| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) rose--
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Whether it strengthened the case to the point of providing corroboration of her evidence beyond reasonable doubt was another, more difficult, question. Professor Vanezis was of the opinion that the injury to the finger was entirely consistent with Lorna Andrew's story and was in the range of one to two weeks old. Professor MacDonald, who is a recognised international expert in the field of identification of suspects from teeth marks, could not state with any degree of probability that the injury was caused by a tooth, but said that it was consistent with Lorna Andrew's account in that her account could not be disproved or ruled out. Neither could wholly discount other causes of the injury.
The casualty surgeon, who remained the only medically qualified person to have seen the actual injury, was shown the photograph of the injury and now expressed the view that it was an old, rather than a fresh, injury. The medical and expert evidence taken together certainly now raised the possibility that the injury had been caused by a tooth, but it did not raise any clear degree of probability that the injury had been thus caused and there was no question of matching the injury to a specific tooth, as has been achieved in other cases involving forensic odontology.
The hon. Members have asked why these further inquiries were not carried out at an earlier stage and before McGuire was liberated on 28 November. The medical evidence available at the time unequivocally ruled out the timing of the injury as being consistent with Lorna Andrew's account. Only one doctor--a casualty surgeon--saw the actual wound. I am advised that it is very difficult to obtain expert opinion evidence from a photograph of a single small wound. Once the doctor had been re-interviewed and had stated that the wound was definitely no more than 72 hours old, there did not appear to be any benefit in bringing in experts who would not, of course, be able to see the actual injury.
The effect of the medical and expert evidence now available was to remove the contradiction of Lorna Andrew's evidence of identification of McGuire. It was now possible to put forward her evidence under reliance on the doctrine of mutual corroboration, relying on the tragic source of evidence from the murder case. It was on that basis that Crown counsel instructed that the charges relating to the assault on Lorna Andrew be included in the indictment for the murder of Mhairi Julyan.
Prior to the trial, the defence applied to separate the charges on the ground that it would be prejudicial to McGuire to be tried at the same time on both the murder and earlier charges. Although this application was opposed by the Crown and it was explained to the trial Judge, Lord Clyde, that the Crown intended to rely on the doctrine of mutual corroboration in proving the earlier charges, Lord Clyde exercised his discretion to grant the application for separation of charges.
Mr. Wilson:
The Minister will understand that we want to study closely what he has just said, particularly why the second and third opinions from the most expert people in the field were not sought before McGuire was released. Given the enormous circumstantial evidence that existed that McGuire had committed the assault, what degree of observation was he under after he was released?
According to the Minister, McGuire was released only because the assault could not be proven conclusively to the point that it could be taken to court. However, a strong element of suspicion--to say the least--persisted. Were there any orders that McGuire should be kept under observation because it was possible that charges could be brought against him in relation to the assault if evidence could be put together?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
The hon. Gentleman asks a specific question. I will make inquiries and write to him. Obviously, it may be perceived that an individual is a threat to certain individuals in the community, so in certain circumstances the police have observation techniques in place. If he studies what I have already said, it explains why further expert evidence was not called. Incidentally, it is not always easy to get more than one expert casualty surgeon to examine someone after a crime. It is not always easy to lay on several experts at the same time.
Mr. Donohoe:
Will the Minister give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
May I develop the narrative a little more? The hon. Gentleman can come back later if he wants.
As has been mentioned, the trial proceeded on the murder charge and McGuire was ultimately convicted on 30 May and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation that he serve a minimum of 30 years. Lord Clyde continued the case until the next day and said to the Advocate Depute that he wished to hear from him as to the Crown's intentions in respect of the earlier charges.
McGuire's conviction and sentence were clearly especially significant in the Crown's consideration as to the next step in the matter. The earlier charges now stood alone. The position as it existed before McGuire's release again applied, with the sole difference that further opinion evidence had been obtained in respect of the injury to McGuire's finger. That evidence did not provide the necessary corroboration and one can speculate only as to the effect of the contradictions in the evidence if it were placed before a court.
On any view, it would clearly have been inappropriate to proceed immediately to trial in respect of the earlier charges, because it would have been impossible to secure a fair trial at that time in the light of the massive publicity surrounding the proceedings in the murder case and the revelation of all McGuire's previous convictions. Lord Clyde refused the motion and deserted the case simpliciter--that means altogether. The effect was to bring proceedings to an end.
All the Crown wanted on 31 May was time to consider further the question of proceedings in relation to the attack on Lorna Andrew because the charges were serious and deserved further consideration. There was no question of the Crown attempting to gag the media. The Crown put all the charges on the indictment. It was only because two of them were "separated" that the judge made an order, at the defence's request, delaying publication of reporting in relation to the earlier charges.
The Crown never sought an order prohibiting any reporting that there were outstanding charges, except in the context of reports of what was said in court. It was the judge who decided to make an order prohibiting any reporting that suggested that there were outstanding charges.
On behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, I have given the fullest explanation that can properly be given of the decisions that have been taken. This has been a distressing matter and, as I have said, the working group will examine the case as part of its work of promoting good practice. I repeat to the hon. Gentlemen that the Secretary of State's approach in his letter to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North contains significant proposed changes to the law, which, if implemented, would give a significant degree of extra protection not only to women, but to the community in general, which should be generally supported.
Question put and agreed to.
13 Jun 1996 : Column 499Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Nine o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |