Live updates as Peter Sullivan has murder conviction quashed after 38 years

Peter Sullivan speaks for first time

In a statement released by his solicitor, Mr Sullivan has said:

"I lost my liberty four decades ago over a crime I did not commit. We know now how very different the times we live in are, from scientific advances, legal practice and methods of investigation and questioning by the police.

"What happened to me was very wrong. But it does not detract or minimise that all of this happened off the back of a heinous and most terrible loss of life. I did not commit murder or unlawfully take the life of any person throughout the span of my own.

"As God is my witness it is said the truth shall set you free – it is unfortunate that it does not give a timescale. As we advance towards resolving the wrongs done to me, I am not angry, I am not bitter. I am simply anxious to return to my loved ones and family, as I’ve got to make the most of what is left of the existence I am granted in this world.

"I am aware of how cruel time can be to a person stripped of their youth and mobility, sight and hearing. I have had to silently endure this and watch it stripped from me, in the worst environment imaginable. I will not comment on the horrors done to me over that time, there are too many. With this, I humbly request that you allow me my privacy while I begin repairing what I may from the driftwood that is my life.

"Finally, I would like to say how sorry I am to the family of Diane Sindall who have now got to come to terms with the death of their daughter being down to someone else. I long to see the right thing done for this horrible crime so that they will find peace."

Merseyside Police release new appeal for information after 38 years

Detective chief superintendent Karen Jaundrill said: “Our thoughts remain with the family and friends of Diane Sindall who continue to mourn her loss and will have to endure the implications of this new development so many years after her murder. We are committed to doing everything within our power to find whom the DNA, which was left at the scene, belongs to.

“Unfortunately, there is no match for the DNA identified on the national DNA database.

“We have enlisted specialist skills and expertise from the National Crime Agency, and with their support we are proactively trying to identify the person the DNA profile belongs to, and extensive and painstaking inquiries are underway.

“We can confirm that the DNA does not belong to any member of Diane’s family, nor Diane’s fiancé at the time, and we believe it could be a vital piece of evidence linking the killer to the scene.

“To date more than 260 men have been screened and eliminated from the investigation which was reopened in 2023. The investigation team has obtained most of the samples locally, however, screening has also taken place in Swansea, Perth, London, Hull and Newcastle with the provision of voluntary DNA elimination samples.

“At the time of her murder Diane and her fiancé were saving up to get married and she had a part-time job working behind the bar at the Wellington public house in Bebington.

“On the night of Friday, 1 August 1986, Diane had been working at the pub. She had left work at 11.45pm in her blue Fiat van, but on her way home the van ran out of petrol on Borough Road. Diane got out of the van and was seen by several witnesses at the time walking along Borough Road between midnight and 12.20am on the Saturday morning.

“Twelve hours later on 2 August Diane’s body was discovered by a member of the public in an alleyway off Borough Road. Diane had been sexually assaulted and brutally murdered.

“She had suffered extensive injuries to her body. Her cause of death was established as a cerebral haemorrhage following multiple blows.

“On 17 August 1986 property belonging to Diane was recovered on Bidston Hill. The investigation team at the time subsequently identified witnesses who had seen a small fire, at the location where the property was found, on Sunday, 3 August, and had witnessed a man running from the scene.

“Diane’s murder sent shockwaves through Birkenhead when it happened and I would appeal to anyone who lived in the area at the time, and has any information which could help us with our inquiries, to come forward.

“We believe there are people who have information, or suspicions, about the murder of Diane in 1986 and I would appeal to those people to come forward, as the information they have could be key to finding who the DNA belongs to.

“You may have been in the area of Borough Road on the night of the murder and may have seen someone acting suspiciously.

“If you were in the area, or had concerns about an individual at the time, let us know so our team can trace and request a DNA sample from the person you suspect, or a relative of theirs if they have perhaps passed away, or they have emigrated to another country.”

Cries of 'we've done it' as judges quash conviction

Members of the public embraced and one woman tearfully said "we’ve done it" as Mr Justice Holroyde announced the court’s conclusion.

That brings to an end the proceedings.

We will have further analysis throughout the afternoon.

Thank you for following our coverage.

BREAKING: Peter Sullivan cries as judges quash conviction

Lord Justice Holroyde tells the court: “Strong as the circumstantial evidence seemed at trial, it is needed to take into account the new evidence that points towards an unknown man. As Mr Atkinson accepts, if the new evidence had been available in 1986, the evidence as a whole would have been considered as insufficient to charge.

“We have no doubt that it is necessary to receive the new evidence relating to the DNA evidence. In the light of that evidence it is impossible to consider the conviction as safe.”

Peter Sullivan cries as the judge renders conviction unsafe.

The court hears the evidence put forward on grounds two and three are dismissed as the new evidence would not have resulted in a different conclusion during previous court hearings.

Lord Justice Holroyde: “However we receive as fresh evidence, we allow the appeal on ground one and quash the conviction.”

The court hears Mr Sullivan must be released from custody.

'Passage of time and the advancing of scientific techniques that has allowed the court to be in position today'

Lord Justice Holroyde says: “We have been supported by the excellent submissions by counsels on both sides.

“Mr Pitter, for the appellant, relies on the three pieces of evidence, individually and accumulatively. Mr Pitter recognises it is the passage of time and the advancing of scientific techniques that has allowed the court to be in position today.

“It is submitted that the fresh evidence also bears on the evidence available in relation to the bite mark and the reliability of the confession made in interview. It is submitted that the bite mark evidence was central to the prosecution case at trial.

“For Mr Atkinson for the crown, it is rejected the fresh evidence in grounds two and three, but does not seek to argue against the DNA evidence.

“Further, if the appeal was allowed, no application will be made for a retrial.”

The court hears about Sullivan's attempts to challenge conviction

The court hears the first CCRC application was made in 2008 and reviewed the case even though there was no case against conviction. They spoke to forensic scientists who said there was not a realistic prospect of getting new DNA evidence. The CCRC did not refer the case to the Court of Appeal.

The court hears that their decision was correct due to scientific evidence available at the time.

In 2019 the appellant applied for leave to appeal against his conviction. His ground was fresh evidence that the bite mark evidence and the confession made to police was unreliable. It was submitted that if he was being interviewed in 2021, when the case went before the Court of Appeal, the process would be different.

The application was refused but the full court considered the merits of the appeal.

The appellant made a second application to the CCRC which led to this appeal. The three recommendations made by the CCRC relate to the grounds of appeal heard today.

Court reassembles

The court has reassembled.

Lord Justice Holroyde tells the court “new evidence has been obtained, in particular advances have allowed scientists to provide information about the source of the DNA found on Ms Sindall’s body. This court must decide if the conviction of the appellant is unsafe.”

Lord Justice Holroyde says Ms Sindall’s death “blighted the lives of all who knew her and we offer our condolences”.

He says: “The police recovered traces of semen from her body. The sample had been diluted by rain that had fallen and scientific techniques were not sufficient about the man who was the source of the semen.”

Court adjourns while judges consider decision

The three judges announce to the court they are going to rise to consider their decision.

The court is adjourned while we await their decision.

'We recognise ground one makes the difference between where the court was in 2021 to where it is now'

Mr Atkinson says the same does not apply to the other two grounds of the appeal.

He says the crown submits the case does not say anything new about Sullivan’s vulnerability during the interview process.

Mr Atkinson says there is no evidence of oppression during the interview process. He says the inconsistencies of account were obvious and were identified at the time of trial.

The crown also submits the bite mark evidence was part of the case but not the full case.

Mr Atkinson says: “It would be perfectly proper for that expert evidence to inform the jury that the bite mark was consistent with identifiable features of this person. This would not be sufficient in itself, but would be capable of supporting DNA evidence. The issue we submit is to consider whether that overstatement of that evidence renders his conviction unsafe. We say it does not and was part of the evidence.

“We recognise that it is ground one that makes the difference between where the court was in 2021 to where it is now. We say the DNA evidence does support that this conviction is unsafe.”

Crown - 'Had this DNA evidence been available, it is difficult to see how the decision would have been made to prosecute'

Mr Atkinson says: “Turning to the DNA evidence, the evidence now advanced as fresh evidence could not have been available at the trial or even in 2008 when the CCRC first considered the case. What it now addresses, is the semen found does not match this appellant.

“It also did not match the DNA of Ms Sindall’s partner of the scientist who first took the samples. That is an exercise of analysis that has been checked. We submit that this evidence can be taken as reliable.”

Mr Atkinson says: “Had this DNA evidence been available, it is difficult to see how the decision would have been made to prosecute.”

Get updates from the ECHO's coverage from the courts here

Receive the latest court and crime news straight to your phone by joining our dedicated WhatsApp community.

You’ll receive the day’s top stories, including live blogs and breaking news, straight to your phone.

Join here: https://chat.whatsapp.com/FCY5nNcaT0uFQ8E4EaTsmk

Read our Privacy Policy here: https://www.reachplc.com/site-services/privacy-policy

The crown says Sullivan admitted the murder to another prisoner while on remand

Mr Atkinson says: “During the course of the initial interview, the appellant gave a number of contradictory accounts about where he had been on the evening of the murder and if he had gone to Bidston Hill where he was seen.

“He went on to make admissions about the murder of Diane Sindall. He went on to retract those but it is on note when he had a solicitor that he further made admissions but retracted them again.

“There were aspects of what he said in his interviews which were not matters of public knowledge such as Diane Sindall’s clothing and that the body had been dragged. While on remand he repeated his confession to another prisoner. Also while going through the process he said he could not admit to her what he had done.”

Regarding bite mark evidence, Mr Atkinson says evidence given in court heard there was no doubt that Mr Sullivan had caused the marks, while a second expert agreed.

He says: “At the time of the trial, the evidence was regarded as expert evidence and supported the prosecution case but was never the sole or decisive evidence."

He continues: “At his trial he gave evidence and said at the time of the events in question he had been playing darts and had left with a woman and her mother to go and get fish and chips. He said he had not been to Bidston Hill and had not gone to his neighbours for a crowbar.

“He said his confession which had not been recorded was as a result of assault and verbal abuse by the officers. He said he could not remember confessing to another prisoner on remand.”

The crown outlines case against Sullivan in the 1980s

Duncan Atkinson KC stands for the crown and begins his case.

He says: “We recognise it is for the court to determine the safety of the conviction. We do not oppose the admission of the evidence and we do not seek to argue that the fresh DNA evidence does not undermine the safety of the conviction.”

Mr Atkinson begins to outline the background of the offence. He says Ms Sindall suffered extensive injuries during the attack and some of her possessions were missing but found partially burned. The court hears the jewellery remained on the body.

Mr Atkinson says: “In terms of the evidence that identified this appellant, he had been seen on the evening in question at a public house a ten minute walk from the scene and had left the location at a time which allowed him to reach the location.

“In terms of the evidence disposed of on Bidston Hill, two witnesses described him as being at that location. At the time of the investigation there was information which implicated him by his partner. There was evidence from a neighbour that he had borrowed a crowbar shortly before the murder and had returned it.

“It was confirmed as a possible candidate for causing the fracture. There was fibre evidence that identified the brown fibres found at the scene could have originated from a garment found at the appellant’s address. It was noted he had left the area and gone to London between the murder and his identification as a suspect.”

Sullivan's counsel tells the court the submissions render the conviction unsafe

Lord Justice Holroyde says: “Many of the points you have made about unreliability are obvious from reading the interview logs. They could have been and were the subject of evidence at the trial. There has been no change in that since the appeal in 2021.

The second aspect is a significant part of the report is to do with the psychology of the appellant, but a critique of how the police went about their work. What is the basis of the relevance of that? You can’t call an expert to give commentary about how the police did their job.

Mr Pitter says he takes the point that there is more critique than was before the jury but the submissions are more about the psychology of the defendant. He says: “How do you divorce it from the scientific evidence? Whatever concerns you have about the report, at the end of the day it is underpinned by the scientific evidence.”

Mr Pitter says the three points render the conviction unsafe.

Court hears Sullivan was 'extremely vulnerable in interview'

Mr Pitter turns to the reliability of Sullivan’s confessions and the retraction of the statements.

He says: “The short point is this, the significant admissions took part outside of a recorded interview so not in accordance with the codes of practice.

“We say it should not have occurred, but the real point is considering the fairness of this material being before the jury in those circumstances where there were those features, bearing in inherent unreliability.”

Mr Pitter says there is evidence of the defendant giving blatantly wrong answers and inconsistencies. He says Sullivan was also a known fantasist.

He continues: “This feature about the appellant is his ability to adopt features presented to him as part of his own narrative, and that includes features that were in the public domain.

“The appellant was extremely vulnerable in an interview situation because of his limited intellectual functioning and his ability to be influenced, manipulated and controlled, and his ability to engage in make believe.

“We those aspects make the admissions unreliable. I’m not saying this is the beginning and end of it but one has to consider the sufficient evidence now.

“That consideration that he was not awarded an appropriate adult, that would happen now. In the very beginning, in those early stages, he was denied legal representation. The reason at the time was an anxiety that the solicitor may have disclosed important information into the public domain. We do not envisage that happening today.

“The third aspect was during the early stages the interviews were unrecorded. As we say, the importance of that is the first significant admissions occurred in a single day over the course of four interviews.”

Sullivan's legal team say bitemark evidence 'not a reliable form of science'

Mr Pitter continues: “The headline point with the bitemark evidence to use simple language and the admissibility of the confession evidence would have been impossible for any court to consider in light of that very important scientific evidence which of itself underlines the liability.”

He says: “The new evidence that adds to what has been considered already has amplified the evidence put before the Court of Appeal on previous occasions.”

Lord Justice Holroyde says: “One of the awful features of the case is the breadth of the injuries and the prosecution’s case was those injuries were caused by biting and the basis of the evidence was the particular dentition of Mr Sullivan could be matched to the marks of the injury.”

Quoting new expert evidence, Mr Pitter says: “There is no scientific basis for the identification of human bitemarks on skin. It is not a reliable form of science. I’m not saying it can never have relevance but for that pure purpose of identification it would not be reliable.

“There is an additional feature that would impact a jury that the evidence in this case was of the poorest quality. We recognise that may not be accepted. That is the principle basis that the evidence should not have been relied upon…It does not have that ability to prove what was proved in a criminal case.”

Lord Justice Holroyde says: “I understand the opinion that you can’t and shouldn’t try to use bitemark evidence for a basis of positive identification, but what isn’t clear is if the expert would argue against any use of it.”

Mr Pitter says he can’t answer the question, but adds much would have to depend on the nature of the consistency and the nature of the other evidence. He says in a case like this it highlights the dangers of the evidence.

'Development in science and the passage of time' helped Sullivan's case

Lord Justice Holroyde says: “The primary role of the court is to determine if the conviction is unsafe. This court has to reflect on the likely impact on a jury if the evidence was readily available at the time.”

Mr Pitter responds - “In very simple terms, those are the submissions we make with the scientific evidence.

“We recognise that to highlight the point there was a stage when if the analysis had taken place earlier than it did it ran the risk of destroying the sample altogether.

“We have the right answers now. We do recognise and so does Mr Sullivan that the development in science and the passage of time has assisted his case.”

Semen DNA does not match Sullivan

Mr Pitter tells the court: “What was an awful offence and murder in appalling circumstances involved a sexual assault and as part of that semen left by the perpetrator.

“At the time the matter was before the court there was not the scientific capabilities to carry out analysis of that material.

“What has occurred since 2024 is an analysis carried out which led to the conclusion that the DNA profile from the semen samples could be attributed to an unknown. This positively goes the other way and says it’s not the defendant’s.

“The prosecution’s case was this was one person who carried out the assault on the victim and the evidence here now is that this one person was not the defendant.

“There was no evidence to suggest there was more than one person and if there was, there is the absence of the defendant’s DNA.”

Mr Pitter says “we don’t see how it could have passed a threshold for a prosecution.”

He continues: “When one looks at the horrific circumstances of the murder, whoever was responsible for it was also responsible for the semen. There were features in the injuries to the deceased that point to that.”

Court begins

The judges are in court and proceedings begin.

Mr Pitter, for Sullivan and the CCRC, stands and says: “38 years down the line and it’s a question about what has occurred in more recent times.”

The court hears the parties are in agreement about the principle ground but it remains an issue for the Court of Appeal for the safety of the conviction.

The court hears the challenge is principally about new DNA evidence, as well as bite marks and how Sullivan made and retracted his statements.

Who is who in the busy courtroom

We are now in position at the Court of Appeal.

Sullivan, wearing a pale buttoned shirt and glasses and sporting short cropped hair and grey stubble, appears to the Court from HMP Wakefield.

The judges sitting in the Court of Appeal today are Lord Justice Holroyde, Mr Justice Goss and Mr Justice Bryan.

Sullivan is represented by Jason Pitter KC and junior James Littlehales.

The crown is represented by Duncan Atkinson KC and junior Lyndon Harris.

The courtroom is packed with no spare seat available.

What Sullivan's new case is

Sullivan last year took his case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to raise concerns about his interviews by the police, bitemark evidence presented at his trial and what was said to be the murder weapon.

Following his new application, the CCRC decided it important to revisit the possibility of new DNA testing. After testing, they obtained DNA information from samples taken at the time of the offence. The DNA does not match Sullivan's, and the case has now been sent back to the Court of Appeal.

Sullivan’s previous attempts to prove his innocence

Sullivan has previously applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) in 2008 raising questions about the DNA evidence, but forensic experts said further testing was unlikely to reveal a profile.

He had applied directly to the High Court for permission to appeal against his conviction in 2019 over the bite mark evidence, but this was rejected by the Court of Appeal on the basis that it was "not central to his conviction".

Who was Diane Sindall?

Ms Sindall worked as a florist and a barmaid and was engaged to be married. She loved food and cooking and had lots of friends. Her mum later described her as a “vivacious, bubbly, happy-go-lucky girl”.

On the night of her death she had worked a late shift and was driving home when her van ran out of petrol. Ms Sindall was stripped almost naked in the attack and was beaten with a crowbar before she was dragged into an alleyway and sexually assaulted during a “frenzied attack”.

The death of Ms Sindall led to the foundation of the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Merseyside, more commonly known as RASA, which has grown into an experienced and vital organisation offering care to victims of sexual violence across the north west.

Who is Peter Sullivan?

Before Ms Sindall’s death, Sullivan had accumulated 18 convictions for minor offences such as petty theft and stealing cars and had served time in prison.

On the night of Ms Sindall’s death, the unemployed dad-of-one had played darts at the Crown Hotel in Conway Street, Birkenhead, before leaving at 11.30pm after drinking heavily.

Sullivan, who was described as a “quiet loner”, confessed to the crime but later retracted it.

Hello and welcome to our coverage

Hello and welcome to our coverage of Peter Sullivan’s Court of Appeal hearing. Sullivan was convicted of the murder of Diane Sindall in 1987.

The case is notorious in Merseyside for the brutality of her murder and the two-month manhunt that eventually led to the conviction of Sullivan.

Sullivan, who initially confessed to the crime before retracting his statement, has maintained his innocence. He has remained in prison for 38 years.

However, the discovery of DNA that was not his found at the scene has paved the way for a criminal cases review that could see Sullivan, now 68, become the victim of the longest-running miscarriage of justice affecting a prisoner in UK history.