Thomas Dunkley
On the 9th of May 2013 at Leicester Crown Court, Thomas Dunkley was convicted of murdering Shaun Cummins. He had previously pleaded guilty to one count of preventing lawful burial of Mr Cummins' body and to four further counts of fraud relating to Mr Cummins' finances. He received the mandatory life sentence for murder.
There were several issues we raised with the CCRC.
The frequent use of the words 'killing' and 'murder' in the judge's summing up. We felt this was leading the jury. The CCRC said that it was acceptable because she was setting out the prosecution case. This didn't explain why she used the terms throughout.
The trial was held in Leicester, which was to our disadvantage because of Tom's fears for our safety. Tom did not want any of us to be witnesses. This proved to be a mistake because we could have told his counsel about the £1,000 Tom had borrowed from me to give to Mr Cummins as his share of their gym business. Mr Mason should have given Tom better advice.
Mr Mason KC made the decision that Tom was able to instruct him despite knowing about the psychotic episode he suffered whilst on remand. This is all recorded in his medical notes.
The omission of evidence that Tom had given £1,000 to Mr Cummins. The CCRC admits that the judge didn't inform the jury that Tom was involved in the gym but felt that this is no longer admissible..
The speed of the trial, which lasted just 8 days, was allotted at the preliminary hearing to fit in with lawyer's holidays. We felt that it was presumed to be a foregone conclusion that he was guilty.
The assumption that Internet searches were for murder rather than suicide. We now know it wasn't depression but a serious psychotic illness that he is still undergoing treatment for. The CCRC stated that Tom's depression and suicidal thoughts had been squarely put before the jury.
We also asked why, despite evidence of a sharps box, Mr Cummins' use of anabolic steroids was ignored. What happened to this box? Why didn't Professor Vanezis investigate this possible cause of death? We are also concerned that Professor Vanezis may have mislead the jury. Can his assertion that a cause of death couldn't be found be trusted? Why didn't his barrister challenge this? The CCRC did not comment on this.
We accept that on some of them, such as perceived bias in the judge's summing up is common practice.
Our main objections were that his barrister ignored the psychotic episode Tom had whilst on remand and decided, with no medical training, that Tom was fit to instruct him. There was no mental health assessment made, either by the police after his arrest or by his legal team. Because of this, Tom was unable to recall important evidence that should have been put before the jury. We feel it is imperative that a mental health assessment is made and revealed to the jury irrespective of their plea. What happened to 'the truth, the whole truth'? Surely to arrive at a fair and balanced verdict they should know the state of mind of the accused? This assessment should of course be carried out by an independent psychiatrist. The CCRC say his legal team should have raised the matters, and they are no longer admissible.
We also believe Professor Vanezis held too much sway in the court. He made suggestions about stabbing that he must have known wasn't possible. The pathologist for the defence, who was rarely called, told the jury exactly why it was impossible. He was not called to give his opinion on smothering of a 23 stone man by a 9 stone one.
There is far too much detail to go into here but of course Tom's mental state is of no consequence according to the CCRC because he pleaded not guilty. Tom believed in the Justice System and knew that no evidence of murder would be found. It wasn't.
How can a civilised court, which admitted there was only circumstantial evidence, offer a few half-cocked, unsubstantiated guesses, withhold relevant evidence and then hand down a sentence of 34 years?
His trial was lazy, hurried, biased, conducted mainly by a junior barrister against an experienced prosecutor and an utter sham.
My lovely son was convicted by a majority of 10:2. So, even with the omissions, a silver tongued prosecutor, and a slippery professor, the jury wasn't entirely convinced.
By Diana Lyddon
Please let us know if you think that there is a mistake in this article, explaining what you think is wrong and why. We will correct any errors as soon as possible.
Comments