202302376 B1 - [2025] EWCA Crim 1036

It seems to us that a critical part of the testing and assessment of the reliability of the Dunne statement is a careful consideration of the development of his account. This is apparent in the notes taken by DC Branagan and DC Cox on their visits to Bedford Prison in August 1997 and again in notes taken of a conversation at the police station on 16 December 1997. These notes can be compared with the statement signed on 18 December 1997 and an assessment made of Dunne’s consistency.

We shall here focus on what was relied upon as a confession to murder. As we have already observed, it is clear that the appellant did give accurate information to Mr Dunne about two of the many burglaries he had committed and that Mr Dunne accurately recollected that information in August 1997. This is relied upon by the prosecution as supporting the reliability of the murder conviction. This is a valid point. There is no need to set out the detail which supports it.

The witness statement says that there were two conversations during the period in June while they were sharing a cell in which the appellant said things which show he committed the murder. The content of the notes suggests that they must have occurred towards the end of that period, because they record the time when Dunne stopped sharing a cell with the appellant as soon after the second conversation. Conversation 1 is described in these terms in this statement. The important passage in the second paragraph with the suggested admission is italicised for emphasis by us:-

“On one occasion PLUMMER and myself had a visit at the same time. His Mum brought his son along, the son looks the spitting image of PLUMMER. After the visit, in our cell, PLUMMER wasn't happy. His Mum hadn't brought him in any gear, he kept going on about his ex-wife how she was going on holiday with her boyfriend and kids and not taking his kid. I gave PLUMMER a joint, which contained the dope I had been saving. He started to smoke it, he was getting very hyper. He said that when his wife left she took the dog with her. He went and got the dog back and gave her a good slapping at the same time. I said jokingly to PLUMMER if he killed my wife I'd do his. He said what's it worth, I told him I'm sure I'd come up with something. Nothing else was mentioned. I went onto tell PLUMMER that I'd had loads of drugs busts at my house. (I'd earlier told him I was a drugs dealer, which was untrue.) They had never found anything.

“I told PLUMMER that on one occasion I had a visit from the council, to do with where I was living, it was two women. The following day there was a drugs bust, and the two women weren't from the council, one was a copper Sue BRANAGAN. Upon mentioning the name PLUMMER's face went white, he became very agitated. I went onto say I think she's leading the murder enquiry of some woman who got killed in a caravan. PLUMMER said you might as well know they're investigating me for that. At this stage he was well stoned. I can't recall what I said, but I knew then that my feelings about him were right. I said I ain't going to say anything I'm in enough shit, and showed him my papers. I then laid on my bed pretended to be stoned, he continued rambling on, talking to himself, saying, "This is how it is, he knows I've killed her, he knows about it, he's with the Police." I didn't answer him. The incident mentioned about Sue BRANAGAN I made up. I wanted to bring her name into it, because for some reason, what I don't know, I linked him to the murder.”

As at June 1997 it was true that the police were investigating Plummer for the murder. He had been interviewed about it on 28 and 29 April 1997.

Dunne said that he had invented a story about DC Branagan because he had linked the appellant to the murder for reasons he could not explain. He had said that she was leading the enquiry into the murder, which she was not. The appellant would know this because he had been interviewed in April about the murder by DI Nash and DS Sheen. It will be noted that the statement says that the exchange about killing each other’s female partners occurred in Conversation1, prior to any admission or other conversation about the murder.

Conversation 2 is said to have occurred on the following day. The statement says this:-

“The same day PLUMMER had a visit I believe from his Mum. He returned to the cell with some dope. He got himself stoned again and during the conversation he stated he was going on an I.D. parade. I asked him what for, he said for that murder, the caravan. He went onto say that the parade was down in London. I asked him why it was down there, he said he didn't know. That day I had received a shitty letter from my wife, and I said to him, I don't blame you if you did kill that woman. He said well between you and me I did, they've got nothing on me they won't prove it, all they've got is a print of a Nike trainer. I asked him what happened. He said, "I was on the way to my sister's, she don't live far away and saw a caravan and some building work being done there, thought there may be some power tools there." He stated he was going to take some stuff. He thought the caravan was empty no one lived there. He was in there getting stuff and the woman come. He said she wouldn't fuck off, so I had to finish her. He said:

"It was fucking ages before she went quiet, it took her a long time to die."

I said you want to get rid of all your clothes and that. PLUMMER stated I've already done that, they went in my sister's bin.

PLUMMER stated he took jewellery, he mentioned a ring which had an initial on it. He took the initial off it and tried to sell it to someone for pot. The person wouldn't have it but did eventually. I am sure the ring he mentioned was in relation to coming from the caravan.

PLUMMER stated that he went to a garage to either get fags or petrol. He didn't say if it was before or after the murder only that 2 people saw him a man and an Indian woman. When I was speaking to him about getting rid of his clothing he stated he got rid of a good pair of jeans and top. During this conversation PLUMMER was hyper, hysterical nearly and shaking. I believed that he had done what he said he'd done. PLUMMER was the only one smoking dope I wasn't. The next day I went to court nothing was said to me by PLUMMER about the conversation the previous night. I just said - see you later. I believed I would be returning to the same cell. However after court I was moved and did not see PLUMMER for approx. 2 weeks.”

We have highlighted in that extract some words to which we will return. The police had put to the appellant in interview on 29 April 1997 that a footwear mark from his Nike Trainer had been found at the scene of the murder. There is, therefore, nothing probative about his knowing that the police had this evidence by the time of the conversation in the cell in June.

We now turn to the notes taken by DC Branagan in Bedford Prison on 11 August and 13 August 1997. In relation to Conversation 1, the record of 11 August says this:-

“Inf [informant = Dunne] said he had problems with me (DC 960) and that I was working on the murder. He states Plummer froze at this. Plummer started talking about trainer and burglaries. Plummer has a habit of saying “see how it is”. This occasion he started rambling on to himself. (Inf also pretended to be stoned). He said “See how it is. He knows I fucking done it. He’s with the police. Plummer then changed the subject.”

In relation to Conversation 2, the record of 11 August says that this occurred on the next day after Dunne had been to court and returned to the cell. The note continues:-

“Upon return from court Plummer was already stoned in the cell. He told Inf that he had to go to an ID parade and was asked what for. Plummer stated “for the murder, the caravan”. Plummer asked if he would get picked out if he was a certain distance away and went on about light. The subject then got on to women and Inf said his wife had walked out on him and that he could “fucking kill her” (untrue). Plummer stated “I’ll do yours, you do mine”.

Inf said to Plummer “You did kill that fucking woman”.

Plummer replied “Yeah, I did, but they’ve got to prove it.”

He then went hysterical, and started shaking.”

The notes put the conversation about killing each other’s partners in Conversation 2, while the witness statement has it in Conversation 1. This is unexplained.

On 13 August 1997 a further conversation took place between the police and Dunne at Bedford Prison. The note of this is less full and does not purport to capture any of the actual words used by Dunne. It says:-

“Inf spoken to. States he was told further details by Justin Plummer regarding the murder.

1)

What he was wearing.

2)

What he did with the clothes.

3)

The woman took a long time to die.

He states he knows further things.”

Dunne was asked to make a statement but declined to do so unless he got bail, or at least a few hours with his family. As we have recorded above, further contacts occurred in August when he was told that this could not be arranged, and that the best he could hope for was a letter which might help him on sentencing. He sought legal advice and no contact occurred between August and December, when, on 16December, he attended the police station having been sentenced and released from custody. The first note of that day is as follows:-

“ 1) Informant given reward money.

[2)-5) Notes of information given about other offences].

6)

Info re Wilden murder.

Action re 6: Copy of 277 [intelligence report form] to Incident Room.”

The 277 referred to reads thus:-

•

“At time of murder Plummer was going to his sister’s

•

Plummer knew the house was being built. There was a caravan and there might be some tools.

•

Clothing went in his sister’s bin.

•

Plummer mentioned something about petrol and something to do with a Paki woman.

•

Plummer also mentioned the following. Unknown whether to do with murder:-

◦

Video

◦

Mention of jewellery

◦

Ring with an initial on it from a woman. He took the initial off and flogged it.

◦

Plummer was wearing jeans and top

◦

Never thought she would fucking die

◦

She wasn’t in the caravan when he went in. He didn’t think there was anyone there. Thought/after power tools.”

It would appear that Dunne did not say that he had been told by the appellant that he was going to his sister’s prior to the murder at any point in August and first said this on 16 December. He did not say that the appellant had spoken about the Nike trainer until the statement was taken on 18 December.

Conversation 2 is the key one, because it contains a clear admission. This was recorded on 11 August as having taken place on a day when Dunne had been to court and returned to his cell. In the statement on 18 December it was said that Dunne had in fact gone to court on the day after Conversation 2 and had not returned to share a cell with the appellant after that. The account of Conversation 2 taking place on the same day as a court appearance is simply omitted from the statement. The admission itself was recorded on 11 August in these words Plummer replied “Yeah, I did, but they’ve got to prove it”. By the time of the statement the words had become “well between you and me I did, they've got nothing on me they won't prove it, all they've got is a print of a Nike trainer.” Given that his ability to record precise words and context is important to Dunne’s reliability these differences are important.

Two further observations should be made:-

There is no mention in the witness statement of the meetings with the police in August and how his account was relayed to the police over a period of time. That is dealt with in the statement from DC Branagan dated 17 March 1998 and further statements dated 9 July 2021 and 7 January 2022. There is no mention there that at times Dunne asked for favours from the police. There is no mention of his informant relationship with DC Branagan. An application to withhold that information and a PII hearing was discussed at the time however as the trial judge noted any such application would be bound to fail given the issues in the case. In order to call him as a witness, he would have to be “outed” as an informant, at least to some extent. Even if he were anonymised and some of his evidence were heard in camera the appellant would know who this witness was.

While DC Branagan was able to give evidence about the meetings and the disclosures made the only person who was able to say why, for example, it was only in December 1997 he mentioned the route the appellant had taken and the way in which the victim died could only be answered by Dunne. Because he was not available, and because he had not been asked about this at the first trial, that was not possible. DC Cox was also not available to give evidence.

It is not necessary to detail further what is set out in the witness statement other than to note that some facts reported by Dunne were not in dispute for example how the and the appellant came to share a cell and that the appellant was on remand for burglaries and driving while disqualified. He was at the time only a suspect in the murder investigation. Mr Price KC has outlined in argument where it is clear that Christopher Dunne correctly reported things told to him by the appellant that are in fact provable. We have mentioned the two burglaries as examples. It is said that these facts go to support Dunne as a reliable source of information when the murder was said to have been discussed.

On behalf of the appellant Ms Thorne KC has taken us to discrepancies and matters that cannot in fact be correct and that accordingly undermine the account given. For example, that Dunne could not have known that DC Branagan was involved in the murder investigation in June 1997 when he said he raised it with the appellant because she and Dunne had not had contact from late 1996. In addition, the suggestion in the statement that she was ‘leading the murder enquiry’ was not the case given her relatively junior role. By August 1997 Dunne may have understood that from the news article however by then he and the appellant were not then sharing a cell. In addition, the statement refers to the appellant saying ‘all they’ve got is a print from a Nike trainer’. There is no note in the contact sheets and reports of the meetings of Dunne saying that he was told that by the appellant.

In addition it was only in the meeting on 16 December 1997 that there was reference to the route taken by the appellant at the time to his sisters, that a house was being built, that there was a caravan and might be “power tools”, that the clothing went into his sisters bin, he was wearing jeans and a top and that he never thought the victim would die and that he was in the caravan when the victim came in. As was pointed out none of that was said in August at the earlier meetings. Quite why Dunne did not mention those matters earlier cannot be explained.

What the alleged confession does not provide is any account of the killing. There is no mention of the dogs, knives or scissors, the cable or flex, stab wounds and the stamp or kick. There is no mention of setting fire to the caravan. It was agreed that the details of what exactly had been done to the deceased had not been released to the public and if the appellant had disclosed any of these accurately to Dunne in June 1997, this would have supported his account. He did not.

The appellant when being asked in 2023 about the time when he shared a cell with Dunne in June 1997 said he had not confessed to the murder to Dunne. He would smoke dope in his cells, and this would make him a bit paranoid after a while and make him trust someone less. He accepted that he had approached Dunne and asked to share his cell. Dunne had only just come into the jail and nobody knew him. The appellant wasn’t getting on with his cell mate and wanted to move. He couldn’t recall speaking to Dunne about his sister. The appellant would offer Dunne cannabis every day and every day he would smoke it. He liked Dunne, but he did not trust him; he could not explain how Dunne knew about the burglary involving the safe other than police officers having told him; this was also the position in relation to other details known by Dunne.

DC Branagan’s evidence in relation to her relationship with Dunne and how he came to provide a witness largely followed the chronology set out above and the notes of the meetings. In relation to the payment said to have been made on 16 December 1997 she said that after Dunne was released from prison, he spoke to her at Biggleswade Police Station on 16 December 1997. He had initiated that contact and offered further information regarding the murder. Dunne also provided information in relation to other criminal activities on that date and was provided with reward money. The money was said to be for information that was given about other matters and was not for information or a witness statement in the murder investigation. She said Dunne had not been paid for the witness statement that he had provided on 18 December 1997. As we have said, the contemporary records which would illuminate this are not available.

The jury were asked to accept the evidence of a deceased witness who alleged that in June 1997 when he shared a cell with the appellant he confessed to the murder. The factors that they had to consider when assessing the reliability and truthfulness of the account were as follows:

On the other hand the following factors had to be considered to determine whether they weigh against Dunne’s reliability and truthfulness namely:

If the jury was sure that Dunne’s evidence was honest and reliable, they still had to consider whether the confession was reliable. In this respect, they knew that both Conversation 1 and Conversation 2 took place when he was heavily intoxicated with cannabis. Apart from that there was no evidence of any reason why the appellant would confess to a murder he had not committed.