| The Dream Solution
- Documents |
23/04/93
- Appeal Court Report
Page 01 02
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
REGINA v LISA TAYLOR
THE APPELLANT'S SKELETON ARGUMENT ON THE APPEAL AGAINST
CONVICTION
1. MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL
The press and television reporting of this case was extensive,
sensational, inaccurate, misleading and unremitting. Despite
warnings by the Learned Trial Judge the jury cannot have
been able to disregard the cumulative effect of the media
reporting which was hostile to the Appellants. The verdict
was influenced accordingly. (For authorities and copy reports
see separate list).
2. SUBMISSION OF NO CASE AT CLOSE OF THE CROWNS CASE
This was a weak case built upon a flimsy theory without
much or any evidential foundation.
There was no evidence or alternatively no satisfactory evidence
upon which a jury properly directed could safely have convicted
Lisa Taylor of murder. No alternative verdict was possible
on the facts as presented by the Crown.
R v Galbraith [1981] 2AER 1060
R v Shippey, Jedynak and Jedynak (1988) CLR 767
Crown Opening
In essence, the Crown allegation against Lisa Taylor was
that she was recruited in advance and by the morning of
the 3rd June 1991 to help her sister murder Alison Shaughnessy.
The two girls together waylaid Alison Shaughnessy, gained
access to her flat where Michelle Taylor pulled out a knife
and stabbed her repeatedly. Both girls left the flat together.
In other words, the Crown claimed that:-
(a) There was a pre-existing plot to kill.
(b) Lisa Taylor was present when Alison Shaughnessy was
attacked.
(c) Lisa Taylor was ready, willing and able to assist if
necessary.
The Crown therefore had to prove:-
(A) Pre-existing intent to kill or cause grievous bodily
harm to Alison Shaughnessy on the part of Lisa Taylor.
(B) Presence at the scene at the time of the attack.
(C) Participation - which may be inferred from (A) and (B)
above.
It is submitted that the case as put by the Crown as against
Lisa Taylor could not be sustained on the admissible evidence
against her.
(A) Pre-existing intent to kill or cause grievous bodily
harm.
The starting point in relation to this is common sense -inherent
incredibility of the scenario upon which the Crown case
against Lisa Taylor was based.
(1) Michelle Taylor's Diary Exhibit AS13. This document
was not evidence in the case against Lisa Taylor. It had
however an overwhelming prejudicial effect in the case despite
the fact that they were not her documents. There was no
evidence that she had ever seen them or knew of their contents.
(2) Lisa's relationship with her sister. See Collins and
Fox v Chief Constable of Merseyside (1988) CLR 247.
(3) Lisa's attitude towards the Shaughnessys. There was
no evidence of any hostile animus at all.
(4) Lisa's attitude towards her sister's relationship with
Shaughnessy. John Shaughnessy's evidence suggest neutral
position.
There was no evidence which was admissible against Lisa
Taylor from which the necessary pre-existing intent to kill
could properly be inferred.
Subsequent events and evidence could not be relied upon
by the Crown in this respect on the basis upon which the
case against Lisa Taylor was opened and conducted. If this
had been accepted by the Court, the Crown case against Lisa
Taylor would have been at an end.
If not, was the jury entitled to look at all the admissible
evidence against Lisa including:
(a) Lies which were told later and
(b) evidence of presence to decide intention?
We submit no.
Mere presence was not enough for present charge, there must
be presence with the necessary intent. If there was sufficient
evidence of presence and this was not accepted but no other
evidence of intent, it was insufficient, in other words
0+0 = 0.
Similarly, whilst a lie told subsequently may provide evidence
of intention unless it is unequivocal in relation to intention
it could not enable the Crown to prove intent to the requisite
standard in the absence of other evidence of intent.
R v Lucas (1981) 73 Crim App R at page 159.
R v Turnbull (1976) 63 Crim App R page 139 (re false alibies).
There were three areas in which the Crown contended that
Lisa Taylor lied:
A. Witness statement taken from her by the Police on the
24th July 1991 in which she stated that she had never been
to 41 Vardens Road. Her fingerprints were found by Mr Milne
on the 4th June 1991. It is accepted that the statement
she gave to the police on the 24th July 1991 was untrue.
Could a jury be sure that:
(a) this was a deliberate lie - evidence of the circumstances
in which the witness statement was taken by the police on
the 24th July 1991 - pressure. This is a subjective test
- we submit no - they are not entitled to look at Michelle's
interview.
(b) it relates to a material issue - yes.
(c) the motive for the lie must be realisation of guilt
and a fear of the truth - no.
Time interval - other reason for lie - statement was made
on the 24th July, 3 days after her 18th birthday, after
J.J. Tapp and Michelle Taylor had already made statements.
B. Claim that she was in JJ Tapp's room and with her at
the Churchill Clinic on the 3rd June 1991.
Even if it was untrue that J J Tapp was present, it did
not follow that Lisa was not there at the material time.
In other words, there was a possibility of the lie to support
innocent explanation.
(a) Was it a lie? see the Tapp family evidence and R v Shippey,
Jedynak and Jedynak (1988) CLR 767.
(b) Deliberate? - yes
(c) Relates to a material issue? - yes.
(d) Motive to lie-realisation of guilt etc? - no. There
was an interval. Her statement was made after J.J. Tapp
and her sister and already made statements (i.e. apply Lucas
test).
C. Evidence re Bromley.
The first piece of evidence that must be considered relates
to the speedlink card at 3.20 at the National Westminster
Bank Lambeth North. Carol Healey purports to see Michelle
Taylor and another girl at about 4 p.m. leaving the clinic
and finally Miss McDonald saw both Michelle Taylor and Lisa
Taylor sitting in the car at about 6.00 p.m. (This of course
was accepted by the Defence).
This was not strictly speaking alibi evidence. The presence
at the clinic leaving in a car at about 4.00 p.m. did not
establish presence in Vardens Road at 5.45 p.m. Even if
lies were established, did they with all the other evidence
establish intention so a jury could be sure - we submit
no.
(B) Presence at the scene at the time of the attack.
Although Doctor Crompton's evidence gave a wider bracket
circumstantial evidence indicates the time of death between
approximately 5.20 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. on the 3rd June 1991.
Evidence against Lisa.
1. Dr Unsworth White - he did not identity Lisa Taylor.
He merely described 2 girls near to the scene at the relevant
time. Description - differs from that of Lisa Taylor in
important respects. There were inherent dangers in this
witness's evidence caused by delay and publicity - note
he was not seen by the police again until 2 months after
the murder. There was a danger that the jury would treat
this evidence as identification evidence, it is therefore
unsafe.
2. Fingerprint Evidence - the position of the fingerprints
upon the internal door. Mr Milne's expert's opinion - timing
- unsatisfactory.
3. John Shaunghnessy's Evidence - Lisa Taylor had not been
to the flat to his knowledge - his wife would have told
him if she had.
4. Michelle Taylor's account to the police. This is not
evidence against Lisa Taylor.
5. Lisa Taylor's account to the police. Her witness statement
was taken on the 24th July 1991. There was also a police
summary by D C Gallagher of the interview on the 24th July
1991 that he had with Lisa Taylor before the statement was
created. Unfortunately, the contemporaneous notes that had
been taken were destroyed after Lisa Taylor had become a
suspect. Circumstances of the signing of the statement -
unsatisfactory.
6. Lies ex post facto.
(i) Carol Healy (approximately 4 p.m.)
(ii) Miss McDonald (approximately 6 p.m.)
(ii) J.J. Tapp and her family (R v Shippey, Jedynak and
Jedynak (1988 CLR 767))
If a lie was told it was not necessarily consistent with
guilt. In the absence of evidence as to timing of the fingerprint
and in the circumstances of the relationship between Alison
Shaughnessy and Michelle Taylor it would be dangerous to
conclude that the print was made at the time of the attack
on the evidence of only one of the two occupants of the
flat as to his lack of knowledge of an earlier visit. The
evidence against Lisa Taylor is therefore unsafe. The inherent
dangers are such that the jury could not safely conclude
that she was present at the relevant time.
(C) Participation.
If there is evidence to establish (A) and (B) above then
(C) can be inferred from the circumstances. If not, the
Crown would have to establish participation but the case
had not been opened on that basis and therefore could not
then proceed on that basis. Only if this was wrong would
the following have become relevant. It was not possible
to say who did what.
"Baby battering cases"
R v Aston and Mason 527 S 89 CA 8/2/91
R v Abbott (1955) 39 Cr App R141 at 148
R v Gibson and Gibson (1985) 80 Cr App R 24
R v Lane and Lane (1986) 82 Cr App R 5
R v Russell and Russell (1987) 85 Cr App 388.
"Unexplained presence cases"
R v Clarkson (1971) 55 Cr App R 445
R v Wilcox v Jeffrey [1951] 1 All ER 464
R v Allan (1965) 47 Cr App R 243
R v Coney (1882) 8 QBD 534
"Joint enterprise exceeded cases"
R v Jones and Mirless (1977) 65 Cr App R 250
R v Anderson and Morris (1966) 50 Cr App R 216
"Common design cases"
Hui Chi-Ming v R [1991] 3 WLR 495
R v Chan Wing - Sui (1985) 80 Crim App R117
R v Hyde [1990] 3 All ER 892
R v Ward (1987) 85 Crim App R at page 171
R v Slack (1989) 89 Crim App R 252.
And please see Archbold current edition volume 2 - Chapter
18 paragraph 2 until Chapter 18 paragraph 11 (pages 2022-2027)
and see Chapter 19 paragraph 23 to Chapter 19 paragraph
34 (pages 2052-2058).
For these reasons it is submitted that there was no evidence
upon which a jury properly directed could safely have convicted
the Appellant of murder. The Learned Trial Judge should
have withdrawn the case from the jury at that stage . (R
v Galbraith (1981) 2 AER 1060).
Page 01 02
|
| Contact : bernard.omahoney@bernardomahoney.com |
|
|
|
