Double killer's plea rejected
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A teacher who denied murdering a mother and her baby with an axe 10 years ago cannot now claim she was suffering from diminished responsibility, the Court of Appeal decided yesterday.
Heather Arnold, 59, was found guilty in 1987 of murdering Jeanne Sutcliffe and her eight-month-old daughter in Westbury, Wiltshire.
At the trial she said she knew nothing of the killings. But she later admitted to psychiatrists that she "hated" Mrs Sutcliffe and had killed her because she wanted to be closer to Mrs Sutcliffe's husband, Paul, a fellow mathematics teacher.
A consultant psychiatrist at Broadmoor Hospital said in 1993 that Arnold should appeal against conviction on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Yesterday the Appeal Court was asked to either substitute verdicts of "not guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility", or order a retrial.
But Lord Justice Hobhouse, giving judgment with Mr Justice Laws and Mr Justice Butterfield, dismissed the appeal. "She has failed to persuade us that it is necessary or expedient ... to admit any further evidence," the appeal judges said.
The judge said that before her trial Arnold was subjected to psychological tests and "no relevant abnormality was found".
She was shown to be highly intelligent and although the defence of diminished responsibility was available at the trial, the defence did not use it. "She was an intelligent and articulate woman. She was in a fit state to take decisions about her defence and to instruct her lawyers."
During treatment for depression at Ravenscroft, Arnold began to give accounts of what had happened which "varied markedly from what she had said at the time of the trial", Lord Justice Hobhouse said.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments