Skip to content
#Open journalism No news is bad news

Your contributions will help us continue to deliver the stories that are important to you

Support The Journal
The Birmingham Six after being released in March 1991
The Birmingham Six after being released in March 1991
Image: PA

Irish Government rejected request to stand bail for Birmingham Six months before they were released

State papers reveal that government officials were concerned that it would be embarrassing if the men’s convictions were upheld.
Dec 27th 2020, 7:28 AM 24,326 38

THE IRISH GOVERNMENT refused a request from the Birmingham Six to act as bail guarantors amid concerns it could prove embarrassing, state files reveal.

The previously top-secret papers outline the deliberations that took place within official circles in Dublin about the ask from the men’s high-profile solicitor Gareth Peirce.

Peirce made the request in late 1990 just months before the men finally walked free from prison after their convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal in London.

Bail was an option once the case had been referred to the Court of Appeal.

Paddy Hill, Gerry Hunter, John Walker, Hugh Callaghan, Richard McIlkenny and Billy Power served 17 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of murdering 21 people in the IRA pub bombings in Birmingham in 1974.

The exchanges between Peirce and a senior official in the Irish embassy in London and the official’s subsequent correspondence with high-ranking colleagues in Dublin are outlined in the papers released under the 30-year rule.

On November 21 1990, first secretary at the Irish embassy Paul Murray wrote to Dublin: “On the question of surety her (Peirce’s) request to the Government is for symbolic rather than practical reasons and I think that she may not push it.”

However, on December 10, Murray communicated that Peirce was seeking an “immediate decision” on the issue as she wanted to lodge bail papers the following day.

The next day, assistant secretary at the Department of Foreign Affairs Dermot Gallagher outlined the pros and cons of providing surety in a document that was stamped as read by Taoiseach Charles Haughey.

He said the arguments in favour were “largely political but also some humanitarian”.

“If the Government refused bail, and this became public, there would very likely be severe criticism of the decision, especially by the men themselves,” he wrote.

He noted Peirce’s contention that getting enough people to act as guarantors was difficult.

Setting out the arguments against providing bail, Gallagher wrote: “The Appeal Court, which is extremely sensitive about cases being referred to it by the Home Secretary, might see a decision by the Government to stand bail as an effort to put political pressure on it and might react negatively to the move.”

Outlining a second reason, he continued: “It could be embarrassing for the Government if (a) the Court refused to accept it as bailsperson, on the basis of some technicality or other; (b) the Court, having accepted the Government as bailsperson, refused to grant bail to the men; and (c) the Court, having granted bail with the Government acting as surety, decided to uphold some or all of the convictions.”

Gallagher said while the move would not be without precedent, it would seem “odd”, particularly to “English public opinion”, if the Government was to provide bail in a case of “this gravity” involving six men who had been convicted of the “most serious crimes”.

In another paper written the same day, secretary to the government Dermot Nally stated “the effect of the precedent could be horrendous”.

Ultimately the government decided against standing bail.

A coded, top-secret communique from Gallagher to Irish ambassador in London Andrew O’Rourke told him to inform Peirce of the decision.

“In so doing the embassy will, I know, emphasise that, as always, the Government would wish to be as helpful as possible in every appropriate way with every aspect of the case,” he wrote.

He said Peirce should be told that the government believed it would not be legally allowed to stand bail.

“It would be legally impermissible for the Government to undertake the obligations of a bailsman or surety of an application for the bail before a British court in respect of persons over whom it has no jurisdiction or control,” he wrote.

In guidance to the ambassador, Gallagher explained that the government would be obliged to ensure anyone it provided bail for turned up for trial.

#Open journalism No news is bad news Support The Journal

Your contributions will help us continue to deliver the stories that are important to you

Support us now

While he said there was no reason to suggest any of the men would not show up, he stated: “The Government would have no effective steps indeed probably no steps as all open to it to satisfy this obligation in this case.”

In the event, no bail application was made on behalf of the men at the December preliminary hearing of the case.

Three months later, the men emerged from the Old Bailey as free men.

The newly published papers are contained in National Archives file reference number 2020/17/52.

Send a tip to the author

Press Association

COMMENTS (38)

This is YOUR comments community. Stay civil, stay constructive, stay on topic. Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy here before taking part.
write a comment

    Leave a comment

     
    cancel reply
    Back to top