The Court of Appeal in Belfast has dismissed a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) concerning the 1986 murder conviction of John McDevitt. McDevitt was convicted following a non-jury trial for the murder of Private Neil Clark and related firearms offences in Londonderry.

The case arose from an attack on two British Army Land Rovers in the Bishop Street area of Londonderry on 23 April 1984, involving petrol bombs and gunfire. Private Neil Clark was shot dead and two other soldiers were injured. McDevitt was not alleged to have fired any shots. The prosecution case was that he was involved in the petrol bombing and that he drove IRA members, including those with firearms, to and from the scene.

McDevitt, who was 19 at the time, was arrested on 2 May 1984 and detained at Castlereagh Holding Centre. He was interviewed on 23 occasions over five days and made four statements. In earlier interviews he admitted involvement in transporting materials for the petrol bomb attack but denied any knowledge of firearms. In his 17th interview, he admitted transporting men carrying a black case and realising firearms were involved. No solicitor was present during the interviews, though a solicitor gave advice before his fourth and final statement, which contained the confession challenged in the appeal.

At trial, McDevitt accepted involvement in transporting petrol bomb materials but denied knowingly transporting gunmen or having knowledge of firearms. He claimed admissions to that effect were false and induced by threats, inducements, or improper conduct by interviewing officers. The trial judge rejected his account and accepted the evidence of the interviewing officers. McDevitt was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and concurrent sentences totalling six years for firearms offences. He served about 10 years in custody and was released on life licence on 7 June 1996. His initial appeal was dismissed in 1987.

The CCRC referred the case on one ground: that material identified in the case of R v Latimer, Hegan, Bell and Allen, available after the trial, might reasonably have affected the trial judge's decision or the weight given to the confessions. Two of the interviewing officers in McDevitt's case were later found to have acted improperly in Latimer, leading to the quashing of Mr Hegan's conviction. McDevitt also sought to rely on alleged non-disclosure, complaint and disciplinary material, evidence of a firearm in an interview room, and proposed expert evidence on confession reliability.

The court reviewed the trial evidence and findings. It noted McDevitt accepted that interview notes accurately recorded his words and were signed voluntarily. Crucially, he accepted that on 2 May 1984 he wrote in his own handwriting that he had no complaint about his treatment. The court found that McDevitt provided repeated and detailed false accounts without pressure. It said the conviction depended largely on the trial judge's confidence in the credibility and reliability of the interviewing officers, and this assessment was rational based on contemporaneous materials.

On the Latimer issue, the court said the CCRC went too far in suggesting that any direct conflict of evidence with those officers would fatally weaken their credibility. It held each case must turn on its own facts. The court concluded McDevitt's case was materially different because he did not allege fabrication or alteration of statements; he accepted they accurately recorded his words. The central feature of Latimer, falsification of interview records, was absent. The court also rejected arguments about threats and inducements, saying they were fully explored at trial and rejected. It found complaint and disciplinary material added nothing of significance.

Regarding fresh evidence of a gun in Castlereagh, the court noted that new information verified four men were detained and weapons were shown to them during interviews. However, the argument advanced by McDevitt was based on assumption and inference and differed from his trial case. The court said that was not a basis to question the safety of the convictions. It also refused to admit expert evidence on confession reliability, finding it not persuasive that McDevitt was forced into his confession.

The court acknowledged McDevitt may feel aggrieved because his co-accused were convicted of lesser offences after guilty pleas, but he chose to go to trial. It found no error in how the trial judge applied the law on aiding and abetting. Ultimately, the court held that a Latimer issue is not a freestanding ground of appeal and that the additional arguments did not persuade it that the convictions were unsafe. The appeal was dismissed.