Murder conviction sent to the Court of Appeal after analysis of new DNA evidence

A man’s murder conviction has been referred to the Court of Appeal on the basis of new DNA evidence. 

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 Criminal Cases Review Commission (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 has now sent Mr Sullivan’s conviction back to the courts. 

There is 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. 

[ENDS] 

Notes to editors 

1. Once a referral has been made by the CCRC to the Court of Appeal, the handling of the case becomes a matter for the Court. The CCRC is, therefore, unable to comment further on the details of this case until any court proceedings have concluded. 

2. The CCRC is an independent body set up under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. It is responsible for independently reviewing suspected and alleged miscarriages of criminal justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is based in Birmingham and is funded by the Ministry of Justice.    

3. There are currently 10 Commissioners who bring to the CCRC considerable experience from a wide variety of backgrounds. Commissioners are appointed by the Monarch on the recommendation of the Prime Minister in accordance with the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ Code of Practice.  The Chairman, who is also a Commissioner, is not involved in the casework decision-making process.     

4. The CCRC usually receives around 1,500 applications for reviews (convictions and/or sentences) each year. Since starting work in 1997, the CCRC has referred around 3% of applications to the appeal courts.    

5. The CCRC considers whether, as a result of new evidence or argument, there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld were a reference to be made. New evidence or argument is argument or evidence which has not been raised during the trial or on appeal.  Applicants should usually have appealed first. A case can be referred in the absence of new evidence or argument or an earlier appeal only if there are “exceptional circumstances”.    

6. If a case is referred, it is then for the appeal court to decide whether the conviction is unsafe.        

7. More details about the role and work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission can be found at www.ccrc.gov.uk. The CCRC can be found on Twitter @ccrcupdate and Instagram the_ccrc