Neil Sayers’ case was one of those that were not deemed worthy of further investigation because of the involvement of the disgraced forensic pathologist Dr Michael Heath. However, there are important causes for concern over Heath’s involvement in Sayers’ case that David Jessel’s review for the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) did not consider. In April 1999 Sayers was convicted with Graham Wallis of the May 1998 murder of his friend Russell Crookes. Wallis pleaded guilty, but blamed Sayers for the murder. Leading solicitor Steven Bird represents Sayers now and the CCRC informed him that the review of Heath’s cases had special regard for cases in which medical evidence was critical to the conviction. That did apply to Sayers’ case and Sayers’ previous application to the CCRC had only argued that there was no forensic evidence linking him to the crime itself. Consequently the CCRC thought that any challenge to Heath’s evidence in Sayers’ case would be incorrect.

“My son is innocent,” said Richard Sayers “but he has remained in prison for almost eleven years maintaining his innocence throughout that time. The CCRC has said that they had special regard for cases where medical evidence was critical to the conviction. Neil’s case does not fit that criterion, but there are still issues that deserve to be investigated.” So was he right? Are there issues relating to Heath's conduct that should be investigated. We think so.

Dr Heath took maggot samples from the body, but those maggots were not examined for five years. It remains unclear if Heath even advised police to consult an experienced forensic entomologist. The maggots represented the best possibility of establishing when death occurred – a vital issue in the case. Dr Heath also implied that the partial burning of the body was the result of an intense fire. Intense compared to what? There is considerable evidence to suggest that this was not an intense fire and that Heath’s conclusions led to errors in the interpretation of fire-related evidence, which was another issue of vital importance in this case. Heath’s role in these aspects of Sayers’ case was never considered in the review.

Sayers’ mother Angela shared her husband’s concerns. “We strongly believe that more extensive investigation of the pathology-related issues could discredit Wallis’ claims,” says Mrs Sayers. “By not looking into all of those issues in my son’s case, the CCRC are causing innocent people like my Neil, to remain behind bars when thorough investigation of these issues could prove his innocence and this may have happened in other cases as well.”

A previous application to the CCRC by solicitors who no longer act for Sayers failed to highlight scientific issues that legal experts say are at the heart of Sayers’ case. “It has been explained to us by experts that the scientific issues in Neil Sayers’ case have not been investigated as they could and should have been,” said Trevor Vallens, Vice-Chair of Kent Against Injustice (KAI), a campaigning group that supports the families of prisoners protesting their innocence.

His case has also attracted the interest of Dr Michael Naughton, a lecturer at Bristol University who founded the Innocence Network UK and the first innocence project in the UK. “If the complaints made by Neil Sayers’ parents are correct it seems that the CCRC may have been premature in its decision not to investigate Dr Heath’s involvement in Sayers’ case more fully,” said Dr Naughton. “If the CCRC truly wanted to act in the interests of justice, a wider interrogation of other available scientific evidence would have been appropriate before reaching its conclusions.”