Man has 1975 murder conviction quashed

A man who has spent 26 years in prison protesting his innocence of murder today had his conviction dramatically quashed by the Court of Appeal in the UK.

Frank Johnson, 66, has always maintained that he did not murder shopkeeper Jack Sheridan by setting him ablaze in east London in February 1975.

Lord Justice Longmore, sitting with two other judges in London, made the announcement that the conviction would be overturned immediately after the lunchtime adjournment on the second day of Johnson’s appeal.

The judge said : "We have come to the conclusion that in the light of the medical history of this case, the medical evidence, it is impossible for us to say that Mr Johnson’s conviction is a safe conviction.

"It will therefore be quashed."

Lord Justice Longmore said that Johnson, who had waived his right to be present for the hearing and will be released from prison, could now be "discharged".

During the appeal Edward Fitzgerald QC told Lord Justice Longmore, Mr Justice Wright and Sir Richard Rougier that at the time of his trial Irish-born Johnson was suffering from a mental disorder.

At the start of the appeal yesterday, when the judges were urged to quash the conviction as unsafe, Mr Fitzgerald said Johnson had developed a paranoid psychosis at the time of his trial.

“The appellant was unable to participate effectively in his trial by reason of his mental state.”

Mr Sheridan, 60, died three weeks after being attacked in his shop in Whitechapel.

Johnson was convicted of murder in September 1976. His two co-accused have been released.

He has turned down the chance of parole, which would have enabled him to leave prison years ago, insisting he is innocent.

His case was referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates possible miscarriages of justice.

Johnson waived his right to attend the hearing.

Before the lunchtime adjournment, the prosecution argued that the conviction was safe.

Victor Temple QC, for the Crown, submitted that the case against Johnson had been a “strong” one and that an acquittal would have been “wholly and totally perverse”.

He added: “I put it as high as that.”

Mr Temple said his primary submission was that “this is a safe conviction”.

On the question of Johnson’s mental state, counsel told the judges: “I do not argue for one moment other than there was some disability accrued to him, but the extent of that disability was not such as to make this trial unfair.”

The effect of his mental state on the trial was “minimal and the resulting conviction is safe”, said Mr Temple.