Disgraceful

Neil Sayers had been shamefully let down. The 19 year-old student at Hadlow Agricultural College in Kent was left to pay the price for his lack of knowledge of forensic entomology. The life cycles of insects was crucially important to his chance of justice as that was the only possibility in the circumstances of this case to establish the post-mortem-interval, which would show when the relevant event to the body took place – either a range of when death occurred or, in this case, when the attempt to partially burn the body of Russell Crookes took place.

Crookes had been missing for almost two weeks. His mutilated, partially burned, maggot-infested body was discovered in a waterlogged grave in a copse run by Hadlow Agricultural College. Graham Wallis could be tied to the crime in various ways, but he took the chance to shift blame onto Sayers. Either Sayers is guilty and is therefore a vicious murderer and callous liar, or he is the victim of a cruel miscarriage of justice.

Forensic science offered the best chance to resolve whether Wallis was telling the truth, or cynically inserted an innocent man – supposedly a friend – into his account, to cover up his own responsibility for the murder of Russell Crookes. Sayers’ defence team performed abysmally. Evidence proving that Wallis had lied repeatedly was ignored, even the indisputable scientific variety. They ignored evidence that could have proved that Wallis had lied about when the fire occurred, even though that would have opened the door to destroying Wallis’ credibility.

A First Bite

Sayers knows that the criminal justice system does not permit him to have a second bite of the cherry, but he didn’t get a first bite. Wallis insisted that they had tried to burn the body of Russell Crookes immediately after he was killed, but this was hard to believe, because there had been several visits to that site in the days following Crookes’ disappearance.

According to Charles Miskin QC’s case the scorch-pattern and fire-related debris had been there on every one of these visits and been missed by all of them. It seemed very unlikely, but Sayers’ lawyers had failed to call evidence regarding the fire-site at the trial. He would not get a second chance. The same could have been argued regarding the maggots too, but Sayers was fortunate. Legal aid was granted once Kent Police confirmed that some maggots had been located.

Some had been routinely thrown away. Imagine throwing away half a cloth that had smeared blood on it before having it DNA tested and storing the rest in a fridge or cupboard at a police station for five years. Change cloth for maggots and that’s what happened here. It should never be allowed to happen again. This was vital evidence and it should have been treated with the respect due to a forensic science and evidence.

Belated Tests

Sadly the fixed sample, rather than the sample to be reared, had been thrown away. They would have been better as the time the precise time they died was known, which would have meant that a more accurate post-mortem-interval could have been calculated. The ʻreared’ maggots still existed; they were located in a fridge at a police station. They were brought to Dr Martin Hall’s laboratory at the National History Museum and tested by both Hall and his independent German colleague Dr Mark Benecke.

For five years the maggots had been prevented from telling their story, even though they were the only scientific way of establishing when the body suffered a significant event, which was either when death occurred if they had survived the attempt to burn the body, or when that attempt took place if they hadn’t. Unfortunately, Michael Heath’s error over the extent of fire-damage caused further problems and that would require a small fortune to put right.

Inadequate Representation

Russell Crookes was a student at Hadlow Agricultural College in Kent when he went missing in May 1998. His partially burned, mutilated and maggot-infested body was discovered nearly two weeks later.  It was an awful crime – of that there is no doubt. His murderer(s) deserved to be punished severely.

He had last been seen in the company of fellow students Neil Sayers and Graham Wallis. They soon emerged as the prime suspects – the only ones Kent Police investigated. Sayers protested his innocence, but Wallis confessed, although his confession was that he was there while Sayers did everything. It was more accusation than confession. Sayers’ solicitor at trial, Ian Reed, failed to grasp the significance of forensic science in this case.

He did not even notice the maggots, let alone understand their potential. The entomological evidence only had a chance of emerging for one reason. I knew that they should have been sent to a forensic entomologist and insisted on knowing what had happened to them, because if they existed, they could still be tested, even then, five years later.

Wasted Opportunities

Reed completely wasted the opportunity and the pathologist instructed by him, Peter Jerreat, failed to inform him as well, but Jerreat was the wrong choice. Reed’s firm Berry and Berry knew all about Michael Heath’s dubious pathology. The firm had done an excellent job of representing Craig Kerwin a year before Sayers’ arrest. They knew that Heath’s methods were suspect and which forensic pathologists should have been instructed. Reed made a mess of the opportunity.

The pathology-related issues were of great significance. That would have been realised if it had been investigated properly at the time. It wasn’t, but that could and should occur later this year, more than a decade after Heath made a mess of his case.

Sayers’ case is unique as the man who prosecuted him, Charles Miskin QC, relied on Heath as a credible expert, but subsequently turned the tables on Heath. Miskin represented the Pathology Delivery Board in the tribunal that it brought against Heath.

Miskin demolished Heath’s credibility without grasping the importance of pathology-related issues that were actually vital to Sayers’ case. Meanwhile, Sayers remains in prison waiting for a competent review of Heath’s pathology, which David Jessel failed to provide when the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) reviewed its cases that Heath was involved in.

Weak

Reed’s successor, Kevin Hansford, was even worse, regarding the maggots. Despite being made aware of them and their significance, he insisted on wasting months refusing to ask the police if they existed because he decided that they would not still be available five years on. That was not his job and he was wrong anyway.

He had been asked by Sayers – instructed actually – to enquire about them, but could not be bothered. He expected the CCRC to investigate everything that he put to them, yet refused to investigate. His submissions were utterly inadequate to put it mildly. Forensic science, let alone entomology, was not even mentioned in a case that could and should have become Britain’s genuine CSI if either he or Reed had done their jobs adequately. Unsurprisingly, Hansford’s weak application was rejected. If I had received such an application I’d have rejected it too.

Despite the rejection of his application, Hansford continued to refuse to ask the police if the maggots existed. Patience ran out and he was replaced by a solicitor prepared to ask the question, Jane Hickman. She didn’t think they would exist either, but unlike Hansford, she was prepared to ask the question and was happy to be proved wrong. Some maggots were located and provided to experts instructed by Hickman.

Legal aid was granted to have the maggots examined by Dr Martin Hall and a second expert, Dr Mark Benecke was independently instructed as well. Sadly, Heath’s wretched pathology loomed large still, as his report resulted in an error in the instructions, due his insistence on using misleading terminology that was unsupported by the evidence. The consequences of this error have never been redressed and probably never will be.

The Dream Witness that Became a Nightmare

Forensic pathology has endured a torrid five years. Paula Lannasʼ competence left much to be desired, but she fought off attempts to bring her before a tribunal through legal actions. Nevertheless, she was discretely removed from the Register of Home Office Pathologists anyway. The lessons were learned.

Michael Heathʼs tooth and nail fight to avoid the hearing failed. Consequently, in the summer of 2006 Heath faced the Home Office Pathology Advisory Board tribunal, chaired by John McGuinness QC. Heathʼs peers, Peter Ackerley, Dr Bob Bramley and Professor Thomas Krompecher completed the panel.

Heath was represented by Jean Ritchie QC, but the choice of counsel for the Home Office Pathology Delivery Board, which brought those proceedings, Charles Miskin QC, raised eyebrows. Why? Because another of Miskinʼs claims to fame was that he had relied on Heath as a credible expert witness in a murder case, but Heath had made a mess of the case, which helped to deny a young man on trial for his future a fair trial. Miskin had prosecuted Neil Sayers, who was a 19 year-old agriculture student at Hadlow College in Kent when his friend Russell Crookes met a grisly end.

Chastened

Miskin destroyed Heathʼs credibility during the tribunal, securing an important finding against him that he was inflexible once he had made up his mind even if the evidence said otherwise. He also paid no attention to the opinions of colleagues. Facing removal from the Register of Home Office Pathologists, Heath resigned after he had been found guilty.

A suitably chastened Heath faced another disciplinary hearing three years later. Heath was still able to practice as an expert, albeit not a forensic pathologist. He was no longer in the top league of British pathologists, but unlike his erstwhile colleague, Lannas, Heath remained a registered doctor, able to practice as an expert. The disciplinary hearing of the General Medical Council (GMC) reached its decision in June 2009. Heath remains registered by the GMC as an expert histopathologist.

A Kafkaesque Prosecution

Sayersʼ case is therefore very important. He has been in prison for over a decade, partly due to the poor quality pathology of the now disgraced Michael Heath, who had demonstrated a lack of professional courtesy by failing to provide information to Sayersʼ pathologist Peter Jerreat. Heathʼs work also adversely influenced other forensic scientistsʼ work.

Heathʼs conduct in this case left much to be desired, making a scientific and legal maze of the case that Sayers had no chance of resolving. He had to understand the ins and outs of forensic pathology, fire-damage and related issues, as well as forensic entomology, forensic botany and other scientific disciplines too. And if, somehow, he managed to achieve that, he had to instruct his lawyers to investigate these issues and hire the relevant experts.

If, by some miracle, Sayers, a young man of average intelligence achieved all that, it would still have counted against him. After all, why would a young student at Hadlow Agricultural College have such an interest in forensic science and knowledge of state of the art techniques?

He would have been accused of having an unnatural interest in such techniques. No doubt he was planning the perfect crime! So if he didnʼt know, it was his fault as instructing lawyers to conduct the required tests is his responsibility, but if he did, it was also his fault as that meant he possessed knowledge that no young man had any business knowing, so he must be guilty. Franz Kafkaʼs Joseph K stood a better chance of receiving a fair trial.