Peter Sullivan cries as judges quash murder conviction after 38 years

Peter Sullivan was convicted of the murder of Diane Sindall in 1987, but always maintained his innocence

A man convicted of the murder of a bride-to-be cried as he had his conviction quashed after 38 years in prison. Peter Sullivan, now 68, was convicted of murdering and sexually assaulting barmaid and florist Diane Sindall in an alleyway in Birkenhead on August 1 1986 and has since languished in a category A prison.

But appearing before the Court of Appeal today, Tuesday, May 13, Mr Sullivan had his conviction overturned after new scientific evidence found the presence of a different DNA profile on semen recovered from Ms Sindall's body. The quashing of the conviction makes Mr Sullivan, who was 30 at the time of Ms Sindall's murder, the victim of the longest-running miscarriage of justice affecting a living prisoner in UK history.

The court heard Mr Sullivan's legal challenge, which was supported by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), was built upon three submissions - a DNA profile left by the attacker which did not match Mr Sullivan, bite mark evidence and the admissibility of his confessions.

Duncan Atkinson KC, representing the crown, told the court: "Had this DNA evidence been available, it is difficult to see how the decision would have been made to prosecute." When asked whether he could conceive of a basis on which Mr Sullivan would have been prosecuted if the DNA evidence was available at the time, Mr Atkinson replied: "No."

Lord Justice Holroyde, sitting with Mr Justice Goss and Mr Justice Bryan, told Mr Sullivan: "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."

Mr Sullivan, who appeared in court via video link to HMP Wakefield wearing a buttoned shirt and glasses and sporting short grey hair and beard, held his hand to his mouth and cried as the judges said he must be released from custody. Members of the public embraced and one woman tearfully said "we’ve done it".

Jason Pitter KC, for Mr Sullivan and the CCRC, told 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 added Mr Sullivan understood that the developments in science and the passage of time had assisted his case."

Mr Pitter also submitted to the court that expert evidence showed that bite mark analysis was "not a reliable form of science". He said: "I’m not saying it can never have relevance but for that pure purpose of identification it would not be reliable."

Mr Pitter added that new submissions included evidence that Mr Sullivan was "extremely vulnerable" during his police interviews and "gave blatantly wrong answers and inconsistencies". Mr Pitter said the appellant was "influenced, manipulated and controlled" which made the confessions, given during the early interviews which were unrecorded and without legal representation, unsafe.

However, Mr Atkinson said the Crown Prosecution Service rejected the grounds for appeal linked to the bite mark evidence and the conduct of the police interviews. He said while the bite mark evidence should not have been presented to the jury in such "emphatic" terms, there was still circumstantial evidence against Mr Sullivan.

Referring to the bite mark evidence, he said: "It was part of the evidential picture that even if that was put to one side, the jury would nevertheless have had the remainder of the, at that time, cogent circumstantial case to consider."

Lord Justice Holroyde told the court: "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 he does not seek to argue against the DNA evidence. Further, if the appeal was allowed, no application will be made for a retrial."

The three judges dismissed the bite mark and confession evidence as it would not have resulted in a different conclusion during previous court hearings. But, Lord Justice Holroyde finished: "However we receive as fresh evidence, we allow the appeal on ground one and quash the conviction."

Ms Sindall had run out of petrol while driving home from a bar shift and was understood to have decided to walk to the nearest garage to fill up a jerrycan. But she was set upon, sexually assaulted and beaten to death with a crowbar during a "frenzied attack".

Her body was found partially clothed at the entrance to an overgrown alleyway off Borough Road in Birkenhead on August 2 1986. A post-mortem found a catalogue of injuries including a fractured skull, multiple jaw fractures, severe bite marks and evidence of mutilation.

A pile of her clothes were found partially burned. Sullivan was arrested after a two-month manhunt which included a BBC Crimewatch appeal in a murder that became known as the "Mersey ripper" case. He was sentenced to life in prison after his trial in 1987.

The court heard Mr Sullivan had previously applied to the 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".