unsolved-murders.co.uk
Unsolved Murders
Tags

Sean Lummes

Age: 29

Sex: male

Date: 23 Sep 1997

Place: 190 St Georges Avenue, Sheerness, Kent

Sean Lummes was found dead in his home in St Georges Avenue in Sheerness, Kent.

He had been stabbed up to 90 times, had his throat cut and was beaten with a hammer on the night of 23/24 September 1997 at 190 St Georges Avenue, Sheerness.

His wife and her lover where initially convicted of his murder in March 1999, but their convictions were later quashed in 2001 when they were found to be unsafe after it was heard that the judge had failed to adequately direct the jury that they had to consider the charges against the wife and her lover separately. A retrial was ordered but the prosecution offered no evidence.

At the trial is was said that the lover had lured Sean Lummes to his home at the request of the wife and had then murdered him. It was said that because Sean Lummes's wife had arranged for her lover to murder Sean Lummes that the crime was as such a joint enterprise between them, however, they both denied any involvement.

However, it was also heard that Sean Lummes had had a number of affairs with married women and that at least one of them was said to have had a severe temper.

It was also heard that Sean Lummes had been involved in a beer smuggling racket and had criminal connections.

It was also later heard that the forensic evidence indicated that the murder had been carried out by two people, but the prosecution had said at the trial that it was carried out by one person.

The court of appeal heard that the judge had essentially directed the jury to consider the case one of joint enterprise in that both Sean Lummes's wife and her lover either stood or fell together and failed to consider the possibility that Sean Lummes's wife might have arranged for others to murder Sean Lummes, it being noted that two men had attacked him or that Sean Lummes's wife's lover might have acted independently of Sean Lummes's wife, either alone or with an accomplice.

Whilst the appeal also claimed that the evidence at best led to suspicion and not grounds for conviction, the appeal court rejected that claim, remarking that the conviction would have stood if it were not for the way in which the judge had summed up on the issue of joint enterprise and paying no more than lip service to the other possibilities.

Ordinarily 190 St Georges Avenue was the marital home of Sean Lummes and his wife but they had been decorating at the time and had been living at a rented property at 73 Invicta Road in Sheerness.

At the time Sean Lummes's wife had been seeing a man, her lover, and the court heard that he had wanted Sean Lummes's wife to leave Sean Lummes and to live with him and that together they had conspired to lure Sean Lummes to 190 St Georges Avenue where the lover killed him.

Sean Lummes and his wife had had what was described as a turbulent domestic history, having married in 1992 at which time his wife had had two children by two different men in previous relationships. Following their marriage they had two children of their own, a son and a daughter and they moved into 190 St Georges Avenue in September 1996, however, it was heard that by that time that Sean Lummes's wife had been having her affair with the new lover.

It was heard that by February 1997 that their marriage was in difficulty and that they had money problems and that Sean Lummes's wife was speaking of leaving Sean Lummes for her new lover. Shortly after the lover gave Sean Lummes's wife £500 to help her move into 73 Invicta Road, which she did with her three boys after which her lover moved in with her, spending considerable sums of money on domestic fittings and offering to marry her. It was said that they had both had serious intentions of a future together.

However, it was heard that Sean Lummes was a problem for them as he was said to have threatened to take the children away, and as a result Sean Lummes's wife ended her relationship with her lover and her lover left 73 Invicta Road. Then, in mid-August 1997 Sean Lummes moved in to 73 Invicta Road with his wife.

However, it was further heard that Sean Lummes's wife continued to communicate with her lover, mainly by public telephone to avoid Sean Lummes seeing the calls on their home telephone bill and that they also met up at darts matches at The Royal public house. They were still also said to have been discussing their future life together.

When Sean Lummes's wife and her lover were interviewed by the police following the murder they both said that they had been at 190 St Georges Avenue on Friday 19 September 1997 whilst Sean Lummes was babysitting back at 73 Invicta Road, with a view to future cohabitation in mind, with Sean Lummes's wife saying that Sean Lummes had been speaking about moving away to London. However, the prosecution submitted that that visit had never taken place and that they had mentioned that to the police in order to provide an explanation for any scientific evidence that might indicate that her lover had been there on the night of the murder. The prosecution further noted that Sean Lummes had been decorating the property at the time with the intention that he and his family would be living there and that that there was no evidence to suggest that his wife's lover would be able to move in there.

The court heard that Sean Lummes's wife's lover had driven Sean Lummes's wife home from The Royal on the nights of Monday 22 September and Tuesday 23 September 1997 in his van to 73 Invicta Road. The prosecution said that on the Tuesday evening that they had arrived at 11pm after which Sean Lummes's wife sent Sean Lummes round to 190 St Georges Avenue to pick up some clothes, knowing that, by pre-arrangement, that her lover would be waiting there to murder him, it being noted that no one else knew that Sean Lummes would have been there that night.

However, the defence said at the trial that after Sean Lummes's wife returned home to 73 Invicta Road that they had had an argument and that Sean Lummes had left the house saying that he was going to commit suicide. Her lover said that after he dropped Sean Lummes's wife off that he had driven home.

However, the prosecution said that CCTV evidence showed that the lover's van had still been in the Sheerness area.

The prosecution submitted that Sean Lummes's wife's lover must have driven to 190 St Georges Avenue and entered with a key provided by Sean Lummes's wife and waited for Sean Lummes to arrive. They noted that a single fingerprint that belonged to the lover was found at the property on a vase but no other forensic evidence against him was found.

It was noted that the following day that Sean Lummes's wife made no immediate enquiries about Sean Lummes's absence and that contrary to her previous practice that she had called her lover at work on the landline from 73 Invicta Road instead of going out to use a public telephone, it being submitted that she was no longer concerned about whether Sean Lummes noted that call in the bill as she knew that he was dead. The court heard that Sean Lummes's wife later said that the reason that she had made the call was because Sean Lummes had left following the row leaving his wedding ring behind which caused her to believe that their marriage was finally over and that she had called her lover on the house phone because she wanted some reassurance.

When the lover was interviewed by the police he said that he had been surprised to get a call from Sean Lummes's wife at work as it was not common for her to call him there.

The court heard that the lover had first said that on the morning of 25 September 1997 that he had driven straight from work to St Helier's Hospital in Surrey, but when he was shown CCTV evidence that showed that he had travelled from his place of work to Sheerness that morning he said that he had probably been just seeing if Sean Lummes's wife was at home and had not been sure whether he had passed 73 Invicta Road. He had been caught on CCTV footage on several occasions before 8am in the Sheerness area.

It was also heard that he had rung Sean Lummes's wife twice during that time.

The court further heard that although Sean Lummes's wife had made no effort to contact Sean Lummes on Wednesday 24 September, either by calling him or going to look at 190 St Georges Avenue, that she called the police on Thursday 25 September to report him missing, saying that she was concerned about him.

Sean Lummes was then found dead at 190 St Georges Avenue, having been stabbed and beaten with a hammer.

The post mortem report suggested that there had been two assailants.

It was noted that there were bloodstains all round the room and that there were no signs of a forced entry to the house.

It was heard that his time of death could not be stated with accuracy, but that the contents of his stomach suggested that he  had died between two and six hours after eating some potato chips. His wife noted that they had had fish and chips between 5.30pm and 6pm on 23 September, but it was also noted that it could not be known for sure whether that had been the last time that Sean Lummes had consumed potatoes.

It was noted that both Sean Lummes's wife and her lover were interviewed at length over five days but that their accounts did not differ significantly over that time.

At the appeal it was noted that the case against each, Sean Lummes's wife and her lover, had considerable difficulties and that it was said for that reason that they were never separated out by the prosecution during their open speech at the trial.

It was noted that so far as Sean Lummes's wife was concerned that there was no direct evidence against her of any kind and that the case against her was based entirely on her association with her lover and her motive to dispose of Sean Lummes so that she and her lover could live together with the children. It was also noted that the case had relied on the supposition that Sean Lummes's wife had given her lover the key to 190 St Georges Avenue to make an unforced entry.

It was further noted that the prosecution had relied on the fact that Sean Lummes’s wife and her lover had said that they had both been to 190 St Georges Avenue in September 1996 and that that was a fictional account to explain away any forensic evidence that might be found at the property as well as demonstrating further that they had acted in a joint enterprise.

It was also noted that the case had relied on the fact that a copy of a True Crime magazine had been found at 73 Invicta Road which  had come from a larger collection of True Crime magazines that were at 190 St Georges Avenue and that the magazine had contained an article relating to the role of scenes of crimes officers in the detection of crime and their ability to discover traces of forensic evidence that connected  a particular person to a crime scene, the implication being that they had read the article in the preparation for carrying out the murder and eliminating forensic evidence being detected.

It was also noted that the fact that Sean Lummes's wife had called her lover from her home telephone at 73 Invicta Road further established the theory of a joint enterprise.

When the judge summed up at the trial he had said, 'The case against Sean Lummes's wife thus depends upon her active involvement in ensuring that Sean went to 190. The prosecution rely on, for example, the possession of the magazine 'Real Life Crimes', the alleged phoney visit on Friday, the 19th and the showing of concern to ensure that any traces left by her lover should be explained as pointers to her involvement. But in themselves, those pointers could not establish guilt. You can only convict her on the case presented by the Crown if you were satisfied that she did lure Sean to 190. I cannot underline that too clearly. That is the only basis on which you can convict Sean Lummes's wife'.

When the evidence against the lover was considered at the appeal it was noted that there was the evidence of the fingerprint on the vase found at 190 St Georges Avenue which it was claimed had been put there on a previous visit to the property in September 1996 and that three was also the evidence of the movements of his van as captured by the CCTV cameras before midnight on Tuesday 23 September 1997 along with other more significant CCTV footage that showed a van being driving from the general direction of 73 Invicta Road at 4.56am. The court had heard that the 4.56am CCTV evidence showed a van that was similar to the lover's van but that in addition the prosecution submitted that an expert had stated that it included a defect in the lighting that the lover's van had although the defence presented a similar expert that claimed that the CCTV evidence did not show a van with a defective light as the lover''s van had.

The appeal court also noted that the only other evidence that the prosecution had relied on was that when Sean Lummes was found dead that he had had a receipt for the recharging of the electrical meter key at 190 St Georges Avenue in his pocket that had been issued at 6.57pm on Friday 19 September 1997 at a shop close to 190 St Georges Avenue, which would have been around the time that Sean Lummes's wife and his lover had said that they had gone to the address to look around whilst they had alleged that Sean Lummes had been baby sitting at 73 Invicta Road. It was noted that at trial that the prosecution had submitted that that further indicated that the visit had not taken place and had been fabricated as part of their joint enterprise plan to murder Sean Lummes.

The court of appeal noted that there had been two unanticipated problems for the prosecution at the time of their opening address, and that the first was that the forensic experts were all in agreement that the nature of the violent attack on Sean Lummes and the types of multiple injuries that he had sustained indicated that that it was likely that he had been attacked by two assailants, and not one, which the prosecution had stated in their opening speech.

It was also noted that credible evidence was also heard from a prosecution witness that Sean Lummes had had several affairs with the wives of other men and that at least one of them had a severe temper.

It was also heard that Sean Lummes had been involved in the illegal import of beer and that a police raid on premises on 23 September 1997 had involved the arrest of everyone involved other than Sean Lummes. The defence suggested therefore that it might have been a criminal associate of Sean Lummes that had been behind the attack on him and his murder. It was also noted that the lover was said to have not been a violent man and to have also been squeamish at the sight of blood.

When the appeal court reviewed the judges summing up it was noted that the judge had told the jury that the charges again both Sean Lummes's wife and her lover either stood, or fell together. The summing up was described as full and fair although the defence claimed that it had been one sided and an invitation to the jury to acquit.

The appeal court heard that it was noted that the judge had emphasized that the absence of a forced entry, which was consistent with Sean Lummes's wife having given her lover a key, was equally consistent with Sean Lummes himself having let someone in that he had known, the judge stating, 'We simply do not know'.

It was also noted that the judge had noted that suspicion and even probability, with regards to the motive, were not enough to convict. The judge also noted that the possibility that any judge, should Sean Lummes and his wife separate, give custody of the children to Sean Lummes, given that he had a history of depression, threats of suicide and philandering, was quite unlikely and not sufficient to have given his wife significant concern over losing her children if they did.

The judge at the trial concluded, 'But it is for you to consider whether the truth was such as really to provide a sensible motive for murder. You may think that if the evidence does not persuade you that it would be safe to draw an inference of guilt, then it would be wrong to attach any weight to the alleged motive to tip the balance against the defendants'.

When the judge commented on the fingerprint found on the vase, he said, 'You may think that it would be thoroughly dangerous to assume from the presence of that finger-print that there is any compelling evidence that the lover was present in 190 at the time that the murder was committed. Whatever be the explanation as to how that thumb-print came to be on the vase, and there are many possibilities, you may think, members of the jury, it would be unsafe to assume that it points to his presence, as I say, at the time the murder was committed'.

The judge also noted that two witnesses, one a workmate, had stated that the lover had been squeamish at the site of blood and that despite there having been a lot of blood at the crime scene, none was found on the lover or his clothing.

When the court of appeal noted the basis for the appeal they stated that both Sean Lummes's wife and her lover had claimed that even if the case was considered as one of joint enterprise, that the evidence never amounted to more than a strong suspicion of guilt and that in the light of the pathologists findings that two people had been involved in the attack on Sean Lummes and the possibility that he had been murdered because of his criminal connections or adulterous associations, that the verdicts should be found unsafe.

However, the court of appeal said that in the light of the facts and the judges summing up that that claim was not sustainable. However, they added that the real complaint was that the judge, in instructing the jury to approach the case on the basis that the defendants stood or fell together had erred. It was heard that the judge had said the following, although that had gone against his initial instinct, 'I am dealing with the question of separate verdicts, it seems to me that if the jury were not sure the lover was one of the killers, they could not convict Sean Lummes's wife because the case against her is put as a secondary party to his killing. It is specifically put on that basis, it would, as it seems to me, be open, at least in theory, to the jury to be sure that he was involved in the killing, but not to be sure that she took part in it, as opposed merely to approving of it. That possibility, I think, I must leave to them'.

The judge had then said, 'Whatever the theoretical position, the reality is that this is a case where from whichever angle you look at it, the reality would be that it would be difficult to justify different verdicts against the defendants' and went on to say, 'the prosecution have to accept that they present the case now before you on the basis that the lover was not on his own but, nonetheless, they maintain, that as they are entitled to, and this is a matter you are going to have to decide, that the lover was one of those who was attacking Sean at the relevant time and killing him'.

He then said, 'The main thrust of the prosecution case is clearly not changed. That thrust is, as I have said, that Sean was lured to 190 and his death by his wife and was killed when or shortly after he got there and, in any event, not later than the early hours of Wednesday morning. The case against his wife thus depends upon her active involvement in ensuring that Sean went to 190. Members of the jury, equally since the Crown's case is that the lover was enabled to get into 190 because he was provided with a key by Sean Lummes's wife and Sean was sent there by her, you would have to be sure of her involvement if you were to convict him. It is fairly obvious, you may think. Thus while separate consideration is needed, and may be important in the matter that is raised before you, it cannot in the circumstances of this case justify different verdicts. You look at the whole of the evidence. If that evidence looked at as a whole satisfies you that both were involved you convict both if you are not sure that both were involved you must acquit both. That, as I say, is a matter of reality is the way that this case has to be approached'. It was noted that the part where the judge said, 'matter that is raised before you' referred to the possibility that Sean Lummes's wife might have organised other people to murder Sean Lummes.

The appeal court then heard however, that the judge went on to only provide lip service to the prospect that either Sean Lummes's wife or her lover had been independently guilty and continued on the assumption that they were both either guilty or not guilty.

The court of appeal then found the conviction unsafe, stating, 'In our view, the judge's initial reaction as to the appropriate direction was correct, if, in practice, the necessity to consider the case against each defendant separately was to be followed by the jury. While such a direction could and would have included a direction that in most respects, because of the Crown's case of joint enterprise, the evidence relied on was admissible against each, a direction to consider first the case against the lover and thereafter that against Sean Lummes's wife would have been preferable. The form adopted by the judge, while taken for practical reasons of simplification, may in practice have robbed at least Sean Lummes's wife of a separate and beneficial verdict. That same risk also exists in respect of the lover, simply because the nature of the Crown's case was one of joint enterprise throughout, and it is not possible to speculate on what evidential basis or by what process of reasoning the jury returned a verdict of guilty in respect of each'.

Following the acquittal, no further developments were made in the case.


*map pointers are rough estimates based on known location details as per Place field above.