Cold cases solved – but at what cost to justice?

Return of Supergrass Evidence
Reports: Allison Morris
16/04/09

Supergrass evidence, not used since the darkest days of the Troubles, has returned to the courts through new legislation to solve some of Northern Ireland’s cold-case murders – but this development has sparked concerns, not least from victims’ families

THE recent double murder conviction

of loyalist Steven Brown, also known as Revels, on the word of his co-accused was the first test of new legislation which saw the return of the ‘supergrass’ trial to Northern Ireland courts.

In 2005 the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act came into effect in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The recent trial into the

brutal murder of Portadown teenagers David McIlwaine (18) and Andrew Robb (19) was the first test of the act in the north, although it has previously featured in gangland trials in England.

Where the supergrass trials of the 1980s failed, the new legislation has been tightened to ensure that any convictions achieved are sound.

Earlier this month Brown received a minimum 30-year jail term for the barbaric murder of the two teenagers following evidence from former associate Mark Burcombe.

Burcombe had a charge of murder against him reduced to grievous bodily harm in return for his testimony.

He had also given details of Noel Dillon’s role in the kill-ings. Dillon died in 2005 after apparently taking his own life.

David McIlwaine’s father Paul is critical of the use of the act against his son’s murderer.

“I have no problem with the new legislation or with the

use of the legislation but I do have a serious issue with how it was used in this case,” he said.

“I still feel there was enough evidence to convict both Brown and Burcombe of murder without the need to resort to giving out prosecution

immunity.

“We were used as a test and that in itself caused its own difficulties in that the defence kept challenging different aspects of the legislation.

“This added about a month on to the trial and caused untold additional anguish to both families.

“The legislation states that to be eligible for immun-

ity a person has to give a true

account of their role and

also any previous criminal

offences.

“Burcombe didn’t do that. He covered up his own part

in the boys’ murders. The only person who gained from his testimony was him. It certain-ly wasn’t his victims’ families.

“He saved his own skin and now he will be given a new life and a new identity while we are left without justice having been completed.”

While organised gangland crime in England was a consideration when the legislation was being drawn up, Northern Ireland, with a long history of unsolved paramilitary killings, will test the new act to its limit.

In Northern Ireland only the director of public prosecutions has the power to issue an immunity notice to an offender in return for assistance.

If a reduced sentence is offered in return for assistance this must be stated in open court and details of what the greater sentence would have been must be made public.

Immunity notice is only one part of the legislation and is used only in the most serious of cases such as murder.

Restriction from prosecution is more common. In that case evidence will not be used to prosecute the offender providing it. However, he or she can be charged if new evidence comes to light.

The act contains an agreement to provide assistance.

This provision can allow an offender a slightly reduced sentence for assisting police and is more commonly used in less serious crimes.