Man's mental illness 'should have prevented murder trial'
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
A man who has spent 26 years in prison protesting that he is innocent of murder had suffered a mental disorder that should have prevented him standing trial, the Court of Appeal was told yesterday.
Frank Johnson, 66, has always maintained that he did not kill Jack Sheridan, a shopkeeper, by setting him on fire in his premises in Whitechapel, east London, on 3 February 1975, and is urging three judges to find his conviction unsafe. Mr Sheridan, 60, died three weeks after the attack.
At the start of Johnson's challenge to the murder conviction in London, his barrister, Edward Fitzgerald QC, told the court that he should never have stood trialbecause he had a "significant mental disorder", adding: "The appellant was unable to participate effectively in his trial by reason of his mental state."
Johnson, who dismissed his defence team at his 1976 trial and represented himself, was not present for the appeal hearing, which is expected to last three days, because he has waived his right to attend.
Mr Fitzgerald told Lord Justice Longmore, Mr Justice Wright and Sir Richard Rougier that the "key issues in our submission are likely to be at what stage did the psychosis develop" and "what the legal consequences of that are". He will argue on Johnson's behalf that the condition was severe enough to "handicap him at crucial stages of the trial".
Expert psychiatric evidence is being called. The judges are also expected to consider new evidence which, if disclosed, might have prevented Johnson from facing trial.
It is understood that the material before the judges includes a statement taken from Mr Sheridan shortly before he died in which he dismissed suggestions that Johnson was involved in the attack.
Johnson, who was born in Ireland, was convicted of murder in September 1976. His two co-accused have been released. He has turned down the chance of parole, which would have enabled him to leave prison years ago, insisting he is innocent.
His case has been referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates possible miscarriages of justice.