| The Dream Solution
- Documents |
18/06/93
- R v Michelle and Lisa TAYLOR
R v Michelle and Lisa TAYLOR
Re: Murder of Alison SHAUGHNESSY - 3rd June 1991
COMMANDER OPERATIONS
On Monday 3rd June 1991 at about 8.30pm. at 41 VARDENS ROAD,
BATTERSEA, SW11, the body of Alison SHAUGHNESSY was discovered
by her husband John SHAUGHNESSY and Michelle TAYLOR, who
was later found to be his mistress.The enquiry team conducted
house to house enquiries in VARDENS ROAD and adjoining Streets
over the next few days.
Unfortunately many people were asked if they had seen anything
suspicious rather than what they actually did see. In all
162 people were questioned on the house to house research.
Dr UNSWORTH-WHITE who lives at number 9 VARDENS ROAD was
spoken to on that occasion, and he stated that he arrived
home at 5.45pm and he told the officer that he had seen
nothing of note. (Appendix A).
On Monday 29th July 1991 I took over the investigation of
this enquiry from Detective Superintendent Tom GLENDINNING.
He was due to take annual leave and then transfer to SO1
on promotion. On 2nd August 1991 I instructed the enquiry
team to return to VARDENS ROAD and re-examine all the house
to house enquiry questionnaires and interview again all
the occupants.
On Sunday 4th August 1991, Dr UNSWORTH-WHITE was interviewed
by Detective Constable Angela THOMAS. He told her that he
had seen two young women coming out of either No 41 or 43
VARDENS ROAD followed by an older man. Firstly he stated
that the second woman may have been Black but immediately
retracted that comment saying that both of them were White
and aged between 18 and 20 years.
DC THOMAS wrote her findings down on an officer's information
and entered it into the Major Incident System. (See Message
236 attached at Appendix B). That same day at 1202 hours
that information was fed into the H.O.L.M.E.S. computer
system. At 1340 hours an Action was raised to:
(1) Trace and interview two unidentified females coming
out of 41 or 43 VARDENS ROAD and eliminate.(2) To see coloured
female occupant of number 43 to clarify if it were her,
and (3) To take a statement from Doctor UNSWORTH-WHITE.
(Appendix C).
It was allocated to Detective Constable GALLAGHER because
Detective Constable THOMAS was committed elsewhere. For
some reason DC GALLAGHER could not do the Action straight
away and because of the importance of that enquiry, Detective
Constable SUMMERS carried out the Action. He saw Dr UNSWORTH-WHITE
the following day, 5th August 1991.
He clarified the oral comment given to DC THOMAS. It appears
that while trying to recollect his thoughts on the events
of the 3rd June 1991, he thought one of the girls may have
been Black but within seconds changed his mind to state
quite clearly that both were White. DC SUMMERS was obviously
careful as to put down in the statement exactly what Dr
UNSWORTH-WHITE was saying and what he actually did see.
Having cleared up the ambiguity, a full statement was obtained
from Dr UNSWORTH-WHITE and his last words were "both
of the girls were White Europeans." (See Appendix D).
DC SUMMERS completed the Action Sheet (Appendix C) and underlined
the fact that Dr UNSWORTH-WHITE had seen "Two IC1 females."
On Friday 2nd August 1991 I had been advised that Lisa TAYLOR's
fingermark impressions had been found on the back of the
door to Flat 3, 41 VARDENS ROAD - the scene of the murder.
This was the first time she had ever featured as a suspect
in the enquiry, having previously denied ever going to 41
VARDENS ROAD. On 7th August 1991 both Michelle and Lisa
TAYLOR were arrested for the murder of Alison SHAUGHNESSY.
They were later charged and taken to Court. Michelle remained
in custody until the trial but Lisa was granted bail after
a High Court application had been successful. On Friday
23rd August 1991 at the British Transport Police Office
at Victoria, Dr UNSWORTH-WHITE attended two identification
parades. Albeit he did not pick either defendant out, he
did mention on the second parade that number 4 and 8 looked
familiar, Number 4 was Lisa TAYLOR. (Appendix E).
Every single statement taken during the course of the enquiry
was served on the Crown Prosecution Service. Also served
were "documents' relevant to the investigation. Prosecution
Counsel, John NUTTING, was informed at a Case Conference
that Sarah FORD, Dr UNSWORTH-WHITE's girlfriend, had applied
to Barclays Bank on his behalf for the reward they had offered
for information relating to ALISON's killer (s).
Mr NUTTING was also told that Dr UNSWORTH-WHITE was upset
and embarrassed about Miss FORD's action. Prior to the trial
on 16th June 1992, Junior Defence Counsel and a Solicitor,
attended Battersea Police Station to view the exhibit books.
They were given every assistance by Detective Sergeant GLEESON
and Detective Constable SMITH. The Incident Room was at
Earlsfield Police Station.
They never asked to see any other material gathered during
the investigation.
During the investigation the following items were collected:-
Messages and Officers Informations 315
Actions 936
Statements 288
House to House Enquiry Questionnaires 162
Personal Description Forms 133
Other Documents 430
Property (including documentary exhibits) 153
TOTAL 2417
In 1991 Police supplied to the Crown Prosecution Service
ALL Statements - relevant and non relevant, and Documents.
This was laid down by the Attorney Generals' Guidelines
for the Disclosure of "Unused material" to the
Defence 1982. (Appendix F). No Actions, Messages, House
to House Enquiry Questionnaires, Personal description forms,
and some "other documents' were disclosed, which was
the procedure at the time.
It will be seen, therefore, that nearly 2,000 pieces of
paper were not disclosed, which again was in accordance
with Police procedure at that time. The TAYLORS' trial took
place at the Central Criminal Court before his Honour Judge
J. BLOFELD, between the 6th and 24th July 1992, when both
defendants were found guilty. Prior to and during the trial
a number of case conferences were held with Prosecuting
Counsel, Mr John NUTTING and Miss Joanna KORNER.
Also present were representatives of the Crown Prosecution
Service. It would be fair to say that the prosecution case
was largely circumstantial. It is best summarised as follows:-
a) Both defendants gave an alibi that they were 15 miles
away shopping in Bromley, Kent, all afternoon and returned
to the Churchill Clinic, Lambeth Road, Kennington at 5.00pm.
- 5.15pm. where they met their friend Jeanette TAPP. They
stayed there until Michelle TAYLOR left with John SHAUGHNESSY
at about 8.15 pm. to return to 41 VARDENS ROAD to find Alison's
body. This alibi was completely shattered when Jeanette
TAPP was arrested and interviewed.
She stated that when she returned to her flat at about 7.15pm,
Lisa was waiting for her claiming that both Michelle and
her had been there since 5.15pm. and she should verify their
story. This was crucial to the prosecution case because
both Michelle and Lisa TAYLOR were establishing false alibis
for a specific period of time before Alison's body had been
found - only the murderers would know the exact time of
death, and the period they needed to be alibied.
b) One witness saw both girls at about 4.00pm. driving out
of the Churchill Clinic in Michelle TAYLOR's car. They were
travelling in the direction of the murder scene.
c) Another witness saw both girls in the same vehicle outside
the Clinic at about 6.00pm.
d) Michelle TAYLOR' s Bank Service Till Card was used at
3.20pm. at the National Westminster Bank, Westminster Bridge
Road, Kennington, close to the clinic. They stated they
were both shopping in Bromley at that time.
e) Michelle TAYLOR's notebook was found at her address;
in it she described her bitter hatred for Alison. In particular
she wrote on one occasion "My dream solution would
be for Alison to disappear as if she never existed and then
I could give everything to the man I love."
f) Lisa TAYLOR's fingermark impressions had been discovered
on the inside of the door of Flat 3 - the deceased's flat
and scene of the murder. She had previously stated she had
never been to the flat.
g) Dr UNSWORTH-WHITE saw two females answering the description
of the TAYLORS leaving the scene at the material time. However,
he was unable to pick them out on an identity parade. Albeit
he stated Lisa and one other female were similar to one
of two girls he saw on the 3rd June 1991.
h) In the early stages of the enquiry, members of staff
at the Clinic spoke of an affair between John SHAUGHNESSY
and Michelle TAYLOR. Initially they both denied it. However,
after John SHAUGHNESSY had been fully interviewed by Police
he admitted the affair and Michelle eventually admitted
her role in the liaison, but was adamant it had finished
some weeks before the murder. It would be fair to say that
their affair continued up to and after Alison's death. This
point was not brought out during the trial by Prosecuting
Counsel.
The Trial Judge warned the Jury that they should look at
Dr UNSWORTH-WHITE's evidence with great care because Defence
Counsel implied that he had only given his evidence in an
attempt to gain the reward being offered by Barclays Bank.
In his summing-up the Trial Judge told the Jury they should
either accept his evidence in its entirety, or dismiss it.
Throughout the trial the media coverage was sensational
and unremitting.
They reported each day's evidence, often inaccurately, accompanied
by dramatic headlines. They monopolised on the tragedy to
maximum effect. In their eyes it was an ideal story of the
"Love Triangle" gone wrong. Owing to the media
coverage, leave to appeal on the grounds that the defendants
may have had an unfair trial, was granted. Prior to the
appeal being heard, John NUTTING attended Earlsfield Police
Station on Friday 21st May 1993 to view all the paperwork
collected during the investigation.
Originally Defence Counsel were to attend the same day,
but for some reason they could not do so. Mr NUTTING stayed
for about 3 hours, viewed some of the papers with the assistance
of DS GLEESON, and then he visited VARDENS ROAD. On Wednesday
26th May 1993 and Tuesday 1st June 1993 both Junior Defence
Counsel, Mr BURKE and Mr BOURNE, attended Earlsfield Police
Station to view the unused material.
Each Counsel had the assistance of two officers who helped
them view each piece of paper - full disclosure. All this
unused material was stored in purpose built cardboard storage
boxes. They were numerically held in sections, i.e. Messages,
Actions, House to House Enquiry Questionnaires, and other
documents. Having examined the contents of the boxes, they
listed the items they required copied.
This was done and later served on them through the C.P.S.
On Monday 7th June 1993 together with DS GLEESON and DS
GALLAGHER I attended a case conference at the Central Criminal
Court. Mr NUTTING was fairly confident we would not lose
the appeal on the grounds applied for by the Defence. This
was mainly on the media coverage during the trial. There
were other smaller issues which we managed to negate during
the build up for the appeal.
On Tuesday 8th June 1993, John NUTTING, Prosecuting Counsel,
asked Mr Robin NELSON, C.P.S. if he would interview Dr UNSWORTH-
WHITE. He was to take a further statement from him regarding
his making of the statement he supplied to Police on the
5th August 1991. This was to clarify the irregularity between
the " officer's information' written down by DC THOMAS
and his statement.
I understand that Mr NELSON consulted his seniors who advised
he should not do so because he would become a Prosecution
Witness. Mr NELSON later informed me that Mr NUTTING discussed
the matter with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mrs
Barbara MILLS. The outcome was that Commander POOLE, 5 Area
Operations was contacted by C.P.S. and asked if a Senior
Police Officer, not connected with the case, could carry
out this task.
Detective Chief Inspector BATES, 5 Area Complaints was given
the action. I was informed of this situation by Commander
POOLE. Later that day Samantha JEPSON, the C.P.S. clerk
contacted me to arrange a further conference with Mr NUTTING
on Wednesday 9th June 1993 at 5.00 pm. On the evening of
8th June 1993 Mr NUTTING contacted the Incident Room at
Earlsfield Police Station and requested that I telephone
him at his home address.
I did so immediately and he told me that I was to attend
the conference the following day and inform him why I had
deliberately with-held the officer's information relating
to Dr UNSWORTH-WHITE's first interview with DC THOMAS. He
would not discuss it over the telephone. He also wanted
Dr UNSWORTH-WHITE's home telephone number - which I gave
him. Mr NUTTING then requested DCI BATES to contact him
immediately in order to stop him taking the statement.
Apparently Mr NUTTING had consulted the Defence who advised
him not to have the statement taken. On 9th June 1993, at
the Central Criminal Court at 5.00 pm. I attended the conference
together with Detective Sergeant GALLAGHER and Detective
Sergeant GLEESON. I told Mr NUTTING that I was deeply offended
at the way he had handled the overall situation before I
had an opportunity to give an explanation.
It would be fair to say that he did not want an explanation,
but declared that we would lose the Appeal on the grounds
of "material irregularity". The only aspect he
was fighting for was a re-trial, but he did not hold out
much hope of that. Clearly he was not prepared to explain
to the Court of Appeal the Police procedures which were
operating at the time of the trial. He advised me to prepare
a statement for him for the Court of Appeal.
On 10th June 1993 at the Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand,
at 10.00am, I saw Miss KORNER, Junior Prosecuting Counsel.
I gave her my statement (copy attached Appendix G). I also
gave her a copy of the Incident Volumes (Appendix H), so
that Mr NUTTING could explain to the Court which items had
been disclosed and which had not under the Guidelines operating
at the time of trial It was in my opinion that Police (in
particular me) had acted quite correctly, and that the "material
irregularity" was a technical point which was to be
argued at the Court of Appeal.
Mr FERGUSON, Counsel for Michelle TAYLOR, opened his case
and immediately outlined the "material irregularity".
He told the Court of Appeal that the Officer's Information
provided by DC THOMAS had been found through the hard work
and tenacity of his Junior Counsel. He continued by stating
that Police had deliberately with-held the document and
that it had been secreted in a cardboard box in the Police
Station.
He continued by saying that DC THOMAS was a key witness
in the Prosecution case and that she was the only Police
witness they criticised in cross examination at the trial.
He told the Court that the TAYLORS had made a complaint
against DC THOMAS about her behaviour towards Michelle.
He implied that she had deliberately concealed the original
information given to her by Dr UNSWORTH-WHITE. Mr FERGUSON
told the Court that Dr UNSWORTH-WHITE was the Key Witness
on which the prosecution case relied.
He stated that, with the assistance of this "undisclosed
material", he would have been able to discredit his
evidence and the prosecution case would have collapsed.
Mr NUTTING'S view on the 8th June 1993 was that "Dr
UNSWORTH- WHITE' s evidence was of limited effect in the
case, and that failure to disclose the information, though
regrettable, does not constitute a material irregularity."
(Appendix I - Enclosure Nos. 4, 5 and 6)
Mr FERGUSON further added that Police had been most unhelpful
and un-cooperative when his Junior attended Earlsfield Police
Station to view the paperwork. He implied that we tried
to conceal DC THOMAS1 Officers Information - (Appendix B).
Mr FERGUSON then told the Court of Appeal that Police had
deliberately with-held from the Defence the identities of
a further 162 witnesses.
These were the occupiers seen on the house-to house enquiries.
Only 12 of those 162 people provided statements which converted
them into witnesses and those same statements were correctly
served on the Defence. The remaining 150 occupiers were
not witnesses, but registered in the investigation on the
house-to-house enquiry questionnaires. This contention that
Police deliberately with-held the existence of these 162
other "witnesses" was refuted by Mr NUTTING when
he referred to a letter received from Defence Solicitors,
Andrew KEENAN and Company on 25th March 1993.
In that letter under Paragraph 5, they fully accepted being
given access to the house to-house enquiry forms at the
trial. (Appendix J). Mr FERGUSON then mentioned the names
of two other witnesses Police had deliberately kept from
him, Mrs Jess HARTE and Mrs Emma PETRE. These were two people
who had been in the area at the material time but had seen
absolutely nothing - correctly no statements were ever taken
from them.
Mrs Christina WRIGHT is an old lady in her seventies who
lives in the bottom flat of 41 VARDENS ROAD. When seen by
Police, shortly after the murder, she told the officers
that she was watching the 6.00pm. BBC News when she saw
ALISON arrive home. DS GLEESON was so worried about her
failing health, he continued to visit her on a number of
occasions after the statement was taken.
On one visit she happened to mention in passing that her
friend JESS HARTE had visited her on the day of the murder
and that she left her flat at 6.00pm. When JESS HARTE was
seen by DS GLEESON she was adamant that she left her friend,
Mrs WRIGHT, at 5.30 pm. and she saw nothing. Mrs HARTE's
daughter would not let DS GLEESON take a statement because
she did not want her elderly mother getting involved and
put through the trauma of possible court proceedings.
The significance of this for the prosecution was that if
Christina WRIGHT was wrong about the time when Jess HARTE
left, she may well also be wrong about the time she allegedly
saw Alison arrive home. (If she was watching the ITN 5.40pm.
News as opposed to the BBC 6.00pm. News, then this further
verified that Alison did arrive home at 5.40pm. as the prosecution
case suggested).
Mr FERGUSON made great play about Mrs WRIGHT not attending
the trial because of ill health. He said that she was a
crucial defence witness. Mrs WRIGHT's doctor attended the
Central Criminal Court and after speaking to both prosecuting
and defence counsel, they agreed that she would not be called,
because if she did she may have a heart attack. Her statement
was not read.
Mr FERGUSON stated to the Court of Appeal that Police knew
of Mrs HARTE's existence earlier, and that we had deliberately
not disclosed her details because it would have assisted
the defence. In fact, if she had made a statement it would
have supported greatly the prosecution case. It would be
fair to say that Mr FERGUSON was very clever, in that he
painted the picture very black.
He was economical with the truth, exaggerated main aspects
of the case, and gave as fact certain matters which were
clearly incorrect. He left the three Appeal Court Judges
with the feeling that the Police had acted at least unprofessionally
if not criminally. Lisa TAYLOR's Counsel spoke next. Lady
MALLILIEU outlined her appeal and basically supported Mr
FERGUSON's account of events.
Mr NUTTING then told the Appeal Court that there was a "material
irregularity" and that the Crown could not defend it.
He never gave the true versions of events as outlined in
this report, nor did he correct the inaccuracies quoted
by Mr FERGUSON. Furthermore, he never followed his original
plan to fight the appeal which he prepared and signed on
8th June 1993 (See Appendix I).
Immediately before the Court Session he asked me through
his Junior, if I regretted these events. Of course I said
"Yes" but I was regretful of the predicament we
were in - thinking he would fight our corner, and as soon
as the Appeal Court Judges had heard the truth, they would
have to decide whether or not we had committed a "technical
material irregularity". If we lost that aspect Mr NUTTING
would fight for a retrial.
At the end of that day it was clear to me, as Officer in
Charge of the Case, that Mr NUTTING had not made our case
clear to the Appeal Court, so I prepared a further statement
that evening (Appendix K) . I showed it to both Mr NUTTING
and Miss KORNER the next day and requested that he serve
it on the Court. After reading it he told me that the statement
was "dynamite" and if I persisted with it, the
Judges would crucify me. He did not clarify those comments.
I explained that the Judges did not have a true picture
of events. He told me that he neither represented me nor
the Police. Owing to a lack of knowledge of true events,
the Appeal Court Judges allowed the Appeal and gave a scathing
attack on my integrity. I still contend that neither I nor
any of my officers acted improperly. The Guidelines in place
at the time had been adhered to. (Appendix F).
I would ask that as soon as the alleged indiscretions have
been investigated and confirmed to be totally untrue, that
the Service makes a statement to the media or whomever,
to restore the integrity of the Metropolitan Police Service,
the Investigating Team, and me, as a Senior Investigating
Officer.
Chris BURKE
DETECTIVE SUPERINTENDENT
5 AREA MAJOR INVESTIGATING POOL
18th June 1993 |
| Contact : bernard.omahoney@bernardomahoney.com |
|
|
|
