New Appeal Hearing Granted for Man Imprisoned 35 Years for Murder

A man from Wirral, incarcerated for 35 years following his conviction for the fatal beating of a woman, will have his case re-examined by the Court of Appeal, prompted by the discovery of new DNA evidence. Peter Sullivan received a conviction for the murder of barmaid Diane Sindall, which occurred in an alleyway after she departed from her job at the Wellington Hotel in Bebington on August 1, 1986. According to police statements, Miss Sindall, aged 21, had abandoned her blue Fiat van on Borough Road, Birkenhead, after it ran out of fuel and was proceeding on foot towards an all-night garage when the assault took place. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) disclosed that a DNA profile, identified from samples retained from that period, did not correspond with Sullivan’s. The commission stated that DNA technology was not accessible for criminal investigations at the time of Ms Sindall’s murder, and previous requests for such testing had been denied. Contemporary reports indicated that Sullivan, then 29 years old and characterized by police as a “quiet loner,” had consumed a significant amount of alcohol throughout the day following a darts match loss. His trial revealed that he encountered Miss Sindall by chance, struck her with a crowbar, subsequently dragged her into the alley, and sexually assaulted her during what was described as a “frenzied” attack. The BBC reported concurrently that articles of the young bride-to-be’s clothing were discovered partially burned on Bidston Hill the day following her demise. Investigators informed journalists that, owing to the severity of Miss Sindall’s injuries, it ranked among the most egregious murder cases they had encountered. Initially, Sullivan denied participation and offered an alibi; however, reports indicate he later provided a “confession,” informing detectives he could not recall his actions due to his extreme intoxication. Subsequently, his trial was presented with evidence that bite marks on her body corresponded to Sullivan’s teeth. In recent years, the reliability of bite mark evidence in criminal proceedings has faced scrutiny. The commission stated that Sullivan sought a re-examination of his case in 2021, articulating concerns regarding his police interviews, the bite mark evidence introduced during his trial, and the murder weapon. He asserted that he had not been afforded an appropriate adult during the interview process and was initially refused legal counsel. Sullivan had previously submitted an application to the CCRC in 2008, questioning DNA evidence, but forensic specialists had indicated that additional testing was improbable to yield a DNA profile. In 2019, he directly petitioned the High Court for leave to appeal his conviction, citing the bite mark evidence; however, the Court of Appeal dismissed this request, determining that it was “not central to his conviction.” Nevertheless, the CCRC stated that it has now uncovered evidence indicating the significance of the bite-mark evidence. When Mr Sullivan resubmitted his request for his case to be reviewed in 2021, the CCRC reported its decision to reconsider the potential for DNA testing. The Court of Appeal is now set to review his case and possesses the authority to overturn his conviction should it determine the conviction to be unsafe.