#5 John Morris and Paul Dalling reply to the CCRC rejection of the application for David Morris and the Clydach murders
Editors note: The text from the CCRC rejection letter is in bold below. The responses on behalf of John Morris and Paul Dalling are in red.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 7 October 2026
Your ref: XXXX
Customer Service Officer
Criminal Cases Review Commission
23 Stephenson Street
Birmingham
B2 4BH
Dear Sirs,
Re: Formal Complaint - David George Morris
I acknowledge receipt of your Statement of Reasons dated 14 August 2026 setting out your explanations as to why you have decided not to refer Mr. David George Morris’s conviction for appeal, that your decision is final and that the case is now closed.
I believe that you have not investigated the application properly.
I have answered each of your reasons for rejecting teh application on a section by section basis – please consider same.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards
John Morris
Co-author of: Force of Evil: Crossing the thin blue line to murder (The Clydach Murders)
For, and on behalf of, Paul Dalling
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CCRC has decided not to send this conviction for an appeal because:
There is no real possibility that the Court of Appeal would approve the unrelated persons who made the application to the CCRC as approved persons for the purposes of section 44A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. In any event-
The CCRC exercises its discretion not to refer this conviction to the Court of appeal.
Section 44A Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Before the Court of Appeal would agree to hear Mr Morris’ appeal it would need to be satisfied that there is a suitable person or persons who can pursue the appeal in place of Mr Morris. The application to the CCRC explains that the case is supported by Mr. John Morris (author of a book connected to the murders, ‘Force of Evil’, and no relation), Mr. Paul Dalling (co-author of ‘Force of Evil’) and Dr. Michael Naughton (University of Bristol).
Section 44A(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (as inserted by s.7 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995) sets out the categories of persons who can pursue an appeal. These are:
1. the widow or widower;
2. the "personal representative" (within the meaning of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, s. 55(1)(ix)); or
3. any other person appearing to the Court to have, by reason of a family or similar relationship with the dead person, a substantial financial or other interest in the determination of the appeal.
Of the categories listed, the only one which might arguably apply to Mr. John Morris, Mr. Dalling and Dr. Naughton is category (c) – “any other person appearing to the Court of Appeal to have, by reason of a family or similar elationship with the dead person, a substantial financial or other interest in the determination of a relevant appeal relating to him”. The CCRC considers it to be extremely doubtful that the Court of Appeal would regard Mr. John Morris, Mr. Dalling or Dr. Naughton as meeting this requirement.
The CCRC does not consider there to be a real possibility that the individuals who have applied to the CCRC in regard to the conviction of Mr. David Morris would be ‘approved’ by the Court of Appeal, in terms of section 44A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. Consequently, there is no real possibility that the Court of Appeal would agree to hear Mr Morris’ appeal.
Response
You are, or should be, aware that with the help, encouragement and positive assistance from David Morris deceased’s family members, in particular his sister, Debra Thomas, his daughter Janiene O’Sullivan, and his parents, Brian and Shirley Morris, I have authored four books on the Clydach murder investigation, the last two with the active cooperation and contributions of forensic researcher Mr Paul Dalling who has investigated this case for more than 25 years. Our latest, and last book, Force of Evil: Crossing the thin blue line to murder narrates the account of the police and government conspiracy, and the corruption which infected this case.
I respectfully submit that this amply establishes my, and our, strong bond and substantial interest in the Morris family sufficient to, or even exceed, the requirements of Section 44A(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 as amended, and as authors with a specific interest in seeing this case through to its conclusion, I submit that I/we have… a substantial… interest in the determination of the appeal.
Furthermore, you have provided no evidence that the CCRC has investigated the substantial family interest requirement as set out in S44A(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 by not communicating with the Morris family to confirm my/our relationship, therefore, you have not reached your decision by looking at all the evidence available, so that you cannot justify your decision not to refer Morris’ conviction for appeal.
I reject your assertion that:
‘The CCRC considers it to be extremely doubtful that the Court of Appeal would regard Mr. John Morris, Mr. Dalling or Dr. Naughton as meeting this requirement.’
Whilst inclusion of the word ‘extremely’ may not amount to hyperbole, it is most certainly prejudicial and an intensifier which is not, and cannot, be justified, because it is merely an opinion (yours) and not a matter of fact.
Furthermore, you are, or should be aware because it was set out in the application, that David Morris’ daughter, Janiene O’Sullivan, gave me her express written permission to make this application.
Therefore, on the basis of the above, there can be no doubt that the court would indeed consider me to be ‘someone with a substantial… family interest’, and your failure to investigate this matter properly or at all means that your decision, discretionary or otherwise, not to refer this case to the appeal courts cannot be, and is not, justified.
The CCRC’s discretion not to refer the conviction
Even if the CCRC found there to be a real possibility that the Court of Appeal would hear Mr Morris’ appeal, and a real possibility that the Court would then decide not to uphold the conviction, the CCRC would also have to consider whether it should exercise its discretion not to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. According to the wording of section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, where the statutory criteria for a reference[1] appear to be met the CCRC “may ['may' was bold in the original rejection letter] at any time refer the conviction to the Court of Appeal” (emphasis added). This section has been interpreted as conferring on the CCRC the discretion whether or not to refer a case to the Court of Appeal where the statutory criteria appear to be met.
Response
Whilst under Section 13(2) of the Criminal Appeals Act 1995 the CCRC does indeed have a statutory discretion in deciding whether or not to refer a case to the appeal courts, the CCRC is required by law to exercise its statutory discretion lawfully and reasonably, and by no other criteria.
In relation to the CCRC’s discretion whether or not to refer a case, the CCRC has paid particular attention to the Court of Appeal judgments in cases such as R v Hanratty [2002] EWCA Crim 1141, R v Ellis [2003] EWCA Crim 3556 (paragraph 90), R (Westlake) v CCRC [2004] EWHC 2799 and R v Luckhurst [2010] EWCA Crim 2618.
In Hanratty [2002] EWCA Crim 1141, at paragraph 214, Lord Woolf LCJ stated:
"We do not consider it would be right to attempt to judge the Commission with the benefit of hindsight in relation to this case. We do however emphasise that there have to be exceptional circumstances to justify incurring the expenditure of resources on this scale, including those of this court, on a case of this age."
At paragraph 90 of the judgment in Ellis [2003] EWCA Crim 3556, the Court of Appeal stated:
"We would wish to make one further observation. We have to question whether this exercise of considering an appeal so long after the event when Mrs Ellis herself had consciously and deliberately chosen not to appeal at the time is a sensible use of the limited resources of the Court of Appeal… …If we had not been obliged to consider her case we would perhaps in the time available have dealt with eight to twelve other cases, the majority of which would have involved people who were said to be wrongly in custody. The Court of Appeal's work load is an ever-increasing one and recent legislation will add substantially to that load. Parliament may wish to consider whether going back many years into history to re-examine a case of this kind is a use that ought to be made of the limited resources that are available. The exercise of the CCRC's discretion in to deciding, whether to refer cases is one that is a frequent source of challenge by way of Judicial Review and it may be that an express power to consider factors of this kind would enable the CCRC to take into account more readily the public interest in making its decision."
Response
The cases of R-v-(James) Hanratty, convicted of murder and executed by hanging in 1962; R-v-(Ruth) Ellis, convicted of murder and executed by hanging in 1955; (Mary) Westlake-v-R, appealing the murder conviction of Timothy Evans in 2004, and R-v-(Frederick) Luckhurst, convicted of fraud and theft under the Proceeds of Crime Act in 2002, may all be distinguished from the case of R-v-(David) Morris convicted of murder and sentenced to four life terms in 2006, for the following reasons:
James Hanratty aka the A6 Murderer (4 October 1936 – 4 April 1962) was hanged at Bedford jail on 4 April 1962 following a trial, during which he changed his alibi evidence substantially, before his conviction for murder.
On 19 March 1997, the Home Office referred the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for investigation. After an investigation, the CCRC referred Hanratty’s case to the Court of Appeal. Ultimately, his conviction was upheld.
In their judgement, the appeal court judges took a swipe at the CCRC commenting, “The court does not criticise the (CCRC) commission, but points out that a case of this age must be exceptional to justify this level of expenditure."
The crucial point here was that, after such a long period of time – 40 years, and the longest running miscarriage of justice case at that time – the evidence suggesting his innocence had to be exceptional in nature, and the evidence put forward by Hanratty’s defence was not exceptional, therefore the application failed.
In the case of R-v-(David) Morris, just 20 years have elapsed from the date of his conviction to the present day including one failed CCRC application, and I feel sure you will agree, the evidence we have presented is truly exceptional in nature.
On the basis of this distinction, the matter should proceed.
In June 1955, Ruth Ellis née Neilson (9 October 1926 – 13 July 1955) was convicted of the murder by shooting of her boyfriend and sentenced to death by hanging. On 13 July that same year she was hanged at HMP Holloway. She did not challenge her conviction at the time of her trial stating ‘She chose her actions and accepted the consequences.’
At her trial, the judge had withdrawn the issue of provocation from the jury.
In 2003, the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred Ellis’ case back to the Court of Appeal, hoping to reduce the conviction of murder to one of manslaughter.
The appeal against her conviction for murder failed, as it was determined that the judge was correct in withdrawing the issue of provocation from the jury, and the appellant was properly convicted according to the law as it stood in 1955 when she committed the offence. Her conviction for murder was therefore upheld, but the Appeal Court judges questioned whether an appeal brought so long after the event, when Ellis had chosen not to appeal at the time, was a sensible use of the Court of Appeal's limited resources.
In the case of R-v-(David) Morris, again, just 20 years have elapsed from the date of his conviction to the present day, unlike Ruth Ellis, he did not accept his guilt, he has already made one application to the CCRC to have his case referred and he did appeal his conviction at the time.
On the basis of this distinction, the matter should proceed.
At paragraph 26 of the judgment in R (Westlake) v CCRC [2004] EWHC 2799 the High Court stated:
“I do not think that the court was there indicating that an amendment to the1995 Act was required in order for the Commission to take into account the costs and resources of an appeal. Indeed, as already indicated, Mr Fitzgerald accepts that costs and resources consequential on a referral are a relevant factor to be taken into account by the Commission in deciding whether or not to exercise its statutory discretion.”
It is against this background that the CCRC has considered the exercise of its discretion in Mr Morris’ case. The CCRC considers the following points to be of particular relevance on this issue:
1. Mr Morris is deceased.
2. The Court of Appeal continues to have a very high workload, and appeal hearings take place at considerable expense to the public purse.
There is considered to be substantial force in these points. Considering the very high workload of the Court of Appeal, and the considerable expense to the public purse of an appeal, it cannot be in the general public interest to refer this conviction to the Court. The CCRC recognises that there continues to be public interest in the case. However, just because a case continues to attract the interest (and even the support) of some members of the public, this does not necessarily mean that new appeal proceedings would be in the general public interest.
The CCRC has decided that it would not be in the public interest to refer this case to the Court of Appeal, and so it has decided to exercise its discretion not to refer the case.
For the reasons set out above regarding approved persons and the CCRC’s discretion, it has not been necessary for the CCRC to make any findings in relation to the merits of the submissions which have been advanced in this case.
Response
On the basis of these four distinctions, I think you will agree that, the matter of David George Morris should proceed.
The case of R-v-(David) Morris can be distinguished from the case of R-v-(Mary) Westlake for the following reasons:
In 1950, Timothy Evans (20 November 1924–9 March 1950) a Welsh lorry driver, was tried and convicted of the murder of his wife Beryl, and daughter, Geraldine. The principal witness against him at his trial was his neighbour John Christie who lived in his own flat in the same house. Evans was executed by hanging on 9 March 1950, always protesting his innocence.
Three years later John Christie was discovered to be a serial killer who had murdered several other people in the house, including his own wife. He confessed to killing Evans’ wife but not his baby. In 1966 an official inquiry concluded that Christie had murdered Evans’s daughter, and he was granted a posthumous pardon.
In 2004, Evans’s half-sister, Mary Westlake (and another), began an application for judicial review in the High Court challenging a decision by the Criminal Cases Review Commission not to refer Evans’s case to the Court of Appeal to have his case formally quashed because she (they) felt the pardon did not go far enough. The court dismissed proceedings to officially quash Evans’s murder conviction on the grounds of costs and resources, whilst simultaneously finding he was not responsible for the murders.
The judges stated:
‘…the cost and resources of quashing the conviction could not be justified, as there is no “tangible benefit” when “the convicted person has been executed and there are no other penalties ensuing.’
Confirming the pardon that Evans had been granted in 1966, they added:
“Timothy Evans should indeed be regarded as having been innocent of the charge of which he was convicted.”
The ratio decided in this case, brought by Evans’ half-sister, in 2004, took place 54 years after Evans’s execution. In 1966, an official inquiry had already granted him a pardon so it was officially recognised that Evans was responsible for neither murder; the stigma had been entirely removed from the family of Timothy Evans. There was, therefore, little to be gained by incurring the expense of an Appeal Court case, and the resources involved, including the time it would take which would be better spent elsewhere.
The difference between R-v-Westlake and R-v-Morris is this: Morris has living relatives all of whom are stigmatized by his murder conviction, not only his sister, Debra Thomas, but Morris’s children also, Janiene O’Sullivan, Adele and Laura. His parents are both now deceased. This case has been brought far sooner than it took Mary Westlake to bring her half-brother’s case, 54 years as compared to just 20 years including one failed application to the CCRC.
Should the Court of Appeal set aside Morris’ conviction, his family have a very great deal to gain in tangible benefits by having the stigma of their brother’s/father’s murder conviction removed.
On the basis of this distinction, the matter should proceed.
The case of R v Frederick Charles Luckhurst, who died in 2010, was a posthumous appeal heard by the Court of Appeal in 2010. His case was referred to the court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission after his family or representatives sought to clear his name following a 1966 theft conviction.
It was held that:
“In cases of some age, where the defendant had died, the test to be applied by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in exercising its discretion whether or not to refer the case to the Court of Appeal was whether there was “a positive justification for referring the case.”
In a legal context, "positive justification for referring the case" means that there must be a compelling, affirmative reason or active public interest that warrants sending a case forward to the CCRC.
The compelling, affirmative reason for referring here is that we have provided proof positive that South Wales Police officers, specifically former Det. Supt. Martyn Lloyd-Evans and others, acted corruptly in the course of the Clydach Murder investigation and conspired to protect their police colleagues and others and wrongly imprison David Morris, an entirely innocent man.
There is certainly an active public interest in this case also, as more than 600,000 subscribers are actively following this case on social media, waiting for developments, and commenting upon the frequent posts and updates placed therein.
On the basis of this distinction, the matter should proceed.
What all this means in simple, easy-to understand, terms is this: no matter the passage of time, the Court of Appeal will accept referred cases from the CCRC where there are exceptional circumstances, where an appeal has been made immediately after the original trial, where there are tangible benefits to be gained, and there exist compelling and affirmative reasons for referral – the case of David Morris easily satisfies all these four requirements.
Since this letter of refusal refers to the public interest (as follows),
“The CCRC has decided that it would not be in the public interest to refer this case to the Court of Appeal, and so it has decided to exercise its discretion not to refer the case.”
Response
The term “public interest” is a flexible concept meaning the general welfare, health, safety, and rights of the community as a whole. Courts and official bodies use it to balance individual rights, like privacy or property, against broader societal needs, such as safety, justice, and accountability.
Judges apply a balancing test weighing the benefit of an action – such as releasing documents held under Personal Interest Immunity (PII) against the potential harm to the state or private individual. They also apply proportionality- actions taken in the name of the public interest must fit the problem without going too far.
In my respectful opinion the general welfare, the health, the safety, and the rights of the community over which South Wales Police are solely responsible for policing, have been demonstrably violated, oppressed and ignored, not only in the case of David Morris, but in a systematic pattern of abuse extending back over five decades.
The appeal court judges will be aware of – because they and/or their colleagues will have dealt with these cases – that by the time of David Morris’ conviction in 2006, nine earlier murders investigated by South Wales Police were proved to be miscarriages of justice, and nineteen innocent people were freed from jail having been wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit.
What the appeal court judges may not be aware of is the shocking extent of the conspiracy and corruption demonstrated time and again by former Det. Supt. Martyn Lloyd-Evans and other South Wales Police officers involved in the Clydach murder investigation to wrongly convict yet another innocent person, and cover up a crime in which several of their own officers, and others, were involved.
My, and Mr Paul Dalling’s twenty-five years plus investigation discovered the following irregularities which represent just a few of the many incidents of significant wrongdoing and/or corruption we uncovered and which must be investigated:
They include the following:
We suspect that former Detective Inspector Martyn Lloyd-Evans, and former Head of CID Wynne Phillips, engaged in a conspiracy, and corruptly delayed arresting then suspects Alison, Stephen and Stuart Lewis until a year after the murders, wrongly blaming the delay on vulnerable young witness, Louise Pugh.
We suspect that former Det. Supt. Martyn Lloyd-Evans and others conspired to conceal behind PII the statement of Louise Pugh given to former South Wales Police detectives Tony Meyrick and Lyn Powell on Monday 28 June 1999. It is suspected that the statement contained inter alia:
Evidence of David Morris’s intimate relationship with Mandy Power.
Evidence that three weeks before the murders Sergeant Stephen Lewis had threatened to kill Mandy Power.
Evidence that Mandy Power had gone into Kwiksave, Clydach, on the Saturday afternoon before the murders to buy wine for Alison Lewis who she expected at 9 Kelvin Road that night.
Evidence that the gold chain discovered at the crime scene belonged to David Morris.
Evidence that she had pushed the video Armageddon in its case through the letterbox of 9 Kelvin Road at about 7.30 pm on the night of the murders.
Evidence that she saw scratch marks on Stephen Lewis’s shoulder on the morning of the murder.
We suspect that former Detective Inspector Martyn Lloyd-Evans and others concealed, or attempted to conceal, a 6-day forensic search of Stephen and Alison Lewis’s Pontardawe home which commenced on Tuesday 29 June 1999.
We suspect that in June 2000, former Detective Inspector Martyn Lloyd-Evans engaged in a conspiracy with former DC Simon Evans and others, to manufacture evidence in the form of a video statement given by Louise Pugh, which, he claimed, formed the basis of the evidence he needed to arrest the Lewises.
We suspect that Doris Dawson died on 26 June 1999, whereas Mandy Power and her two daughters died on 27 June 1999. Her post mortem report, held in PII, will confirm this.
We suspect that the video tape Armageddon, which was in Mandy Power’s home on the night of the murders, was found in the home of Stephen Lewis and Alison Lewis with Mandy Power’s blood on it during the (officially denied) 6-day forensic search which commenced on Tuesday 29 June 1999.
We suspect that this crucial find was covered up for a year by former Det. Supt. Martyn Lloyd-Evans, former Det. Sgt. Phil Rees and others, and when it reappeared in a forensic search the following year, which former Det. Supt. Martyn Lloyd-Evans was not truthful when he claimed it was a first search. The video had been wiped clean of Mandy Power’s blood, and its warning labels professionally removed.
We suspect that former Det. Insp. Martyn Lloyd-Evans engaged in a conspiracy with former Detective Sergeant Philip Rees, former Det. Stuart Mackenzie and others to bully, bribe, blackmail and silence witnesses, or attempted to bully, bribe, blackmail and intimidate witnesses into silence, and into changing or withholding their evidence.
We suspect that former Det. Supt. Martyn Lloyd-Evans and others concealed exculpatory mobile phone data that would have exonerated David Morris.
At the end of Morris’ first trial in Swansea (in 2002), Mr Justice Butterfield told jurors in his summing up that if they believed Morris had been intimately involved with Mandy Power they must find him not guilty. We suspect that the mobile phone data/records which would have proved this – on St Valentine’s Day of that year Mandy Power sent David Morris 12 intimate text messages which confirmed their affair – was wrongly concealed behind PII and was never made available to the defence at either trial.
We suspect that former Det. Supt. Martyn Lloyd-Evans and others lied and mislead the public by claiming that Mandy Power had been babysitting for her nephew on the night of her murder.
We suspect that Mandy Power was, in fact, attending a family gathering where other persons were present. Late evening Mandy Power received a call on her mobile phone, and immediately afterwards said she had to go home. Within about 30 minutes of arriving home, Mandy Power and her daughters were dead. Whoever made the call to Mandy Power – telling her she had to come home – was involved in the conspiracy to kill the family. Exculpatory mobile phone records and/or data where the caller’s identity would be revealed was wrongly concealed behind PII and was never made available to David Morris’s defence at either trial.
South Wales Police claimed that Operation Dolomite – which re-examined a bloodied sock discovered at the crime scene – would be open and transparent. Yet when the forensic report was released it was heavily redacted so that the operation was neither open nor transparent. We suspect that South Wales Police do not want to release the report in its entirety.
Over 500 pieces of evidence, pertinent to the Clydach murder investigation, have been deliberately and wrongfully hidden away behind PII. We suspect that exculpatory evidence is included in those documents which should be retrieved and examined for their content.
This, as I am sure you will agree, is exceptional, never-before-heard, evidence of the kind that easily meets the appeal court judges’ specific and exacting requirements in deciding whether or not to accept a case for appeal.
Just some of the witnesses whom we suspect were intimidated by South Wales Police officers include former Det. Sgt. Philip Rees, former Det. Stuart Mackenzie and others include:
Louise Pugh: Her original statement of 28 June 1999 is missing, presumed concealed behind PII. She was bullied and harassed by Dets. Phil Rees and Stuart MacKenzie into making further statements, and a year later bullied again by Det. Insp. Martyn Lloyd-Evans and Det. Simon Evans into making a video statement used to – wrongly – justify the Lewises arrests.
Lisa Sullivan: A child witness bullied by detectives into changing her statement so that it did not corroborate the statement of Louise Pugh.
Christina Pugh (dec’d): Gave false statement that, inter alia, she gave Mandy Power a bottle of DNA destroying bleach explaining how her fingerprints were found on it.
Gary Beynon: Bribed by detectives into changing his statement from “Mandy Power said she was afraid of Stephen Lewis” to “Mandy Power said she was afraid of David Morris.”
Rosemary Williams: Pressured by detectives to change the height of the person whose image she saw behind the frosted glass of 9 Kelvin Road She refused.
Carol Anne Isaac: Bullied, harassed and locked in a prison cell for insisting on the morning after the murders and on other days that Stephen Lewis had threatened to kill Mandy Power.
Beverly Lewis: Bullied, harassed and locked in a prison cell for insisting on the morning after the murders and on other days that Stephen Lewis had threatened to kill Mandy Power.
Georgina Shepherd: Her dog found a kitbag with clothing dumped after the murders and she was warned by detectives not to tell anyone.
Glynn Hopkin: Ordered by detectives to warn his shop staff not to speak to anyone about Mandy Power’s visit to his shop.
Paul Powell: Attended a gathering at the Lewises home on the night of the murders who could therefore corroborate the Lewises claim that they had spent the night in bed together, but his statement has never been seen. Presumed locked away behind PII.
Sandra Powell: Also attended the gathering at the Lewises home on the night of the murders who could also therefore corroborate the Lewises claim that they had spent the night in bed together, but her statement has never been seen. Presumed locked away behind PII.
Claire Bishop: Her evidence, given on two separate occasions a year apart, that she had seen two police cars and two police officers in Clydach on the night of the murders was ignored by police officers, and her statements was never taken.
Keith Bishop: His evidence, also given on two separate occasions a year apart, that they had seen two police cars and two police officers in Clydach on the night of the murders was ignored by police officers, and his statement was never taken.
Kimberley Wilson: Bullied into silence.
Mike Dubenski: Positively identified Stephen and Stuart Lewis on Vardre Road on the night of the murders, corroborating identification evidence of other witnesses, but was brushed off by the police as unreliable.
John Allen: Positively identified Stephen Lewis with a green kitbag under his arm on Mountain Road near Kelvin Road on the night of the murders. His evidence was brushed off by the police as unreliable, even though his evidence corroborated the evidence of an unknown witness who had also seen Stephen Lewis on Mountain Road as told to David Jones by Det. Shane Ahmed.
Sharon Lewis: Wife of ex-South Wales Police officer Christopher Lewis with evidence of her husband’s whereabouts and wrongdoing on the night of the murders was threatened into silence by her husband.
We suspect that all these witnesses were bullied, bribed, blackmailed and/or intimidated into silence, and/or changing and/or withholding their evidence at the behest of South Wales Police officers.
David and Amanda Jones, Alison and Stephen Lewis’s next door neighbours, were never called to give evidence at either trial, yet we suspect they would/could have given evidence that would have affected its outcome. Evidence they would/could have given included:
The fact that Stephen and Alison Lewis’s marriage was over months before the murders.
The fact that Stephen and Alison Lewis were living separate lives under the same roof.
The fact that Stephen Lewis had rekindled his relationship with an old girlfriend, Andrea.
The fact that Alison Lewis brought her lesbian girlfriends back to the house where they stayed with her.
The fact that Stephen and Alison Lewis no longer shared the matrimonial bed.
The fact that the Lewis twins were not at home on the night of the murders but were staying with Stephen Lewis’s mother, Pamela, in Ystradgynlais.
The fact that just days before the murders, Alison Lewis had filed for divorce.
The fact that a 6 day forensic search of the Lewis’s home commenced on Tuesday 29 June 1999, and not a whole year later, as claimed by former Det. Supt. Martyn Lloyd-Evans.
The fact that after the 6-day search concluded, they washed the Lewises clothes in their washing machine, because the Lewises washing machine had been taken away for forensic analysis.
The fact that former Det. Shane Ahmed said to David Jones just days after the murders that a credible witness had come forward to tell them they had seen Sgt. Stephen Lewis with a kitbag on Mountain Road in the early hours on the morning of the murders. This was at a time when Stephen Lewis claimed he was in bed with his wife Alison Lewis.
David and Amanda Jones were never called at either of Morris’s trials to give this exculpatory evidence.
These shocking – but true – findings affect the general welfare of a community because they lead to loss of trust in a police force that should abide by the law, not break it, the (mental) health of individuals in the community who have undoubtedly been adversely affected by the unacceptable, and quite frankly illegal, behaviour demonstrated by some of its officers acting outside their jurisdiction, and the safety provided by police officers who should be trusted to protect, and the rights of the community as a whole to learn the truth about a police force sworn to protect them, and to rely upon that same police force whose officers are required to =act with integrity, not impunity.
Public interest also requires there to be justice, and accountability. This case goes far beyond the matter of establishing the innocence of David Morris which, we have demonstrated, is simply proven (vis-a-viz, by obtaining Louise Pugh’s statement of 28 June 1999; Mandy Power’s and others mobile phone records, and obtaining Doris Dawson’s post mortem report), it goes to the very core of the South Wales Police investigation that led to David Morris’s conviction. For there to be justice in this case, you must accept this application, accountability for former South Wales Police officers and others may follow thereafter.
In all the circumstances, for the sake of public interest, accountability, justice, and for the families of Mandy Power, David Morris and all those many witnesses who have been bullied, bribed, blackmailed and/or intimidated who deserve to know the truth and desire justice, I urge you to investigate this case, and, thereafter, refer it to the Court of Appeal.
John Morris
For, and on behalf of Paul Dalling.
[1] Set out at Section 13, Criminal Appeal Act 1995
Comments