112 / 336
Northern Ireland Cases
Three men accused of murdering poHcemen acquitted
by direction because, inadmissible statements were
obtained by degrading treatment.
On the evening of 10th May, 1974, Constables Ross
and Bell, R.U.C., stationed at Dunmurry, were on
duty in uniform at Finaghy crossroads. A Morris
Marina car was stolen in Anderstown and proceeded
towards Finaghy. At the crossroads, a number of men
got out of the car, attacked the constables with pistols,
and shot them at point blank range. The two con-
stables were dead upon reaching hospital. An inquiry
team of R.U.C. constables stationed at Dunmurry
brought a number of suspects, including the present
six accused, to Dunmurry Police Station between 16th
and 18th May. The trial has occupied 34 days so far.
The vital issue is whether written statements signed
by the accused, and the accounts of the police wit-
nesses of question and answer interviews with them
should be admitted as part of the case for the prosecu-
tion, or rejected on the ground that the accused had
been subjected to force, threats of force and other
oppressive treatment with the object of inducing them
to confess their guilt.
Section 6 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency
Powers) Act, 1973 provides as follows:—
"(1) In any criminal proceedings for a scheduled
offence a statement made by the accused may
be given in evidence by the prosecution in so
far as it is relevant to any matter in issue in the
proceedings and is not excluded by the Court
in pursuance of subsection (2) below.
(2) If, in any such proceedings where the prosecu-
tion proposes to give in evidence a statement
made by the accused,
prima facie
evidence is
adduced that the accused was subjected to
torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment
in order to induce him to make the statement,
the Court shall, unless the prosecution satisfies
them that the statement was not so obtained,
exclude the statement or, if it has been received
in evidence, shall either continue the trial dis-
regarding the statement or direct that the trial
shall be restarted before a differently constituted
Court (before whom the statement in question
shall be inadmissible)".
The only evidence against the accused consists of
their alleged statements, both oral and written.
Prima
facie
evidence has been given that each of the accused
was subjected to torture or inhuman treatment or
degrading treatment. Evidence of the case of any one
these forms of treatment casts the burden of proof
upon the prosecution to satisfy the Court that the
statement was not obtained by any of these means.
This burden has to be discharged not on a balance of
probalities but beyond all reasonable doubt. The
reasons for this are:—
(1) The context of section 6 is that of a criminal
trial and the prosecution's standard of proof
of issues in such a trial (even when they must
first be raised by the defence) is proof beyond
reasonable doubt;
(2) The use of the word "satisfied" in section 2(4)
must imply proof beyond reasonable doubt;
(3) At Common Law, with a view to the admission
or rejection of statement evidence, the issue for
the trial judge is one of voluntariness, the proof
must be beyond reasonable doubt;
(4) A State, particularly where it abridges the rights
of an accused, must in case of ambiguity be
construed so as to alter the law as little as
possible consistently with the language used.
It is therefore for the prosecution to prove that the
accused were not subjected to any such treatment or
that the statement taken was not obtained as a result
of any such treatment.
The two doctors for the defence testified that it was
possible to inflict pain in such a way that there would
not be visible traces of it. Degrading treatment would
however appear to include treatment which does not
include torture or inhuman treatment, and there is no
doubt that this method of inflicting pain was degrading
treatment. Any decision under S. 6(2) of the 1973
Act must be based solely on how the statement is
proved to have been obtained, and not on whether it
was true.
A second point was concerned with the question
and answer notes of the interviews to which various
detectives testified. This was relevant to test the
credibility to the same witnesses who were denying
ill-treatment. The following facts emerged:—
(1) There were a number of documents which were
suspect by reason of their composition or
appearance, for example exhibit 29, a question
and answer note relating to Dougan;
(2) Other documents were difficult to understand
in context, such as the question and answer
interview with Hetherington at 8.10 p.m. on
16th May after he had made comprehensive
admissions in his written statements, which
were exhibits 9 and 10;
(3) It was hard in many instances, no matter how
many allowances one made, to relate the num-
ber and length of the questions and answers to
the time devoted to the interview at which they
were asked and given;
(4) There were many examples of wholly innocuous
question and answer sessions leading nowhere
at a time when more useful material was avail-
able to the interviewers;
(5) There was almost universal ignorance on the
part of those about to take up the running with
with a suspect concerning what had gone
before;
109