Case Study: Judith Ward — Disclosure Failures and Safeguards for Workplace Investigations

For anyone who has an interest in high profile judicial cases, this is one of several that I shall write about as part of my series on criminal disclosure. This case is about Judith Ward, a young vulnerable woman, convicted of an IRA bombing, based upon unsafe confessions and inaccurate scientific evidence a

s well as a wholesale degree of non-disclosure by the prosecution. After nearly 18 years she was released and below is the story. 

---

On 4th February 1974, the Provisional IRA detonated a bomb, on a coach, on the M62 motorway to the south west of Leeds, killing twelve people and injuring thirty-eight. This was one of the worst IRA mainland terror bombings.

But what did this have to do with Judith Ward, who was later convicted of this heinous crime? Let’s take a look….

It is fair to say that Judith Ward had a troubled past, growing up in a broken home and being described as a lonely child. She enlisted in the British Army although went AWOL and went to Ireland where she apparently socialised with some members of the IRA. She returned to England a year later to be discharged from the Army.

In the weeks before her arrest Ward had a rather nomadic lifestyle and frequently slept rough.  Nowadays, without doubt she would be identified as being vulnerable which would have attracted a different policing response.

Ten days after the bombings, Ward was found in Liverpool sleeping rough and was arrested. She stated she was on her way to Ireland. During her time in police custody, she became a subject of interest in the M62 coach bombings.

During interviews Ward made various confessions, stating she was a member of the IRA and confessed to the M62 coach bombings and two other non-fatal bombings. Nitro glycerine was found on her person, on articles belonging to her and in the caravan in which she had been staying. Although nitro glycerine is used in bomb making, it is also present in several cleaning products such as Ajax.

Ward was charged with various terrorist offences and later that year stood trial, pleading not guilty. She was convicted of numerous atrocities and given twelve life sentences with a minimum term of thirty years before parole.

Interestingly, following conviction the IRA issued a statement stating that Ward was not a member and was not responsible for the crimes!

In 1991 the home secretary referred the case to the court of appeal. The main grounds of appeal were that the prosecution failure to disclose to the defence evidence which it had a duty to disclose, and which related to the following 2 grounds.

1.     Fresh evidence which cast doubt about the validity of scientific evidence given on behalf of the Crown at the trial.

2.     Fresh evidence that Ward was suffering from a personality disorder such that none of the admissions which she made could be relied upon as being true.

---

The Appeal

Ward was represented by no less than Michael Mansfield QC and was released on the 11th of May 1992, after serving over 17 years in prison. The crown conceded the appeal on the grounds of unsafe confessions. However, one may ask about the question of the scientific evidence and non-disclosure of evidence?

Following Ward’s release in May on bail the appeal was held the following month. Judge Glidwell was particularly scathing in his comments whereby Ward had been ‘convicted by ambush, by the police, prosecution and scientists’.

---

Confessions

The prosecution case was based upon confessions made to police officers after her arrest. It was established that twenty-eight statements had been obtained from Ward during her police detention in which she had suffered from sleep deprivation. The statements were found to be highly inconsistent.

Ward claimed that she suffered from a personality disorder and that consequently, her confessions had been made up. Indeed, in prison she had been identified as a fantasist. It was concluded that her confessions could not be relied on up. This was significant as this formed a major part of the prosecution. On this ground alone the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory. 

---

Scientific Evidence

Expert scientific evidence that traces of nitro-glycerine were found on Ward were a key part of the prosecution. However, it is also present in several cleaning products, as already mentioned. This information was not disclosed at trial. It was established that three senior scientists took the law into their own hands and concealed from the prosecution, defence and the court information which might have changed the results of the trials. As well, the evidence by Dr Skuse, the prosecution expert, had already shown as being unreliable in previous appeals, namely the Birmingham six and R v Maguire, 1992.

---

Non-Disclosure

The West Yorkshire police were the lead force as the primary offence was within their force area, being the M62 to the south west of Leeds. They took some 1,700 statements but only submitted 225 for prosecution. By contrast, all of the 882 statements from Thames Valley police and the 148 from the Metropolitan Police were sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, for the other cases. It is clear that the course adopted by the West Yorkshire police was wholly wrong and led to the suppression of information, which the accused was entitled to. The statements might not have been relevant to the offences for which she was charged, but they did mention her desire for attention seeking and making things up and the withdrawal of untrue confessions.

The failure to disclose material is ‘an irregularity in the course of the trial’ and the reasons why is irrelevant as the duty is an ongoing duty and it is not for the prosecution to withhold material in general terms.

The Court laid down very robust disclosure rules, stating that disclosure duties are not merely limited to material which may assist the defence but that the defence should have the right to examine ALL material gathered. This ruling was immediately challenged by the police and prosecution which surely could be seen as an afront to their role of establishing the truth and upholding the law without fear or favour!

Fast forward to 1996 and the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 was introduced, which to some watered down the ruling set by Judge Glidwell. Interestingly, over twenty years later the subject of disclosure is still perhaps an enigma in many police stations up and down the country, as well as other prosecuting agencies.

It is virtually impossible to comprehend how a vulnerable young woman can be picked up in Liverpool following a police interaction and be cast into the spotlight as the M62 bomber. There are certainly many more questions than answers which arise. Although there were naturally less investigative options available to the police, the old story of confessions made with no corroboration in an era of no transparency is one which has been heard before and will be heard again until the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and beyond.

---

The primary reason for this article is as part of my series on criminal disclosure which is not just about disclosure; but about conducting a thorough investigation with reasonable lines of enquiry. Unfortunately, the issue of ‘disclosure’ is still an issue today with further high-profile cases which will be discussed, as well as those which are not identified.

This article is written by me and made following studying numerous different sources and I have taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy.

There are several more cases which I shall be writing about as part of my series on criminal disclosure which I hope people find interesting.

---