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. Although the validity of her conviction was independently reviewed on three occasions between 1985 and 1989, and each review uncovered serious flaws with regards to the evidence presented at her trial and the legal conduct of various individuals prior to and following her confessions, she remained incarcerated at HM Prison Durham before being transferred to HM Prison Holloway in November 1990, where she remained as a Category B prisoner. IRA statement Shortly after Ward's November 1974 convictions, the Irish Republican Publicity Bureau issued a formal statement pertaining to her arrest and conviction. This statement again emphasised that Ward had not been a member of the IRA and that she had taken no role in any of the activities for which she had been convicted, stating: 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 Dr 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. Furthermore, the court also heard that the handling of lacquers, boot polish and other commodities in common public use by any individual would produce the same positive results presented at Ward's trial as