The McIlwaines were happy to receive a letter of appeal to British Attorney General Patricia Scotland following the Burcombe sentencing from Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams, MP/MLA, and are grateful for his continuing support for their case.  The following is the full text of the 10 July 2008 letter:

Patricia Scotland, QC
British Attorney General
20 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0NF

10th July 08

Patricia a chara

I wish to raise grave concerns about the conduct of the prosecution against Mark Burcombe, convicted of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm and sentenced to 2  years.

Burcombe had been originally arrested and charged with the murder of David McIlwaine and Andrew Robb, who were killed on 19th February 2000. All records before the courts on this crime verify that it was a barbaric act. A date was set for trial against Burcombe and his co-accused, Steven Revels (alias Steven Brown). This indicated that the Public Prosecution Service had concluded the case met the evidential test for proceeding with the murder charges against both accused.

Subsequently, the PPS brokered a bargain that a charge of murder against Burcombe was withdrawn in exchange for his plea of guilt to conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm and an undertaking by Burcombe to give evidence to support the murder charge against his co-accused, Steven Revels. A crown prosecutor told the court that in light of the plea, the murder charge against him was “not to be proceeded with without leave of this court or the Court of Appeal.”

This deal by the PPS was purportedly done under the provisions of the Serious and Organised Crime and Policing Act. In justification of its conduct, the PPS and PSNI claim that a lengthy statement by Burcombe is “truthful in content” and will assist the murder charge against his co-accused, Steven Revels. The PPS made this deal with Burcombe against the expressed wishes of the families of both David McIlwaine and Andrew Robb.

In relation to sentencing of Burcombe, both prosecution and defence SC Philip Magee agreed that the “sentencing range” should be anywhere between four and seven years for a guilty plea on a GBH charge. The Judge in charge of the case, Justice Hart, sentenced Burcombe to 2 _ years.

The family of David McIlwaine has also brought to my attention the fact that victim impact statements made by the families were amended, by the PSNI or the PPS, without consent of the families before being provided to the Judge.

However, the most disturbing aspect of this case is that Mark Burcombe is alleged to have been involved in other crime which has been omitted from the statement on which the PPS has premised its deal. It has also been alleged that other individuals were involved in commissioning the murder of David McIlwaine and Andrew Robb and concealing evidence. However, it would appear the sole purpose to which the PPS and PSNI intend to put Burcombe’s statement is to support the prosecution against the person already charged.

I would submit to you that the truthfulness of what he has told the PSNI in relation to the murder of David McIlwaine and Andrew Robb is not the only test against which the PPS should have assessed the deal they brokered. The completeness of that account, and information about all others alleged to have played a part in the murder, should also have formed part of the test applied by the PPS.

The family of David McIlwaine have long asserted that a successful and thorough investigation and prosecution against the killers of their son has been frustrated by the state in order to shield state agents. I share the concerns of the family on this issue. The McIlwaine family have brought many of their concerns to the Police Ombudsman and I support their right to have all of those matters thoroughly investigated.

With regard to PPS, I would ask you to review the prosecution’s handling of this case, particularly with regards to the completeness of Burcombe’s account in respect of this crime, and other crimes.

The concern of the McIlwaine family is that Burcombe has other information relevant to the investigation of this crime,  which may implicate other suspects but which has not been included in the statement submitted by him to the PPS.  I am also informed that the PSNI had previously been given information, by the family of David McIlwaine, which would call into question the completeness of Burcombe’s account. It may well be that the investigation by the Police Ombudsman has uncovered information which would lend weight to the complaint that the PPS has misapplied the test by which it can broker a deal with Burcombe, under the provisions of the existing legislation.

In light of this, I would suggest that the deal brokered by the PPS with Mark Burcombe has been done despite the fact that his statement to the PPS is incomplete and does not constitute full disclosure, and I would ask you to examine this issue.

The family of David McIlwaine have also expressed concern about the reduction in charges against Burcombe, given that the PPS had previously concluded that the evidence against Burcombe was sufficient to meet the evidential test to bring a murder charge against him.

Finally, the family of David McIlwaine has questioned the leniency of the sentence passed down to Burcombe, in light of the barbaric nature of the crime committed and the sentencing range for his conviction.

I would urge you to review the handling of this case by the PPS and the sentence imposed by the Judge.

Is mise

Gerry Adams, MP, MLA