Networked Knowledge - Law Reports

[This edited version of the report has been prepared by Dr Robert N Moles]

UK: IRA bombing cases Homepage
A state of Injustice - table of contents
Losing Their Grip - The Case of Henry Keogh - table of contents

R v Richardson; R v Conlon; R v Armstrong; R v Hill

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

20 October 1989

LORD LANE CJ (reading the Judgment of the court)

This is a reference by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division under the provision of section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, which enables the Secretary of State, where a person has been convicted on indictment, to refer the whole case to the Court of Appeal. The case thereupon is to be treated for all purposes as an appeal to that court. The reference was made on 16 January 1989, that is to say some 9 months ago.

The facts of the case, in necessarily brief outline, are as follows. On 22 October 1975 the 4 appellants Armstrong, Conlon, Hill and Carole Richardson were convicted before Mr Justice Donaldson and a jury of conspiracy to cause explosions and of the five murders arising from the bombing on 5th October 1974 of the Horse and Groom public house at Guildford, and also of causing an explosion likely to endanger life on the same day at the Seven Stars public house in the same town. In addition, Armstrong and Hill were convicted of the two murders arising from the bombing on 7th November 1974 of a public house in Woolwich called the King's Arms. Armstrong was, in addition, convicted of conspiracy to murder.

The appellants Armstrong, Conlon and Hill were sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum recommendation of 35 years for Armstrong and 30 years for Conlon. Other sentences which are immaterial for the present purposes were imposed in respect of the conspiracy. In the case of Hill the trial judge said that, although he could not formally recommend that he never be released, life should mean life, release only being on account of great age or infirmity. Carole Richardson was ordered to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure for the murder counts and to life imprisonment for causing an explosion.

Whilst awaiting trial for these offences Hill was convicted outside this jurisdiction, namely, at the Belfast City Court, on 26th June 1975 of the murder of Brian Shaw, an ex-soldier. He was sentenced by that court to life imprisonment. These proceedings today are of course not concerned with that conviction or sentence and they must stand regardless of the decision of this court.

So far as the trial in this country was concerned, the applications of the appellants for leave to appeal against their conviction were refused by the full Court of Appeal, Criminal Division on 28 October 1977 after a lengthy hearing lasting some 12 days. Richardson's alibi was considered, but most of the appeal was taken up with the confessions to these bombings by what has come to be known as the Balcombe Street gang and assertions by that gang that these appellants were not concerned in the Guildford or the Woolwich explosion. No suggestion of course was made of the evidence which has now come to light from the Avon and Somerset inquiry.

On 20 January 1987, almost exactly 2 years before the present reference, the Home Secretary had declined to make any reference under section 17 to this court. Representation however continued to be made to him by various individuals and by various bodies to refer the matter and the grounds upon which he did so in January of this year were as follows:

First of all as to Carole Richardson's alibi.

Subsequent to the trial a witness by the name of Maura Kelly, who in 1974 was employed in a baker's shop, had come forward and was able to give some evidence in relation to Carole Richardson's alibi. Attempts had been made to secure her attendance at court during the actual trial before Justice Donaldson, but she had gone to Ireland and she did not appear at the trial. The Secretary of State felt that that evidence should be considered by the court which by that time had become available.

The second ground was again in respect of Carole Richardson and was medical evidence which Mr Carman today has emphasized in his short remarks to us at the conclusion of Mr Amlot's submission. While Carole Richardson was being detained by the Surrey Constabulary she was seen by a police surgeon, Dr Makos, because she was apparently in an hysterical state. In 1974 Dr Makos had said that he gave her one tablet of Tuinal in order to try to restore her calm. Much later in 1987, Dr Makos indicated he had given Carole an intra-muscular injection of 50 mg of Pethidine. In December 1988 the doctor withdrew that statement with regard to Pethidine, but the Home Secretary had obtained medical information to the effect that the use of Pethidine was plainly suffering from barbiturate withdrawal might have had some effect upon her ability properly to rationalize when she was making her statement. That was another ground upon which the Home Secretary sought to refer the matter to this court.

The third point upon which the matter was referred related to Paul Hill with regard to the Woolwich public house bombing. There was a further witness named Mrs Fox who provided some possible support for Hill's alibi. She had made a statement in July 1987 which was placed before the Home Secretary. The identity of Mrs Fox had been known at the trial. It was decided not to call her, but the Secretary of State nevertheless felt that it would be proper for the appellant to be given a further chance to have that evidence considered and that was the third and final ground upon which the matter was referred to this court.

The start of the hearing of this reference upon which we are now embarked today had originally been arranged for this month at the beginning of the legal term, but at the request of the appellants the matter was postponed and the new starting date was 15 January 1990. There had been a pre-trial review before us earlier this year and the court had requested that the grounds of appeal should be submitted by the end of October.

However, earlier this week the court was informed that the Crown would no longer seek to uphold these convictions. The grounds upon which the matter had been referred to this court by the Secretary of State were not the basis of that decision, as of course we have now all learnt. Indeed we are told by Mr Amlot that had those grounds remained the sole points of the appeal - the sole points in issue in the case - the appeal would have been hotly contested by the Crown.

The nature of this change of attitude by the Crown led us to believe that the whole of this matter should be aired at the very first opportunity, hence the very brief gap of two days or so before today's hearing.

The reasons now put forward by Mr Amlet, which we have heard this morning, arise out of the fact that the prosecution case depended upon confessions which were allegedly make by these appellants to the police during the course of those police inquiries. True there was alibi evidence as already indicated, but it would, I think, perhaps be fair to say that, save in Carole Richardson's case, the alibis were not at the centre of the defence submissions. The alleged confessions of the appellants were the subject of the closest examination during the trial before Mr Justice Donaldson.

The prosecution case so far as the appellant Armstrong was concerned was, again in necessarily brief form, as follows. Armstrong made two statements which he signed. They amounted to confessions that he had taken part in the Guildford bombing. According to him, three of the appellants, that is to say Armstrong, a man called Paul (who was the driver of the motor car), Carole Richardson and Conlon, drove to Guildford in a car which was probably a Ford Capri, and there played their respective parts in the bombing of the two public houses. He later made another statement saying that it was he and Carole who had planted the bomb in the Horse and Groom and he marked the place where the bomb had been placed on a plan, and that did in fact coincide with the place where it seemed that the bomb had exploded. He later confirmed his complicity in the Guildford affair, but he added these words, "I am not admitting the Woolwich job. I didn't do it, so why should I admit it".

The defence case put forward by Armstrong was as follows. First of all he had no part in either the Guildford or the Woolwich bombing. The statements that he made to the police were untrue except for the personal details he had given and other immaterial matters. He signed the false statements, he said, because he had been high on drugs when he was arrested and when the effects of the drugs had worn off he was induced to sign these statements because he was frightened of the police officers. He said he had been treated with brutality by the police at the Guildford Police Station. As to the first statement, he asserted it was done by question and answer in such a way that the answer was suggested and he simply agreed to it. Some answers were untrue, such as the answer that he joined the IRA in 1969, and others were beyond his knowledge, for example, the place which he was alleged to have indicated, that is to say the place where the IRA training was done.

As to the second statement, according to him the officer started making it in the form in which it was eventually written and he simply answered questions. He put forward an alibi.

Turning now to Carole Richardson, the prosecution case against her was that she was an IRA sympathiser and was Armstrong's girlfriend. She, it was alleged, voluntarily played a key part in planting the bomb in the Horse and Groom. So far as the attack on the other Guildford public house was concerned, the Seven Stars, although she did not plant the bomb, she knew that the trip to Guildford involved the bombing of two public houses. She made 4 statements to the police - two, I think, in her own handwriting. They amounted in effect to a confession of her complicity.

She did not give evidence herself. She made a statement from the dock, which at that time was permissible. She said she played no part in the Guildford bombings. The statements which it was alleged she had made to the police were, she asserted, dictated to her by the police. She had only signed them because she was frightened.

As to the second statement which gave details of the trip to Guildford and the planting of the bomb, she said that she, too, was subjected to police brutality and that the answers were dictated to her. She also gave evidence of an alibi which it will be remembered, was part of the grounds upon which the Secretary of State referred this matter to the court. She called witnesses in support of her alibi and the Crown called rebutting evidence, as Mr Amlot has told us this morning.

She also asserted in relation to the proposed medical evidence which Mr Carman has mentioned this morning that she had been taking barbiturates and was affected by the fact that the drugs were wearing off. She was suffering from withdrawal symptons and consequently was in no fit state to make proper considered statements.

Now I turn to the case against Hill. The Crown alleged that Hill was sent over from Ireland to carry out bombings. It was alleged that he went to Guildford as part of the team of bombers and he acted there as look-out, that he went on to Woolwich and there he passed the bomb to the person who actually threw it. He was arrested at Southampton at the end of November 1974.

He made a number of statements into which it is not necessary to go into detail. He described how he had been concerned with Armstrong in a bombing plot. He described how Armstrong had given his explosives; how he had gone to Guildford with Armstrong and Conlon; how he had arranged a false alibi.

The fifth statement was a summary of all the previous admissions about Guildford: how it was arranged by Armstrong that Conlon and another would attack the Horse and Groom public house and Carole Richardson and another would attack the Seven Stars. He then described how the operation was in fact carried out. Afterwards he said it was alleged that they drove back to London very fast and he was dropped off in Waterloo when he caught the train to Southampton.

Hill's evidence was to the effect that he took no part in either bombing. On 5th October he was in Southampton, having left London at three o'clock in the afternoon. Consequently he could not have taken part in the alleged activities in Guildford. On 7 November he was staying with some people called Keenan, although he did go out to telephone his girlfriend at one stage during the evening. The Keenans, we heard this morning, were in fact called to give evidence. He made the statements to the police because they had said they were going to charge his girlfriend Gina Clarke, and he eventually made a statement, he said, in order to prevent Gina from being involved in the proceedings. He had never been told that public houses would be blown up. The police had suggested what he should write down. The Woolwich account that he was said to have given was not true. He was not there. He did not know if Armstrong had been there or not. The statement he made with regard to other matters had been made to stop the police pestering him. The idea that there were two teams of bombers came from the way the police had directed their questioning. As to the final statement, he put it down the way the police wanted it put down. It was not true.

Finally, the case against Conlon was that he was part of the Guildford bombing team. He and the girl called Annie had planted the bomb in the Seven Stars. The allegation was that he knew what they were going to do but that the girl it was who carried the bomb, and he knew that another public house was to be bombed.

He also was alleged to have made a number of statements. In those statements he was alleged to have said that Hill had asked him to do "a little job" and there was a suggestion that he, Conlon, would be killed if he did not help Hill in the enterprise.

A few nights later he was taken to a flat where he saw what appeared to be a bomb either already manufactured or in the course of being manufactured. He was an unwilling passenger in the car which took the bombers to Guildford. He read about the Guildford explosion in the newspapers the next day and did not realize that was the place to which he had been taken.

In his second statement he referred to a bomb factory. Once again he described how he had gone to a place the name of which he did not know, how he went off with Carole Richardson, who took him to a public house, and afterwards how the two of them joined Hill. They drove back to London where he was told not to breathe a word about this to anybody.

He too gave evidence in his own defence. He had not been to Guildford at all. At the time he had been in London with a gentleman called Paul Kelly, but Kelly did not in fact give evidence. Conlon said that he had been assaulted by the police at Guildford. He said that threats were made against his family to try to persuade him to confess and that the police tore up his first statement in which he had declined to make any admissions about the bombings. Eventually he wrote the material statement but it was written with a lot of help from the police who in effect dictated it and the admissions he made were not true.

From that necessarily brief precis of the way in which the case proceeded it will be seen that, in reality, everything depended upon whether the jury were satisfied so as to feel sure that the police evidence in relation to the various interviews, and consequently the statements which came afterwards, was to be relied upon or not.

It follows that any evidence which casts a real doubt upon the reliability or veracity of the officers who were responsible for the various interrogations must mean that the whole foundation of the prosecution case disappears and that the convictions will in those circumstances be obviously unsafe.

In this case, as Mr Amlot has meticulously described in his opening address this morning, evidence has come to light, thanks to the efforts of the Avon and Somerset Police - evidence which shows quite clearly, as is accepted by the Crown, that the so-called contemporaneous records of some of the interviews conducted by the Surrey police officers with Armstrong and relied upon by those officers as they gave evidence were not contemporaneous records at all. What exactly they were may never be known, but it is accepted, and rightly accepted, by the Crown, if I may say so, that the manuscript notes produced at the trial were not what the Surrey police officers said on oath they were. The officers, to use Mr Amlot's somewhat anodyne expression, seriously misled the court. In fact they must have lied.

Armstrong was the first on the indictment and once again, as Mr Amlot has indicated quite correctly, his case was crucial to the whole of the Crown's allegations against these appellants. It seems to us - and I hasten to add that it is necessarily speculation - that there are two possible explanations for the Armstrong typescripts and the amendments made to them, if I can use that comprehensive expression to describe the documents which Mr Amlot has been through so meticulously this morning.

The first possible explanation is that the typescripts are a fabrication by the police from start to finish, invented by some fertile Constabulary mind; that they were amended to make them more effective and were then written out in manuscript so as to enable the police to produce them as though they were a contemporaneous note of the interrogation. The second possibility is that there was a contemporaneous manuscript note; that it was reduced into typewritten form by someone as a fair copy for some reason or other - perhaps legibility; one does not know - and that it was then amended here and there in order to improve it; and, finally, that it was reconverted into manuscript by the various Surrey officers involved so that it could be produced as a contemporaneous note.

It may be that it was a mixture of those two possibilities, but for the purposes of this appeal it is immaterial which of the two versions is true. In any event the police were not telling the truth about this crucial document in the case against Armstrong. If they were prepared to tell this sort of lie, then the whole of their evidence becomes suspect and, I repeat, on their evidence depended the prosecution case.

As to Hill, still further matters were to come to light as a result of the investigation of the Avon and Somerset Police. These took the shape of a series of manuscript notes relating to an interview with Hill, and once again Mr Amlot has helpfully been through this matter in detail this morning and there is no need for us to repeat those details here. But the contents of those notes were significant. They were never disclosed to the director of Public Prosecutions. They were never disclosed to prosecution counsel before or at the trial. Indeed they had not seen the light of day until the Avon and Somerset Police discovered them sometime earlier this year.

If they had been disclosed prior to the trial or at the trial, they would almost certainly have shown that Hill's fifth statement - one of the greatest importance - was taken in breach of the Judges' Rules and might very well have been ruled inadmissible if the true circumstances of it had been known. Moreover, the Surrey officers on oath, as it is conceded by the Crown, denied that there had been any such interview.

The detention sheets, which are the third and final broad matter raised and discovered by the Avon and Somerset Police support that discrepancy. There is no need perhaps for us to set out in this judgment the other matters which have now come to light upon an examination of the detention sheets. There is before us, and again helpfully explained by Mr Amlot, a schedule showing the discrepancies between the detention sheets and the record of interviews which were made by the Surrey investigating officers. Mr Amlot has pointed out in detail where the detention records do in fact conflict with the officers' evidence as to the time and duration of those various interviews, and there is no doubt that those are material discrepancies which, had they been known at the trial, might on their own, let alone in conjunction with those other matters, have made a grave difference to the outcome.

Those matters deal primarily with the cases of Armstrong on the one hand and Hill on the other. The cases against Conlon and Richardson are obviously intimately bound up with these events. We of course do not know what the jury would have made of the matter. Our task is to determine whether we think the convictions of Conlon and Richardson are made unsafe by what we have heard. We have no doubt that these events make the convictions of all of these 4 appellants in respect of the Guildford and the Woolwich events unsafe, even though the latest revelations have no direct bearing on the evidence relating to the Woolwich bombing.

It is some comfort to know that these matters are now in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to criminal proceedings being brought. We earnestly express the hope that nothing will be allowed to stand in the way of a speedy progress of those proceedings. It seems that by about May 1989 these papers had come to light having been discovered by the Avon and Somerset Constabulary. No doubt it was necessary thereafter to conduct meticulous enquiries as to their provenance. We are told that the various writings and typings have been identified, namely, that the authors of them are known and can be proved or are the subject of admission. We hope that those enquiries may have paved the way for expeditious criminal proceedings.

Whatever may now happen, the painstaking and perspicacious efforts of the Avon and Somerset Police have salvaged something from this unhappy matter.

This morning each of the appellants through their learned counsel has addressed us. They have indicated that there were other arguments and other pieces of evidence that they would have advanced in support of their appeals and had the matter been, so to speak, pre-empted by the latest revelations explained by Mr Amlot. We note what they say, but so far as this court is concerned these appeals are allowed and convictions are quashed.

Top of Page