This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-25363762
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
Victor Nealon freed after 17 years in jail | |
(35 minutes later) | |
A postman who has served 17 years in prison for an attempted rape he has always denied has been freed after DNA evidence was heard at the Appeal Court. | |
Victor Nealon, 53, was living in Redditch, Worcestershire, when he was convicted of attacking a woman, 22, in January 1997 and jailed for life. | |
New DNA evidence revealed the presence of another man's genetic material, three Appeal Court judges were told. | |
Mr Nealon's barrister said the evidence was "dynamite" for his client. | |
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) had referred the case to the Court of Appeal, which heard that DNA material found on the the 22-year-old woman's blouse tarnished the jury's guilty verdict. | |
'Explosive effect' | |
Peter Willcock QC said that his client Mr Nealon volunteered to give a DNA sample at the time of the attack in 1996 and no trace was found on the woman's clothing, but tests in recent years revealed the presence of another man's DNA. | |
"In the context of these proceedings, this DNA evidence is dynamite and, had it been used at trial, it would have had an explosive effect," said Mr Willcock. | |
"This evidence would have been deployed by the defence at trial and, had it been deployed, it would have been very important evidence, by which the context of other evidence would have been evaluated. | |
"Had the defence had this evidence, clearly indicating that there was potentially another suspect, then the weaknesses in the identification may well have been enough to persuade a jury that they could not be sure that this defendant was the person responsible." | |
The judges said they would explain their reasons for their decision to allow the appeal at a later date. |