An Application By The Lord Advocate Under Section 4(3)(b) Of The Double Jeopardy (scotland) Act 2011 Seeking Authority To Bring A New Prosecution In The High Court Agains Sean Patrick Tiffney
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Menzies,Lady Dorrian,Lord Brodie |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] HCJAC 4 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Docket Number | HCA/2018/17/XM |
| Date | 20 January 2022 |
| Published date | 24 January 2022 |
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
[2022] HCJAC 4
HCA/2018/17/XM
Lord Justice Clerk
Lord Menzies
Lord Brodie
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LADY DORRIAN, the LORD JUSTICE CLERK
in
An Application
by
THE LORD ADVOCATE UNDER SECTION 4(3)(B) OF THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY
(SCOTL AND) ACT 2011 SEEKING AUTHORITY TO BRING A NEW PROSECUTION IN
THE HIGH COURT
Appellant
against
SEAN PATRICK TIFFNEY known as SEAN PATRICK FLYNN
Respondent
Appellant: S McCall QC; G Jones; Roy Harley & Co, Edinburgh
Respondent: A Prentice QC, Sol Adv, L Thomson; Crown Agent
9 January 2020
Background
[1] In 2005, at the High Court of Justiciary in Perth, the respondent stood trial for the
murder of his mother Louise Tiffney and the crime of attempting to defeat the ends of
justice. Louise Tiffney was last seen alive on 27 May 2002. At the time of the respondent’s
2
trial in February and March 2005, Ms Tiffney’s body had not been located. While her
disappearance was initially treated as a missing person enquiry, it developed in to a murder
enquiry. The Crown case against the respondent was based on circumstantial evidence. In
March 2005 the jury returned, by a majority, a not proven verdict.
[2] In th is application the Crown seek to set aside the acquittal and grant authority to
bring a new prosecution against the respondent under section 4(3)(b) of the Double
Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011, on the basis of new physical evidence, that was not available,
and could not with the exercise of reasonable diligence have been made available, at the
trial. This evidence relates to the finding of the remains of Ms Tiffney in East Lothian, and
evidence relating to the comparison of soil samples from that location with samples
recovered durin g the initial investigation from a vehicle used by the respondent.
Introduction
[3] On 2 April 2017 human skeletal remains were found by a member of the public at a
wooded area at the side of the A198 Longniddry, East Lothian. Following dental and DNA
analysis the remains were identified as those of Louise Tiffney. The cause of her death is
unascertainable. At the time of recovery of the remains samples of soil and vegetation from
the deposition site were taken. In the course of the original investigation debris from inter
alia the front wheel arch of a Nissan Almera vehicle registered number N656 FSX (“the
Nissan Almera”), to which the respondent had access, was removed in July 2002.
[4] The application asserts that a comparison of the samples taken from the deposition
site with tho se taken from the vehicle, specifically with that from the front wheel arch of the
vehicle (sample X295) has shown them to have inter alia, similar grain size, shape and
elemental composition . The morphology, chemistry, mineralogy and organic profile of
3
sample X295 are said to show strong to very strong comparability with samples from the
deposition site. Its n-alkane profile is said to provide extremely strong support for the
proposition that it came from the site where the remains were located.
[5] It is averred that the additional evidence substantially strengthens the case against
the respondent such that it meets the test for authorisation of a fresh prosecution, which
would be in the public interest. First, the location of the remains is consistent with the
CCTV and telephony evidence led at trial to suggest that the respondent had made two trips
to East Lot hian on the day of 28 May 2002, once in the early hours of the morning, and later
in the mid to late mornin g. The Crown case was that the first trip was to dispose of the
body, and the second was to see that it was not visible during daylight hours. Second, the
scientific evidence establishes a link between the Nissan Almera and the deposition site.
Third, the remains are not inconsistent with death having occurred in May 2002.
[6] Th is is contested for the respondent, who relies on scientific evidence that whilst it
would be safe to conclude that the soil forming exhibit X295 could have been derived from
the body recovery location, it is also possible that there may be other locations within East
Loth ian which would have a mineralogical and vegetation profile (and therefore organic
markers) similar to that of the deposition site. It is also maintained that the scientific
evidence advanced by the Crown does not provide a sound basis for the conclusions sought
to be drawn therefrom.
Evidence at trial
[7] The Crown sought to attempt to establish that Ms Tiffney was dead by excluding all
other possibilities. The case presented was based on circumstantial evidence.
To continue reading
Request your trial