Our thanks to Steve for this. An extract:
“It can now be reported that the original trial collapsed after a legal mistake, when it emerged Rachel Drummond, a key defence witness, was a court custody officer who had conducted welfare checks on Beal in her cells.
Ms Drummond had given evidence which, in the words of original judge Adrienne Lucking KC, described observing a relationship that had the hallmarks of abuse, although she had not seen Beal for about seven years.
But after Ms Drummond’s employment became known during cross-examination – Judge Lucking said there was no way to “ensure a fair verdict and a safe conviction”.
—————————-
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.
If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
“But after Ms Drummond’s employment became known during cross-examination – Judge Lucking said there was no way to “ensure a fair verdict and a safe conviction”.
This is about the previous trial that was ended by the Judge. And this is precisely the sort of thing that the scandal of 2017/18 was about! The CPS must have known that this witness was going to give bad evidence, having no evidence of contact with the defendant from even before the relationship she then said was abusive. Either the Police and in particular the CPS were incompetent or they hoped that the cross examination would miss this and the evidence would be taken at face value. One cannot help think it wasn’t incompetence (given the witness was a court custody officer !)but evidence of precisely the sort of “tricks” criticized and supposedly ended 6 years ago.
LikeLike
I should be clearer. The “evidence” was to posthumously label Nicholas Billingham a domestic abuser and therefore support a plea of manslaughter, in effect saying he deserved it as in the cases pioneered by Wistrich. Evidence that was almost immediately suspect at the first trial. Hence in the retrial and the immediate admission of guilt.
LikeLike