A man jailed for the murder of four British soldiers nearly 50 years ago was wrongly convicted on the basis of his alleged confession to an “irredeemably tainted” senior detective, the Court of Appeal has heard.
Counsel for Patrick Thompson also claimed police officers beat him into making false admissions of involvement in the IRA landmine attack near Forkhill, south Armagh in July 1975.
Major Peter Willis (37) of the Green Howards, Sergeant Robert Samuel McCarter (33) of the Royal Engineers, and Ammunition Technical Officers Calvert Brown (25) and Edward Garside (34) of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, died in the explosion.
Thompson was arrested and faced a circumstantial case based on his whereabouts. He denied any role, but was found guilty of the murders and IRA membership.
Despite contending that RUC officers subjected him to degrading and inhuman treatment in custody to obtain the alleged confessions, an initial appeal was unsuccessful.
Now in his seventies, Thompson is mounting a new bid to clear his name.
A body which examines potential miscarriages of justice sent the case back to the Court of Appeal to re-examine the safety of his convictions. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) cited “compelling evidence” which called into question the credibility of a senior investigating policeman who questioned Thompson during his arrest.
That detective’s reliability as a truthful witness was assessed as “substantially weakened” because he was heavily criticised in a later court case where RUC officers were found to have rewritten interview notes and lied under oath.
Opening the appeal, Frank O’Donoghue KC questioned the alleged circumstances where his client made the disputed admissions to the senior officer.
Mr O’Donoghue argued that the same detective’s involvement in misconduct years later added to doubts about the safety of Thompson’s convictions.
“He was exposed as someone whose evidence could not be relied upon in confession-only evidence cases relating to serious alleged terrorist criminality involving murder,” counsel stressed.
“He was prepared to tell the court untruths in a convincing manner so that experienced judges believed he was an impressive witness.
“It is important to Mr Thompson when he says ‘I served 16 years in prison, I was not guilty but I was assaulted in custody and this confession was beaten out of me’.”
The three appeal judges were told that the lead investigating officer’s account was wrongly believed at the original trial.
Dealing with the alleged ill-treatment Thompson endured during police interviews, the barrister referred to incidents of being punched and kicked in the ribs.
He was also forced to stand against a wall, made to do press-ups and subjected to verbal abuse, it was claimed.
According to Thompson’s account a plastic bag was put over his head for up to a minute and tied with a belt. He described feeling dizzy, panicking and gasping for breath.
Urging the court to declare the convictions unsafe, Mr O’Donoghue said: “Without the confession evidence this case had to fall.”
Ciaran Murphy KC, prosecuting, countered by highlighting the lack of medical evidence of any physical injuries to Thompson.
“That was a very, very significant inconsistency, nothing objective could be found,” he said.
Mr Murphy also contended that findings of wrongdoing against the detective eight years later do not automatically undermine the safety of Thompson’s convictions.
“He wasn’t involved in the early interviews where the vast majority of the alleged ill-treatment occurred,” the barrister pointed out.
Based on the combined evidence, he described the case against Thompson as “overwhelming”.
Judgment was reserved.