Fiona Beal’s first murder trial collapsed after more than four months when it emerged that a key defense witness was a courthouse officer who had carried out welfare checks on her in the cells.
Judge Adrienne Lucking KC at Northampton Crown Court ordered a retrial after the legal “error” in June last year, ending a 17-week hearing which was only expected to last around three weeks.
Restrictions were put in place to delay media coverage of defense witness Rachel Drummond’s testimony, without the judge or prosecution being informed in advance that she was employed at the court.
Beal pleaded guilty to murder at the Old Bailey on Friday, after claiming she suffered a “loss of control” when she stabbed Nicholas Billingham and buried his body at their home in Moore Street, Northampton, in 2021.
Explaining her reasons for disbanding the original jury, Judge Lucking said she had not recognized Ms Drummond during her evidence-in-chief and that there was no avenue available to continue the trial and “ensure a fair verdict and a sure sentence.”
Beal had written in his diary that Mr. Billingham asked “why?” after she stabbed him, court heard
Ms Drummond told the court she had not seen Beal – who claimed to have been the victim of coercive and controlling behavior from Mr Billingham – for around seven years, having previously visited his home.
In the words of Justice Lucking, Ms Drummond described observing a relationship which had the characteristics of an abusive relationship with a serious impact on the accused’s well-being, thus supporting the defense case.
The accusation at the original trial was that Beal killed Mr Billingham because she suspected he was having an affair and that their relationship was not controlling or coercive.
According to Ms Drummond’s account, Beal was reluctant to go out and seemed to think she should be at home, while Mr Billingham belittled his partner, behaved as if he didn’t like her very much and criticized her dress sense .
After Ms Drummond’s role as a security guard became known to the judge and the prosecution during cross-examination, the witness said she last spoke to Beal in September 2022, when of a series of social controls as part of his work in the cells.
Ms Drummond was the officer who took Beal out of the van and spoke to him for a few moments, the court heard.
She had also informed her employer, GeoAmey, that she knew Beal and that they had taken steps to ensure that there was no further professional contact between them.
In a court ruling, Judge Lucking said she did not recognize Ms Drummond before cross-examination or pick her name from a list of witnesses provided before the trial.
The judge said she did not initially recognize the witness in the witness box, or when she spoke, probably because she “was not informed that she expected someone one that I know or is a member of the staff on duty in the witness box.”
Previous contact involving the judge and Ms Drummond identified in the ruling included “banter at the end of court days on numerous occasions” and contact and/or conversations in cells while reviewing court facilities , as well as trips to deliver cake to staff. on the judge’s birthday.
The decision discharging the original jury said: “Prosecution counsel says the fact that this witness was a GeoAmey guard in Northampton came as a complete surprise to them.
“They were not aware until they asked the question about his profession during cross-examination.
“Defence counsel said he knew the witness was a duty officer in Northampton, but felt that as it had been agreed that Ms Drummond would be deployed elsewhere during the trial, no difficulty was appeared.
“Leading lawyers took responsibility for this decision which they now, with hindsight, accept was a mistake.
“The defense also acknowledges that as a trial judge, I should have been informed at this hearing that it was possible that an employee of this court could testify at trial.
“There was never a decision to actively conceal this fact from the court.”
The judge continued: “If I had been informed before the trial of the possibility that an employee of this building could testify directly on an issue in dispute at a trial, I would have ordered that this trial be sent to a another court in which the witness had never worked.
“Ms Drummond gave evidence that she saw up close the impact of Mr Billingham’s behavior on the defendant inside the family home over a number of years.
“His testimony is obviously likely to be of great importance to the jury. His testimony strongly supported the defendant’s case with respect to the two partial defenses to murder.
“The court must take into account the fact that a material witness is testifying before the court in which he is employed, before a judge to whom he is known and in support of an accused supported by his colleagues.”
Choosing to end the first hearing, which was delayed by legal issues, illness and evidence-related adjournments, the judge added: “Herculean efforts were made by the prosecution, the defense, the expert witnesses and jurors to ensure this trial can continue.
“The cost to the public purse will be very high.
“The personal cost to everyone involved in the case, including the defendant, the jury, their families and employers or colleagues as well as the families of Nicholas Billingham and the defendant, will be enormous.
“I have considered whether an adjournment of any length to investigate the events in the custody room would shed light on the current issue, but have concluded that this would not be the case.
“A (jury) instruction cannot remedy this error.”
dailymail us
