Sixth time lucky?
CCRC refers murder conviction to appeal court after five rejections
A former soldier who has served 37 years of a life sentence for a murder that might not have been a killing at all has had his convictions referred to the Court of Appeal after his previous applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) were rejected on five occasions between 2000 and 2023.
The CCRC has decided that there is now a considerable body of expert pathology opinion, gathered since Clive Freeman stood trial in 1989, that undermines the prosecution evidence to the extent that it is arguably no longer reliable.
The much-criticised body that reviews suspected miscarriages of justice said yesterday that there was now a “real possibility” the Court of Appeal would accept this expert opinion as fresh evidence and, “despite a strong circumstantial case presented at trial”, quash Freeman’s convictions for murder and arson.
The body of Alexander Hardie, a vagrant and former plumber from Edinburgh, was found at a flat in south-east London in 1988 after fire had broken out. Freeman had been staying at the flat but left the country on the same day.
A distinguished pathologist told the jury at Freeman’s trial that Hardie might have been suffocated using a technique called “burking”, named after the 19th-century Scottish killers Burke and Hare. But the Daily Mail reported last year that other pathologists had said the likely cause of Hardie’s death was a mixture of alcohol and prescription drugs.
Although Freeman, 82, has served well over twice the 15-year minimum set by the court, the Mail reported that he had not been released because he was “in denial” about his crimes. He is now held at an open prison in Gloucestershire.
Freeman’s conviction for arson was also was also referred to the Court of Appeal. He had been accused of setting fire to the flat as part of an insurance fraud in which he planned to fake his own death.
The CCRC said yesterday:
Since Mr Freeman’s trial, there has been significant expert pathology opinion that taken together changes the picture on the prosecution pathology evidence. There is now a real possibility the Court of Appeal will find Mr Freeman’s conviction unsafe.
Government response
The Ministry of Justice has responded to a highly critical report on the CCRC published by the House of Commons justice committee in May. The committee’s main conclusion was that it was no longer tenable for Karen Kneller to remain chief executive.
As the Ministry of Justice observes in its reply, Kneller resigned from her role on 2 July. “This marks an opportunity for the CCRC to refresh its leadership and for confidence to be restored to the organisation,” the department said.
The government also responded to other recommendations from MPs:
The former CCRC chair resigned in January after an independent panel concluded by a majority that she should no longer head the body. I published extracts from the independent panel’s report in January. The full report has not been released — even to the CCRC or to the justice committee, which was reduced to quoting from my extracts. It recommended that the full panel report should now be shared with the commissioners. The government has now agreed.
Whoever is selected to succeed the interim chair, Dame Vera Baird, should be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the justice committee. The government has agreed to this too.
The CCRC should not have considered itself unable to publish a critical report by Chris Henley KC during the period leading up to and immediately following the general election last year. On this point, the Ministry of Justice thought the CCRC had been right to delay publication and the Cabinet Office had agreed.
The government says that other recommendations are a matter for the review it has asked Baird to carry out. “We look forward to considering Dame Vera’s views and recommendations over the coming months,” it says.
Many thanks to the Law Society Gazette for alerting me to the government’s response, which I had missed at the end of last month.
Sadly this does not bode well for its review of the Letby case