NationStates Jolt Archive

Justice might get done at the retrial, and George acquitted. His conviction was due to misrepresentation of evidence and should have been quashed first time round.

Barry George has won his appeal against his conviction for the murder of BBC TV presenter Jill Dando in 1999.
The Court of Appeal decided the jury's guilty verdict six years ago was unsafe, and has ordered a retrial.

George, 47, was sentenced to life for the shooting of Miss Dando, 37, outside her home in Fulham, west London, but he has always denied his involvement.

The court said new scientific doubts over gunshot discharge residue evidence meant the conviction had to be quashed.

'Not a victory'

George, dressed in a suit and dark blue shirt, appeared in the dock of the London court as the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, and two other senior judges allowed the appeal and informed him he would face a retrial.

There was no application for bail and George is to be remanded in custody. Legal proceedings will begin within the next two months.

I am disappointed, particularly for those of us who have suffered the tragedy of losing a loved one prematurely

Alan Farthing
Jill Dando's former fiance


Verdict reaction
Profile: Jill Dando

Outside court, George's sister, Michelle Diskin, appealed for anyone with information about the murder to come forward and said winning the appeal was just "one step" in her quest to free her brother.

"I don't really feel we have victory, we don't have Barry, he doesn't have his freedom yet," she said.

But George's solicitor, Jeremy Moore, said his client was pleased with the result.

He added: "This is only the latest hurdle in what has been a very long road and we now look forward very much to preparing for the trial."

However, Alan Farthing, Miss Dando's fiance at the time of her murder, said: "I am disappointed, particularly for those of us who have suffered the tragedy of losing a loved one prematurely."

George was sentenced in July 2001 to life imprisonment after an Old Bailey jury found him guilty by a majority of 10 to one.

Weight of evidence

This latest hearing centred on the significance of a microscopic speck of firearm discharge found in George's coat following his arrest more than 12 months after the shooting.

William Clegg QC, for George, argued the firearm evidence carried "zero or neutral evidential weight" and if it was admitted again before a jury, it should have the proper weight attached.

It was, in fact, no more likely that the particle had come from a gun fired by Barry George than that it had come from some other source

Lord Phillips

However, Orlando Pownall QC, for the prosecution, told the court that new firearms evidence did not render George's conviction "unsafe" and that it was just one element in a "compelling circumstantial case".

Summing up the court's decision, Lord Phillips said the jury in the original trial had been "misled" by prosecutors over the significance of the firearm discharge.

In the appeal, evidence from the Forensic Science Service had shown that it was not right to conclude that the firearm discharge was likely to have come from a gun fired by George, he said.

"It was, in fact, no more likely that the particle had come from a gun fired by Barry George than that it had come from some other source," he said.

Conviction quashed

"The Court of Appeal concluded that, if this evidence had been given to the jury at the trial, there is no certainty that they would have found Barry George guilty.

"For this reason his conviction had to be quashed."

Lord Phillips added that George was one of a number of men who came to the attention of the police in the course of their investigation.

The appeal proceedings began after the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which studies potential miscarriages of justice, referred the case to the Court of Appeal.

The three-day hearing was George's second legal challenge over the Old Bailey verdict.

He lost his first appeal a year after his conviction.

It was a bit of a lynch mob. Were he not a mentally disabled serial harasser of women, he would have walked.

It seems odd that someone can get convicted on the grounds of them having a single speck of gunpowder residue on their clothes.

It was a bit of a lynch mob. Were he not a mentally disabled serial harasser of women, he would have walked.
He was a bit more than that. He'd been done for attempted rape and they once found him in Princess Diana's garden carrying a knife. So I don't feel too bad that someone like that is behind bars, whether he did this or not.

It seems odd that someone can get convicted on the grounds of them having a single speck of gunpowder residue on their clothes.

It wasn't the only evidence. The prosecution did do a good job of showing means, motive and opportunity. (I was quite interested in the case at the time, having been in Britain when the crime was comitted).

However, it sounds like they used the residue as their "kicker", the final piece that brings everything else together and ties up the floating loose ends, and now the Appeals Court has said they overemphasized it to the jury.

I wouldn't want to be the prosecutor now. He has to retry, with years old evidence, witnesses whose memories are no longer reliable, and his kicker is gone. My money is on George walking.

He was a bit more than that. He'd been done for attempted rape and they once found him in Princess Diana's garden carrying a knife. So I don't feel too bad that someone like that is behind bars, whether he did this or not.

From what I remember of descriptions his behaviour, he shouldnt have been living in unsupervised circumstances...and thats without the attempted rape/knife incidents you mention. Thats nothing to do with it though - potentially somebody who has killed (and may act similarily again) is not jailed, while somebody who - in theory - hasn't - is.

From what I remember of descriptions his behaviour, he shouldnt have been living in unsupervised circumstances...and thats without the attempted rape/knife incidents you mention. Thats nothing to do with it though - potentially somebody who has killed (and may act similarily again) is not jailed, while somebody who - in theory - hasn't - is.
But If there was another person then he'd still be free simply because the police couldn't find him. They spent a year on it and the most concrete leads they got outside of Barry George were nebulous "it might have been the chechnyans".
So if there had been another, less obvious, killer then the amounts of money needing to be spent to capture him would be far better spent on other policing to keep everyone safer.

But If there was another person then he'd still be free simply because the police couldn't find him. They spent a year on it and the most concrete leads they got outside of Barry George were nebulous "it might have been the chechnyans".
So if there had been another, less obvious, killer then the amounts of money needing to be spent to capture him would be far better spent on other policing to keep everyone safer.


Ok then, from now on, the easy one to convict is guilty. That'll cut all the bills immeasurably.

Ok then, from now on, the easy one to convict is guilty. That'll cut all the bills immeasurably.
That's not what I said. :) I'm just looking at the silver lining whatever the circumstances.

If he did kill her then Ok.

If he didn't then it's not as though they wasted any extra time from not going after the person who did, they probably didn't have a chance of catching him anyway. They had a year and didn't get even another suspect other than Barry George.

And if it means that Barry George is in jail innocent of killing Jill Dando then I can live with that too. He was a convicted violent sex offender who was obsessed with guns. I think Britain's been a safer place while he's been locked up.

I'd normally ignore a case like this, as it really is only big because she was a celebrity, but this case annoyed me because of the injustices to this man, it's a symbol that the system is flawed.
He was a bit more than that. He'd been done for attempted rape and they once found him in Princess Diana's garden carrying a knife. So I don't feel too bad that someone like that is behind bars, whether he did this or not.
No innocent man should ever be locked up for a crime they didnt commit. Whatever he did in the past, if he has been punished for it then he is a free man. I personally hope he walks, and demands damages for being put in prison that long.
From what I remember of descriptions his behaviour, he shouldnt have been living in unsupervised circumstances...and thats without the attempted rape/knife incidents you mention.
This is a much better way of treating the mentally ill, dont punish him for the rest of his life (which will only build contempt for the system), prevent him from doing it again
potentially somebody who has killed (and may act similarily again) is not jailed, while somebody who - in theory - hasn't - is.
I think that for those who don't care about his human rights, you can at least care about this.