Six former Internees have convictions overturned for 1974 escape
The Court of Appeal has today quashed the convictions of six former internees.
Francis McCann, Patrick Holden, Anthony Hughes, James Joseph Walsh, Patrick Fitzsimmons and Francis Johnston were convicted on the 8th September 1975 of escaping from the Maze Prison in November 1974. A republican prisoner, Hugh Gerard Coney, was shot dead by a British Soldier during the escape. An inquest into the death of Mr Coney is listed to be heard in February 2023.
The internees were initially detained under an Interim Custody Order (ICO) made during Conservative Party’s administration’s occupancy of the Northern Ireland Office.
On the 13th May 2020 the UK Supreme Court gave judgment in the R v Adams case quashing two convictions for attempted escape under same statutory provision as our clients. The court held the relevant legislation required the Secretary of State to personally consider the making of an ICO in order that it, and any detention on foot of it, was lawful. As a lawful ICO was a condition precedent to the making of a Detention Order, it too was invalid.
It was apparent from our examination of prison files received from PRONI that there was no material relating to the decision-making process engaged in by those in authority regarding the making of the ICO’s and no evidence that the Secretary of State personally considered the matter. In light of this discovery the applicants sought to appeal their convictions.
The PPS made no submissions in support of the safety of the convictions.
Padraig Ó Muirigh, solicitor for the internees, commenting on the decision by the Court of Appeal said:
‘We welcome the decision of the Court of Appeal to quash these convictions.
The matters of fact and law which determined the Adams case in the appellants favour were in large measure replicated in these cases.
Given the lacuna in the prosecutions proofs there was a compelling argument to be made on behalf of the internees that their convictions should also be quashed.
The legality of the disastrous policy of Internment has been brought into fresh focus by this decision of the Court of Appeal.’