A British man who spent 38 years in prison for the 1986 murder of a barmaid had his conviction quashed on Tuesday by the UK Court of Appeal after new DNA evidence came to light.The 68-year-old Peter Sullivan is believed to be the UK’s longest-serving victim of a miscarriage of justice after three judges overturned his conviction.Why was Sullivan convicted?Sullivan was arrested a month after 21-year-old Diane Sidwell was killed in August 1986 and found dead near the city of Liverpool in northwest England.He was convicted in 1987 based on a confession that he later retracted and bite mark evidence, which has since been discredited. Sullivan’s repeated attempts over the years to appeal the conviction failed.However, his lawyers told the Court of Appeal that new evidence based on semen samples found on the victim’s body showed the killer “was not the defendant.”Lawyers for the Crown Prosecution Service, which brought the case, said the new DNA evidence meant there was “no credible basis on which the appeal can be opposed.”They added the evidence was “sufficient fundamentally to cast doubt on the safety of the conviction.”What was Sullivan’s reaction?Sullivan appeared to weep as the judges overturned his sentence.He said in a statement read by his lawyer Sarah Myatt that, while his conviction was “very wrong,” he was not angry.“As God is my witness, it is said the truth shall take you free,” Myatt read from the statement.“It is unfortunate that it does not give a timescale as we advance towards resolving the wrongs done to me. I am not angry, I am not bitter.” Detective Chief Superintendent Karen Jaundrill said police were now appealing for more information in a renewed effort to solve the murder.DNA tests have also ruled out that Sindall’s killer was a relative or her then-fiance.A statement from Merseyside Police, which initially investigated the crime, said: “We do not underestimate the impact of the conviction on Mr. Sullivan.”“At the time of Diane’s murder DNA testing was very much in its infancy and this vital evidence was not available to the original investigation team.”
