THE British Home Secretary, Mr Michael Howard, announced yesterday that prosecuting lawyers in the case of five republican prisoners and an armed robber accused of breaking out of a top security jail could appeal a judge's ruling that they should not stand trial again following the collapse of the case.
The trial of the six men was abandoned for the second time on Thursday night because of prejudicial media reporting. In his ruling, Mr Justice Kay said, against the prosecution's wishes, that it would not be in the public interest for the six to stand trial again.
However, Mr Howard decided to intervene in the case yesterday after seeking legal advice from the Lord Chancellor. Explaining his decision, Mr Howard argued that it was only fair that the prosecution be given the opportunity to argue its case for a third trial at the Court of Appeal.
"The decision in this case raises serious questions about whether there should be an opportunity to review on appeal decisions of this kind which bring a case to a final conclusion contrary to the submission of the prosecutor. I am giving serious consideration to the possibility of legislation to provide such a review," he said
Mr Michael Mansfield QC, one of the defence barristers, dismissed Mr Howard's move as a "knee jerk reaction" and called for a public inquiry into the break out because a number of serious questions over security had been raised by the trial.
After pointing out that the prison governor had admitted on oath that he had, misled the British government's investigation into the incident, Mr Mansfield said that although the perimeter fence had been cut, it was clear it had not been done by the prisoners.
Paul Magee (48), Danny McNamee (36), Liam O'Duibhir (34), Peter Sherry (31), Liam McCotter (33) and Andrew Russell (34) were accused of breaking out of Whitemoor jail in Cambridgeshire in September 1994 and possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life. They were recaptured within two hours.
After six days of evidence, Mr Justice Kay abandoned the trial because of an article printed in the London Evening Standard newspaper. Last September the first trial was abandoned also because of prejudicial reporting.
Yesterday Mr Justice Kay said he would refer the Evening Standard's article to the Attorney General as a possible contempt of court. The paper's editor, Mr Max Hastings, offered an "unqualified, unconditional apology" and blamed human error.