Are you OK with cookies?

We use small files called ‘cookies’ on ccrc.gov.uk. Some are essential to make the site work, some help us to understand how we can improve your experience, and some are set by third parties. You can choose to turn off the non-essential cookies. Which cookies are you happy for us to use?

Skip to content

Sullivan, Peter

Published:

Peter Sullivan was found guilty in 1987 of the murder of Diane Sindall and given a life sentence. Ms Sindall was found dead on 2 August 1986 after leaving her place of work in Bebington, Merseyside. 

Mr Sullivan applied to the CCRC in March 2021 raising concerns about his interviews by the police, bitemark evidence presented in his trial, and what was said to be the murder weapon. After consulting experts, the CCRC obtained DNA information from samples taken at the time of the offence. 

As a result, a DNA profile was obtained which did not match Mr Sullivan. The CCRC therefore sent Mr Sullivan’s conviction back to the Court of Appeal. 

There was also evidence to suggest there were possible breaches of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), which regulates police activities, in relation to the interviews, as Mr Sullivan was not provided with an appropriate adult and was denied initial legal representation.  

Mr Sullivan had previously applied to the CCRC in 2008 questioning DNA evidence. Experts from the Forensic Science Service (FSS) advised that any further testing would be very unlikely to produce a DNA profile. Mr Sullivan’s case was not referred to the Court of Appeal by the CCRC. When Mr Sullivan applied to the CCRC in 2008 he still had a direct avenue of appeal open to him. 

Mr Sullivan sought leave to appeal directly in 2019, without CCRC involvement, but this was rejected by the Court of Appeal in 2021. The Court determined that the bitemark evidence, on which he was appealing his conviction, was not central to the prosecution at trial, but the CCRC has now found evidence which suggests that it was. 

When Mr Sullivan re-applied, the CCRC decided to revisit the possibility of DNA testing.