Did he leave a forwarding address? Would the Minister agree that if in trials, up to 40 people can be summarily convicted on uncorroborated evidence of a paid informer that is not only a travesty but a corruption of justice?

I do not think that one can approach this matter in simplistic terms such as that. One cannot make a judgment on a particular trial and assess the weight of the evidence before the court unless one is present, listening to the evidence, assessing the witnesses, listening to the cross-examination and getting a general picture of the case. There is no doubt that in legal circles uncorroborated evidence of accomplices is not the best evidence and is very far from being that. However, it is admissible evidence and if it is the only evidence in a criminal case it has to be put to the court, subject to the safeguards to which I have referred and which are part and parcel of the legal system in dealing with evidence of this kind. Obviously, it would be more satisfactory to have best evidence, which would be direct evidence from an impartial and skilled observer, or even consistent circumstantial evidence. All these would be preferable but, in their absence, evidence from accomplices is admissible but requires to be extra carefully assessed by the courts. There have been cases in the Northern Ireland jurisdiction where the evidence of accomplices has been found by the courts to be untrustworthy and unreliable. In some cases it has been rejected, in other cases it has resulted in convictions of some of the accused being tried and in the dismissal of cases against others. In some cases there have been pleas of guilty and the evidence of the accomplice has not had to be taken. There has been quite a range of experience with regard to its use. Basically, it remains an unsatisfactory type of evidence, though admissible.

Would the Minister agree that this procedure offends against the Convention on Human Rights and that the supergrass system infringes, in particular, Article 6 of the Convention which guarantees everyone a fair hearing and requires persons to be proved guilty? Would the Minister agree that the supergrass system does not constitute a fair trial and that convictions obtained on such a basis do not constitute proof of guilt within the meaning of the Convention?

I could not agree with the Deputy's interpretation of the Convention. The uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is, as I said, admissible evidence within our legal system, as well as within the criminal law system of the United Kingdom. It does not contravene the European Convention. That convention bestows the right of a fair trial. Part of the process of a fair trial is the adducing of evidence. There are different kinds of evidence — this would be the lowest grade and consequently has to be received by the court with the utmost care, but it is admissible evidence.

Would the Minister agree that in cases where one has evidence from a source such as in this case about which I am speaking where the source had already been convicted of perjury, it is ludicrous that that kind of evidence would be sufficient to find a person guilty on that testimony alone? Surely the Minister would agree that this type of procedure brings the courts system in the Six Countries into total disrepute. The man referred to was also described as a scoundrel.

I would share the Deputy's concern at the courts system in Northern Ireland being brought into disrepute. It should not be brought into disrepute but should be regarded by all citizens as a place where one can go with confidence. There will be cases where the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices will be such as to cause the greatest of worry. I am not familiar with the particular case to which the Deputy is referring, but can only deal with the broad principle of the admissibility of such evidence. As I have said already and repeat, it is admissible evidence which must be treated with the greatest of circumspection. Obviously, if a person proffering that evidence has a conviction, such as for a crime alleged by the Deputy, the amount of care required in that case would be very high indeed.