On 4 February 1974, a 25-pound (11 kg) bomb planted by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) in a coach on the M62 motorway in northern England exploded, killing twelve people (nine soldiers and three civilians) and injuring thirty-eight others aboard the vehicle. The IRA hid the bomb inside a luggage locker of the coach, which was carrying off-duty British Armed Forces personnel and their family members.
Ten days after the bombing, 25-year-old Judith Ward was arrested in Liverpool while waiting to board a ferry to Ireland. She was later convicted of the M62 coach bombing and two other separate, non-fatal attacks and remained incarcerated until her conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal in 1992, with the court hearing Government forensic scientists had deliberately withheld information from her defence counsel at her October 1974 trial which strongly indicated her innocence. As such, her conviction was declared unsafe.
Ward was released from prison in May 1992, having served over 17 years of a sentence of life imprisonment plus thirty years. Her wrongful conviction is seen as one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British legal history.
The M62 coach bomb has been described as "one of the IRA's worst mainland terror attacks" and remains one of the deadliest mainland acts of the Troubles.
The bombing
The bombed coach had been specially commissioned to carry British Army and Royal Air Force personnel—on weekend leave with their families—to and from bases at Catterick and Darlington during a period of railway strike action sourcing from a labour dispute. The vehicle itself had departed from Manchester in the late evening of Sunday 3 February and was travelling at approximately along the M62 motorway en route to Catterick Garrison. Shortly after midnight, as most of those aboard were sleeping and when the bus was travelling between junctions 26 and 27 of the M62, the 25-pound (11 kg) bomb—concealed within a suitcase or similar parcel inside the coach's luggage compartment—exploded.
The explosion reduced the rear of the coach to a "tangle of twisted metal", trapping several casualties within the debris and throwing individuals and severed limbs up to upon and around the motorway. No other vehicle was damaged in the explosion, although the vehicle travelling immediately behind the coach is known to have ploughed into the scattered debris of the rear of the coach. The coach itself travelled for more than before the driver, 39-year-old Roland Handley (himself injured by flying glass), was able to steer the coach to a halt upon the hard shoulder.
Immediate efforts
One surviving soldier later described his recollections of having been blown through the emergency doors of the coach, only to find himself lying upon the ground viewing a "mangled wreck". This soldier later assisted a young girl aged approximately 17 with injured legs whom he found lying on her back approximately "back up the [motorway]". According to this individual, the girl had repeatedly hysterically screamed: "My God! The floor just opened up and I fell through!" as he provided medical assistance.
One of the first motorists to offer assistance after Handley had navigated the coach to a halt was John Clark, who later recollected seeing a young man lying upon the motorway with one leg partially severed and the body of a child, stating: "It was just absolutely ... unbelievable. It was dark, so you couldn't see how bad the injuries really were, but it was the smell of it. It was absolutely total carnage." Off-duty staff at Bradford Royal Infirmary and Batley General Hospital were also contacted and encouraged to report for duty in response to the emergency.
Fatalities
The explosion killed eleven people outright and wounded over thirty others, one of whom died four days later. Amongst the dead were nine soldiers – two from the Royal Artillery, three from the Royal Corps of Signals and four from the 2nd Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. Four of the servicemen killed in the bombing were teenagers and all but one of the serving personnel killed in the explosion hailed from Greater Manchester. and to have borne a child to another IRA member. However, although a supporter of Sinn Féin and likely knowing several individuals involved in IRA activity, The following day, Ward quit her employment.
Trial
Ward's trial began before Mr Justice Waller at Wakefield Crown Court on 3 October 1974. She was charged with fifteen separate offences consisting of twelve charges of murder relating to the fatalities of the bombing, causing an explosion likely to endanger life and property with regard to this particular incident, and two separate, non-fatal IRA attacks at Euston railway station and the Latimer National Defence College committed in September 1973 and February 1974 respectively. Ward pleaded not guilty to all charges. Initial arraignment hearings were held on this date.
Although Ward's confessions had been coerced and distorted by some members of the investigating team prior to her trial,
Prosecutor John Cobb QC described Ward as an IRA agent, active in "major operations" on mainland Britain. weak circumstantial evidence and what would later be described as "demonstrably wrong" scientific evidence delivered by four witnesses who testified on behalf of the prosecution, which had sourced from the Griess tests conducted by Skuse and others.
To support the prosecution's contentions, several witnesses testified as to verbal statements Ward had made indicating her sympathies with the concept of Irish republicanism. A member of the Metropolitan Police Service was also called to testify as to statements Ward had made following her August 1973 arrest for vagrancy in London in which she had claimed to police to have "carried out assignments" for the IRA, but was not a member of the organisation. On 23 October, Ward repeated her disprovable claims to have been married to the deceased Michael McVerry.
Ward's defence attorney, Andrew Rankin, QC, refuted the prosecution contentions, insisting the forensic evidence presented could be easily explained as sourcing from cross-contamination and describing his client as a "female Walter Mitty" character, for whom fantasy had become reality, who was perhaps seeking notoriety in Irish folklore. Referencing the "rambling, incoherent and improbable" statements Ward had made to police, Rankin outlined the numerous inconsistencies and alterations she had made which indicated she had not been telling the truth and stressed to the jury the IRA would be extremely unlikely to accept or to trust an individual of sheer incompetence and who had, prior to 1974, come to the attention of the police and the Army in both Northern Ireland and England on several occasions.
The accuracy of the forensic testimony of the experts who testified that Ward's hands and possessions had tested positive for traces of nitroglycerin was seldom challenged by Ward's defence counsel, who contended she and her possessions may have become cross-contaminated via contact with an acquaintance who had been the original source of the traces of explosive materials. The prosecution witnesses refuted these claims.
Closing arguments
In the prosecution's closing argument, Cobb repeatedly referred to the physical evidence which he portrayed as conclusive proof Ward had handled explosives, emphasising the insistence of Skuse and others who had delivered forensic testimony on behalf of the prosecution that their findings were conclusive. Ward's confessions were also outlined as her willing admissions of guilt. Ward was described as a ruthless individual with a sole passion for her "political aim" to unite all of Ireland. Acknowledging that others should also be prosecuted for the three bombings, Cobb concluded his speech by stating to the jury: "You are sitting in judgment on the gravest charge, short of treason, ever known. There are, perhaps, bigger fish in the sea, but [Ward is] no sprat".
Rankin again disputed the sourcing of the traces of explosive material, insisting Ward had inadvertently become cross-contaminated and reiterating his client's ineptitude, vivid fantasy life, and the numerous inconsistencies within her repeatedly altered statements. Rankin then asked the jury to question why, had Ward been active within the IRA, did she not attempt to flee the country following the M62 coach bomb rather than travelling to London, making no attempt to conceal her identity. She was sentenced to serve five years' imprisonment in relation to the Euston railway station bombing, twenty years' imprisonment in relation to the coach bombing, to be served concurrently with the sentence relating to the Euston bombing, twelve concurrent terms of life imprisonment with no recommended minimum term of imprisonment in relation to each of the fatalities of the coach bombing, plus ten years' consecutive imprisonment in relation to the Latimer bombing, thus meaning she would have to serve a minimum sentence of thirty years' imprisonment before being eligible for parole.
Ward remained impassive as the verdict was read aloud, although members of her family—who remained steadfast in their belief of her innocence—burst into tears. She did not appeal her conviction, although she repeatedly protested her innocence throughout her years of incarceration.
Court of Appeal hearing
On 17 September 1991, the Home Secretary referred Ward's case to the Court of Appeal, with the primary reasons for this referral being the validity of the scientific evidence presented by Skuse and others at her trial, and that the prosecution had failed to disclose relevant evidence to her defence team, as they had been legally obliged to do. Ward's appeal specifically listed 43 items of evidence "consisting of, or contained in witness statements, notes of interviews and reports (including medical reports)" which had not been disclosed at her trial.
In May 1992, Ward's lawyers illustrated the fundamental flaws in the physical evidence presented at her trial before three Court of Appeal judges. Her barrister, Michael Mansfield, QC, contended there had been a "significant and substantial non-disclosure" of evidence and information which had strongly indicated her innocence, and that of the 63 interviews West Yorkshire Police had conducted with Ward before and after her confession, only 34 had been disclosed at trial. but had also never been disclosed at her original trial, or in the intervening years despite her protestations of innocence and subsequent developments with regard to other uncovered miscarriages of justice.