Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Advice on supergun 'ignored'

David Connett
Friday 06 May 1994 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

CUSTOMS sought to prosecute two businessmen over the Iraqi supergun despite legal advice warning that the action was likely to fail, the Scott inquiry was told yesterday, writes David Connett.

It pressed Sir Patrick Mayhew, the former Attorney General, for permission to bring the men to trial after lawyers warned it had a 'less than 50 per cent chance of success'.

Sir Brian Unwin, chairman of Customs, Sandy Russell, his deputy, and Customs solicitor Michael Saunders, argued that 'exceptional circumstances' justified the case coming to court.

Mr Russell warned that failure to prosecute after parts for the Iraqi supergun were seized at Teesport docks, in April 1990, would deliver a 'hammer blow' to Customs' credibility.

Peter Mitchell, managing director of a company which helped to manufacture the gun parts, and Christopher Cowley, a metallurgist, were both charged with breaches of export legislation.

Sir Patrick decided the case was not exceptional and there was inadequate evidence for a prosecution, the inquiry was told.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in