#8 David Morris and the Clydach murders: A Cancer of Corruption

Viewers of the popular TV series, Rumpole of the Bailey, aired between 1978 and 1992, will have noticed that whenever middle-aged barrister, Horace Rumpole appeared in London’s Central Criminal Court to defend his underdogs, he invariably wore a tightly-curled wig and a jet-black gown covering his three-piece suit.

The less well informed, which includes solicitors, barristers and even judges – never mind the general populace – may consider these flamboyant articles of clothing to be quaint, old fashioned but quite superfluous in today’s fast moving and electronic-based world.

They would be wrong.

These traditional items of apparel, worn by barristers, or Counsel, as they are also known, are used only in the United Kingdom and those Commonwealth countries that retained British colonial legal traditions, and there is a very good reason why they still do.

The tradition of barristers wearing wigs and gowns dates back to the Norman Conquest of 1066. The king, accompanied by his retinue, travelled from one town to the next, dispensing justice wherever he went. Even in those far off days, it was considered important that judgments handed down should be the same everywhere for the same crime, otherwise anarchy would prevail, and in order to achieve uniformity throughout the country, case histories and the resulting judgements had to be recorded in writing.

Since, in those days, the only people who could read and write were clerics (clergymen or other persons in religious orders), they were employed to follow the king and record the crime and the penalty, thus ensuring uniformity, and so began the common law; it was law common to the whole country.      

Needless to say, these clerics quickly realised they were onto a good thing, because they possessed knowledge that people seeking the king’s justice would be willing to pay for. 

But because they were clerics, and marked as such by their shaven heads and religious clothing, they were forbidden from accepting payment for legal advice. They soon found a way around this inconvenient problem and donned wigs to disguise their baldness, and gowns to cover their religious clothing. They sewed a purse on the back of their gowns so that they could accept payment for their legal advice in the pretence they did not know they were being paid. If you look at the back of a barristers gown today, you will see that that the little cloth purse is still there, although these days barristers are more likely to receive their fees by electronic transfer.

But there is a practical reason too. Gowns are worn in court so that barristers can be quickly identified. Wigs have an entirely different purpose.  

Barristers wigs are, or for the past two millennia have been, made of horsehair. When a barrister’s wig is new, the horsehair is a snowy white. But the older it gets, and simultaneously the more court experience the barrister has, the darker the wig becomes in a naturally aging process.

In some court cases, such as serious crime, the front benches in a courtroom are simply flooded with solicitors, junior and senior counsel, and while some will be veterans of many years standing, for others it might be their first trial. The prosecution team will be on the right (when viewed by the judge) and the defence team on the left. So the judge will know who to address, not only because of where the barristers are sitting, but by the darkness of their wigs.

In cases such as murder and rape, a senior barrister will be assigned to represent the accused, formerly a Queen’s Counsel (QC), today it would be a Kings Counsel (KC), supported by a highly experienced Junior Counsel, and their instructing solicitor(s). Because murder is an indictable offence of the utmost severity, it demands advanced criminal courtroom advocacy, forensic expertise, and strict legal specialization.

Which brings me neatly to the second trial of David George Morris at Newport Crown Court in 2006. In that case, he was represented by Mr Gareth David Rees QC (as he then was).

As I said in the book Force of Evil: Crossing the thin blue line to murder co-authored by forensic investigator, Paul Dolling, the case of R v David Morris was Gareth Rees’ first murder trial. He did not have advanced criminal courtroom advocacy; he did not have forensic expertise and he did not have strict legal specialization.

“Gareth Rees was no match for Patrick Harrington QC and deferred to him as though he was a child and Harrington his teacher. Rees failed entirely to get a grip on the case, misnaming witnesses and getting essential facts wrong. His handling of the case was abysmal, and crucial evidence, which could have changed the course of the trial, went unchallenged.”

When Stephen Lewis was in the dock being cross-examined by Gareth Rees QC and asked to explain how his DNA came to be on the two matches found at the crime scene, Lewis said on oath that he was in Mandy’s kitchen some weeks before the murders, and he had used the matches to light the gas cooker to boil the kettle to make a cup of tea.

But this was not true, as there was no gas cooker in Mandy’s home. Mandy used an electric cooker.

During the recess, Morris’s sister, Debra Thomas, remonstrated with Gareth Rees in his chambers. She told him that Mandy Power had an electric cooker, not a gas cooker, so that Stephen Lewis had obviously and blatantly lied on oath.

But, Debra says, Gareth Rees became angry with her, and she was dismissed out of hand as he calmly and arrogantly told me:

‘I know what I’m doing and saying, and you are wrong.’

Just a few days later, while the trial was still going on, Gareth Rees apologised to her saying:

‘Yes, you were right. It was indeed an electric cooker and not a gas cooker.’

Debra expected Gareth Rees to recall Stephen Lewis to the witness stand and cross-examine him on his lie.

But it never happened, the moment had passed, and the opportunity was lost. Inevitably, Morris was found guilty and sentenced to four life terms.

So, how was it that Gareth Rees QC, a senior barrister but with no advanced criminal courtroom advocacy experience; no forensic expertise, and no strict legal specialization was appointed to represent David Morris? Who made that decision, why choose Gareth Rees when there were far more experienced Counsel available who would have relished the opportunity to represent a murder suspect in a Crown Court trial?

Where was Rumpole of the Bailey when it mattered? And was Debra Thomas right when she said:

“We felt that there were dark forces working against us, and that they wanted to convict my brother at all costs and would use all and any means at their disposal to do so. Dai didn’t stand a chance against these malevolent forces and the institutions who conspired to pin someone else’s crime on him to preserve their jobs and their reputations within the community…”

She added:

“It is my fervent view that there is an incurable and long-standing cancer of corruption within South Wales Police, and now it needs to be cut out.”

These are sentiments with which I wholeheartedly agree.

But what do you think? Please leave your comments below and also send them to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) with 'David Morris Application' in the subject line to: info@ccrc.gov.uk 

By John Morris

John Morris qualified as a solicitor in England and Wales in 1987 and worked in two leading Swansea criminal law practices before taking over an existing general practice which he ran for 10 years. In 2000, he moved to Ireland where he worked in a Dublin general practice. He took early retirement in 2015 to research and write "The Clydach Murders: A Miscarriage of Justice". He continues his research into the case, He has published several other books, and he also writes for a national magazine.