiguously worded, can take on greater importance than a charge of multiple murder. I do not know whether it is unique, but it is extremely unusual.

[The Attorney-General]

I rise again only to say that the decisions of the Crown Prosecution Service cannot be taken on a political basis. Indeed, insofar as I exercise functions in relation to the administration of justice, I have to ensure that those are not taken on a party-political or other political basis. It might often be convenient politically to do something, but if it is not justified on an objective consideration, it would be quite improper to do it.

[Mr Robertson]

I do not think that anyone would disagree with what the Attorney-General has just said. The problem is that the judgment in the Downey case appears to have taken the political situation into account, and that is what concerns everyone. Royal pardons appear to have been given, but I do not know what they were given for or which crimes were being overlooked. If that was not done on a political basis, I do not know what constitutes a political basis. The point that we are trying to make is that such decisions should be made on a legal basis, not a political basis.

The one good aspect is that the judgment has blown open the whole issue and drawn attention to what has been going on. The Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill was introduced in 2005, presumably because it was felt necessary to put the scheme on to a statutory basis, to give it a public airing or some respectability. It now seems that the scheme had been running since 1999, but it was six years before the Bill was introduced. The Bill was dropped, but the scheme continued. Was the scheme legitimate for all that time? If it was, why the need for the Bill?

As the right hon. Member for Belfast North said, the 1998 legislation—some of which I also voted against, for all sorts of reasons—addressed very unpalatable issues, but at least we could debate and vote on them publicly.

John Downey

Debate between Laurence Robertson and Dominic Grieve

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.