THE BRITISH Prime Minister, Mr John Major, suggested there may be an inquiry into the case of the Bridgewater Four yesterday after the Court of Appeal released the men on bail because they were victims of "serious and substantial widespread police malpractice".
In a special hearing, Lord Justice Roach said it would be wrong for Jimmy Robinson (63), Michael Hickey (35), and his cousin Vincent Hickey (42) to remain in prison pending their formal appeal in April following the discovery of "significant" new evidence which proved that the confession of Pat Molloy - an Irishman who died in prison in 1981 - was fabricated.
"It now seems that Mr Molloy was interviewed by police officers who were prepared to deceive him into making confessions. Those confessions went before the jury and for that reason alone he did not get a fair trial," the judge said.
To loud cheers from the public gallery, Lord Justice Roach freed the men on unconditional bail and said it was important that their appeal hearing heard all the new evidence which rendered their convictions unsafe.
The three have spent more than 18 years in prison after being convicted of the murder of Carl Bridgewater (13), who was shot as he delivered newspapers at Yew Tree Farm, near Stourbridge. Mr Molloy was jailed for manslaughter.
After the men were freed amid emotional scenes outside the Court of Appeal, Mr Major acknowledged it would be unwise to discuss the case before their full appeal, but stated: "I am sure there would be an inquiry into the original convictions, very possibly an inquiry within the police force.
Earlier, Mr Michael Mansfield QC, representing Mr Molloy, told the court that two West Midlands police officers had forged Vincent Hickey's signature on a fake statement to persuade Mr Molloy to confess.
The forgery, which was part of a "vein of corruption and dishonesty that runs right through the case", was discovered only two weeks ago.
Mr Mansfield said that indentations on Mr Molloy's confession proved that Mr Hickey's false statement had been written on paper resting on top of it. But Mr Hickey was being interviewed by different police officers in a separate station.
"It looks like these two officers, Leeke and Perkins, fabricated a false statement from Vincent Hickey to encourage and provoke Molloy into making admissions and confessions that were not true. This is only part of a much larger situation, a small part of serious and substantial widespread police malpractice involving a number of officers, from high rank down to the lowest rank, who must have been involved in what was going on," he said.
Mr Jeremy Roberts QC, for the prosecution, agreed that Mr Molloy's confession was central to the conviction of the four men and now rendered their original trial in 1979 "fundamentally flawed" and their convictions unsafe.
"On this one ground, we have come to the conclusion that we cannot properly resist the arguments put forward by the appellants," he added.
Mr Roberts also acknowledged that when Mr Molloy first saw his solicitors 10 days after his arrest he told them that his confession was false. "It is right to say that Patrick Molloy repeated the assertion that he made the confession because he had been shown Vince Hickey's statement.
He also alleged that on two to three occasions he had been physically assaulted and had not been allowed a drink. As far as the Crown is involved there is no evidence to substantiate this claim."
The three men's convictions will be formally quashed after their full appeal on April 8th.