England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

Royal Courts of Justice

The Strand

London WC2A 2LL

Wednesday 30 July 1997

B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE ROCH

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN

and

MR JUSTICE MITCHELL

____________________

R E G I N A

- v -

MICHAEL HICKEY

VINCENT HICKEY

JAMES ROBINSON

PATRICK MOLLOY

____________________

Computer Aided Transcription by

Smith Bernal, 180 Fleet Street, London EC4

Telephone 0171-831 3183

(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

MR E FITZGERALD QC and MR H BLAXLAND appeared on behalf of

THE APPELLANT MICHAEL HICKEY

MR A JONES QC and MISS D ELLIS appeared on behalf of THE APPELLANT

VINCENT HICKEY

MR P O'CONNOR QC and MR M TURNER appeared on behalf of THE APPELLANT

JAMES ROBINSON

MR M MANSFIELD QC and MR J WOOD appeared on behalf of THE APPELLANT

PATRICK MOLLOY

MR J ROBERTS QC, MR W COKER QC and MR P CLEMENT appeared on behalf

of THE CROWN

____________________

J U D G M E N T

(As Approved by the Court )

____________________

LORD JUSTICE ROCH: Carl Bridgewater was killed on Tuesday 19th September 1978 in the living room at Yew Tree Farm, Wordsley, by a single shot from a shotgun. He was 13 years of age. He was last seen alive just before 4.20 pm, riding his bicycle in the direction of Yew Tree Farm which was one of the calls that he had to make as part of his newspaper round. His body was found between 5.15 and 5.30 pm by Dr McDonald who was a regular visitor to Yew Tree Farm being a friend of the then occupants of Yew Tree Farm, Miss Mary Poole and her cousin Mr Fred Jones, a widower, both elderly persons, Mr Jones then being 76 years of age.

Miss Poole and Mr Jones were out that afternoon, having been invited out the day before for a drive by a friend with a car. According to the friend and Mr Jones, no third person was told of the outing. Before leaving the house Mr Jones had secured the doors and windows. Examination of the scene by the police showed that entry to Yew Tree Farm, was by way of the living room window, following an unsuccessful attempt to force one of the three outside doors of the house. It was evident that that door had subsequently been opened from the inside and that rooms in the house both on the ground floor and on the first floor had been searched and property taken from the house.

Carl Bridgewater’s body was found in the living room of the farm house lying on a sofa in a position which suggested he had been sitting in the middle of the sofa when shot, the shot striking the left side of his lower face causing him to fall to his right so that his head ended on the right arm of the sofa. His body would not have been visible to someone entering the living room from the hallway of the house in which there were the stairs leading to the first floor.

Between the 8th October and the 9th November 1979 four men were tried and convicted of killing Carl Bridgewater. They were Patrick Molloy, then aged 51 who was convicted of manslaughter; James Edward Robinson then aged 45; Vincent James Hickey, then aged 24; and Michael Joseph Hickey, Vincent Hickey’s cousin, then aged 18, who were convicted of murder, Count 1 in the indictment. In addition all four men were convicted of aggravated burglary. The sentences imposed were 12 years' imprisonment for manslaughter on Molloy; detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure for murder on Michael Hickey; life imprisonment with a minimum recommendation that 25 years be served in respect of both Vincent Hickey and James Robinson for the murder. Molloy and Michael Hickey were sentenced to 8 year terms in respect of the aggravated burglary and Vincent Hickey and James Robinson to 10 years' imprisonment in respect of that offence which was Count 2 in the Indictment. In addition Michael Hickey and James Robinson were convicted on their pleas of guilty of Counts 4 and 5 in the indictment, both offences of robbery in which a firearm was used. Michael Hickey was sentenced to 12 years' detention in respect of each of those offences, those terms to run concurrently with each other and his other sentences. Robinson was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment in respect of each robbery, those terms to run concurrently with each other and with the sentences for the murder and the aggravated burglary. In addition a 6 month suspended sentence for burglary and theft was activated in respect of Robinson, that to run concurrently with the other sentences. Vincent Hickey pleaded guilty to Count 3 in the indictment, obtaining property by deception, and received a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment concurrent. Count 5 in the indictment for robbery in so far as it concerned Vincent Hickey was left on the file on the usual terms. Patrick Molloy pleaded guilty to two offences of burglary in Counts 6 and 7 in the indictment and was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment concurrent on each.

A fifth man John Burkett was charged in Count 4 in the indictment, pleaded guilty to it and was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment for that offence of robbery.

On the 2nd December 1981 this court refused applications for leave to appeal against conviction made by the Hickeys and Robinson. Patrick Molloy had submitted applications for leave to appeal, the grounds being of his own composing, which did not come before the court because Molloy died in prison in June 1981.

On the 15th October 1987, the Home Secretary referred the cases of the Hickeys and James Robinson to this court under Section 17(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The reference was made as a result of retractions of evidence given at the trial and fresh evidence relating to alibis advanced by the Hickeys and Robinson. On the 17th March 1989 this Court dismissed the appeals.

On the 26th July 1996 the Home Secretary again referred the cases of the Hickeys and Robinson to this court for two reasons. First, that it was not until December 1994 that it was disclosed to those acting for the appellants that unidentified fingerprints found at the scene of the crime included three usable prints taken from Carl Bridgewater’s bicycle one of which was Carl Bridgewater’s and the other two could not be matched to any appellant. Secondly, that there had, on the face of it, been breaches of the Judges’ Rules in relation to the questioning and detention of Patrick Molloy.

Subsequent to that referral, expert evidence became available which supported Patrick Molloy’s assertion to those acting for him at his trial that before making a written statement confessing to having been present at Yew Tree Farm on the 19th September 1978 when Carl Bridgewater was killed, he was shown a statement purporting to be that of Vincent Hickey. That evidence was based on electrostatic document analysis of the written statement which had been Exhibit 54 in the appellants’ trial. The expert document examiners, who are also handwriting experts, expressed the view that the impressions on the top page of Exhibit 54, from a statement purporting to be made by Vincent Hickey, may well have been in the handwriting of one of the officers who was interviewing Patrick Molloy at the time he made Exhibit 54. Moreover the impressions appeared to show the signature of Vincent Hickey but comparison of that apparent signature with signatures known to be Vincent Hickey’s showed that signature to be a forgery which could have been written by one of the other officers interviewing Patrick Molloy at the time he made Exhibit 54. On the 21st February of this year, this court learned of this evidence and received a memorandum from the prosecution that the prosecution could see no sensible explanation for the impressions on the first page of Exhibit 54 other than that which Molloy’s instructions to his solicitor provided and that, consequently, the proper approach for the prosecution to these appeals would be that the explanation given by Molloy to his solicitor of how he came to make his statement was the truth. It followed that Molloy’s confessions had probably been obtained by deceit practised by police officers and were, therefore, inadmissible as evidence. Mr Roberts for the Crown went on to concede that without Molloy’s confessions to being present at Yew Tree Farm, there could not have been a prosecution of Molloy on Counts 1 and 2 in the indictment. So far as Molloy was concerned, the Crown could see no proper argument to be addressed to this court in opposition to the contention that his conviction must be regarded as unsafe.

Mr Roberts, turning to the appeals of the Hickeys and Robinson, referred us to the case of Paris & Others (1993) 97 Cr App R 99, where the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor said:

"Whilst a defendant may have to accept the admission of evidence relevant only to another accused, where they are jointly tried, he should not have to suffer the admission of prejudicial evidence in the trial which is not admissible against anyone."

In the light of that principle Mr Roberts said that the Crown could see no answer to the proposition that the trial had been fundamentally flawed and did not feel able to argue that the convictions of the Hickeys and Robinson were safe.

Having heard counsel for all four appellants, this court pointed out that it alone had power under section 2(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to quash a conviction and that this court could only do that if we thought that the conviction was unsafe. We expressed our judgment that it was right for us to hear evidence in open court from expert witnesses who had examined the impressions left on the first page of Exhibit 54. We indicated that we could not at that time see any reason why the evidence of those experts who had examined Exhibit 54 should not be accepted and that, if accepted, it would follow that the appeal of Patrick Molloy was bound to be granted. We indicated that we would entertain such other points as counsel for the appellants wished to raise, together with the Crown’s answers to such points and give a reasoned judgment. In the light of the concessions made by the Crown, we considered it right to grant the appellants unconditional bail.

At a subsequent hearing we indicated that the sole function we had to fulfil was to decide in the case of each appellant whether his convictions on Counts 1 and 2 in the indictment were safe or unsafe. If we concluded that the convictions were unsafe then the convictions would be quashed and the presumption of innocence which exists in favour of all unconvicted persons would be re-established. We were not going to carry out an inquiry as to whether the appellants were in fact innocent, we being neither empowered by the Act nor armed with the necessary powers to do so.

We have heard submissions which satisfied us for reasons which we have already given and which we do not need to repeat in this judgment, that an appeal on behalf of the late Patrick Molloy can be entertained by us, that the administrators of his estate have power to waive the legal professional privilege which existed between Molloy and those acting for him at his trial, and that they have done so to the extent set out in the affidavit of Nicholas Alan Molloy, the son and one of the personal representatives of Patrick Molloy, dated the 10th day of March 1997.

Yew Tree Farm was owned and worked by Miss Poole and her brother Jack until about 1964 when the farm was sold. Part of the sale agreement was that both Jack and Mary Poole would be able to live in the house rent free for their lives. Mr Fred Jones went to live at the farm in July 1973. On the 5th December 1977 Jack Poole died. The farm is close to the A449 Wolverhampton to Kidderminster Road. The access road to the farm is from Lawnswood Road which itself is a road leading from the A449 to the village of Wordsley. The farm house is to the south east of the junction between Lawnswood Road and the A449. In September 1978 it was separated from the road by a hedge and an orchard. Access to the farm was from Lawnswood Road and, for vehicles travelling towards Wordsley would involve turning right into a farm road and then a short while later turning right to follow the drive leading to the house and a garage. In addition there were to the south east of the house derelict farm buildings surrounding a yard. One of these buildings, the nearest to the house and garage was an old pigsty.

The house consisted of two storeys. Access to the house was by one of three doors. The house had been built to face south with the front door on the south side. However the drive led to the north east corner of the house and normal access was through what had been the back door of the house where the drive met the house. The ground floor consisted of two porches, one for the front and one for the back doors. The old front door led through its porch into the hall of the house from which stairs went to the first floor. The back door led into a porch. A person entering the house through the back door would have ahead of him a door leading into a washroom, to his left a window and to his right a door leading into the living room of the house. From the living room of the house access could be got to the hall and from the hall to three further rooms on the ground floor being a bedroom, a billiard room and a study. In addition there was a kitchen, access to which was directly from the living room. The window of the living room through which entry to the house had been gained was on the south aspect of the house, that is to say the old front of the house. An approach to that window would have involved a person who had used the drive to the house going round the house to the side furthest from the drive. It was the back door of the house which showed the marks of an attempt to force it. At the scene the police were to find a spade with traces of paint on it which matched the paint of the back door. The marks on the back door could have been made by that spade. The third outside door into the house was a door to the left of the back door as approached from the drive, which gave direct access to the washroom.

On the first floor of the farm house were five bedrooms and a bathroom. Evidence by a Scenes of Crime Officer and the statements of Mr Fred Jones established that all the rooms in the house with the exception of the bedroom on the ground floor and possibly the washroom on the ground floor had been searched by the intruders. Items of property had been taken, mainly of relatively small size and therefore easily portable. Some of the items were personal items, such as cufflinks, and pocket watches. Others were household items which could be broadly described as antiques, such as tea pots, kettles, a warming pan, decanters and candle sticks. Some of the items taken were found abandoned in the grounds of the house, for example a tea pot was found in the orchard and a brooch was found in the enclosed yard. Carl Bridgewater’s bicycle was found in the open part of the old pigsty, the spokes of the wheels of that bicycle being slightly damaged.

The intruders missed several items of value during their search. First, in the bedroom on the first floor occupied by Mr Fred Jones, there was in the chest of draws in a box a large brown envelope containing a leather wallet which in turn contained £200 in cash. In the living room in a cupboard was a 12 bore shotgun together with 12 or 13 cartridges. Forensic examination established that the gun had not been fired for some time, and the cartridges contained a type of wadding different from that in the cartridge that had killed the newspaper boy. In the kitchen or pantry there was a safe which contained silverware which Mr Jones valued at over £700. The pantry door had been locked and the pantry had not been entered. These items were undisturbed.

In four of the five bedrooms on the first floor drawers had been pulled open searched and left open whereas in the fifth bedroom the drawers of the chest of drawers had been carefully removed and stacked neatly on top of each other.

The interior of the house was examined for fingerprints as were the items found in the garden and Carl Bridgewater’s bicycle. In addition the ground round the house was examined for footprints and tyre prints. Nothing which connected the four appellants to Yew Tree Farm was found. It would appear that no identifiable footprints or tyre prints were found. Two identifiable but unidentified fingerprints were found on the frame of the bicycle on the tube leading from the handle bars to the housing for the pedal mechanism. They were not the fingerprints of any of the four appellants.

Various witnesses passed along Lawnswood Road in vehicles that afternoon. Mr Mario Sabetta gave evidence that he drove along Lawnswood Road between 3.25 and 3.30 and saw a blue Ford estate car parked in Lawnswood Road on the opposite side of the road to Yew Tree Farm. That vehicle was facing towards Wordsley as if it had come from the A449. Mr Sabetta told the jury that he had seen two men coming from the back of the vehicle and crossing the road and that the smaller of those two men was carrying a firearm. Mr Cross from the County Council’s Highways Department said he arrived at Lawnswood Road at about 3.45 pm and saw a light blue estate car of, he thought, the Cortina type, in the access road to Yew Tree Farm. A neighbour of Mr Fred Jones and Miss Poole, a Mrs Jones said that at about 4 o’clock she had looked across to Yew Tree Farm from her house and noticed a blue estate car which she was confident was a Ford estate car. Its tailgate was raised but no one was in sight. Mrs Jones decided to have a closer look. The vehicle was alongside the hedge leading up to the back door and that door itself was open wider than usual. A Mrs Saville who was pushing her granddaughter in a pram was in Lawnswood Road at about 4.10 pm and noticed a vehicle in the drive to Yew Tree Farm. It was partly behind a hedge so that she could not see all of it. It looked to her like a Transit van. It was mid-blue in colour. A Mr Edwards, a chargehand with the Severn Trent River Authority was travelling down Lawnswood Road at about 4.15 pm. He saw the newspaper boy going towards Yew Tree Farm. As he rounded the bend he saw a light blue vehicle in the driveway of Yew Tree Farm.

Mrs Jones, the neighbour, told the jury that she had looked towards Yew Tree Farm about half an hour after her sighting of the estate car with its tailgate raised and saw that it was no longer there. The evidence of a Mr Wakelam was that he drove along Lawnswood Road shortly after 4.30 pm and he seemed to remember a vehicle coming from the direction of Yew Tree Farm towards Wordsley which he thought was a tatty-looking and dirty light blue van, possibly a Bedford type and as much as 10 years old.

A Mr Madeley told the jury that he regularly drove along Lawnswood Road past Yew Tree Farm in the afternoon. On either Monday 18th September or Tuesday 19th September, he could not say which, he had driven along Lawnswood Road between 4.25 and 4.45 pm and had seen a Ford Cortina estate car containing a driver and passenger pull out from the farm access in a sharp manner. The vehicle was oldish and darkish in colour. Miss Wendy Stagg a school teacher drove along Lawnswood Road between 4.40 and 4.45 pm. She saw two vehicles at the farm entrance, one a plum coloured car and the other a blue estate. They were in Lawnswood Road only a few feet from the entrance to Yew Tree Farm facing towards the A 449. The blue estate was stationary but looked as though it had just reversed out of the farm entrance. It was in front of the plum coloured car. There were two, or possibly three, people in the estate car. She did not notice anyone in the plum coloured car. Another man on the passenger side of the estate car was apparently talking to its occupants. The lower part of that man’s body was hidden from her. A Mr Phelps said that he passed the entrance to the farm at between 4.55 and 5.00 pm. As he passed the entrance, approaching the A449 he was obliged by other vehicles to stop momentarily. He looked down to the access drive and saw a car which he thought was almost certainly an estate car. He described it as being dark blue and thought it was a Ford. The vehicle was waiting in the access drive just back from the pavement and it contained two, possibly three, occupants who were male. The evidence of a Mr Mills was to the effect that at 4.45 pm he saw a very light blue car, either a Peugeot or a Ford Cortina estate, on the A 449 which seemed to have just pulled out from Lawnswood Road or from a lay-by just past the entrance to Lawnswood Road. There were three men in the estate car, two in the front and one in the back in the middle leaning forward between the two front seats. The jury heard two further witnesses, a Mr Stephen Bridgewater, not related to the newspaper boy, and a Mr Clarke. Stephen Bridgewater said that at about 4.50 pm he had driven along Lawnswood Road and had seen a blue Ford Transit van parked in Lawnswood Road facing Wordsley with its offside wheels on the pavement. Mr Clarke said that he had passed Yew Tree Farm at about 5.05 or perhaps up to 5.15 and had seen a medium-blue vehicle parked in the farm driveway at an angle. That vehicle was an Austin or Morris J4 van, medium blue with windows in the side. He saw standing next to the vehicle a man of heavy build with light, shoulder-length hair. This evidence points to the following conclusions:

1. There was more than one intruder (the number of rooms searched, different methods of searching pieces of furniture containing drawers and the evidence of passers-by of seeing more than one man.)

2. Carl Bridgewater arrived at Yew Tree Farm at about 4.20 pm and entered the farmhouse rather than leaving the papers outside the back door. He was shot some uncertain period of time after his arrival at the house. His shooting led to the search of the house by the intruders ceasing and a hurried departure.

3. Whoever searched the house and took items of property probably left no fingerprints inside the house and did not leave any fingerprint on any item taken and abandoned, so they were, almost certainly, wearing gloves or some other protection on their hands against leaving fingerprints.

4. The persons responsible were able to dispose of property taken without the police being able to trace any stolen item.

5. It was possible that more than one vehicle was used and probable that a light blue Ford Cortina estate was used.

6. If the witnesses Miss Stagg, Mr Phelps and Mr Mills were correct on their sightings and timings, then the intruders were still at Yew Tree Farm at a time between 4.45 pm and 5.00 pm. However if the neighbour Mrs Jones and the witness Mr Wakelam were correct, then the intruders would have left the farm by 4.30 pm or thereabouts, and the interval of time between the newspaper boy arriving at the farm and his being shot would have been relatively brief.

The pathological evidence in the case revealed that the victim had not been crying nor were there any other signs of distress preceding death, which must have been instantaneous, which may be a further indication that the interval between the boy’s arrival at the farm and his being shot was relatively brief.

In 1978 James Robinson was living with Carol Bradbury and her three children at 35, Wolstan Croft, Weoley Castle, Birmingham. He and Patrick Molloy had known each other for some 10 years. In April 1978 Patrick Molloy had gone to live at 35, Wolstan Croft. They were regular customers of the California public house in Weoley Castle. They also drank at the Dog and Partridge, a public house in Selly Oak. Vincent Hickey and Michael Hickey were regulars at the Dog and Partridge, where the dominant personality was Joe Hickey, Michael Hickey's father. In 1978 Vincent Hickey was married. At the end of August of that year he left his wife and went to live at 35/4, Lower Beeches Road, Northfield, Birmingham, the flat of Linda Galvin. Linda Galvin a divorced woman lived there with her daughter Stephanie then aged 12. Also lodging in the flat was a 32 year old man Alan Murray who was employed as a coal man by a coal merchant. Murray suffered from tuberculosis. Michael Hickey, Vincent Hickey's cousin did not live at that flat, although he did on occasions stay the night there. One of the issues at the trial was whether in September 1978 James Robinson and Patrick Molloy were associates of Vincent and Michael Hickey, or whether they simply knew each other by sight, the close association between James Robinson and the Hickeys not commencing until after James Robinson's release from custody on the 23rd October 1978.

Another issue at the trial was the knowledge of Vincent and Michael Hickey of that part of Staffordshire in which Yew Tree Farm was located. Vincent & Michael Hickey worked for Joe Hickey, going to properties, the roofs of which required some repair, knocking on doors and seeking to persuade the occupier of the particular property to let them repair the roof for a price. The work would actually be done by other men whom the Hickeys “employed” and who would be regulars at the Dog and Partridge. It was the prosecution’s case based on the evidence of another member of the Hickey family, Reginald Hickey, a cousin of both Vincent and Michael Hickey, that Vincent and Michael Hickey knew the Wordsley area of Staffordshire having worked that area. It was the Hickeys case that they had never worked in that area.

Before examining the case presented against each appellant at the trial, it is helpful to trace events involving the appellants following the 19th September 1978. On Wednesday 20th September 1978 James Robinson and Patrick Molloy were involved in the theft of a car in the Harbourne district of Birmingham, that car being taken between 3 and 3.15 pm on that day. The car, a Ford Cortina estate, was later used in the burglary of butcher’s premises of the Co-operative Society in Tamworth during the night of the 20th/21st by James Robinson and Patrick Molloy. In the early hours of the 21st, the police approached the vehicle containing property stolen in the burglary. James Robinson was arrested but Patrick Molloy walked away from the vehicle prior to the police discovering the stolen property and made good his escape. James Robinson remained in custody until the 23rd October when he was dealt with for those offences by a Magistrates’ Court. If the matter had not been dealt with at that hearing, Michael Hickey’s father, Joe Hickey, and a bar maid at the Dog and Partridge, Helen Johnston were at the court prepared to stand surety in support of an application for bail.

Following Robinson’s arrest on the 21st September 1978, a single barrelled sawn-off shotgun which Robinson had bought from a man called Anwar Mohammed in August 1978 through a contact, David Kane, was taken from its hiding place in the flat in which Robinson lived to the flat of one Susan Bennett by Patrick Molloy, together with an air pistol and number of shotgun cartridges, all of No 6 shot. Those items were hidden by Susan Bennett’s husband in the loft of their flat. Later those items were returned to Carol Bradbury’s flat and hidden under the floor of Patrick Molloy’s bedroom. In November 1978 Carol Bradbury again asked Susan Bennett to have those items, which she did for a time. They were then returned to James Robinson, who hid them under some bushes on waste ground at the junction of Barnes Hill Road and Middle Acre Road, Weoley Castle.

Prior to that Vincent Hickey had been involved in an offence of deception at Chapel Farm on the 30th September 1978. At the relevant time Vincent Hickey was living with Linda Galvin at Linda Galvin’s flat. Also living there was Alan Murray. Murray had delivered coal to Chapel Farm, a house occupied by elderly people. He told Vincent Hickey and Linda Galvin about the farm. They went to the farm on the 30th September 1978 and represented themselves as agents of the coal merchant telling the elderly occupants of the farm that if they paid for their coal in advance they could obtain coal for the coming winter more cheaply. The occupants, believing this, paid over £352.

On the 14th October Vincent Hickey was questioned concerning his whereabouts at the time of the Yew Tree Farm offences. This was part of routine questioning of known criminals by the police investigating the Carl Bridgewater murder. Vincent Hickey on that occasion in a written statement, Exhibit 59 gave a detailed but untrue account of his movements on the 19th September.

On the 24th November 1978 an armed robbery was committed at Tesco’s store, Castle Vale. The three robbers were armed; two with baseball bats and one with a single barrelled sawn-off shotgun. The shotgun was the shotgun which became Exhibit 25 at the appellants’ trial, the property of James Robinson. During the course of the offence, the manager of the store started to follow the robbers as they left the store, picking up a baseball bat dropped by one of the robbers, and the shotgun was fired over his head. The robbers were James Robinson, Michael Hickey and a man called John Burkett, the fifth man named in the indictment.

On the 30th November there was an armed robbery at Chapel Farm. The weapon was again Exhibit 25. The two robbers who entered the farm house and threatened the occupants and obtained money from them were James Robinson and Michael Hickey. There was evidence of the involvement of Vincent Hickey as the driver of the vehicle, Linda Galvin’s car, which conveyed the robbers to and from Chapel Farm, although Vincent Hickey’s involvement in this offence was never the subject of a trial in a court of law. During the appeal in 1989 it was admitted on Vincent Hickey’s behalf that he had been involved in the Chapel Farm robbery as the driver of the car.

On the 4th December 1978 Vincent Hickey was interviewed in his solicitor’s presence at Bromsgrove Police Station, concerning the offences of deception and robbery at Chapel Farm. At the end of the interview Vincent Hickey was arrested for both those offences. During the interview he admitted knowing Alan Murray and Linda Galvin and that Alan Murray was a coalman. Otherwise his replies were either denials of knowing anything about Chapel Farm or “no comment” answers. He refused to sign the notes made contemporaneously of that interview. The interview had started at 1800 hours and ended at 1826. At 2255 hours on the same day Vincent Hickey was seen in the CID Room at Bromsgrove Police Station by the officers who had interviewed him earlier. He apologised for the “No Comment” answers he had made and told the officers, ”off the record”, that he had been involved in the offence of deception at Chapel Farm but not in the robbery. He was reminded of the caution. He named Michael Hickey as being involved in the robbery; said that “Our Michael’s a psychopath” and claimed that Michael Hickey had been told about Chapel Farm by Linda Galvin. Vincent Hickey went on to say that Michael Hickey and others had committed other offences as well, describing the robbery at Tesco’s as one of those offences. The others involved in the Tesco robbery had committed other offences with yet another man who had dropped out of the team and Michael Hickey had replaced him. Vincent Hickey offered to point out to the police where one of the other robbers lived. Vincent Hickey told the officers “Our Michael says the older one did the Bridgewater murder”. Vincent Hickey claimed that Michael Hickey had put to the older one that he had committed the Carl Bridgewater murder and the older one had become rattled. Vincent Hickey refused to identify the person he was referring to as “the older one”.

Vincent Hickey was interviewed again the following day starting at 1050 hours, in the CID Office of Bromsgrove Police Station, and the interviewers were DCI Knight and DS Dickens. He was cautioned. Vincent Hickey admitted knowing of the plan to rob Chapel Farm and lending the perpetrators a car. At the end of the interview he was told he would be charged with robbery and deception. He was charged with those offences at 1420 hours by DS Dickens. He was then taken before magistrates and remanded under Section 105 (5) of the Magistrates’ Court Act, 1952, that is to say that he was remanded in police custody for three days.

At 2000 hours that day Vincent Hickey agreed to point out to the police where the “older one” lived, having first been cautioned. At 2100 hours he took DCI Knight and DC Benting to a building containing Carol Bradbury’s flat and pointed out her flat to the police. He also pointed out another flat in another building where he said his cousin Michael Hickey was then hiding.

In interview on the 6th December at 1600 hours at which the officer in charge of the investigation into the murder of Carl Bridgewater, DCS Stewart was present, Vincent Hickey said that the gang consisted of “James Robinson, the other one and the one with bad teeth who was also a “junkie”.” Michael Hickey had been involved with James Robinson and the other man but had only been with them a short while. He thought that Michael Hickey had replaced somebody in the team. The second interview with Vincent Hickey on the 6th December at Bromsgrove Police Station began at 1715 and ended at 1730 hours. Vincent Hickey identified the one with the bad teeth, the junkie, as a man called Poyner. He was shown a photograph of James Robinson and identified him and said that James Robinson had had his head shaved at about the time of the Carl Bridgewater murder. He was also shown a photograph of Patrick Molloy and identified him as “the other one”.

At 1900 hours that day James Robinson was arrested for the Chapel Farm robbery by DS Robinson and DS Hornby. Cautioned he said “Robbery, not me, that’s not my scene”. He was told his home would be searched because it was thought that Patrick Molloy and “the junkie” would be found there. He was reminded of the caution. Robinson denied using guns. At 1935 James Robinson was told that the search was in progress and said: “You’re too late”. James Robinson told the police that Patrick Molloy had come with him to the Police Station with instructions to wait for 15 minutes and if Robinson was not released to “get on his bike and tell everyone that James Robinson had been nicked”. James Robinson also told the police that someone had “Bubbled him” and he asked for time to think. At 2320 hours that evening James Robinson was shown a shotgun cartridge found during the search of Carol Bradbury’s flat and said “That’s fucked it”. The robbery at Tesco’s was put to James Robinson and he replied “No, just a minute, you’ll be putting me down for the paper kid’s murder shortly”. He claimed to have an alibi for the Carl Bridgewater murder. He asked who had identified him as being in the Tesco robbery.

On the 7th December at a quarter to one in the morning James Robinson said to DS Robinson and other officers having been reminded of the caution, that he was about to tell the police about the gun. At 0105 hours James Robinson pointed out where he had hidden the gun which was recovered by DC Price with a bag of 11 cartridges, a hood, a pair of gloves and a muslin cloth. At 0125 hours James Robinson told the police that he would inform on the Hickeys “because they are bastards” and must have informed on him, but not on the other men involved in the Tesco and Chapel Farm offences who had not informed on him. James Robinson told the police that Vincent Hickey, Michael Hickey and himself had committed the Chapel Farm robbery and that the Tesco robbery had been committed by Michael Hickey himself and another man. James Robinson then wrote his own statement concerning those offences. At 1745 that day James Robinson was taken to the Bromsgrove Police Station by DS Robinson and DI Taylor. Up until that time he had been held at Harbourne Police Station.

Meanwhile on that day, the 7th December, Vincent Hickey was seen by DI Fowlie, DS Rogerson and DC Crotty in the interview room at Redditch Police Station at 1320 hours. This interview was to last until 1700 hours. During the interview Vincent Hickey told the police that Michael Hickey had named James Robinson as the murderer of Carl Bridgewater. Michael Hickey had also bragged about holding up a supermarket and being one of the team useful with a gun. Vincent Hickey said that Michael Hickey had not been at Yew Tree Farm because he had only met James Robinson “a couple of weeks ago”. Vincent Hickey told the police of an incident where Michael Hickey had said to James Robinson when James Robinson had been playing pool in the California Public house “You done the paper boy didn’t you Jim?” and that James Robinson’s reaction to that accusation convinced Vincent Hickey that the accusation was true. Vincent Hickey had added that there was another person, Paddy, who had committed offences with James Robinson.

On the 8th December Patrick Molloy was arrested at 0825 hours, for the burglary at Tamworth, cautioned and taken to Bournville Lane Police Station. At 1100 hours he was interviewed by DS Harrison and DC Davies who cautioned him and put the Tamworth butcher’s burglary to Patrick Molloy who denied it.

At 1220 that morning Vincent Hickey was taken to Redditch Police Station. During the journey from Bromsgrove to Redditch police stations Vincent Hickey said he needed help over the Chapel Farm effort. He also said that James Robinson had good reason to make a written statement. At 1240 Vincent Hickey was interviewed by DS Lessemun and DC Millington. He repeated the story of Michael Hickey challenging James Robinson that James Robinson had killed Carl Bridgewater. He offered to tell the police the whereabouts of his cousin Michael Hickey if he, Vincent Hickey, were granted bail. He told the police officers that he drove the others to Chapel Farm and dropped them off down the road and floated until they came back to the car across the fields. He indicated that he could know something about the Carl Bridgewater murder, but he would want to be out of both the Chapel Farm offences and the murder himself. The police record of this interview was that he said “I want out of both the Romsley blagging and the murder”. That statement was not given in evidence before the jury, because of the Judge’s ruling that the Crown were not to lead evidence concerning Chapel Farm. Vincent Hickey claimed to know who did the actual shooting. He told the police that there were two cars, not, one used in the Yew Tree Farm offences and that they should check on a blue van which was stolen and left in Redditch full of stolen antiques. The police would not clear up the Yew Tree Farm case without him. He could put the police onto the Cortina estate, which had been cut up. Vincent Hickey told the police that he was nearly on the job himself; that the car was his and that he had two identical estate cars, one of which a car driven by a police woman had collided with and the second of which was now cut up.

During this interview at 1405 Vincent Hickey spoke to DCI Knight on the telephone, who was at Bromsgrove Police Station. Vincent Hickey wanted an assurance that the Chapel Farm robbery would be dropped against him before he spoke about the Carl Bridgewater murder. Following that telephone conversation Vincent Hickey told the police that he had had a conversation with the murderer; that the offence at Yew Tree Farm was planned by Hickey himself. The thieves had been looking not just for antiques but for gold, namely sovereigns and Spade Guineas. At his trial, Vincent Hickey disputed that he had told the police that the thieves were looking for Spade Guineas. Vincent Hickey said that Carl Bridgewater had been shot accidentally. He had not been at Yew Tree Farm but he knew the four who were. The police had the killer but did not know it. The blue van with the white roof rack was back with its owner. The farm had no hallway. You went through the back door and the living room was on the right. This drew the comment from the police that Vincent Hickey could not have known the layout of that part of the farmhouse unless he had been there. Vincent Hickey then repeated the pool table story of Michael Hickey confronting James Robinson with being the killer of Carl Bridgewater. Vincent Hickey said that he had rung the Bournville Police Station to give information about the killing but had rung off when he was asked to identify himself. Vincent Hickey said that after the murder he was told the gun had been thrown away. However when he was in London in court, James Robinson, Patrick Molloy, Michael Hickey and “the druggy” committed the Tesco’s robbery with a gun that could have been the same gun as used in the murder and the same gun as the police had recovered, but he, Vincent Hickey, had not seen the gun the police had recovered. He told the police he had seen the murder gun about two days before the Yew Tree Farm offences. He described the gun as being about 18 inches to 2 feet long with silver engraving above the trigger. It is to be observed that this description did not fit Exhibit 25, the gun recovered by the police with the assistance of James Robinson. Vincent Hickey admitted being the driver on the Yew Tree Farm offences. He complained towards the end of this interview of headaches and that he was “cracking up”.

That same day Patrick Molloy was interviewed by DCI Watson, DS Harrison and DC Davies at Wombourne Police Station starting at 1440 hours. He was cautioned. Initially Patrick Molloy denied that he was involved in the Tamworth Co-operative Meat burglary on the night of the 20/21st September 1978. He was asked about his relationship with James Robinson. He then admitted the Tamworth offence. He told the police that he was scared of James Robinson and “That lot”; that James Robinson stole a lot of vehicles; that James Robinson had an empty garage; that James Robinson had a receiver of stolen property who lived near the California public house. Patrick Molloy then admitted being involved in the burglaries of a butcher’s shop in Northfield and of the Stonehouse public house in Northfield with James Robinson and John Burkett. It was the burglary of the butcher’s shop in Northfield that had financed James Robinson’s purchase of a shotgun. Patrick Molloy also told the police that after the Tamworth burglary he had gone to Leeds to get out of the way. Patrick Molloy went on to tell the police of the Tesco robbery which he said involved James Robinson, John Burkett and Michael Hickey, observing that Michael Hickey was only about 16 or 17 years of age but was “Bloody mad”, and that he knew that James Robinson, Vincent Hickey and Michael Hickey had been arrested for tying up some “old dears” in the country. At 1830 hours DS Harrison and DC Davies raised with Patrick Molloy for the first time the Carl Bridgewater murder. Between 1900 hours and 1955 hours Patrick Molloy made a statement under caution, Exhibit 53 in which he admitted involvement in the offences at Tamworth and at Northfield, and told the police of the sawn-off shotgun and cartridges that James Robinson had purchased, and of the planning of the robbery at the Castle Vale supermarket.

At 1745 hours DCS Stewart and DCI Watson interviewed Vincent Hickey who was in a depressed state and sobbing. He was reminded about the rules whether he need say anything or not. He said that he could tell the police all they needed to know to clear the murder, and asked what the police could offer him. He was told by DCS Stewart that he was making no promises of any kind. Vincent Hickey told them that he had been in touch with the Bournville Police Station by telephone, for the purpose of giving information about the Carl Bridgewater murder. He also said that he could help on the Carl Bridgewater murder but he wanted immunity. He said that if he told them about the killing, he would be charged. This interview was in the detention room at Redditch. It lasted until 1915 hours and therefore the account given of it by the police officers must have been a brief summary of all that was said. A caution was given although not in full. Vincent Hickey was again interviewed on the 8th December, this time by DI Fowlie, DS Lessemun and DC Millington the interview starting at 2050 hours and ending at 2350 hours. During the course of this interview Vincent Hickey asserted that he made sure he told the police enough to get them interested but not too much for them to come back at him. He agreed he was there and knew all there was to know about the Yew Tree Farm offences. He repeated that he thought the gun had been got rid of after the Yew Tree Farm offences and that he did not see the gun at Chapel Farm. He also repeated that he had seen the gun a couple of days “before the kid got shot”. He asked if the gun recovered had engraving on the side as he had described to the police.

There was an interview under caution of James Robinson by DCS Stewart, DCI Watson and DCI Jarvis at Bromsgrove Police Station starting at 2115 and ending at 2210 hours. James Robinson was said to have shown alarm at the suggestion that he had been stealing antiques. He admitted stealing jewellery and candlesticks but denied stealing antiques. James Robinson said that the gun used at Chapel Farm was not loaded. A loaded gun had been used for the robbery at Tesco’s by John Burkett.

Vincent Hickey was interviewed again on the 8th December 1978 the interviewing starting at 2350 hours. The interviewers were DS Lessemun, DC Millington and DI Fowlie. The place was the CID Office at Redditch Police Station. During the course of that interview Vincent Hickey said “Yes I can’t live with it. I wanted to tell someone before”. That was why he had rung Bournville Police Station. He had confided in Joe Hickey. He suggested that if he obtained bail it would help him to make a statement. Vincent Hickey said that Michael Hickey when he challenged James Robinson in the California Public house did not know that he, Vincent Hickey, had been involved in the Yew Tree Farm offences. Vincent Hickey said he knew that Yew Tree Farm was going to be a robbery in reply to a question “Did you know they took a gun to Yew Tree Farm?” Vincent Hickey was told that he had admitted an active part in a robbery where a 13 year old boy had been murdered and replied “I didn’t shoot him”.

On the 9th December, James Robinson was interviewed by DCI Knight and DS Dickens at Bromsgrove Police Station at 0005 hours. He told the officers that he did not know what his movements were on the 19th September 1978. He was told by the officers to think. James Robinson then said “I think I was out thieving with Patrick Molloy.” He was asked what sort of offence they were committing and said that he didn’t know, he couldn’t remember. That was a relatively short interview.

Vincent Hickey was again interviewed by DS Lessemun and DC Millington at 1045 hours on the 9th December, the Saturday. This interview lasted until 1345 hours. Vincent Hickey was cautioned by DS Lessemun. It began with Vincent Hickey being reminded that he had said that Yew Tree Farm was going to be a robbery and not a burglary and that he had said he had seen the gun two days before. This was a planned robbery and if the old folks had not been out, violence would have been used. Vincent Hickey replied “You might be right”. During the course of this interview, Vincent Hickey said “It was an accident” and “You don’t think he was killed on purpose? The gun went off accidentally”. He told the police not to forget that he had put them on to James Robinson. He said that the police knew that oral admissions, “verbals” were no good as evidence. DS Lessemun put to Vincent Hickey that he was in the house, to which Vincent Hickey replied “I may have been”. A short while later Vincent Hickey admitted being there in the house. He said “I’m too fat to get through the window” and “I walked in”. He also told the police “The person who went in the farm first did not shoot the kid”. He was asked how he knew that and answered “I was there, wasn’t I”. He admitted that he had done more than the driving and that he had gone to the house first to do the knocking to see if there was anybody in. He was asked if he had expected anyone to be in. He then said that he had said more than he had intended to say. The police said that they knew Vincent Hickey had been in the house because he knew there was no hallway. Vincent Hickey sought to explain his knowledge that the living room was to the right as one entered the house through the back door as being either a guess or because somebody had told him.

DS Lessemun at one point in the interview said “You’re on the job but you won’t say who killed the boy”. Vincent Hickey replied “I’m sure you know. I said enough for that”. Towards the end of the interview Vincent Hickey, in reply to DC Millington’s statement “You chose to go on the robbery at Yew Tree Farm not us”, said “Yeah and Romsley (here referring to Chapel Farm). I reckon I could get a deal on Yew Tree Farm because I know you can’t prove it without me, but you can still do me for Romsley”.

There was a further interview with James Robinson by DCI Jarvis and DC Eccleshall which began at 1400 hours on that Saturday afternoon and ended at 1820 hours. James Robinson was cautioned. In that interview James Robinson told the police how he had bought the gun; that when he was arrested on the 21st September he gave the wrong address until he was told that the gun was safe. He told the police that he kept the gun under the washing and later under his mattress. He identified the receivers of stolen property who he used. He told the police of himself and Patrick Molloy firing the gun at a plastic ball. He said that Carol Bradbury had told him that Patrick Molloy had hidden the gun under the floor boards. He said that he purchased the gun from Spider Mohammed for £20. It was already sawn-off. He had hidden it at the place to which he had taken the police because he had been tipped off that some of those involved on the Chapel Farm robbery had been arrested. The tip-off had been sent by his mate Joe Hickey. James Robinson admitted that Vincent Hickey had been to his flat once. He referred to Vincent Hickey in obscene terms and maintained that Vincent Hickey had informed on him. James Robinson told the police that he had been asked by Vincent Hickey and Michael Hickey to go to Chapel Farm. He was asked why Patrick Molloy was not at Chapel Farm and said that Patrick Molloy had become angry and had gone on about the similarity with the Yew Tree Farm offences. Patrick Molloy had said that the law would think it could be the same team that had committed both sets of offences. When James Robinson was told that Vincent Hickey had incriminated him in Carl Bridgewater’s murder, he said “I suppose he said he was just the driver and I pulled the trigger. I suppose he has been trying to do a deal with you”. At that point James Robinson had become upset and said “Poor little baby, they must have blowed half his head off.” James Robinson then said that Michael Hickey had probably fouled himself at Yew Tree Farm when the gun had gone off. He added that he would not be surprised if Vincent Hickey and their team had done it. Patrick Molloy was interviewed for the first time by DC Perkins and DC Leeke on the 9th December 1978 at 1800 hours. He was cautioned and questioned about Carl Bridgewater’s murder on the basis that he was a known associate of James Robinson, Michael Hickey and Vincent Hickey who had committed a very similar crime at Chapel Farm. Patrick Molloy said that he was frightened of those three men. He admitted committing offences with James Robinson and Vincent Hickey when firearms were taken. He maintained that the taking of the firearms was just to frighten. He didn’t know how the Hickeys set up their offences. They just picked him up and took him to the place where the offences were to be committed. Patrick Molloy said that his method of operating was to be tidy and that was so, even when he had had a few drinks.

Somewhat later that day at 2003 hours James Robinson was interviewed again by DCI Jarvis and DC Eccleshall at the interview room at Droitwich Police Station. The initial conversation took place between DC Eccleshall and James Robinson without caution. During that initial conversation James Robinson said that Vincent Hickey and Michael Hickey were capable of killing Carl Bridgewater. At 2014 hours DCI Jarvis entered the interview room and reminded James Robinson of the caution. During the course of the interview that followed James Robinson suggested that Vincent Hickey was saying what he had been saying to the police because he and Michael Hickey had probably done it and “wanted a fall guy for the shooting”, and had named him because he, Vincent Hickey, knew that James Robinson had a shotgun. James Robinson was asked to say where he was on the 19th September but said that his mind was a blank. He was told that Carol Bradbury was being interviewed and asked what she would say he and Patrick Molloy had been doing on the 19th September. James Robinson replied “Fuck knows” and then said that he would make a statement admitting the offence but the police would have to give him the details. That interview ended at 2135 hours.

On the same evening at 2300 hours Patrick Molloy was seen by DC Perkins and DC Leeke at Wombourne Police Station in the cell where he was being held, with DS Robbins making a note in the passageway of the cells. During that interview having been cautioned, Patrick Molloy said that he had been made to hold the shotgun on one offence which he was not asked to identify. He also looked the officers in the eyes and said that he did not commit the Yew Tree Farm offences.

On Sunday the 10th December, the first interview was one with Patrick Molloy beginning at 1130 hours. The interviewers again were DC Perkins and DC Leeke with DS Robbins in the passageway of the cell block making notes. The officers cautioned Patrick Molloy and asserted that he was on the brink of telling them something. They also pointed out to Patrick Molloy that if James Robinson or Vincent Hickey made admissions he, Patrick Molloy, would be in a very serious situation. He was urged to look after himself.

The next interview in point of time on that Sunday was that of Vincent Hickey by DS Lessemun and DC Millington beginning at 1220 hours. Vincent Hickey said that he would not make a statement. He said that it was his van, the blue van with the white roof rack used for the offences. Joe Hickey had got rid of the van after the murder a couple of months earlier. Vincent Hickey was told that Joe Hickey had been asked if Vincent Hickey had confided in him about being present at Yew Tree Farm and that Joe Hickey had said that he did not believe the police officers as to what Vincent Hickey had been saying but if it was right, Vincent Hickey was finished as far as he was concerned. Vincent Hickey then said that he was not there, meaning Yew Tree Farm, and had been messing the police about. Vincent Hickey maintained that he had guessed the layout of the inside of Yew Tree Farm.

Patrick Molloy was seen again at 1315 hours on that Sunday by DS Walker and DS Robbins with DC Leeke in the corridor taking notes. He was told by DS Walker to remember that he did not have to say anything and to think of himself. Patrick Molloy said that he was getting confused and denied involvement in the Yew Tree Farm offences. At 1500 hours that day Patrick Molloy was again seen by DI Turner with DS Robbins in the corridor taking notes. DI Turner reminded him of the caution. He told DI Turner that he was worried but was not frightened of the police. At 1535 hours DS Walker entered the cell and DI Turner left. Patrick Molloy told DS Walker that he was in some terrible trouble; that he needed some advice and asked to see the “Boss”. DS Walker believed that Patrick Molloy was referring to DCS Stewart and said it would take some time for the “Boss” to be contacted. Patrick Molloy then asked to see “the chap with the beard on his own”. The chap with the beard was a reference to DC Perkins. At 1540 hours DC Perkins saw Patrick Molloy alone in his cell but with DS Robbins and DC Leeke in the corridor with, it was maintained, DS Robbins making notes. He was reminded of the caution. Patrick Molloy said to DC Perkins “I was there at the farm when the lad got shot, but I didn’t know about the gun until after. I was told that it was Jimmy who did it but it was an accident”. He went on to say that he was upstairs; he heard a bang, came downstairs and heard James Robinson say that it went off by accident. He, Patrick Molloy, then ran out. Patrick Molloy named Vincent Hickey, Michael Hickey and James Robinson. He said that the vehicles used were a blue Cortina estate and a van which James Robinson borrowed from someone at the Dog and Partridge which had a white top. The vehicles were parked away from the farm. Patrick Molloy and Vincent Hickey walked to the farm first. James Robinson broke in through a window and let the others in. He had gone upstairs into a bedroom. The boy had been on the settee. He was shot in the head. He, Patrick Molloy, had left in the Cortina estate with Vincent Hickey and James Robinson. Michael Hickey had driven the van. Both vehicles had been at the top of the drive when Patrick Molloy got into the estate car. He had been dropped off by the Plough and Harrow public house. The oral interview was then followed by the writing of a statement by DC Perkins at the dictation of Patrick Molloy. The interview was said to have lasted from 1540 to 1600 hours and the writing of the statement from 1600 hours to 1620. In the statement Patrick Molloy described the position of the shot boy on the settee. He also described the neat stacking of drawers in one of the bedrooms, which he said he had done. He maintained that he had not seen the boy’s bicycle. After the statement, Patrick Molloy gave a correct demonstration of how Carl Bridgewater had fallen after being shot. He said that the others had worn woollen hats pulled down.

At the same time that Patrick Molloy was being interviewed by DC Perkins, initially alone and then subsequently by DC Perkins and DC Leeke at Wombourne Police Station, Vincent Hickey was being interviewed again by DS Lessemun and DC Milllington at Redditch Police Station. He said that he would make a statement. DS Lessemun started to take down a statement Exhibit 55, on a witness statement form. Vincent Hickey said that he would make a statement about Yew Tree Farm and Chapel Farm and asked that DCI Knight be told to see if he would give Vincent Hickey bail. Vincent Hickey was told that the officers were not there to discuss bail or Chapel Farm but just what Vincent Hickey knew about the murder committed at Yew Tree Farm. Vincent Hickey told the officers then to go on and a witness statement was commenced on which Vincent Hickey’s address was given as that of his wife although at the time of his arrest he had still been living with Linda Galvin. That statement became Exhibit 55 at the trial. That statement was abandoned because the story got out of sequence and a second witness statement which became Exhibit 56 was commenced at Vincent Hickey’s dictation. After the conclusion of that, Vincent Hickey told the police in answer to questions that he had put the police onto James Robinson and the police would get no more from him. He was asked to read the caption at the top of the statement and sign it. He declined to sign either the caption or the statement.

Patrick Molloy was seen by DCS Stewart, DCI Watson and other officers in the cell at Wombourne Police Station at 1845 on that Sunday evening. It was a five minute interview in which Patrick Molloy told DCS Stewart that his statement Exhibit 54 was true. He denied pulling the trigger.

At 2110 hours that evening James Robinson, having been reminded he was still under caution, was shown by DCS Stewart and other officers a copy of Patrick Molloy’s written statement Exhibit 54. He said that it was a fairy story. He still could not remember what he had been doing that afternoon. He also said “They’re giving me the right concocted little set up”. He told the police officers “Patrick Molloy had access to that gun”, and “They could have gone those three”. DCS Stewart and DS Lycett left the interview at 2145 hours. James Robinson wanted to see Exhibit 54 again because he wanted to know what Patrick Molloy said about getting into the farm. James Robinson made the observation “The dirty bastards .... they’ve done me, they’ve hung drawn and quartered me”. He rejected a suggestion by the police that he was frightened of the Hickeys and maintained that they had reason to be frightened.

At 2130 hours DS Lessemun, DC Millington and DI Fowlie saw Vincent Hickey at Redditch Police Station where they told him that others were implicating him. Vincent Hickey said that he was in the Dog and Partridge at the time of Carl Bridgewater’s murder. He was reminded of the admissions which he had made. He observed “I see what you mean. I’m in the shit ain’t I”. He asked if the others had said who had pulled the trigger. He was told that someone had made a statement about the murder naming him and the others and replied that that couldn’t be because he wasn’t there. At one point he said that after he had seen that statement the police could take him to Wombourne Police Station and he would make a statement saying that he had pulled the trigger. He asked for a solicitor, but, when the police said that they would get him one observed, that the police wouldn’t be able to at that time on a Sunday. He was told that the officers hadn’t seen the statement, but that they knew more or less what was in it. It named Patrick Molloy, James Robinson, Michael Hickey and himself as the four persons involved, to which Vincent Hickey replied “Now I know it’s a load of rubbish, Mickey wasn’t there”. He was asked how he knew that if he hadn’t been there to which he replied that he just knew it. He was reminded that he had described the inside of the farm and said that it had been on the television. He became agitated and angry according to the police evidence. There was this exchange:

DS Lessemun: “Vince, if you are involved now is the time to say so. If you didn’t kill that boy say so”.

Vincent Hickey: “I didn’t kill him”.

DS Lessemun: “Fair enough but I still think you can assist”.

Vincent Hickey: “Yes I can, I’ve told you in that statement this afternoon”.

He was told that it was Patrick Molloy who had made the statement and his response was to say: “I wasn’t there”. DI Fowlie entered the interview room with a copy of Exhibit 54 which Vincent Hickey read twice before throwing it on the table and saying it was not true. He was then asked about his movements on the 19th September and said that he hadn’t a clue where he had been that day. He also maintained that he had had only one Cortina estate. At the end of the interview Vincent Hickey observed that he should get a pat on the back for this because it was he “who had put the police onto it all”.

James Robinson was again shown Exhibit 54 that evening in an interview which started at 2227 hours with James Robinson being cautioned by DS Rogerson and went on until 0210 the following morning. James Robinson said that Exhibit 54 was a fairy tale. He could give no reason why Patrick Molloy should make it. He agreed that Patrick Molloy had never informed on him before. He was asked whether it had been his gun that had been used at Yew Tree Farm and replied “No, well it could have been”. Adding “Patrick Molloy knows where it is kept under the floor boards in Patrick Molloy’s room”. The police said that that answer was shouted. James Robinson admitted that he, Patrick Molloy and Vincent Hickey had agreed not to admit Yew Tree Farm but to admit other serious offences. He said that Chapel Farm had been Vincent Hickey’s job but different because the gun was not loaded. The police then compared the Yew Tree Farm and Chapel Farm cases and James Robinson became agitated. Those passages were omitted from the evidence that went before the jury. He said that if he admitted Yew Tree Farm it would be 30 years and he wouldn’t admit it. He was then asked to say where he had been on the 19th September but said that he was unable to say. Vincent Hickey’s story about Michael Hickey confronting him whilst he was playing pool at the California Public house was put to him and he replied “They’re all liars”.

Vincent Hickey was interviewed again on Monday 11th December at 0810 hours. It was put to him by DI Fowlie that he had said he was out drinking until 4 a.m. every morning because he couldn’t live with it, referring to the murder, and those were not the actions of an innocent man. To which Vincent Hickey replied “No, it isn’t”. He was asked to explain how the basics of the statement made by Patrick Molloy were the same as the admissions he had made and replied that it was a coincidence and that Patrick Molloy’s statement was bent and worthless.

On that Monday morning, Patrick Molloy appeared before the Seisden Magistrates’ Court and was remanded into police custody until the 14th December. He had been charged with the Tamworth meat burglary at 1050 hours by DS Harrison. He was unrepresented. He was not granted Legal Aid. The inference to be drawn from statements of members of the Magistrates’ Court staff that accused persons would be asked if they wished to be represented by a solicitor, and if they said they did wish to be represented, they would be granted legal representation, is that he did not apply for legal representation on that appearance.

The same day James Robinson was interviewed at 1130 hours the interview ending at 1345. James Robinson again complained that the police were trying to pin Carl Bridgewater’s murder on him and told them to get paper and pen and he would make a statement admitting it. When the police queried whether he would make such a statement James Robinson said “That’s what you want isn’t it. I’m admitting it but I didn’t do it”. During the course of this interview Robinson was again asked where he was on the 19th September and said that he could not remember. He suggested that he might have been committing another offence. At 1215 hours James Robinson asked for time to think. The interview was resumed at 1310 hours and James Robinson said that he thought Carol Bradbury may have been in hospital and he may have been visiting her or he may have been drinking. He asked the police what Carol Bradbury had said and was told that Carol Bradbury told the police that James Robinson had picked her up from hospital that morning. James Robinson said that he had had a blue Ford Cortina estate about that time. He told the police that if Patrick Molloy had had a job on he would have gone with him. He was then asked if he did the murder and broke down completely. James Robinson told the police that he and Patrick Molloy had discussed the Carl Bridgewater murder after the Chapel Farm offences because Patrick Molloy had pointed out the similarities and told James Robinson that he would “make himself scarce for a bit”.

At 1140 that morning Patrick Molloy was interviewed by DCI Watson and DI Wordley in the Surgeon’s Room at Wombourne Police Station. Following being cautioned, Patrick Molloy told the police that the four had met at the Dog and Partridge. He thought it was Vincent Hickey who had asked him to go to Yew Tree Farm. He had gone in a Ford Cortina with Vincent Hickey and Michael Hickey. He said that he had arrived at the Dog and Partridge before James Robinson. James Robinson had arrived at about 1 o’clock. It was about 3 o’clock that Vincent Hickey and Michael Hickey had come into the lounge. Vincent Hickey had spoken about there being coins at Yew Tree Farm. He thought the car had been a Ford Cortina estate. He had been wearing a green pullover and trousers which he had lost subsequently. James Robinson had been wearing trousers, a shirt and a woollen cap. James Robinson always wore gloves on a job although he had not had gloves at the Dog and Partridge. James Robinson went in a van following the estate car. They had driven to about 100 yards from the farm. All the others put caps on. He and Vincent Hickey went first. Vincent Hickey knocked on the door. James Robinson then came and got in through the window and opened the door for him and Vincent Hickey. He did not see a gun. The van he thought was dark blue with a white top. Patrick Molloy was vague about the layout of the house. He said he had gone upstairs into a bedroom. It had a sideboard and a bed. He pulled the drawers out of the sideboard and stacked them. He had only gone into one room. There was someone else upstairs, he could tell from the noise. There was a shout “There’s someone coming”. He heard the door open. Then he heard a bang. He rushed downstairs, saw someone on the settee. Somebody said it was an accident. He didn’t see a gun. They rushed up the road, got into the car. He was threatened to keep quiet.

Patrick Molloy was seen again that day in the Surgeon’s Room at 1450 the interview ending at 1655. Again he was cautioned. On that occasion he told the police that he had heard someone say “Someone’s coming”. Then some muttering and then a bang. When he had got downstairs Michael Hickey had the gun. Vincent Hickey and Michael Hickey were there. The young chap was slumped on the settee. There was a strong smell of cordite. He didn’t know where James Robinson was. He thought James Robinson was upstairs. He, Patrick Molloy, had been wearing gloves which he had disposed of. The car was 50 to 100 yards away. He had nearly fallen over the push bike about 5 yards from the front door. He had been the first out. He thought Vincent Hickey said that the bike was hidden. He couldn’t say about there being a dog. He didn’t remember someone having a go at the door of the house. Patrick Molloy then asked the police how they knew that he, Molloy, had been at Yew Tree Farm. He confirmed that he had been there. He knew nothing about James Robinson having two shotguns. He had had nothing from Yew Tree Farm. He thought bags containing things from Yew Tree Farm were in the vehicles and were not dumped on the journey back to Selly Oak. At 1600 hours DCI Watson left the interview. Patrick Molloy then said that they looked over the hedge at Yew Tree Farm and had a good view; the farm was just below them. He then named the others who were present in the Dog and Partridge when the job was discussed. He said that he could not be sure that those persons had been there on the 19th September. The interview ended with Patrick Molloy confirming DI Wordley’s notes of the interview.

The next interview on that Monday was of James Robinson by DC McClelland and DI Taylor. It took place at Droitwich Police Station. James Robinson had made a written statement concerning the Chapel Farm and Tesco offences. He was cautioned and questioned about a burglary at Bartley Green and admitted it. He then said “Look about this kid’s murder, it looks bad for me doesn’t it?” He told the police he was perfectly calm at that time but he could not think where he had been on that afternoon. He was told that all he had to do was to remember what he had done when he had left Carol Bradbury in her house. James Robinson then began to cry and said that he couldn’t remember what he was doing that afternoon. DCI Taylor then said that it appeared to him that James Robinson didn’t wish to remember; that it was a kind of mental block. There were further exchanges during which James Robinson became upset and then he said “Leave me alone. If I have done this thing and have a mental block, leave me alone for a bit and I will see if I can remember that day”. That interview ended at 1805.

At 1910 James Robinson was interviewed again by DCI Taylor, DS Hornby and DC McClelland. That was in the Doctor’s Room at Droitwich Police Station. This interview lasted until 1945 hours. James Robinson told the police that his mind was still a complete blank. He said that if the Hickeys had put the job to him that day he would have gone with them; he would not have thought twice, “but what gets me, I can’t remember”. The police then went over the events of the morning of the 19th September. James Robinson repeated that he had had a blue Cortina estate. And then he said “But if I had been out all night I can’t understand why I didn’t go to bed in the afternoon”. James Robinson was told that Carol Bradbury was saying that he had gone out with Patrick Molloy. James Robinson said that he couldn’t remember but if he was given paper and pencil he would admit it. He was told that he would have to describe Yew Tree Farm and he said “Well perhaps it will come back to me if I can think about it a bit more”. Again in that interview James Robinson had been distressed and had sobbed.

DCI Watson and DI Wordley interviewed Patrick Molloy again at 1140 hours on the 12th December 1978 in the Surgeon’s Room at Wombourne Police Station. He was cautioned by DCI Watson. Patrick Molloy said that it was not true that James Robinson had done the shooting. James Robinson had not been in the room and it was Michael Hickey who had the gun. The gun did not seem to be sawn-off. Everyone had worn gloves. Molloy referred to the practise of some burglars using their socks instead of gloves. James Robinson had had a nail bar. The interview ended at 1210 hours.

On the 14th December, Patrick Molloy was again remanded by the Magistrates to police custody until the 18th December. He applied for and was granted Legal Aid, his application form being filled in by DS Harrison. The solicitors he chose, Argylle’s, were informed, probably the next day. Argyle’s were informed by a member of the court staff that Patrick Molloy was charged with the theft of meat and that there was no need for them to attend on the 18th as Patrick Molloy would just be remanded. On the 15th December, Argyle’s instructed agents to attend the Magistrates Court on the 18th.

On the 14th December Patrick Molloy said that he was prepared to help the police on the route taken to Yew Tree Farm but was very hazy. At 1120 hours Patrick Molloy was taken in an unmarked police car. He showed the police where he said James Robinson had disposed of the air pistol, woolly hat and gloves in brambles in Somery Road, Weoley Castle. Patrick Molloy told the police that two days after James Robinson was released on the 23rd October he had got rid of a fawn duffel coat which had a button missing, a biggish, brown button. A button had been found at Yew Tree Farm on the windowsill of the living room through which access had been gained, but that button did not fit the description given by Patrick Molloy of the button missing from the duffel coat. Patrick Molloy said that he had been drinking and was hazy about the route and may have slept during the journey. There had been no talk about the job during the journey that he recalled. He then said that he thought someone had tried to force the door before James Robinson had gone round the house and got in through a window and opened the door. They had used a nail bar. He had gone up stairs. Vincent Hickey had told him to look for coins. He had stacked the drawers. He indicated that the boy had been slumped on the settee on his left side. Michael Hickey was holding the gun. Michael Hickey had not had the gun in the car. He, Patrick Molloy remembered treading on a bike just outside the door. He went back to the car. He was the first. James Robinson must have got into the van. Michael Hickey had two bags, one yellow, one dark down by his feet. In the car he had been threatened. He had been dropped off in Selly Oak.

Initially on this journey Patrick Molloy failed to recognise Yew Tree Farm or Lawnswood Road. The police car had been stopped in Lawnswood Road. Patrick Molloy told driver to park further up the road and said that that could have been where they had parked on the 19th September.

There was a further interview with Patrick Molloy between 1110 and 1135 hours on the 15th December by DI Wordley at Wombourne Police Station. He was reminded that the caution still applied. He was asked about going to the hospital where Carol Bradbury was on the morning of the 19th September. They had been in the area of the hospital because James Robinson had some stolen meat to sell. They were in a Ford Cortina which was either brown or grey. That had been stolen the previous night. It had not been safe for them to take it home. The estate they went to Yew Tree Farm in had been blue. Carol Bradbury had not been very well when they left her, having taken her home from the hospital. They had then gone to the California Public house.

At 1530 the same day Patrick Molloy handed to DI Wordley written notes about his movements on the 19th September and said “That’s what I can remember. I cannot remember much about the afternoon.” DI Wordley pointed out that in his notes, Patrick Molloy gave an account different from his earlier account. Patrick Molloy said that that was what he could remember. He said that Robinson had kept the gun under his mattress. He had it for about three months. It had a pistol grip. It was bored out under the trigger guard to allow the gun to fold in another inch. He didn’t think that it was James Robinson’s gun that Michael Hickey had been holding when he, Patrick Molloy had come downstairs. That interview lasted 10 minutes. On the 16th December Patrick Molloy was seen by DCI Watson at 1700 hours. He said that he was worried. He was trying hard to get things clear. He asked if someone had said he had fired the gun. He told the police that Vincent Hickey would have said that “to protect his own”. Patrick Molloy then drew a beard on one of the photofit pictures and said “That could be Vincent Hickey couldn’t it?” Patrick Molloy then suggested that it was Vincent Hickey and conceded that another photofit could have been a picture of himself.

Patrick Molloy was interviewed again on the 17th December starting at 1140 and finishing at 1215. Having been reminded of the caution, he identified James Robinson’s shotgun by the cut out groove in the stock. He said that he had no idea from whom James Robinson had bought the gun. It was not the gun that he had seen at Yew Tree Farm. He referred to two of his mates using Exhibit 25 on two other jobs and nearly killing a man with it. When James Robinson had been arrested in the early hours of the 21st September he, Molloy, had hidden the gun and about 20 cartridges in his room.

On Monday 18th December at 0900 hours Patrick Molloy was remanded in custody to Shrewsbury Prison by the Magistrates. His solicitor’s agent was not present at court, having been told by a member of the Court staff that the hearing would be at 1000 hours. That was clearly an innocent mistake, arising from a breakdown of communication between two members of the Court staff, and had nothing to do with the police. The solicitor was able to interview Patrick Molloy at Wombourne Police Station at 1100 hours prior to his transfer to prison. Prior to this interview, the solicitor was told by DCI Watson that Patrick Molloy had made a statement admitting involvement in the Carl Bridgewater murder. During the interview the solicitor recorded Patrick Molloy telling him this:

"I have been questioned here for about 4 days and nights. One of the men concerned is Vince Hickey. The detectives here brought a statement to me signed by Vince Hickey admitting that he had been involved. He named me as being there. He also named Robinson as being there. I was very upset over this. He also has a brother or cousin, I am not sure, called Mickey Hickey. A few weeks ago these two Hickeys called for Jim. I don’t (sic) know the details until afterwards. They went to this farmhouse and held up three old people and robbed them of £300. I felt mad about this man putting my name up. As far as I can say I was not there but I made a statement saying I was there but I wasn’t there."

The solicitor then went on to record Patrick Molloy's account of his movements on the afternoon of the 19th September inaccurately writing November for September. Then the note continues:

"I have told them I was there; that Jim broke in and let us in and I went upstairs and that after a while I heard somebody knocking the door. I heard a bang and ran downstairs and saw Mick Hickey holding a gun. I told them Vince Hickey was also there. Vince Hickey made a statement and said I was there and that Jim was also there. I have no idea why he put my name up. It almost forced me to put that statement. I am sure that if Vince was in it then Mickey would be in it also."

Michael Hickey was arrested at 1815 hours on the 20th December 1978 for being involved in a number of armed robberies. He was interviewed that evening at 2035 hours being told by DCI Watson that they were enquiring into Carl Bridgewater’s murder. He was cautioned. He admitted knowing James Robinson and that he had been asked if he wanted to go with Vincent Hickey and James Robinson to Chapel Farm. He made admissions about that offence in which he said that it had been organised by Vincent Hickey, that he had had a mask on and that James Robinson had had a mask, gloves and a gun. He made admissions concerning a robbery at Tesco’s saying that was James Robinson’s job and that John Burkett had fired during the robbery. He denied involvement in Yew Tree Farm. He claimed to remember the 19th September 1978 being the day when Dave Waller’s wife had had a baby and that he had been in the Dog and Partridge until 4 pm. He had then gone to his mother’s house by taxi and then to his girlfriend’s house where he and his girlfriend had quarrelled. He returned to the Dog and Partridge at 6.30. When it was put to him that he had left the Dog and Partridge before closing in the afternoon he insisted that he had stayed there until 4 pm. He declined to make a written statement about the robberies or about his movements on the 19th September.

When interviewed a second time the following day, the 21st December, at 1015, having been reminded of the caution by DS Harrison, he insisted that the account he had given of his movements on the 19th September in the first interview was correct. He said that he would not make a statement until he had seen his solicitor and asked whether he would be coming that day. Those interviews were conducted at Wombourne Police Station.

On that Thursday Patrick Molloy was again before the Seisdon Magistrates’ Court at 1100 hours. Before that he had had a conference with his solicitor at Wombourne Police Station. That conference followed a discussion between the solicitor, Mr Wiggall and DCI Watson in which Mr Wiggall was told that Patrick Molloy's statement was with the Director of Public Prosecutions and could not be produced at that stage, and that an application for bail would be opposed. This duly happened and bail was refused because the police enquiries were continuing and Molloy would be at risk of being attacked if released. In the second conference, Patrick Molloy told his solicitor that from the Friday 8th December he had repeatedly asked for a solicitor following his arrest on the 7th December, he had made the statement under pressure and he had been "slapped around a few times".

The same day at Wombourne Police Station Patrick Molloy was interviewed starting at 1420 and ending at 1550. He was cautioned by DI Wordley. He said that he had no doubt that Michael Hickey was holding the gun. When he had said in his written statement Exhibit 54 that James Robinson had the gun he meant that as a general statement and not that James Robinson had had the gun in the living room at Yew Tree Farm. Later he said that it was feasible that James Robinson passed the gun to Michael Hickey. The police pointed out that he was contradicting himself. Patrick Molloy agreed that he had said both things and did not know which was correct. The interview was suspended for five minutes from 1435. When the interview was resumed Patrick Molloy said that they had travelled away from Yew Tree Farm in the same way as they had travelled going to it. It was pointed out to him that in Exhibit 54 he had said that Michael Hickey had driven the van away from the farm. At first Patrick Molloy said he did not think he said that and then he said he must have been confused. In this interview Patrick Molloy said that the estate car in which he and James Robinson had collected Carol Bradbury from hospital was brownish in colour and he had never seen James Robinson in possession of a blue estate car. A little later when he was told that Carol Bradbury said that she had been fetched from hospital in a blue vehicle Patrick Molloy agreed and when reminded that he had just said the vehicle was brown said it was “brown or grey like”. Patrick Molloy then said that he had not been in the Dog and Partridge on the day that Carol Bradbury had come out of hospital. He repeated that the van James Robinson had driven to Yew Tree Farm had had a white top. He had seen that van before the 19th September outside the Dog and Partridge. The interview ended with Patrick Molloy saying that he would be pleading guilty to being at Yew Tree Farm.

Patrick Molloy was seen at 1800 hours the same day by DC Eccleshall, who cautioned him. In that interview he said that on the 19th September he and James Robinson had left the California public house at about 3 pm. This interview took place after the Director of Public Prosecution’s office had given instructions that afternoon that Patrick Molloy should either be charged with murder or treated as though he had been charged with murder.

The same evening at Wombourne Police Station Michael Hickey was interviewed starting at 1940 hours ending at 2015 hours. After caution, he repeated his alibi and named two taxi firms one of which he maintained had driven him from the Dog and Partridge to his mother’s home on the 19th September. When he was told that the witnesses who had been at the Dog and Partridge and had been interviewed by the police would say that he, Michael Hickey had not been at the Dog and Partridge after 3 pm on the 19th, Michael Hickey said that they were liars. He was unable to give a reason why Patrick Molloy should name him as being present at Yew Tree Farm. There was a further half hour interview under caution with Michael Hickey that evening beginning at 2025 hours. Again he was invited to give a reason why Patrick Molloy should say he was at Yew Tree Farm and his reaction was to call Patrick Molloy names and to say that he would have Patrick Molloy "done" for involving him.

The next day, the 22nd December, Michael Hickey was interviewed at 0945. He was reminded he was under caution. During the course of that interview he said:

"I can’t think of any reason why anyone should do it. It wouldn’t have mattered if the boy had seen their faces. At worst they could only get them for screwing and having a gun with them. That’s what we are going to get done for at Romsley but don’t forget I didn’t have the gun .... so all I can be done for is screwing the house."

He said that Vincent Hickey had asked him to go to Chapel Farm. He then gave a full account of the offence at Chapel Farm. When questioning returned to Yew Tree Farm he denied being involved but said that he couldn’t think where he had been at that time.

At 1135 on that day James Robinson was interviewed at Winson Green Prison reminded of the caution, and gave an account of fetching Carol Bradbury from hospital with Patrick Molloy on the morning of the 19th September, in a stolen Ford Cortina estate which was abandoned in Selly Oak, the remainder of the journey being completed by bus. He said that they had left Carol Bradbury at home while he and Patrick Molloy had gone to the California Public house. He bought Carol Bradbury flowers on his way home from the public house at about 3 pm He then went to bed with Carol Bradbury that afternoon and had sexual intercourse with her. When he got out of bed Star Trek was on the television. The interview lasted until 1240 hours.

At 1315 that day Michael Hickey was interviewed at the Wombourne Police Station. At 1335 he was having his fingerprints taken in the Surgeon’s room in the cell block by DC Massey and also present was a DS Williams. There was a conversation between Michael Hickey and those two police officers during which the police evidence was that Michael Hickey, having just been reminded of the caution, was asked “Was the paper boy smiling when the gun went off?” To which Michael Hickey replied “No he wasn’t”. The sergeant then immediately said “Do you realise what you have just said?” To which Michael Hickey made no reply. That exchange was denied by Michael Hickey when he gave evidence at his trial. In the early afternoon of that day Michael Hickey’s father, Joe Hickey, was permitted to see his son. The police evidence put this meeting at about 1400 hours. Michael Hickey told his father that he had not committed the Carl Bridgewater murder. He also told his father that he had not been assaulted, Joe Hickey apparently having been led to believe that his son had been assaulted by police officers.

That evening at 1945 hours having been cautioned, Michael Hickey repeated his taxi alibi for the 19th September. He was asked about statements Vincent Hickey had made and said “What he does is nothing to do with me, I wasn’t there.” Exhibit 54 was read to Michael Hickey who declined to read it. He said that it was rubbish. Michael Hickey was pressed on the contents of Exhibit 54 and asked why Patrick Molloy should name him as a participant unless it was true. Michael Hickey told the police he was still unable to say where he had been on the 19th September. He made threats of what he would do to Patrick Molloy if he could get hold of him.

At 1045 a.m. on Thursday 28th December at Wombourne Police Station Patrick Molloy was charged with the murder of Carl Bridgewater. Following a caution he replied “I’ll say I am not guilty of it”. He was then taken before the Magistrates who remanded him in custody. At 1130 he was seen by his solicitor at the Wombourne Police Station.

On the 28th December 1978 Vincent Hickey was interviewed by police officers at Bromsgrove Police Station at 1130 in the morning. He was told that Patrick Molloy had been charged with murder. He was cautioned. He said that the police could not get him convicted on his statements even though he had said things that only someone who had been in the house would know because there was nothing else to back it up. He claimed that Patrick Molloy had told him that Patrick Molloy was involved in the murder. He had not mentioned that before, because he wanted to see how the land lay. Vincent Hickey asked if Michael Hickey had made a statement saying that he had heard that Michael Hickey had “Gone weird”.

The same day at Redditch Police Station, to which he had been transferred Michael Hickey was told at 1350 hours that Patrick Molloy had been charged with being concerned with others in the murder of Carl Bridgewater. He was cautioned and told that he had plenty of time to think about what he had been doing on the 19th September. He was still unable to think where he had been on the afternoon of the 19th September. He claimed that he had never discussed with Vincent Hickey where he had been on that afternoon. If Vincent Hickey had told the police that he had discussed the murder with him, Michael Hickey, then Vincent Hickey was lying. Michael Hickey denied the story of confronting James Robinson in Vincent Hickey’s presence in the California public house with the Carl Bridgewater murder.

At 1430 hours Patrick Molloy was taken from Wombourne Police Station to Shrewsbury Prison. In the car he said to DS Harrison and DC Davies that he was frightened of the Hickeys. He knew that his statements conflicted a bit. He said that Vincent Hickey and Michael Hickey had picked up him and James Robinson from the California public house and taken them to the Dog and Partridge where they had got into a light blue Ford Cortina estate. He also pointed to a van which was ahead of the police vehicle as being similar to the van used at Yew Tree Farm.

The next afternoon Patrick Molloy's solicitor attended on him at Shrewsbury Prison. Mr Wiggall’s record of what Patrick Molloy said on that occasion included these statements: that the statement which was to become Exhibit 54 was not true although he had made it. He had not made it because he was frightened. He made it because he was shown a statement by Vincent Hickey implicating him in something he was not involved in. Vincent Hickey's statement had said that he was at the farmhouse and was the driver and that Jimmy Robinson and Patrick Molloy were with him. The statement did not mention the shooting. Patrick Molloy had put in his statement that he saw a boy shot in the head lying on the settee and he had heard Robinson say it was an accident. This was not in Vincent Hickey's statement. His statement was one that was made up; there was nothing in it that was true. Then Patrick Molloy is recorded as saying:

"Nobody has ever mentioned to me any of the things in the statement; it is all out of my head."

Later in this conference with his solicitor Patrick Molloy said that he had made his statement after being shown Hickey’s statement for the second time. Towards the end of the interview he is recorded as repeating:

"There is nothing in the second statement which is true. It is all made up out of my head."

He repeated that he had made the statement because of being shown a statement by Hickey which implicated Robinson and himself.

The final interview occurred on the 4th January 1979 at Wombourne Police Station starting at 1115 hours. It was of Patrick Molloy. During it Patrick Molloy identified the three receivers of stolen property used by James Robinson. This final interview followed an appearance by Patrick Molloy before the Magistrates at 0955 and a conference with his junior counsel and solicitor.

It is convenient to set out in this part of the judgment the dates on which Patrick Molloy gave further instructions to those acting for him in relation to his police interviews. On the 27th March 1979 there is the first record of Patrick Molloy saying that the police had told him various things about the murder that helped him to make up the details contained in his statement and admissions. He is recorded as saying:

"The police gave me hints of what to say."

After service of the committal papers upon his solicitors, his solicitor took instructions from Patrick Molloy on the various witnesses who formed the prosecution case against him. It seems likely that this conference took place on the 5th April 1979. Of DCI Watson’s evidence, Patrick Molloy said of his account of one interview that it was a correct record of what was said and, of another interview, that it was a correct account as far as he could remember. The reference to the bicycle had only been made because the police had mentioned it to him, (this referring to the interview on the afternoon of Monday 11th December 1978). In relation to the interview on the morning of Tuesday 12th December, Patrick Molloy said that the reference to taking his socks off was something that he understood but could not remember saying.

In relation to the evidence of DS Harrison, Patrick Molloy told his solicitor that the account of what was said about the Tamworth burglary and other offences given by that witness was correct.

In relation to the statements of DC Perkins and DC Leeke, Patrick Molloy is recorded as saying:

"I agree that these statements are a correct account of the interviews with these officers. What I said however is not the truth. The details came from what had been said to me by the police. Also I was knocked about by the police. I was hit in the face by an officer, DC Perkins I think; the plate of my false teeth was broken with one blow. I was punched. I was also under continual questioning night and day and even when they left me the door was hammered every half hour. I was given nothing to drink and had to drink water out of the toilet bowl. I was given food that was heavily salted. I was told by the police that if I admitted to burgling the place then they would be satisfied. With regard to stacking the drawers in the bedroom I never used to do this. I was not that tidy."

With regard to the statements of DCI Wood, DS Wys and DC Scott Patrick Molloy told his solicitor that he thought their statements gave a true account of what was said in the interviews and conversations.

On the 11th April 1979 Patrick Molloy gave his solicitor these instructions:

"I admit on the whole the accuracy of the reported conversations between myself and the police. They have however left parts out. I admit also that I made the statement describing the burglary at Yew Tree Farm. I state however that the account I gave was invented from my own mind with the help of detail being provided by the police. Also during police questioning after my arrest my requests to see a solicitor were denied. I was physically assaulted on two or three occasions. I was kept awake throughout the night and my food was heavily salted and I was left without anything to drink. I was also shown what looked to be a statement made by Vincent Hickey signed in two places."

On the 30th September 1979 Patrick Molloy wrote to his solicitor and counsel:

"I have thought long and earnestly about what I am going to do and it is very difficult. I have the choice of two evils. To give evidence under oath, or to sit quietly in the dock and say nothing. The best I can do is to take your advice, which I will do.

This is what I want you to do. Put forward my alibi statement. I do not want you to particularly attack the police as I think we would lose what advantage we have. Lay stress on my past record, in other words disclose it to the jury. We must put it across to them that I have never taken part in violent crime, and I would be unlikely to take part in an armed robbery of any sort. My record proves that. Also there are happenings where I would not take part which you can bring out in evidence, such as when I went to Leeds for a few days to avoid taking part in the Tesco robbery. ......."

On the 11th October 1979, during his trial, Patrick Molloy gave his lawyers written and signed instructions which read as follows:

"I Patrick Joseph Molloy acknowledge that I have received the advice of leading and junior counsel that it would be in the best interests of my defence if I were not to give evidence. I have decided to accept that advice and I do.

I further understand that although my alibi defence will be pursued in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and if appropriate of defence witnesses it is unlikely that there will be any evidence of my alibi before the jury, and that consequently the main argument addressed on my behalf to the jury by my leading counsel in his closing speech must be that if the jury accept that what I said to the police as has been recorded in interviews and in my statement exhibit 54 is the truth, then if guilty at all I should be found guilty of manslaughter and not of murder because although I have said to the police that I took part in the burglary of Yew Tree Farm I took no part in the killing of Carl Bridgewater and did not know a gun was to be taken on the expedition to Yew Tree Farm or, that, in so far as I have said anything indicating that I did know that a gun was to be taken, the extent of my knowledge was that the gun was to be used to frighten and not to inflict physical injury."

The appellants' trial opened on the 8th October 1979. A factor in the presentation of the appellants’ cases at that trial was the fact that each had criminal convictions.

Patrick Molloy had had ten court appearances between 1947 and 1975 for burglary and theft. On two occasions in 1950 and 1962 he had received sentences of 5 years imprisonment. He had, prior to his trial for the Yew Tree Farm offences, no conviction for an offence involving violence. James Robinson had had nine court appearance between 1954 and 1978. The first five of these had been in Australia. On each occasion he had been sentenced to hard labour. One of the four appearances in this country resulted in a sentence of immediate imprisonment. None of these convictions were for offences involving violence, but by the start of his trial for murder, James Robinson had pleaded guilty to the armed robberies at Tesco’s and Chapel Farm and, as his counsel conceded, had moved into crime of an extremely serious kind. Vincent Hickey had had seven court appearances between 1970 and 1978. His offences were mainly to do with the taking and driving away of vehicles. For some of these he had been ordered to undergo detention. He had convictions for burglary and theft and one for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. In respect of these offences he was dealt with by way of non-custodial sentences. He had pleaded guilty to the offence of deception at Chapel Farm, Count 3 in this indictment. Michael Hickey had had four court appearances between February 1976 and August 1978, for offences which included burglary and theft. They were all dealt with by way of non-custodial sentences. He, like James Robinson, had pleaded guilty to the armed robberies at Tesco’s and Chapel Farm.

The first issue that had to be decided by the trial judge, Drake J, was whether Vincent Hickey should be tried for the robbery at Chapel Farm at the same time as he was tried on Counts 1 and 2 in the indictment, the murder and the aggravated burglary at Yew Tree Farm, and whether the Crown should be permitted to lead evidence in the cases of James Robinson and Michael Hickey of the Chapel Farm robbery under the similar fact evidence rule, or whether there should be separate trials for those two matters in respect of Vincent Hickey and whether the evidence of the armed robbery at Chapel Farm should be excluded.

It was the prosecution’s submission that the armed robbery at Chapel Farm bore a striking resemblance to that at Yew Tree Farm. Both properties were within a 20 minute to 40 minute drive of Selly Oak. Both were situated some distance from any other property. Both were occupied by elderly people who had lived at those premises for some considerable time. Both properties were run down but likely to contain portable items of value. In both cases the Crown had evidence that a loaded shot-gun was taken by the robbers. The prosecution would also have relied on Chapel Farm to demonstrate that in that case Vincent and Michael Hickey had been at the Dog and Partridge at lunch time, leaving there at about 2.30 pm; that they had contacted James Robinson in the street as he was leaving the California public house to return to Carol Bradbury's house; that he had thereupon agreed to go with them and had collected his shot-gun, masks and gloves; that the robbery had taken place at about 4 pm and that approximately three-quarters of an hour later Vincent Hickey was back at Linda Galvin's flat, drinking tea and concerned about Christmas decorations. Shortly after that offence Vincent Hickey had arranged a false alibi with a man called John Smith.

The judge’s ruling was that there was sufficient similarity between the events at Yew Tree Farm and those at Chapel Farm to bring the Chapel Farm offence within the similar fact rule; the evidence relating to Chapel Farm would thus be admissible in the trial of the Yew Tree Farm offences. The judge went on to exercise his discretion to exclude this evidence on the basis that its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. The judge said:

"..... I have come to the firm conclusion that the prejudicial effect of the evidence in the circumstances of this particular case would be so great as to outweigh and be out of proportion to its probative value. I do not think that the interests of justice demands that such evidence should be admitted. I think, on the contrary, it means that it should be excluded."

The Judge continued by making it clear that each of the accused was at liberty at any time during the trial himself or through Counsel to make reference to what had happened at Chapel Farm, should they decide that it was in the interests of that Defendant to do so, and that was so, even though such references might have a prejudicial effect on one of the other Defendants. In the event no Defendant did make reference during the trial in the presence of the jury to the armed robbery at Chapel Farm. This ruling created a difficulty for the defence of Vincent Hickey, which, as we shall see, was a matter raised in the absence of the jury during the giving of evidence by Vincent Hickey.

Evidence against each appellant linking him with the events at

Yew Tree Farm

Patrick Molloy

The principal evidence linking Patrick Molloy with the events at Yew Tree Farm was his admissions in the various interviews but in particular in the interview and written statement of the afternoon of Sunday 10th December 1978. It was the Crown’s case at trial that the gun used may well have been the property of James Robinson, Exhibit 25, although it was accepted by the Crown that the shot which killed Carl Bridgewater was of a different calibre from the shot in the cartridge found at Carol Bradbury’s flat and those found with Exhibit 25. Consequently the evidence of Susan Bennett and her husband Alan Bennett, who lived next door but one to the flat occupied by Carol Bradbury, James Robinson and Patrick Molloy, that shortly after the 19th September Patrick Molloy had brought Exhibit 25 together with an air pistol and some shotgun cartridges to their flat so they could be hidden there, became evidence against Patrick Molloy, if the jury concluded that Exhibit 25 had been used at Yew Tree Farm.

There was the evidence of Helen Johnston of the conversation she said she had heard in the Dog and Partridge between Patrick Molloy and James Robinson in which she overheard Patrick Molloy saying to James Robinson “Whatever you do, whatever you say, say the gun went off accidentally”, and that she knew they were talking about “the paper boy”. Prison Officer Edwards, a senior prison officer at Shrewsbury Prison, gave evidence of speaking to Patrick Molloy and saying that Patrick Molloy did not seem to be the sort of man who would do this thing, referring to the murder. The witnesses evidence was that Patrick Molloy replied “I didn’t. I allowed myself to become involved. I am not making any excuses. I knew he had a gun”. When asked which one of them had used it, Patrick Molloy had replied “The one who was about 46”. Cross-examination on behalf of Patrick Molloy did not dispute that he had said he had allowed himself to become involved and was not making any excuses. What was challenged in cross-examination was that during the conversation Patrick Molloy had given an answer to a question which implied that it was the man who was about 46 who had used the gun. The suggestion being that what Patrick Molloy had said was that the gun belonged to the man who was about 46. There was evidence from two other prison officers concerning Patrick Molloy’s involvement. First, Prison Officer Fuller another officer at Shrewsbury Prison spoke to Patrick Molloy about the offence with which he was charged, saying “You’ve done it now. You are in for a bad thing now”. To which Patrick Molloy had replied “I didn’t kill him, boss. It was that bastard, the 19 year old”. That answer was challenged in cross-examination. The prison officer made no note of it and it was first written down in the form of a statement on the 26th March 1979, 11 weeks after Patrick Molloy was transferred from Shrewsbury Prison to Leicester Prison on the 3rd January.

Finally Prison Officer Shields, an officer who was stationed at Leicester prison, gave evidence that Patrick Molloy said that James Robinson had had the gun. James Robinson had done it. He, Molloy, had not known about the gun.

James Robinson

James Robinson was the only defendant against whom there was any identification evidence. On the 23rd February 1979, some 22 weeks after the Yew Tree Farm offences, at an identification parade conducted by Inspector Moss, three witnesses purported to identify James Robinson. The first was Terence Madeley who thought that James Robinson could have been the man in the front passenger seat in a dark green Ford Cortina estate which he had seen waiting to pull out of the Yew Tree Farm drive between 4.25 and 4.45 in the afternoon. When Mr Madeley gave evidence, it became clear that he could not be certain whether he had seen the dark green Ford Cortina estate on Monday 18th or Tuesday 19th of September. The judge, in his summing-up, warned the jury against relying upon Mr Madeley’s evidence as evidence against James Robinson.

The second identification witness was Mario Sabetta who said that he thought James Robinson was familiar and that he was one of the two men whom this witness had seen, the one without the gun. The third identification witness was Miss Wendy Stagg. Her evidence was that at the identification parade she had immediately recognised the third man from the right as the man she had seen outside the blue estate car talking to the men inside the blue estate car, at about 4.40 pm in Lawnswood Road.

Next there was the gun, Exhibit 25 and the cartridges. That was complemented by the evidence of Helen Johnston as to the part of the conversation she had overheard between Patrick Molloy and James Robinson in the Dog and Partridge. Another witness who gave evidence of a conversation with James Robinson in a public house, the California public house on this occasion, was James Dundas Ure. Ure’s evidence was that he had been with his common law wife Patricia Copus in the California public house shortly after the Carl Bridgewater murder and had seen James Robinson and Patrick Molloy. He told James Robinson that he had been told by a Jimmy Smith that James Robinson had been arrested for the murder. He had asked James Robinson whether he was responsible, James Robinson had responded by moving his hands and saying “It was an accident”. He had said to James Robinson that he would get 30 years for that and James Robinson had repeated that it was an accident. Patricia Copus gave evidence to the effect that she had heard her common-law husband say to James Robinson that James Robinson would get “30 years for that” and James Robinson had told Ure just to forget what he had said. She had not heard any reference to Carl Bridgewater. Ure’s evidence had continued with another occasion when he and James Robinson were in a car when James Robinson had told him to forget it. Ure presumed that James Robinson was referring to the murder. Later he had seen James Robinson in prison. He had, on one occasion when speaking to James Robinson in prison, asked why, if it was an accident James Robinson did not tell the authorities it was an accident, to which James Robinson had replied “It’s too late for that now. No one would believe it now.”

Two other witnesses gave evidence of conversations with James Robinson in prison in which James Robinson was said to have made admissions. A man called Ritter said he had had a conversation with James Robinson about the Carl Bridgewater murder and had asked James Robinson about the case the police had against him. James Robinson had replied that it was “All a load of verbals and they could not convict him on what they had”. Ritter’s evidence was that Michael Hickey was there and James Robinson and Michael Hickey were laughing as if it was a big joke. On another occasion when he was exercising with James Robinson and Michael Hickey was walking behind him James Robinson made a reference to what would happen if the police broke Carol Bradbury or she were to find out that he, Robinson, had been going with other women so that she turned on him. Ritter claimed to have kept notes because he did not think of the murder of the newspaper boy as a joke, as apparently James Robinson and Michael Hickey did. He heard James Robinson say that the gun would not fit the bullets used for the murder. Reference had been made to the boy being killed in a room. James Robinson had said “A dead kid can’t speak particularly when he’s got his head blown off”. James Robinson and Michael Hickey thought that was funny. He had offered to help James Robinson because he, Ritter, was then about to be released by making contact with Carol Bradbury on James Robinson’s behalf. James Robinson had told him that he had killed Carl Bridgewater but it was an accident.

Another serving prisoner to give evidence as part of the case against James Robinson was a man called Bryant. He told the jury that he had got to know Vincent Hickey, Michael Hickey and James Robinson but had spoken mostly to James Robinson. James Robinson had told him that the police were saying that more property had been stolen than had actually been taken and that he had taken the property to a receiver of stolen goods who had refused to take it because he recognised where it came from. James Robinson had talked of a small carriage clock. On another occasion, at which James Robinson had been present, Vincent Hickey was discussing a witness who was said to have seen two men, one with a shotgun. He said that Vincent Hickey said that she wouldn’t have been able to see the gun from behind if it had been carried as the witness said it was being carried. Vincent Hickey gave a demonstration to establish what he meant. There had also been a discussion about who had said what after the gun had gone off. It had been said that James Robinson had said it was an accident as Patrick Molloy came down the stairs. They had also discussed their alibis in this witness’ presence.

There was a further witness a Timothy Roberts, a barman in the California public house who told the jury that about three weeks before his birthday, which was on the 11th October, James Robinson had come into the public house with something under his blue anorak. There was a bulge about 18 inches long stretching from the shoulder to the hip. He had had the opportunity to look inside the anorak and saw that one end of the object was a piece of shaped wood. The prosecution invited the jury to infer that that was evidence of James Robinson being armed with a sawn-off shotgun at about the time of the Yew Tree Farm offences.

James Robinson was interviewed extensively by the police. During the course of those interviews he gave a false alibi, namely that he and Patrick Molloy were out committing offences of theft at the time of the Yew Tree Farm murder. The prosecution also suggested that, although there were no express admissions made by James Robinson during those interviews, some of his answers and his demeanour at the time of giving the answers were the behaviour of a man who was on the point of confessing.

Vincent Hickey

The main evidence against Vincent Hickey were the various admissions he made in interview. Those admissions were supported by the false account he had given to the police of his movements on the 19th September 1978 when he was questioned on the 14th and 15th October 1978. He had also lied about his association with James Robinson in September 1978.

Next, Vincent Hickey had claimed that he had no knowledge of the area in which Yew Tree Farm was, that is to say the area of Wordsley and Kingswinford. The prosecution were able to call his cousin Reginald Hickey, who gave evidence that he had worked with Vincent and Michael Hickey in this area, knocking on doors to seek building work.

Two witnesses gave evidence that Vincent Hickey had a blue Ford Cortina estate car in the period prior to his leaving his wife at the end of August 1978 namely Pauline Colverson and Eileen Birch.

The evidence of the prisoner Bryant of the demonstration given by Vincent Hickey of the way in which the gun was said to have been carried and of discussions by the Hickeys of their alibis formed part of the prosecution’s case against Vincent Hickey. Finally there was the evidence of Prison Officer Kelly of an occasion when Vincent and Michael Hickey were waiting for their visitors and Vincent Hickey had spoken to Michael Hickey about the Bristol Road Garage and having a car in the name of James Galvin, and that a £200 deposit had been put on a light blue not a silver grey car. There was also evidence from this witness that on another occasion he had heard Vincent Hickey say during a visit by Vincent Hickey’s mother and his wife and another woman that Vincent Hickey was having bad dreams and kept seeing “the kid’s face”.

Michael Hickey

The prosecution’s case against Michael Hickey began with the evidence which disproved his initial account of his whereabouts on the afternoon of the 19th September 1978, namely that he had been at the Dog and Partridge drinking after closing time at 3 pm as part of the celebration of David Waller’s wife giving birth to a son. There then came the evidence of two prisoners at Winson Green Prison. The first, Brian Sinton, said that he had taken a shower at the same time as Michael Hickey, who had volunteered the information that he was in custody for the Carl Bridgewater murder. Sinton said that he had asked Michael Hickey why it had been necessary to shoot the boy, and Michael Hickey had replied that, between the four walls of the shower room, he had had to. The boy was howling and crying. The boy had been crying his eyes out and that was why he, Michael Hickey, had had to pull the trigger. Michael Hickey had been bragging. He also told Sinton, according to Sinton, that “a mate had grassed” and that he, Michael Hickey, was going to get “the mate to say that his statement had been made under duress”.

The second prisoner at Winson Green Prison to give evidence against Michael Hickey was Ritter. That was the evidence about James Robinson and Michael Hickey laughing about the Carl Bridgewater murder as if it were a big joke.

This evidence derived some support from that of Prison Officer Kelly concerning the conversation he had over heard between Vincent and Michael Hickey whilst they were awaiting visitors, which, it was suggested by the prosecution, was the concoction of an alibi. This prison officer also gave evidence of a visit to Michael Hickey by his mother, in which Michael Hickey had said that “The bastards are taking me down with them. We have got to get this Bristol Road Garage right”.

As in the case of Vincent Hickey, the prosecution against Michael Hickey relied on the evidence of the cousin, Reginald Hickey, to contradict Michael Hickey’s assertion that he knew nothing of the part of Staffordshire where Yew Tree Farm was situated. A man called Michael Lee, a regular at the Dog and Partridge who knew all four defendants, told the jury that during a car journey with Michael Hickey after the Yew Tree Farm offences he had asked where Joe Hickey and Vincent Hickey were and Michael Hickey had told him “They were getting rid of some stuff from the farmhouse .... you know .... that kid”. Michael Hickey had then added “Oh, well, it is nothing to do with us, just someone we know”.

In addition, Michael Hickey was not arrested by the police until the 20th December 1978. The reason for that was that when Vincent Hickey had been arrested on the 4th December for the offences committed at Chapel Farm, Michael Hickey had taken himself off to Wisbech, and the police had been unable to trace him. His initial account of his movements on the afternoon of the 19th September when interviewed by the police was that he had remained in the Dog and Partridge until 4.00 pm. Then he had taken a taxi to his mother’s house and from there he had gone to his girlfriend’s house. This story had lead the police to a taxi driver, Dennis Eaton, who gave evidence of driving Michael Hickey in a taxi shortly after Vincent Hickey had been arrested. That witness gave evidence that in February 1979 when he was visiting the Remand Centre where Michael Hickey was being held, he saw Michael Hickey who asked him to say that he remembered that Michael Hickey was in his taxi, which the witness understood to mean that he wanted an alibi for the 19th September 1978.

The other piece of evidence against Michael Hickey was an alleged remark he made to police officers whilst his fingerprints were being taken on the 22nd December 1978 in the Surgeon’s room of the Cell Block at Wombourne Police Station. On that occasion DS Williams and DC Massey gave evidence that DS Williams told Michael Hickey that he just left Michael Hickey’s father who had been crying; that there was then a caution and Michael Hickey was asked “Was the paper boy smiling when the gun went off?” to which he replied “No, he wasn’t”. It was said that the officer then said “Do you realise what you have just said?” to which Michael Hickey made no reply.

The defences of the four appellants at their trial

1. Patrick Molloy :

This account of Patrick Molloy’s defence is based on his solicitor’s notes of his counsel’s closing address to the jury.

Patrick Molloy did not give evidence. Counsel began by telling the jury they had heard much about Patrick Molloy and had been able to observe his demeanour throughout the case. There had been very few challenges made to the evidence against him by his counsel.

The prosecution had not suggested that Patrick Molloy had fired the shot which killed Carl Bridgewater. There was no evidence that Patrick Molloy was in the room when the shot was fired. Counsel reminded the jury of Patrick Molloy’s alibi notice and of James Robinson’s evidence that Patrick Molloy was at the house in Weoley Castle on the afternoon of the 19th September. It was for the prosecution to prove that Patrick Molloy was at Yew Tree Farm that afternoon. If the jury accepted that what Patrick Molloy had said to the police was correct they would act on that assumption that Patrick Molloy was there. The jury had the two statements that he had made under caution, Exhibit 53 and Exhibit 54. Basing themselves on Patrick Molloy’s statements, the prosecution said he was there. Even if the jury found that Patrick Molloy was at Yew Tree Farm, that did not convict him of murder. Then counsel said this:

"I shall deal with him on the basis that he was not in the room when that boy was shot and that therefore he had no opportunity whatsoever to stop whoever it was who pulled the trigger. This is a very important part of this case, because if he was not there, he could not have prevented it."

Counsel then reminded the jury of what a witness, Bryant, had said that Robinson had said namely:

"If Molloy had been downstairs this may never have happened."

Counsel reminded the jury of those passages in Patrick Molloy’s statements and in his interviews to the police where Patrick Molloy told them that he was terrified of the other defendants and had been threatened with personal injury. At the same time counsel reminded the jury of answers given by Michael Hickey and James Robinson in their interviews by the police where they had made threats against Patrick Molloy on being told that Patrick Molloy was saying that they were present at Yew Tree Farm. At the end of this passage of his address to the jury, counsel for Patrick Molloy said:

"If he, Molloy, has only told half truths, as DCI Watson was accusing him, is it surprising with all these threats hanging over him?"

Counsel for Patrick Molloy then turned to those parts of the evidence which tended to support the admissions by Patrick Molloy to the police being true admissions. First, his account of how James Robinson had acquired the sawn-off shotgun Exhibit 25 was confirmed by other evidence including that of Robinson himself. Next there was the evidence of the stacking of drawers in one of the bedrooms. Patrick Molloy had been able to describe accurately how the boy was positioned on the sofa after he had been shot.

Counsel then went on to deal with the evidence in relation to the question whether Patrick Molloy knew that a shotgun was being taken to Yew Tree Farm that afternoon. That involved a consideration of the statements Patrick Molloy had made to the police and the statements he was alleged to have made to various prison officers. At the conclusion of this part of his address counsel is recorded as saying:

"What I say to you in respect of this matter, members of the jury, is that there is no evidence before you in this case, that Molloy ever knew that there was a gun at that farm that afternoon in September 1978."

Before concluding his address to the jury, counsel for Patrick Molloy commented on the evidence of Helen Johnston of a conversation she said she had heard in the Dog and Partridge between Patrick Molloy and James Robinson, the evidence of the Bennetts, in respect of the hiding of Robinson’s shotgun and Molloy’s involvement in that, and finally of Timothy Roberts in respect of seeing a bulge in Robinson’s anorak when Robinson and Molloy were at the California some three weeks prior to the 11th October 1978. Counsel reminded the jury of the evidence both in Molloy’s answers to the police and other evidence such as that of the witness Mario Sabetta which suggested that Robinson’s gun may not have been the gun which was at Yew Tree Farm. Counsel concluded by pointing out to the jury the difference between murder, manslaughter and aggravated burglary, telling the jury that it was not sufficient for the prosecution to prove that Patrick Molloy was at Yew Tree Farm in order to obtain a conviction against him for murder, because the offence of which he was guilty depended upon his participation. Counsel said this:

"If you find that he was there, then he is there as a burglar and if he did not know of a gun or any other weapon he is not there as an aggravated burglar. You then may ask yourself the question whether he is guilty of manslaughter or not."

The prosecution could not have it both ways. Either they asked the jury to accept the truth of what Patrick Molloy had said in interview and in his statement, in which case he did not know of the taking of the gun to Yew Tree Farm or there was doubt about the truth of his statements and therefore doubt about his presence at the farm that afternoon.

2. James Robinson

James Robinson’s defence was simply that he was not at Yew Tree Farm and had never been to Yew Tree Farm either that afternoon or any other afternoon. Alibi notices were served on behalf of James Robinson to the effect that on the morning of the 19th September he and Patrick Molloy had fetched Carol Bradbury from hospital, taking her part of the way to her home, where they were living in a stolen Ford Cortina estate car, which was abandoned short of her home so that the journey was completed by bus. He and Patrick Molloy had then gone to the California public house returning to Carol Bradbury’s flat that afternoon sometime between 2.30 and 3.00 o’clock with James Robinson buying flowers for her on the way. He had then remained at the flat, going to bed with Carol Bradbury that afternoon and having sexual intercourse with her. When he had got out of bed the programme Star Trek was on the television, that is to say it was after 6 pm. Patrick Molloy was still in the flat when he, James Robinson, got up, and as far as he, James Robinson, knew Patrick Molloy had not left the flat that afternoon.

James Robinson gave evidence of his movements that afternoon, but did not call any witness to support his account.

3. Vincent Hickey and Michael Hickey

The defences advanced on behalf of these two appellants can be dealt with together because it was said in their alibi notices and in their evidence that they had been together during the relevant time.

Their account was that they were in the Dog and Partridge in the early afternoon until sometime shortly after 3.00 o’clock. Neither Patrick Molloy nor James Robinson were there. They had left that public house and had gone to the flat of Linda Galvin, stopping once or twice on the way at various garages in the Bristol Road area of Birmingham because Michael Hickey was interested in purchasing a car and Linda Galvin wanted to change her car. They simply looked at cars at these garages but made no inquiry and reached Linda Galvin’s flat towards 4 o’clock. A new suite of furniture had just been delivered. Alan Murray, who also lived at the flat, was in bed. Linda Galvin’s daughter, Stephanie, had come home from school at about 10 past 4. She had gone out immediately to the launderette. When she came back she said she had seen an ashtray for sale in a nearby shop that would match the new suite of furniture. Vincent Hickey had given her money with which to buy the ashtray. She had gone and purchased the ashtray. Then after about half an hour, he and Michael Hickey had gone to a garage in Bristol Road with Linda Galvin’s car. They had arrived there at about 4.40 pm and had spoken to the owner who was Greek. They had stayed there for about an hour, after which Vincent Hickey had filled out a form for finance in the name of James Galvin and left a deposit of £50. Later a man called Turner had gone to the garage to reclaim the deposit and had recovered £40 for him.

Both Vincent Hickey and Michael Hickey gave evidence in support of this account of their movements on that Tuesday afternoon. In giving evidence they spoke of a second elderly man being present at the garage who was putting away the cars displayed on the forecourt in a compound.

With respect to Vincent Hickey’s statements to the police indicating that he was present at Yew Tree Farm, his explanation for making such statements was that he was trying to achieve immunity from prosecution in respect of the offence of deception at Chapel Farm which he had committed with Linda Galvin.

With regard to Michael Hickey it was denied that he had made the answer that the police claimed he had made whilst having his fingerprints taken. Reliance was placed upon his persistent denials of being involved in the Yew Tree Farm offences despite the rigorous questioning by police officers. In the record of his counsel’s address to the jury, the questioning of Michael Hickey was described as:

"Incessant interrogation."

And his counsel is recorded as saying:

"There is no complaint from the defence about that, it was a very serious matter, but remember at that stage he was only just 17 and he denied it throughout."

Certain witnesses such as David Waller, Ronald Brooke and David Bruce gave evidence confirming the presence of Vincent Hickey and Michael Hickey at the Dog and Partridge at or shortly before 3.00 pm that afternoon. Counsel for Michael Hickey submitted that that evidence alone precluded their presence at Yew Tree Farm at 3.25, the earliest sighting of potential intruders.

Before considering the four appeals and the safety of the convictions of the four appellants on Counts 1 and 2 in the indictment, it is desirable that we make some general observations. Inevitably suspicion will remain that these men, or some of them, were the perpetrators of these offences; the admissions made by two of them contain details which, if not fed to them by the Police, were details that only persons involved in the offences, or who were confidants of such persons, could have known; the reasons advanced by both for making these admissions which they later claimed were false are reasons which many people would find difficult to understand and accept; the similarities between the offences at Chapel Farm and Yew Tree Farm recognised by Patrick Molloy himself as creating suspicion that both had been committed by the same people; the inability of some appellants to remember where they were at the vital time, the initial false alibis advanced; the later emergence of the alibis relied on at trial and the absence from the witness box of those witnesses who might have been expected to support those alibis. All these factors will remain matters of controversy and concern. In making these observations we are not expressing any view of our own. We make them as a necessary introduction to a statement of this Court’s function in these appeals.

This Court is not concerned with the guilt or innocence of the appellants; but only with the safety of their convictions. This may, at first sight, appear an unsatisfactory state of affairs, until it is remembered that the integrity of the criminal process is the most important consideration for courts which have to hear appeals against conviction. Both the innocent and the guilty are entitled to fair trials. If the trial process is not fair; if it is distorted by deceit or by material breaches of the rules of evidence or procedure, then the liberties of all are threatened.

This Court is a court of review. The Court reviews the trial process to equip itself to answer the question “Do we think that the conviction appealed is safe or do we think it unsafe?”. The Court is not a court of trial or of re-trial. Persons accused of serious crimes are tried by juries in the Crown Court. Some of the appellants Counsel have come close to asking this Court to pronounce on the guilt or innocence of an appellant or the truthfulness of an appellant’s alibi. In his Grounds of Appeal, the truth or falsity of Patrick Molloy’s confessions was a matter raised. However, Counsel accepting this Court’s view of its function did not seek to argue that matter or to persuade us to pronounce upon it. Without hearing evidence, these are not decisions which we could make.

The final, general observation that we wish to make concerns the question of non-disclosure. We have heard submissions and had our attention drawn to many decided cases and other sources on the question of what was in 1979, and what is now the duty and practice of the Prosecution when it comes to disclosure of material to those acting for defendants in criminal trials. In particular we are indebted to Counsel for the Respondents, Mr Roberts and Mr Coker for the document dated the 6th April 1997 which they prepared being their submissions on behalf of the Crown concerning the history of disclosure obligations. We are satisfied that the practice of disclosure to the Defence followed by various prosecuting authorities in 1979 varied in different parts of the country; that it was not then the practice for the Prosecution to disclose the working papers of the police force who had investigated the offences to be tried; that there was, nevertheless, an obligation on the Prosecution to make the Defence aware of any material which might prove helpful to the Defence. We take the view that it is not necessary for the proper resolution of these appeals that we make findings on what were the precise principles and practices of disclosure in 1979. It is sufficient for us to look at the material that was not disclosed and to ask first whether that material was relevant to an issue which the jury had to decide and second whether that material would have significantly assisted the Defence case on that issue.

The unhappy conclusion that we have reached is that the criminal justice process did not operate fairly in this case as it should have done. One submission made to us was that there was a general conspiracy including police officers to pervert the course of justice. We do not accept that the material placed before us substantiates that submission. Our findings and criticisms are confined to those matters where the evidence and material we have heard and seen indicate that things went wrong. Some aspects of the investigative process we shall refer to the appropriate authority. In doing that we are not condemning anyone unheard; we are merely indicating that these are matters of concern which should in our view be examined by the appropriate authority to see whether further action is necessary and if so what that action should be.

We shall consequently allow these appeals and quash the convictions on Counts 1 and 2 in the indictment in respect of all four appellants. There can be no question of any re-trial in this case. Consequently the presumption of innocence in respect of the four appellants will be re-established.

We turn now to the particular Grounds of Appeal.