15/06/93 - Reports created risk of prejudice
The Times

Regina Taylor (Michelle Ann) Regina v Taylor (lisa Jane) Before Lord Justice McCowan, Mr Justice Douglas Brown and Mr Justice Tuckey [Judgment June 11]

The press was no more entitled to assume that a defendant was guilty in what it reported during the course of a trial, than a police officer was entitled to assume a defendant was guilty and suppress evidence which he feared might lead to the defendant being acquitted.

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so held in allowing appeals by Michelle Ann Taylor and Lisa Jane Taylor against their convictions in July 1992 at the Central Criminal Court (Mr Justice Blofeld and a jury) of murder.

Mr Richard Ferguson, QC and Mr Trevor Burke for the first appellant: Lady Mallalieu, QC and Mr lan Bourne for the second appellant: Mr John Nutting and Miss Joanna Korner, QC, for the Crown.

LORD JUSTICE McCOWAN, giving the judgment of the court, said that the prosecution alleged that the appellants had stabbed Alison Shaughnessy to death because Michelle was jealous having had a sexual relationship with Alison's husband.

John, both before and after their marriage and Lisa was said to have disliked the way her sister had been treated. Alison must have arrived home on June 3. 1991 at about 5.35pm. Her time of death was most likely to have been about 6.00pm but with a margin of two hours either side.

She was discovered by her husband John and the appellant Michelle at about 8.00pm. She had received 54 stab wounds, one of which cut the carotid artery. Nothing about the force administered meant that it more likely to have been a man than a woman since it was not beyond the capacity of a woman.

There was ample alibi evidence to exonerate John. The prime ground of appeal concerned matters which only came to light when the cases were being prepared for appeal and their solicitors, advised by counsel, pressed the Crown Proscution Service as to whether there was still any material which had not been disclosed.

As a result learned junior counsel were permitted to go to the police station to read a large number of documents relating to the case.

One document which came to light recorded a message received by a police officer on August 4, 1991 from Dr Michael Unsworth-White stating that the second woman he saw leaving the Shaughnessy home at the relevant time might have been black.

His later statement said both women were blond. Mr Nutting had conceded mat he could not possibly argue that a failure to disclose an earlier inconsistent statement was not a material irregularity. Neither prosecuting counsel at the trial nor the Crown Prosecution Service had any idea of the existence of that document.

However, the detective sergeant in charge of the case did know of its existence and also its significance but decided there was no need to disclose it to the prosecuting legal team. He was plainly wrong in so thinking.

Another matter which at the time of the trial was totally unknown to counsel but was known to the police was the fact that Dr Unsworth-White had written to Barclays Bank on August 25, 1991 claiming the reward they were offering for information about the murder of their employee.

Mr Unsworth-White was a composed and impressive witness who would have cut a very different figure if that material had been available to allow the defence to cross-examine him.

The second matter of concern arose as a result of press coverage of the trial. In granting the appellants leave to appeal the single judge described that coverage as "unremitting, extensive, sensational, inaccurate and misleading". Having had the opportunity of reading a substantial selection of the newspaper reports in question, their Lordships saw no reason to dissent.

The newspapers had not limited themselves to anything said in court, most of it was not reporting at all, it was comment. During the trial defence counsel complained about that press coverage and the judge gave the jury several warnings that they should decide the case on the evidence before them but their Lordships found it quite impossible to say that the jury was not influenced in their decision by what they had read.

They were satisfied that the press coverage of the trial did create a real risk of prejudice against the defendants and for that second reason as well the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory and had to be quashed. Owing to the view taken of the way the case was reported, it was not right to order a re-trial.

In allowing the appeal, the court further ordered that papers in the case be sent to the Attorney-General for him to consider whether any proceedings should be taken against the newspapers in question.

Solicitors: Andrew Keenan & Co, Penge: Andrew Keenan & Co, Penge: Crown Prosecution Service Central Courts.