A restaurateur convicted of murdering a complete

A restaurateur convicted of murdering a complete
stranger in the police station cell they were sharing was
today (Friday) given a second chance to try to clear his name.

He claimed he had been framed by officers at
Hammersmith Police Station and that the police
themselves were responsible for the brutal killing.

The Court of Criminal Appeal today ordered a retrial of
the Crown’s case against 44-year-old Malcom Kennedy because
the jury’s verdict was ‘not safe and satisfactory’ in the
light of fresh evidence.

Kennedy, who was convicted in September, 1991, of
stamping to death cellmate Patrick Quinn, 55, at Hammersmith
police station in the early hours of December 24, 1990, smiled
calmly when Mr Justice Taylor, the Lord Chief Justice of England,
announced the judgment.

The judge, sitting with Mr Justice Judge and Mr
Justice Hidden, rejected the appellant’s application for a
quashing of conviction.

They also rejected Kennedy’s request for bail and the
defendant will remain in custody until his new murder trial
at the Old Bailey later this year.

Mr Justice Taylor said Kennedy, who is serving a life
sentence, must be arraigned on a fresh indictment within two
months.

The court stressed that its decision did not necessarily
support Kennedy’s claim that police murdered Mr Quinn.

‘We wish to make clear and emphasise that in reaching
this conclusion we are not either expressly nor impliedly passing
any judgment on the rival contentions argued before us,’ Mr
Justice Taylor said.

‘We must not be taken by ordering a retrial to have reached
any conclusion as to the suggested malpractice by the police.

‘Equally, although we have briefly indicated the nature
of the prosecution case our decision to order a retrial rather than
simply quash the conviction should not be taken as indicating a view
adverse to the appellant.

‘It would be quite wrong for this court to indicate a view
one way or the other.

‘That is the function of a jury.

‘
Mr Quinn, a labourer, of Batoum Gardens, Hammersmith,
was found dead in ‘the tank’ cell at Hammersmith police station
at 1.

50 am on December 24, 1990.

He had been arrested a few hours earlier at 10.

50 pm for
being drunk and incapable.

Kennedy, formerly of Church Walk, Stoke Newington, was
arrested for a separate drunk and disorderly incident after midnight
and was put in ‘the tank’ cell soon after 1 am.

The pair did not know each other.

One of the many strange features of the case was that
the killer – whoever it was – had no motive.

A post mortem revealed that Mr Quinn was jumped on
repeatedly and died from a crushed heart.

His rib cage was broken in 33 places.

The victim’s blood was spattered all over the cell and
Kennedy’s clothes, hands and shoes were dripping with blood.

The defendant claimed from the outset that police
killed Mr Quinn and then framed him for the murder by splashing
him with the dead man’s blood and planting his shoe prints
on the victim’s corpse.

‘He (Kennedy) said he had been dozing or asleep when
someone in blue trousers and a white shirt had done it,’ said Mr
Michael Mansfield, QC, counsel for Kennedy.

The defendant claimed he tried to stop the police attack
but was struck on the forehead and knocked to the floor.

Despite the jury’s unanimous guilty verdict
in September, 1991, Kennedy maintained his innocence.

Several MPs including Dianne Abbott, Chris Mullin,
Jeremy Corbyn and Tessa Jowell took up his case.

Kennedy’s solicitors also continued their investigation
which led to a Granada TV ‘World in Action’ report in April,
1992, on an alleged miscarriage of justice in the light of
new evidence.

The Police Complaints Authority investigated the case
and its report in September, 1992, was given to the Crown Prosecution
Service and the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The fresh evidence centred on two previously unknown
witness statements relating to a separate incident taken at
Hammersmith police station during the crucial period between
Mr Quinn’s arrest and death.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Taylor said: ‘After
considering the further evidence and the arguments based upon
it we find ourselves unable to say we can be sure that had the
jury heard this evidence it would not have affected their verdict.

‘Accordingly we cannot say that the verdict is safe and
satisfactory.

‘On the other hand, we consider that the whole of the
evidence including the further material we have received merits
the consideration of a fresh jury.

‘In our judgment, onerous though it will be for all
concerned, this is a case in which the interests of justice
require that we order a retrial.

‘
The judge said the court considered banning media
reports of the appeal before the retrial, but public interest
in the case deserved the outcome to be known.

‘We recognise that the case is one which has attracted
some public attention, the proceedings have been reported over
the last few days and we recognise the public interest in hearing
the outcome,’ he said.

‘But we stress that the fair administration of justice
where a retrial is soon to take place does require that reports
at this stage should be limited to the decision of the court and
the terms of this judgment.

‘In particular, issues which remain to be tried should
not be prejudged.

‘
The judge said the retrial should be held as soon as
was ‘conveniently possible’ and granted legal aid to Kennedy
under the same terms as his first trial.