Off Topic and General Discussions > A Compendium of High Profile Murder Cases

Ian Simms was convicted of the Helen McCourt murder in 1988.

<< < (4/5) > >>

Nicholas:

--- Quote from: Nicholas on November 22, 2019, 12:50:21 AM ---How so? Worboys had multiple victims, many of whom received no justice. Ian Simms circumstances are very different.

--- End quote ---

Mark Leech has written an update to his previous article (See link here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7157.msg562424#msg562424)

Update 21st November 2019: What Happens Next?
“The Parole Board today cleared for release Ian Simms, the person convicted of Helen McCourt’s murder, without him identifying where her remains can be found.
Although not yet legally required to do so under Helen’s Law, which comes into effect next Spring, the Parole Board said it had applied the Helen’s Law test anyway, and concluded Mr Simm’s was still fit for release.
In a statement the Parole Board said:
‘Taking into account the denial, the refusal to reveal where the victim’s body is, all the risk factors, the progress that Mr Simms has made, the considerable change in his behaviour, the fact that he has not been involved in any violence or substance misuse for many years, his protective factors, the recommendations from all the professionals and all the evidence presented at the hearing, the panel was satisfied that Mr Simms met the test for release.’
The Justice Secretary could now intervene and refer the case back to the Parole Board under the ‘shortcut’ Reconsideration Mechanism, – but he would first need to convince a High Court Judge he had legally credible – not merely politically attractive – grounds for doing so.
In short he would need to show that the decision was irrational (meaning it was legally bonkers and no sane Parole Board panel applying the facts to the law could have reached such a decision), or that it was procedurally flawed because rules were not followed or important evidence was not shared; which is what happened in the Worboys case.
The matter is further complicated by the fact that all this is happening against the backdrop of a General Election.
An Election in which the Tories have sought to place a toughening of law and order at the front of their agenda and, with the Parole Board having already applied the Helen’s Law test and authorised release, intervention is a high-risk strategy that carries considerable political risks – and few if any discernible benefits.
If the Justice Secretary does choose to intervene he not only runs the risk of having his intervention thrown out straight away by the Judge but, more than that, even if he is successful and the case is referred for reconsideration the reality is that the Parole Board could still – after reconsideration – reach exactly the same decision and release Ian Simms anyway.
What happens next?
God knows – and no-one can second-guess.
This is the emotional and legal quagmire of uncertainty that results when politics confronts justice.
https://prisons.org.uk/the-view-from-here/elens-law-what-happens-when-juries-believe-a-liar/

Nicholas:

--- Quote from: Kaisha on December 10, 2016, 01:37:44 PM ---I live in Billinge where all this took place.  The victims mother has campaigned for years against Simms.  She has stopped him having a voice.  The journalist Bob Woffinden took an interest in Simms ' case and started to visit him in prison,  he too believes Simms to be the victim of a miscarriage of justice.  The victims mother didn't like this and complained to the justice minister who slapped a ban on journalists NOT to be allowed to have contact with any prisoners (R v ex-parte Simms, O'Brien) and now she is pushing for a new law in which would see a killer behind bars until they reveal where the victims remains are.  It's called "Helens Law". 

--- End quote ---

“The appeal was brought by Ian Simms, now in Long Lartin prison, serving a life sentence for murder, and Michael O'Brien.

Bob Woffinden, an investigative journalist who writes for the Guardian, and Karen Voisey, a BBC Wales producer, had been refused permission to visit Simms and O'Brien respectively unless they agreed to sign the undertaking
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jul/09/claredyer

The law lords were strongly influenced by an affidavit from Gareth Peirce, a solicitor who has acted for more than 20 miscarriage of justice victims. She told the judges there was no legal aid for investigations and that more than 90% of applicants to the Criminal Cases Review Commission had no solicitor. Cases with the best chance of being taken up were those which "arrive at the commission fully researched and investigated with new evidence compellingly presented". The resources available to television and the national and local press provided the best chance of discovering new evidence, she added.

Lawyers for Jack Straw, the home secretary, had argued that allowing visits would harm prison discipline, and that stories related in the media would upset relatives of the crime victims.

The ban was imposed in 1995 after Michael Howard, then home secretary, received a complaint from an MP representing Marie McCourt, the mother of Helen, whom Simms was convicted of murdering.

Before then, said Lord Steyn, interviews with prisoners "had served to identify and undo a substantial number of miscarriages of justice". He said: "The evidence establishes clearly that without oral interviews it is now virtually impossible, under the ban, for a journalist to take up the case of a prisoner who alleges a miscarriage of justice - a means of correcting errors in the functioning of the criminal justice system has been lost."

Lord Steyn said that freedom of speech was "the lifeblood of democracy" acting "as a brake on the abuse of power by public officials".

But Mrs McCourt, whose daughter's body has not been found, said: "Prisoners should not have the privilege of contact with journalists [to] publicise either their cases, for monetary gain or to boost their egos and self esteem."

Nicholas:

--- Quote from: Nicholas on November 24, 2019, 12:56:56 AM ---“The appeal was brought by Ian Simms, now in Long Lartin prison, serving a life sentence for murder, and Michael O'Brien.

Bob Woffinden, an investigative journalist who writes for the Guardian, and Karen Voisey, a BBC Wales producer, had been refused permission to visit Simms and O'Brien respectively unless they agreed to sign the undertaking
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jul/09/claredyer

The law lords were strongly influenced by an affidavit from Gareth Peirce, a solicitor who has acted for more than 20 miscarriage of justice victims. She told the judges there was no legal aid for investigations and that more than 90% of applicants to the Criminal Cases Review Commission had no solicitor. Cases with the best chance of being taken up were those which "arrive at the commission fully researched and investigated with new evidence compellingly presented". The resources available to television and the national and local press provided the best chance of discovering new evidence, she added.

Lawyers for Jack Straw, the home secretary, had argued that allowing visits would harm prison discipline, and that stories related in the media would upset relatives of the crime victims.

The ban was imposed in 1995 after Michael Howard, then home secretary, received a complaint from an MP representing Marie McCourt, the mother of Helen, whom Simms was convicted of murdering.

Before then, said Lord Steyn, interviews with prisoners "had served to identify and undo a substantial number of miscarriages of justice". He said: "The evidence establishes clearly that without oral interviews it is now virtually impossible, under the ban, for a journalist to take up the case of a prisoner who alleges a miscarriage of justice - a means of correcting errors in the functioning of the criminal justice system has been lost."

Lord Steyn said that freedom of speech was "the lifeblood of democracy" acting "as a brake on the abuse of power by public officials".

But Mrs McCourt, whose daughter's body has not been found, said: "Prisoners should not have the privilege of contact with journalists [to] publicise either their cases, for monetary gain or to boost their egos and self esteem."

--- End quote ---
A matter of facts by KATHLEEN MOODIE Saturday 4 March 1995 01:02

“Bob Woffinden's report on Ian Simms, the landlord of a Lancashire pub who was jailed for the murder of Helen McCourt ("Burden of proof", 28 January), contains certain inaccuracies and omissions which must be challenged.

It is no secret that Simms consistently lied to the police, his young mistress, his wife and the grieving family of the girl he is convicted of having murdered.

Mr Woffinden claims that there was no animosity between Simms and Helen. But on the Sunday before Helen's disappearance, when Simms had banned Helen from his pub, his language had been obscene and he had told several customers that he hated her. He also believed that Helen had been talking about the late-night drinking sessions at his pub, and about his affair with Tracy Hornby.

One of the arguments which is being advanced to prove Simms's innocence is that Simms has constantly denied that clothes found on a public towpath were his. In fact, Simms did finally admit ownership. It is also the case that Simms's clothes were not found on a towpath, but well away, on a rough track. Simms had had no option but to abandon them when he was disturbed by an Alsatian which had run ahead of its master. Helen's clothes, along with Simms's jacket, were not left in a place where they could easily be discovered: they were well hidden in a place which entailed a steep and difficult descent through a dense covering of shrubs and trees.

It was only after these clothes had been found, a month after Helen had disappeared, that the police were able to cross-match fibres on the clothes with the carpets in Simms's flat. Simms tried to explain away the carpet fibres on Helen's coat by saying that she had often draped her coat over bar stools in his pub. This does not, however, account for the number and distribution of fibres on the back of Helen's coat, which indicated forcible contact with the carpets in Simms's flat. There were, moreover, two types of carpet fibres on the coat, one of which was only found in Simms's flat, and not in the pub. Furthermore, Helen's trousers were brand new and had never been worn before the day she disappeared, yet they, too, had fibres on them from the carpets in Simms's flat.

But the most glaring omission in Mr Woffinden's article is his failure to mention that Mr Simms's own defence counsel, Mr David Turner, had stated in October 1990 when applying for leave to appeal, that Simms was "physically strong and an expert in Thai boxing, and it could be that he never intended Miss McCourt really serious harm".

Tragically, by supporting Simms and giving him false hope, Mr Woffinden is delaying the moment when Simms finally comes to terms with what he has done. Without Woffinden's intervention, Marie McCourt could now be at peace. Simms could well have told her where Helen's remains have lain since 1988, and Marie could have been able to give her daughter the decent Christian burial which is her right.

kathleen moodie

Billinge, Lancashire
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/a-matter-of-facts-1609886.html

Nicholas:

--- Quote from: Nicholas on November 24, 2019, 01:07:10 AM ---A matter of facts by KATHLEEN MOODIE Saturday 4 March 1995 01:02

“Bob Woffinden's report on Ian Simms, the landlord of a Lancashire pub who was jailed for the murder of Helen McCourt ("Burden of proof", 28 January), contains certain inaccuracies and omissions which must be challenged.

It is no secret that Simms consistently lied to the police, his young mistress, his wife and the grieving family of the girl he is convicted of having murdered.

Mr Woffinden claims that there was no animosity between Simms and Helen. But on the Sunday before Helen's disappearance, when Simms had banned Helen from his pub, his language had been obscene and he had told several customers that he hated her. He also believed that Helen had been talking about the late-night drinking sessions at his pub, and about his affair with Tracy Hornby.

One of the arguments which is being advanced to prove Simms's innocence is that Simms has constantly denied that clothes found on a public towpath were his. In fact, Simms did finally admit ownership. It is also the case that Simms's clothes were not found on a towpath, but well away, on a rough track. Simms had had no option but to abandon them when he was disturbed by an Alsatian which had run ahead of its master. Helen's clothes, along with Simms's jacket, were not left in a place where they could easily be discovered: they were well hidden in a place which entailed a steep and difficult descent through a dense covering of shrubs and trees.

It was only after these clothes had been found, a month after Helen had disappeared, that the police were able to cross-match fibres on the clothes with the carpets in Simms's flat. Simms tried to explain away the carpet fibres on Helen's coat by saying that she had often draped her coat over bar stools in his pub. This does not, however, account for the number and distribution of fibres on the back of Helen's coat, which indicated forcible contact with the carpets in Simms's flat. There were, moreover, two types of carpet fibres on the coat, one of which was only found in Simms's flat, and not in the pub. Furthermore, Helen's trousers were brand new and had never been worn before the day she disappeared, yet they, too, had fibres on them from the carpets in Simms's flat.

But the most glaring omission in Mr Woffinden's article is his failure to mention that Mr Simms's own defence counsel, Mr David Turner, had stated in October 1990 when applying for leave to appeal, that Simms was "physically strong and an expert in Thai boxing, and it could be that he never intended Miss McCourt really serious harm".

Tragically, by supporting Simms and giving him false hope, Mr Woffinden is delaying the moment when Simms finally comes to terms with what he has done. Without Woffinden's intervention, Marie McCourt could now be at peace. Simms could well have told her where Helen's remains have lain since 1988, and Marie could have been able to give her daughter the decent Christian burial which is her right.

kathleen moodie

Billinge, Lancashire
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/a-matter-of-facts-1609886.html

--- End quote ---

BOB WOFFINDEN Saturday 11 March 1995 01:02  Fact check

To answer each of the points raised by Kathleen Moodie (Letters, 4 March) about the perceived inaccuracies and omissions in my article on Ian Simms, the landlord of a Lancashire pub who was jailed for the murder of Helen McCourt, with the requisite care would entail an article almost as long as the original. In my view, however, they are all unfounded.

To take just one point by way of illustration: Ms Moodie writes that the "clothes were not found on a towpath, but well away". This is incorrect. The witness who discovered the clothes testified, "I noticed boots in the middle of the path." As for the suggestion that Simms had no option but to abandon them when disturbed by an Alsatian, the scenario is mind- boggling: Simms must have been running around naked - and yet no one noticed him.

Ms Moodie writes that the most "glaring omission" was to report what happened at the leave to appeal hearing. This, however, is irrelevant. In appealing against both conviction and sentence, an appellant's counsel will routinely advance mutually contradictory arguments. It is one of the absurdities of the system.

Ms Moodie writes that Mrs McCourt cannot be at peace because the case remains unresolved. It remains unresolved because it is a demonstrable miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, it is in her interests, as much of those of Ian Simms and the people of Billinge, that this wrongful conviction is now rectified.

bob woffinden

London WC1
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/letter-fact-check-1610912.html

Nicholas:
Mother welcomes Simms 'news gag' The Lancashire Evening Telegraph Thursday 1st Jan 1998

THE mother of murder victim Helen McCourt has spoken of her relief following the decision by an Appeal Court judge to prevent Ian Simms, the man convicted of Helen's murder, speaking to journalists.

Marie McCourt travelled to London for the appeal hearing where it was ruled that Ian Simms could not collaborate with campaigning reporter Bob Woffinden to tell his story.

At the hearing, representatives of Home Secretary Jack Straw successfully overturned a previous ruling from December last year which stated that a ban on talking to the media had been unlawful.

Simms, who was convicted of murdering 22-year-old Helen from Billinge in 1989, was being visited at Full Sutton Jail in York by Mr Woffinden.

Following the result, Marie McCourt, said: "Justice has been done and the right result was gained today. Ian Simms claimed last year that the ban on talking to the media was an infringement of his human rights. But what rights does a murderer or rapist give to the victim? Why should these people be allowed to put their story's across the using the media?

"I am so relieved that this chapter is over and hopefully one day Simms will show remorse by telling us where Helen's body is and giving us the human right of giving our daughter a Christian burial."

 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page