New DNA could be 'pivotal' in 1986 murder appeal

Peter Sullivan, who has spent 38 years in prison for murder, hopes new DNA evidence will help clear his name

The recent discovery of crime-scene DNA from an unknown man could be a "pivotal moment" in an appeal by a convicted murderer who has been in prison since 1987, his lawyers have said.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has been given a month to declare whether it will contest Peter Sullivan's appeal against his conviction for killing 21-year-old Diane Sindall in Birkenhead, Merseyside, in August 1986.

If exonerated, the 67-year-old would likely be the victim of the UK's longest miscarriage of justice involving a living inmate.

At a short hearing at the Court of Appeal in London, the CPS said it did not dispute the results of new forensic tests that had uncovered DNA from sperm cells.

'Ambushed while walking home'

Sullivan watched impassively via video-link from HMP Wakefield, speaking only to confirm he could hear the proceedings.

In a statement issued after the hearing, his solicitor Sarah Myatt from law firm Switalskis told the BBC: "This is a pivotal moment in the case, one that Mr Sullivan has campaigned for over many years, consistently maintaining his innocence.

"He remains hopeful that his conviction will be overturned and that he'll finally be found innocent after serving more than 38 years in prison."

Shortly after midnight on 2 August 1986, Miss Sindall was ambushed while walking home from the Wellington pub in Bebington, where she worked as a barmaid.

Police believe Miss Sindall was walking after her van had run out out of petrol.

Her body was found that afternoon in an alley off Borough Road.

Detectives at the time described her injuries as the "worst they had ever seen".

Peter Sullivan was jailed in 1987

Some of the 21-year-old's belongings were later found burnt in woodland on Bidston Hill, about five miles away.

Sullivan was arrested and repeatedly interviewed without having a solicitor present.

While he initially admitted killing Miss Sindall, he then retracted his confession.

Sullivan's conviction was based upon the confession, as well as circumstantial evidence relating to his whereabouts, and the assertion that a bite mark suffered by Ms Sindall appeared to match his teeth.

After he was found guilty, Sullivan was advised he had no grounds for appeal.

His first application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) - the body set up to look for potential miscarriages of justice - was rejected in 2008.

He applied again in 2021, after having first tried to persuade the Court of Appeal to re-examine his case.

The CCRC then carried out new forensics work, leading to the discovery of an unknown man's DNA.

Diane Sindall, 21, had been due to get married

Experts believe it originated from traces of semen that had been recovered from the crime scene.

Merseyside Police has reopened the case and detectives are now trying to identify this other man.

The force said the new sample did not match any stored on the national database used by police.

A spokesman said it had begun the process of writing to men identified in the original investigation, and inviting them to give voluntary DNA samples for elimination purposes.

Duncan Atkinson KC told the Court of Appeal that the CPS had obtained its own expert advice on the new DNA evidence.

"We sought time to seek a second opinion and we have done that," said Mr Atkinson.

"That [advice] does not disagree with the work that has been done on behalf of the appellant.

"We ask for a little more time to prepare a respondent's notice. This is a very old case and we are conscious of the need for expedition."

Lord Justice Holroyde, who oversees many of the Court of Appeal's most complex and controversial miscarriage of justice applications, said the Crown would have until 4 April to set out its position, with the case to be heard again before Easter.

"New evidence establishes the presence of DNA from an unknown male believed to have originated from sperm cells," the senior judge said.

"It would not be appropriate at this (hearing) to express any opinion on the merits of the appeal or whether fresh evidence can be admitted."