EVIDENCE OF SENIOR PATHOLOGIST AGAIN CALLED INTO QUESTION
Feedback: Click here.
Pathologist Michael Heath, who resigned from the Home Office register last year after a disciplinary panel found him guilty of serious misconduct, is once more in the news.
This time in the case of convicted murderer Kenneth Noye, who has won permission to challenge the Criminal Cases Review Commission's refusal to refer his conviction for the murder of Stephen Cameron back to the Court of Appeal.
Noye, 60, fled to Spain after stabbing the 21-year-old on the M25 at Swanley, Kent, in 1996 but was extradited in 1998 and jailed for life at the Old Bailey in 2000.
His appeal was dismissed in October 2001 and, in October 2006, the CCRC declined to refer the case back.
Now, Lord Justice Richards and Mrs Justice Swift, at the High Court in London, have granted permission for a one-day judicial review hearing of that decision.
They said there was "sufficient" in the fresh grounds of challenge "to warrant further consideration of this case".
Lord Justice Richards said the argument now presented on Noye's behalf concentrated on the path and depth of the stab wounds to Mr Cameron, and the degree of force used to inflict them.
Noye's solicitors had also obtained material which was critical of Michael Heath, the Home Office pathologist who resigned in September 2006, and who gave evidence at the trial.
It was submitted that Dr Heath was completely discredited, and it was therefore necessary to consider what effect it might have had on the jury if his evidence was left out of account - and additional fresh evidence from a pathologist critical of his conclusions taken into account.
At the full hearing, it would be contended that the CCRC had not properly or adequately considered what impact the discrediting of Dr Heath had on the safety of the murder conviction.
It would also be argued that the CCRC did not properly determine whether or not the fresh evidence would be received by the Court of Appeal.
Further, it would be submitted that the CCRC misdirected itself as to the test the Court of Appeal would apply in deciding whether to quash the conviction.
No date has yet been set for the judicial review.
ENDS