by Rebecca Mikulin

Created on: November 22, 2011   Last Updated: November 23, 2011

On October 5, 1974, two pubs were bombed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) in an effort to kill British troops. As a result of the violence, five people died and a further sixty-five were injured. Outrage mounted over the bombings, but law enforcement quickly arrested and imprisoned four people for the bombings. The four, who later became known as the Guildford Four, were students who were seized under the newly-established prevention of terrorism act – namely Paul Hill, Gerard Conlon, Paddy Armstrong, and Carole Richardson. To many, it seemed impossible that they could have had anything to do with the bombings. To the judge who convicted them, it was just such a shame that they couldn’t be sentenced to death for their crimes.

The Case Against the Guildford Four

Soon after their arrest, the Guildford Four confessed to perpetrating the Guildford pub bombings. At the same time, Armstrong and Hill confessed to another bombing – known as the Woolwich bombing – and Hill confessed to the murder of a British soldier. It appeared to be a cut-and-dry case, ensuring a speedy conviction. It is unclear why authorities suspected the four of being involved in the IRA in the first place.

Problems with the Case

Not long after making such damning confessions, every single one of the Guildford Four retracted their statements. When pressed, each insisted that they had only made the confessions under duress. In addition, because of their involvements with drugs and petty crime, they were not the type of people that the IRA was likely to attempt to recruit.

Several witnesses also came forward, confirming the various alibis that placed each of the four far away from the Guildford bombings. This information was largely excluded during the trial. All four were convicted.

Three years after the Guildford bombings, four men on trial for involvement in the Balcombe Street Siege indicated that they themselves were responsible for the Guildford bombings, and that the Guildford Four were serving sentences for crimes they did not commit. This information does not appear to have been heeded, and the Guildford Four remained in prison until 1989, even after the home office acknowledged that it was unlikely that the Guildford Four were involved in terrorist activities.

The Miscarriage of Justice is Acknowledged

In 1989, a review of interviews and trial documents revealed that the information obtained by police had been very heavily edited. Many statements had been deleted altogether, and evidence had been skewed for the benefit of the prosecution’s case. This established that the police had blatantly lied, and the appeal was finally successful. All four were free to go.

Though the judicial system was forced to acknowledge that they were wrong about the Guildford Four, they did nothing beyond mere acknowledging for quite some time. The four were released after 15 years of wrongful imprisonment – quietly, mostly out the back door, and without any money or skills with which to create a life. The government had robbed them of this crucial 15 years, and would make no apology until a decade later – and then only an unofficial one.

There was also no apology made for the wrongful conviction of Conlon’s father in connection with another bombing three years after the Guildford bombings – possibly because he never had the chance to successfully appeal, because he died in prison. Numerous other miscarriages of justice have since been uncovered, and many others may yet be awaiting discovery.

Learn more about this author, Rebecca Mikulin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.