R v Gilfoyle
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE BELDAM |
| Judgment Date | 20 October 1995 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1995] EWCA Crim J1020-5 |
| Docket Number | No. 93/4116/W4 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 20 October 1995 |
[1995] EWCA Crim J1020-5
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Before: Lord Justice Beldam Mr Justice Scott Baker and Mr Justice Hidden
No. 93/4116/W4
MR M MANSFIELD QC & MR J H GREGORY appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR R KLEVAN QC & MR B LEWIS appeared on behalf of the Crown
Friday 20th October 1995
In the Crown Court at Liverpool on 3rd July 1994, after a trial lasting a month, the jury convicted the appellant, Norman Edward Gilfoyle, of the murder of his wife Paula. The appellant now appeals against his conviction, claiming that the verdict of the jury was unsafe and unsatisfactory.
The grounds of appeal originally settled by trial counsel were:
(1)That the judge had wrongly rejected the defence submission of no case.
(2)That the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory.
Counsel asserted that the jury had been asked to speculate when the evidence provided no basis for sure inference.
In November 1993, the appellant's sister, Mrs Susan Caddick, submitted a file to the court criticising the way in which the case was investigated, the evidence given and the prosecution "theory". In the course of 108 pages she expressed her conviction that the appellant has been the victim of a grave miscarriage of justice. Although we were not referred to her file in the appeal, we have had her criticisms in mind where they impinged on the issues argued before us.
Mr Mansfield QC presented the appeal. In addition to the original grounds, he asked the Court to receive further evidence which, if believed, would increase the lurking doubt about the safety of the appellant's conviction. The Crown objected to our hearing this evidence because it had been available to the defence at the trial and there was no reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it. We decided to receive the evidence of some of the witnesses whose statements were tendered.
As the appellant had stressed the inadequacy of the evidence and the speculative nature of the Crown's theory, we invited argument whether it was open to the Court to receive other evidence available to the Crown but not called which, if true, could have helped to dispel the suggestion that the case against the appellant was mere speculation. We decided that we had the power to do so and that the evidence in question, which, after scant discussion at trial had been rejected as inadmissible, was relevant and admissible, but as the argument developed, on the appeal as a whole we did not find it necessary to receive it.
To explain the issues raised, we must relate the facts in some detail.
The appellant, known as Eddie Gilfoyle, was 31 years old and had served in the Army in the Royal Army Medical Corps. He left the Army and in 1991 to began to work as an auxiliary nurse at the Murrayfield Hospital run by BUPA in the Wirral. His job was to sterilize and prepare surgical instruments to be used in operations. Paula Gilfoyle was the appellant's second wife. They were married in June 1989. Paula had lived all her life in the Upton area of Merseyside and on leaving school was employed locally at the Champion Spark Plug factory in Upton. She was still employed there when she died. She also ran a catalogue mail order business from her home.
The appellant and Paula set up home at 44 Sherlock Lane, Wallasey, but in June 1991 they decided to buy 6 Grafton Drive, Upton, a house which needed considerable renovation before they could live there together; so they moved in with Paula's parents. In the autumn of 1991 the appellant started to live in 6 Grafton Drive on his own so that he could spend more time working on the house. Paula remained at her parents' home and from time to time the appellant returned there to stay with her. Towards the end of October Paula became pregnant. Her pregnancy was confirmed on 11th November 1991 by her general practitioner who estimated that the date of her confinement would be 18th or 19th June 1992. She was referred to the care of Mr Alderman, a consultant gynaecologist.
Earlier that summer the appellant had started an amorous liaison with Sandra Davies who also worked at Murrayfield Hospital. He told her he was separated from his wife, and in due course invited her to move into 6 Grafton Drive with him. Paula's pregnancy, however, put his plans in jeopardy for he felt constrained to tell Sandra Davies, who, by this time, had informed her husband that she was leaving him for the appellant. Sandra Davies had believed the appellant when he had told her that he no longer loved his wife and that they were to be divorced. She felt betrayed and broke off the relationship. At about this time the appellant told Paula of his affair with Sandra Davies, giving her to believe that it was not a physical attachment. He also told her that Sandra Davies was going to move into their new home and, on hearing this, Paula forthwith moved into 6 Grafton Drive and telephoned Sandra Davies warning her to have no further contact with the appellant. The appellant, however, continued to try to resume his relationship with Sandra Davies. He sent her a Valentine card in February 1992 but she rebuffed his advances. Then in April 1992 he produced to her a letter which, he said, had been written by Paula to him stating that he was not the father of the child she was bearing and that she had been having an affair for some 14 months with a man called Nigel. Though this letter was undoubtedly written by Paula, there was much in it which could be shown to be untrue. Paula had been seen with no-one, nor were any of her close friends aware of such a relationship. After her death the name Nigel and a telephone number were found in her address book, but it turned out to refer to Nigel Stonehouse, whose fiancee was Paula's friend since school days and a catalogue customer who had given Paula his number so that she could let her know when goods she had ordered had arrived. His name seems to have been selected at random to be cast in the role of fictional father. The true father of Paula's child was proved unquestionably to be the appellant, as he well knew and had accepted throughout the pregnancy.
This letter, dubbed at the trial "the Nigel letter", was the forerunner of three notes also written by Paula in which she expressed an intention to take her own life. The notes, however, were irreconcilable with all outward appearances of Paula's demeanour and behaviour: she appeared exuberant, happy and looking forward to the birth of her child, making plans for the future. She shared her obvious happiness with family and friends, showing them the clothes she had bought for the baby when it arrived. She attended all her ante-natal appointments except the last one before the expected date of her confinement. It was arranged for the early afternoon of 4th June 1992. She did not keep that appointment. At about 7.30 that evening she was found hanging from a beam in the garage at 6 Grafton Drive. The appellant produced one of the notes in which she had expressed an intention to take her own life. It was assumed that it was a case of suicide.
The coroner's officer attended and, noticing no obvious suspicious circumstances, arranged for the body to be cut down. The police surgeon, Doctor Robins, arrived and for his records took three photographs of the body as it lay on the floor of the garage. The photographs show that Paula was casually dressed in jeans and a football shirt, and that a ligature around her neck was so tight as to be invisible. Paula's body was taken to the local hospital where a postmortem confirmed that the cause of death was strangulation by hanging. To outward appearances it was a case of suicide but, as later was accepted on all sides, a most unlikely suicide for Paula had taken not only her own life but that of the child she was expecting in two weeks time.
Two days later events occurred which cast an entirely different complexion on Paula's death suggesting that the suicide had been counterfeited by the appellant. A more detailed investigation into the circumstances was put in train which eventually led to his conviction for murder.
On the morning of Friday, 5th June 1992, Mrs Mallion a friend of Paula's went with her husband David, a close friend of the appellant, to seek the advice of a solicitor. Mrs Mallion had heard that Paula had committed suicide. She found it incredible and, recalling a conversation she had had at work with Paula about two months previously, she was seeking advice as to what she should do. She was advised to go to the police. That evening she contacted Detective Sergeant Lancaster Smith who eventually went to see them on Saturday. In the result Diane Mallion made a statement on Monday, 8th June, which contained the following passage:
"I think it was about April 1992 when I was in work and went to speak to Paula. Her pregnancy was showing by now and I passed a remark to this effect. She seemed quite normal but then said to me that she was '… a bit worried, Eddie's frightening me'. I asked her what she meant. Paula then told me that Eddie was doing a suicide course at work and he needed to speak to someone who was contemplating suicide and the different ways they would do it and as to how they would feel at the time. Paula then continued by telling me that Eddie had said to her that they would have to leave notes. She continued by telling me that Eddie had asked of her what she would put in a note. She said that she wouldn't know what to put down. She told me that Eddie said that he would tell her what to put down and he went and got pen and paper....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Stovin and Another v Norfolk County Council
-
Eastman v R
...in part, it has followed the decision of the Court of Appeal to adopt a more flexible approach to the discretion so conferred. Thus in R v Gilfoyle283 that Court saw no difficulty in interpreting its powers even to include one of receiving fresh evidence ‘of its own initiative’ 284 where it......
-
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar
...NZLR 405 at 409; R v Robb (1991) 93 Cr App R 161 at 166; O'Kelly Holdings Pty Ltd v Dalrymple Holdings Pty Ltd (1993) 45 FCR 145 at 155; R v Gilfoyle [2001] 2 Cr App R 57 at 67 [24]; R v Luttrell [2004] 2 Cr App R 520 at 539 120 (1998) 87 FCR 371 at 373–374 (emphasis added). 121 (2002) 55 I......
-
R v Reed; R v Garmson
...to be the test in the United States in Frye v US 293 F 1013 (1923) and the consideration of it by this Court in R v Gilfoyle (no2) [2001] 2 Cr App R 57, referred to at paragraph 29 with approval to a passage set out in Cross and Tapper: The Law of Evidence now to be found at page 580�1 of t......
-
Subject Index
.... . . 289R vGibb [2007] QCA191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .280R vGibbins [2004] EWCACrim 311 . . . . . . . . . 283R vGilfoyle [1996] 1Cr App R302 . . . . . . . . . . . . 81R vGordon [1995] 1Cr App R290, CA . . . . . . . 201R v Governor of Pentonville Prison, ex p. Osman[1990]1 WLR ......
-
Subject Index
......................................106R v George [2002] EWCA Crim 1923,The Times (30 August 2002) ..... 130–6R v Gilfoyle [2001] 2 Cr App R 57, CA........................................ 172, 176, 180R v Governor of Brixton Prison, ex p.Osman (1991) 93 Cr App R 202 .. 122R v Gowland-Wynn [2......
-
Expert Evidence of Delay in Complaint in Childhood Sexual Abuse Prosecutions
...[2004] EWCA Crim 1344 at [32], approving the quotation from Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45 above, text accompanying n. 23. 32 Gilfoyle [2001] 2 Cr. App. R. 57 at [25], CA.33 Luttrell [2004] EWCA Crim 1344 at [34].34 See above, text accompanying nn. 10–12.35 Freckelton, above n. 14 at 31. See al......
-
Expert Testimony in the Dock
...and Rv Dallagher [2003] 1 Cr App R 195 are receptive to the admission of minority and/or ‘new’ science. In juxtaposition, Rv Gilfoyle [2001] 2 Cr App R 57 and R vO’Doherty [2003] 1 Cr App R 5 adopt a much more stringent approach. If theavoidance of miscarriages of justice is the salient aim......