to INNOCENT main page

Simon Hall


Click here to visit the Simon Hall website
  • Simon was convicted of murder despite the fact that forensic and DNA evidence did not place him at the scene of the crime. They were not his boot prints in the garden. They were not his fingerprints in the house. He had no forensic traces of the scene on him or his clothes.
  • Simon was convicted on the basis that he may have possessed clothes made with similar fibres to those found in the house. 35,000 people in the UK also possess clothes with similar fibres to those found in the house.
  • A knife which is almost certainly the murder weapon had DNA evidence on it. But the results of DNA tests have never been disclosed.
  • Simon had an alibi.
News - for latest news always check the Simon Hall website
BBC video: claims that two drug addicts responsible for murder of which Simon is convicted - click here 7 November 2011 (intelligence from 2002 supports this claim: click to view
Private Eye article 26 October 2011 click here (pdf format)
Simon's wife Stephanie asks Attorney General, to order disclosure of important records
click here to read letter (Adobe pdf format) 27 August 2011

Appeal Refused - 14 January 2011

Expert witness criticises FSS and Court of Appeal

Tiernan Coyle, BSc. MSc. of Contact Traces Ltd, who gave evidence at the appeal, has written a letter to the court in which he refers to the 'overwhelming evidence of the incompetence' of the Forensic Science Service, accuses the court of failing in its duty and doubts the court's ability to properly deal with this type of [fibre] evidence.' Mr Coyle describes himself as 'a forensic scientist who is a servant to the court'.

In his letter, he says: 'I believe that my statement was not read properly...it is very obvious that my evidence was not that what the court has believed it to be in relation to the carbon black fibres...In my opinion, this demonstrates that the Court of Appeal has failed in its duty to consider all of the scientific evidence submitted to it in this case and in doing so may have caused a miscarriage of justice.

'...[T]he court clearly did not understand the fundamentals of fibre examination at a technical level and considering the level of technical detail in this appeal causes significant concern that it was beyond the court's ability to properly deal with this type of evidence.

'...The court here does not understand that fluorescence and an MSP spectrum are not related phenomena, once again the court finds itself out of its depth scientifically.'

He refers to 'the failure of the court to appreciate the highly technical nature of the evidence before them.'

'[T]he court does not even criticise the Forensic Science Service for failing to know the difference between a green fibre and a black fibre,' he adds, 'and in doing so, this court demonstrated a determination to avoid criticising the Forensic Science Service at all costs in spite of the overwhelming evidence of their incompetence in this case.'

Referring to the 'incompetence of the FSS in this case in 2002,' he adds that he does not accept that '...their failure to properly perform these simple laboratory tasks is simply a matter of equipment or technology issues...'

He concludes: 'I am pleased the court recognised the utterly remarkable and widespread quality failings in the fibre examinations conducted by the FSS in this case in 2002. I am very disappointed that the Court has not deemed it appropriate to allow these findings to go before a jury and I have very grave concerns that the inadequacies in this judgement that I have described in this letter provide substantial grounds to demonstrate that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.'

Read the full letter and report: links at http://www.contacttraces.com/news.php

Important statement by University of Bristol Innocence Project

  • Fibre evidence doubt should have led to retrial
  • DNA evidence from probable murder weapon still undisclosed

Read more - click here

news report - click here

Solicitor Correna Platt, of Stephensons Solicitors, said Mr Hall and his family were "devastated". "His legal team are concerned by the approach taken by the (appeal) court in coming to this decision," she said. "It was agreed by all that his conviction rested entirely on expert evidence relating to fibre evidence, and there is much other evidence that pointed away from Simon's guilt. The 'right and proper' outcome would have been for the appeal judges to have sent the case back, with the new evidence to a jury "as the jury are the final arbiters of disputes of this kind and not the Court of Appeal."

 

Keir Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions, stated in a BBC documentary in 2007 that Simon's case is "really peculiar, because there is no particular reason to suspect he is guilty of this offence, there are lots and lots of question marks. There is one crucial link and that's the fibre evidence, and that's what holds the whole case together. It's a very odd case, it's circumstantial, break that central piece of evidence and the case falls apart." 

Links to University of Bristol Innocence Project (UoBIP) submissions to the CCRC on the case of Simon Hall

October 2009: Further submission on the fibre evidence

July 2009: Question to CCRC for clarification

January 2009: Submission on Y-STR DNA testing

October 2007: Submission on fibre evidence

Private Eye 1249 13 November 2009 reveals fresh evidence discovered by Bristol students, which could postively prove Simon's innocence

This case was referred for a second appeal by the CCRC on the basis that it has obtained new scientific evidence that casts doubt on the only forensic evidence said to link Simon to the crime scene: fibres found there.

But there is also another piece of evidence which actually demonstrates Simon’s innocence. A few days before his trial, a large amount of unused material gathered in the course of the original police investigation of the murder of Joan Albert was delivered to his solicitors. They had no time to look at it, but recently students at the University of Bristol’s Innocence Project, led by Gabe Tan, trawled through these documents. They ‘found a statement from a care worker who looked after an elderly man living 10 minutes away from Mrs Albert in Capel St Mary and who was also a victim of a burglary on the night Mrs Alpert was stabbed. The care worker reported that immediately after the burglary she noticed two kitchen knives she regularly used to prepare the man’s meals had gone missing. Later, when shown a picture of the murder weapon, she identified it as “similar to the one that was stolen. It appears to have the same colour handle and length of blade. It also has the same rivets on the handle.”’

A related description of undisclosed material, also discovered by the Bristol students, recorded that DNA found on the knife was ‘from more than one person [but] the results are believed to be of no practical use.’ No use in securing the conviction of Simon, perhaps, but possibly useful enough to prove his innocence and even point to a different culprit. If the same person committed both crimes, it could not have committed both crimes: he had no time to do so, having a firm alibi for the whole night, apart from 30 minutes – scarcely enough to commit one of the crimes.

"I am delighted that the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) announced on 14 October 2009 that it has referred the case of Simon Hall to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) who was convicted of the murder of 79 year old Joan Albert in February 2003," writes Dr Michael Naughton, Director of the University of Bristol Innocence Project and Founder and Director of the Innocence Network UK, the umbrella organisation for member innocence projects in UK universities.

"Since 2006, Simon's case has been investigated by the University of Bristol Innocence Project (UoBIP) and five students from the UoBIP investigating Simon's case was the subject of the last ever BBC Rough Justice documentary in April 2007.

"Particular mention must go to Gabe Tan, Head of Casework for the Innocence Network UK,  who has headed the investigation throughout its time with the University of Bristol Innocence Project and has personally committed many hundreds of voluntary hours to produce various submissions to the CCRC over the years on the  limitations of the fibre evidence claimed to link Simon to the crime scene, the possible utility of new DNA techniques on biological samples found at the murder scene and has unearthed evidence (which for legal reasons cannot be disclosed at this time) in the unused evidence that may conclusively prove Simon's factual innocence.

"Although Simon's conviction is yet to be overturned, Simon and all concerned are cautiously optimistic, especially with the low referral rate (currently less than 4% of a thousand applications a year are referred back to the appeal courts) and relatively high 'success' rate (over 70% of cases referred are overturned)."

Simon is represented by Campbell Malone, of Stephensons Solicitors LLP

CCRC referral details

Murder case goes to Appeal Court, 14 October 2009

Legal TV's Innocent Programme features this case 27 October 2007

Simon's case featured on BBC Rough Justice programme 12 April 2007 now available to view - click here - this programme features the University of Bristol Innocence Project students investigating the case.

Online petition supporting Simon's claim of innocence has over 1000 signatures May 2006

Guardian, November 25 2005, reports that the pathologist in Simon's case, Michael Heath, was severely criticised in an appeal judgment, and 'a raft of murder cases' could be reopened as a result.

The pathologist in Simon's case is under investigation for alleged errors in his work in two other murder cases.
Report in East Anglia Daily Times

The following website provides more information on Simon's case:

Justice 4 Simon

INNOCENT main page
top of page