R v Maguire
The convictions of the Maguire Seven for handling explosives were quashed because of the possibility of innocent contamination and the failure to disclose scientific evidence.
Facts
Members of the Maguire family and others were convicted in 1976 of possessing explosives, on the basis of scientific tests on swabs taken from their hands, which purported to show traces of nitroglycerine. The prosecution case was connected with the Guildford pub bombings, for which another family member had been convicted as one of the Guildford Four. After the Guildford Four were released, the case was referred back to the Court of Appeal following an inquiry by Sir John May.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions. The court held that the possibility that the traces of nitroglycerine had come from innocent contamination, such as from towels used by others, could not be excluded, and that the government scientists had failed to disclose to the prosecution and the defence the results of tests which tended to support the possibility of innocent contamination. The court said that the duty of disclosure extended to forensic scientists employed by the state, who must disclose material which might have some bearing on the offence charged. The case was one of the major miscarriages of justice of the period.
Related cases on appeals and miscarriages of justice
- R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18, [2012] 1 AC 48
- R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2, [2020] AC 279
- R v Bentley (Deceased) [2001] 1 Cr App R 21
- R v Cannings [2004] EWCA Crim 1
- R v Chalkley [1998] QB 848
- R v Clark (Sally) [2003] EWCA Crim 1020
- R v Cooper [1969] 1 QB 267
- R v Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903
Studying criminal procedure? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
