Judgment criticises lawyers' 'particularly unhelpful' submission

It was lamentable that lawyers for convicted 'milkshake murderer' Nancy Kissel had not taken more time to flesh out their 13 grounds of appeal, the Court of Appeal said in dismissing her case yesterday.

The court described as 'particularly unhelpful' the written presentation of a number of the 13 grounds of appeal. The rather general approach adopted by Kissel's team on those points, and the way in which they had been expanded upon 'spasmodically' during the course of the appeal, had meant the judges were left to do much of their own research.

It was a situation that would more often than not have resulted in the appeal being delayed by the court so the case could be put in better order.

'[However] out of consideration for the families of the deceased and of the appellant, who had travelled considerable distances for a hearing that had long ago been set down, we decided to proceed with the hearing rather than adjourn in the hope of obtaining the quality of prior written presentation that is required for any appeal, let alone one of this complexity,' the judges said.

The court, comprising vice-president Mr Justice Michael Stuart-Moore, Mr Justice Frank Stock and Mr Justice Alan Wright, found that only four of the 13 points raised during the 10-day hearing could conceivably affect the safety of her conviction.

Chief among those grounds - which in the end were all dismissed - was the way in which prosecutor Peter Chapman SC had been allowed to cross-examine Kissel on statements made on her behalf during a November 2004 bail hearing.

It was argued that trial judge Mr Justice Michael Lunn should have prevented the cross-examination on those points because bail hearings were not held in open court and had very different rules from jury trials.