Family’s fury as police refuse to act on Guildford bombing ‘clue’

THE family of a young woman killed in the IRA’S Guildford pub bombings have told of their shock after police said they would not investigate new evidence because of the Legacy Act.

Surrey Police confirmed they had identified potential clues nearly 50 years after the atrocity, which killed five people.

While detectives said the next step “would be a new criminal investigation”, they indicated it would not happen before the Government’s legislation took effect, a lawyer said.

Soldiers Caroline Slater (18), William Forsyth (18), John Hunter (17) and Ann Hamilton (19), and civilian Paul Craig (21), were killed in the explosion at the Horse and Groom on October 5, 1974. Another bomb detonated at the Seven Stars 30 minutes after the first attack.

A total of sixty-five people were injured in the bombings.

The Guildford Four and Maguire Seven were wrongly convicted of the attacks.

Gerry Conlon, Paddy Armstrong, Paul Hill and Carole Richardson spent 15 years in jail.

According to KRW Law, Ms Hamilton’s family was told Surrey Police had “identified a potential forensic line of enquiry” and the next step “would be a new criminal investigation”.

However, detectives will not launch any further investigation before the Legacy Act takes effect on May 1, the lawyer said.

The act allows people involved in the Troubles to seek conditional immunity from prosecution.

Surrey Police said a new legacy body, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, “could possibly advance” the case after May 1 if Ms Hamilton’s family asked for a review.

This year marks half a century since the Guildford bombings. An inquest in 2022 found the vic

tims were unlawfully killed by a powerful bomb planted by a “courting couple”.

Ms Hamilton’s family said Surrey Police and “other related criminal justice services and agencies” could have pursued and “continued to pursue evidential opportunities which have been compromised with the further passage of time”.

Cassandra Hamilton, a sister of Ann Hamilton, said: “Four years after the resumed inquest into the murder of our sister, in which we could not participate in because we were disgracefully refused legal aid, we are now confronted with Surrey Police producing new evidence 50 years after Ann’s murder.

“A deputy chief constable of Surrey Police wrote in his letter to us that, ‘I can only image how the death of Ann has impacted on you and your family, and how the publicity surrounding this case has affected you over the years’.

“First, this policeman cannot begin to imagine the impact of Ann’s violent murder and those of four others on our families.

“Second, it has been the support of the public and their anger at those responsible for the investigation that has been important and kept this catastrophic failure of policing and criminal justice alive for us.

“Now we are being told that this new forensic evidence cannot be investigated because of the Legacy Act, which the British Government is imposing upon all relatives despite huge opposition, a successful legal challenge and an application by the Irish government against the UK to the European Court of Human Rights.

“The Legacy Act appears to provide Surrey Police with another reason not to do anything. despite now telling us, out of the blue and a month before the Legacy Act comes into force, that there is new evidence.”

Barry O’donnell, a solicitor at KRW Law, said: “The timing by Surrey Police in this matter raises too many questions which the family of Ann Hamilton want answered.

“There is the question of the nature of this new evidential lead, the question of how long this new evidence has been available to Surrey Police, when decisions were taken not to investigate this new forensic evidence and why, beyond the coming into force of the Legacy Act, and whether, given the legal challenges to the Legacy Act, Surrey Police should and could continue its investigation.”

A Surrey Police spokeswoman told the BBC: “We do not feel it would be appropriate to comment or provide any further information until we have shared the information with all the families involved.

“We will provide further comment as and when it is appropriate to do so.”