| The Dream Solution
- Documents |
11/12/95
- ADVICE
MICHELLE TAYLOR and LISA BUCK (nee TAYLOR) and PATRICK BERNARD
O'MAHONEY
ADVICE
1. I am asked to advise further to the Opinion of Michael
Burton QC of 2nd October 1995 as to two matters namely :
a) Mr O'Mahoney's credibility as a witness of fact and ;
b) whether Legal Aid should be extended so as to enable
Mr O'Mahoney to be represented by Leading Counsel at the
trial of this action. Mr O'Mahoney's credibility
2. The first question arises because Mr O'Mahoney seeks,
by defending these proceedings, to protect his right to
repeat the substance of a verbal confession to the murder
of Alison Shaughnessy which he alleges the First Plaintiff
made to him following the overturning of her conviction
by the Court of Appeal.
3. There is a very full analysis of the issue of Mr O'Mahoney's
credibility in Michael Burton's Opinion (at paragraphs 3
- 6). However as Mr Burton has very properly conceded at
paragraph 8 of his Opinion his views set out therein were
provisional (being based largely on consideration of the
affidavits) and had been reached without the benefit of
a conference with Mr O'Mahoney at which his credibility
could be specifically investigated and considered. I have
had the benefit of such a conference.
4. I agree entirely with these paragraphs in Michael Burton's
Opinion. Mr O'Mahoney's past is bound to raise doubts about
his credibility (although the same is true for the Plaintiffs
- see below). He has admitted deceiving Peter Sutcliffe
in order to get a story for the News of the World. He has
confirmed in conference that he has one unspent conviction
for an offence of dishonesty (albeit a minor one which resulted
in a conditional discharge). He has admitted fabricating
evidence to assist the Plaintiffs' appeal to the Criminal
Division of the Court of Appeal.
5. Moreover his account of how he obtained the confession
from First Plaintiff may be difficult to sustain. He is
adamant that he saw a letter (probably to the Second Plaintiff)
from the defence solicitors, Andrew Keenan & Co., suggesting
that Michelle had made admissions to the murder which exonerated
Lisa and therefore advising that Lisa should become a prosecution
witness. He says that the confession was obtained when he
confronted the First Plaintiff with this letter.
6. However both of the Plaintiffs pleaded not guilty at
their trial. Mr Holmes, the partner at Andrew Keenan &
Co. who acted for the Plaintiffs, may well be called at
the trial of this action to deny that any such letter was
ever written. Although he has not expressly denied this
in his affidavit sworn in these proceedings he has deposed
to the fact that : "....both my clients from first
to last vehemenetly denied their guilt...."
7. On the other hand there are matters which can be prayed
in support of Mr O'Mahoney's account of the confession.
Tha remaining issue as to the Plaintiffs' guilt
8. The Plaintiffs were both convicted by a jury of the murder.
Their appeal suceeded on two grounds. First it was found
that the prosecution had failed to disclose material which
could have been used to challenge both the reliability and
good faith of a key prosecution witness (a doctor who gave
the only evidence placing the Plaintiffs at the scene of
the crime at the relevant time).
There was a suggestion (never resolved) that the doctor
may have fabricated evidence in order to obtain a reward.
Secondly the media coverage of the trial had been so sensational
that the Court of Appeal found it impossible to say that
the jury had not been influenced against the Plaintiff by
what they read in the press. This was the sole reason why
(somewhat unusually) a retrial was not ordered.
9. However, implicit in the decision not to order a retrial
on this ground was the view that there would have been enough
evidence against the Plaintiffs, even absent the doctor's
evidence, to justify a retrial. This was plainly so. Most
importantly:
a) there was evidence of motive on the part of the First
Plaintiff and no hint of another suspect/motive for the
killing was ever discovered at the scene of the crime or
anywhere else ;
b) the Plaintiffs' alibi was wholly discredited (and the
alibi witness eventually retracted her alibi statement altogether)
;
c) although the victim's husband, John Shaugnessey, had
no knowledge of the Second Plaintiff ever having been to
the scene of the crime (his own flat), her fingerprints
were found at the bottom of a flight of stairs inside the
front door of the flat.
In police interviews both girls maintained that the Second
Plaintiff had never been to the flat. At the trial the First
Plaintiff sought, somewhat implausibly, to explain away
this evidence by saying that the Plaintiffs had lied to
the police about this in order to keep their family out
of the case and that the Second Plaintiff had accompanied
her to the flat (to which the First Plaintiff had access)
some weeks before the killing to clean the windows (without
John Shaughnessy realising it).
9. After her initial dishonest statement to the police Lisa
refused to answer police questions. She did not give evidence
at the trial. Whilst this failure to answer questions could
not be used against the Plaintiffs at the criminal trial
it could be so used if she failed to give evidence at a
civil trial. She has only sworn a short affidavit in these
proceedings in which (apart from confirming the First Plaintiff's
affidavit evidence in general terms) she simply denies the
existence of the solicitor's letter.
According to the confession she remained at the bottom of
the stairs to the flat while the First Plaintiff murdered
Alison Shaughnessey upstairs but was not a party to the
murder which had occured without any premeditation. The
account of the confession is therefore consistent both with
the alleged solicitor's letter and the prosecution forensic
evidence. The break up of the relationship between Mr O'Mahoney
and the First Plaintiff
10. Following her successful appeal Mr O'Mahoney and the
First Plaintiff lived together and had an affair. Mr O'Mahoney
wrote a book about the Plaintiffs during this period which
was passed to publishers (Hamish Hamilton) who were considering
publishing it when the relationship ended. The relationship
came to a stormy ending at the point at which Mr O'Mahoney
says the confession was made (October 1993). The book was
never published. None of this is in dispute.
11. Mr O'Mahoney says that he walked out on the First Plaintiff
because of the confession and that he destroyed his copy
of the book (it is not in dispute that he retrieved a copy
from Hamish Hamilton at this time). It is a credible explanation
for his decision to cut all ties with the Plaintiffs, and
in particular the First Plaintiff, in whose innocence he
says he had always believed.
12. By contrast the First Plaintiff has not given any real
explanation of why the relationship broke up at this point.
She suggests that the affair ended because a journalist
(who according to Mr O'Mahoney also wanted authorisation/cooperation
to write an exclusive book about the Plaintiffs) told the
First Plaintiff that he had previously sold stories to the
press about people in the public eye.
It seems inherently unlikely, however, that this sort of
"tittle-tattle" would have caused the First Plantiff
to end her relationship with the man who had supported her
for well over a year (inside and out of prison) and for
whom (according to her own letters) she felt great affection.
Conclusion
13. The question of whether the confession was made falls
to be resolved on the oral evidence of the First Plaintiff
(possibly supported by the Second Plaintiff) and Mr O'Mahoney.
There are no matters which conclusively support one account
rather than the other. Indeed most of the matters which
might be regarded as supporting one account or the other
are finely balanced.
All three witnesses have admitted dishonesty or been shown
to be dishonest in some way or another in the past (the
Plaintiffs by their statements to the police). Whilst Mr
O'Mahoney has only spoken about the confession for the first
time in these proceedings, he had no reason to believe he
could talk about it before (since the Plaintiffs had been
acquitted) and every reason to want to raise it having been
taken to court by the Plaintiffs in an attempt to stop him
speaking about any matters arising out of their relationship.
Whilst the detail of the confession could have been fabricated
by Mr O'Mahoney from his detailed knowledge of the evidence
in the Plaintiffs' case (and this will no doubt be said
against him), if he was astute enough to do this why should
he include in the "fabricated" account a reference
to a solicitors letter which he surely would know would
be certain to be disputed by the Plaintiffs' solicitors
who had always represented them on the basis of not guilty
pleas ?
14. Having questioned Mr O'Mahoney in conference I cannot
see any obvious flaw in his account of the confession, or
indeed in the history of his relationship with the Plaintiffs.
He is able to give a detailed and cogent account of the
confession and all other relevant events. He is adamant
that he saw the solicitors' letter. He does not appear to
me to be lying about these matters.
He gains support for his account by the matters I have referred
to above, not least of all the remaining, very real, doubt
about, at least, the First Plaintiff's innocence. Moreover
he has never once sought to profit from his relationship
with the Plaintiffs.
The one occasion when he did assist the press in writing
a story about the Plaintiffs (which prompted the present
litigation) was more than eighteen months after the end
of his relationship with the First Plaintiff, was instigated
by the jouralist concerned and Mr O'Mahoney's agreement
to cooperate was prompted by the long-term harassment of
his common law wife by the Plaintiffs (following the break
up of the relationship).
In my view his credibility is sufficiently good (in the
context of this case) to justify the granting of Legal Aid.
Leading Counsel
15. The factual and legal issues involved in this case are
complex. Leading Counsel has been retained by the Plaintiffs.
In all these circumstances retention of Leading Counsel
for the Defendant is both fully justified and appropriate.
GAVIN MILLAR
Doughty Street Chambers
11.12.95 |
| Contact : bernard.omahoney@bernardomahoney.com |
|
|
|
