Freed inmate 'should not have had verdict returned'

A man who was released from prison yesterday after 26 years behind bars insisting he was innocent of murder, should not have had a verdict returned against him at his 1976 trial because he was suffering from mental illness at the time, the Court of Appeal announced today.

On the afternoon of his first full day of freedom, Mayo-born Frank Johnson, 66, attended London’s Law Courts as three judges explained why they had decided his conviction was ‘‘unsafe’’.

However, he decided not to sit in the packed, wood-panelled courtroom to hear the appeal judges giving its reasons behind the quashing of the conviction.

At the appeal court yesterday, Lord Justice Longmore, sitting with Mr Justice Wright and Sir Richard Rougier, announced: ‘‘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.’’

Giving reasons today for that ruling, Lord Justice Longmore said that the ‘‘jury should not have proceeded to a verdict at all while Mr Johnson was mentally unfit and unable to participate effectively in his trial’’.

He said it was a ‘‘most exceptional case’’ and commented: ‘‘It is, of course, regrettable that he has served 26 years in prison as a result of what we had to conclude is an unsafe verdict.’’

Mr Johnson has always maintained that he did not murder shopkeeper Jack Sheridan, 60, by setting him ablaze in his premises in Whitechapel, east London, on February 3, 1975.

He was convicted of murder in September 1976 along with two co-accused and turned down the chance of parole, which would have enabled him to leave jail years ago, insisting he was not guilty of the crime.

Mr Johnson, who had waived his right to attend the appeal, was released yesterday from Swaleside prison in Kent, saying: ‘‘The feeling is unbelievable, you can’t put it into words really.’’