I applied for this debate so that I could raise the case of Paula Leeson on behalf of her family. I should start by reassuring all parties that this is no longer a live criminal investigation and, as well as having spoken about this case previously in the Chamber, all the details contained within have been widely reported in the media.
The Leeson family believe that Paula was killed by her then husband Donald McPherson in 2019. That Mr McPherson is currently a free man is, they believe, a damning indictment of a justice system that has badly failed them. I want to place on the record my view that the Leesons have not had the justice they deserve, and that lessons must be learned when prosecuting other acts of domestic violence and when supporting victims’ family members.
Before getting into the details of this tragic case, I want to pay tribute to the Leeson family, particularly Neville Leeson, Paula’s brother. My office has been supporting Neville in his mission to get justice for Paula since I was elected, and I cannot begin to imagine the pain he has endured since Paula’s death. Whenever I speak to him, I am struck by his love for Paula and his dedication to pursuing justice for his sister, but also his unwavering dignity in the face of such hardship.
Paula’s case is complex, and some of the details are, quite frankly, hard to believe, so I will do my best to summarise them now. In 2019, Paula, an otherwise healthy woman, died fully clothed in a shallow pool while on holiday in Denmark with her then husband Donald McPherson. Despite Paula having 13 separate injuries on her body, an initial investigation by the Danish police accepted Mr McPherson’s version of events that he woke from a nap to find Paula unconscious in the pool, and that he then failed in his attempts to resuscitate her. These attempts, he claimed, were the cause of bruising around her neck.
In the hours after Paula’s death, Mr McPherson, a convicted conman, was withdrawing money from their joint account to pay off significant financial debts. We now also know that prior to her death, Mr McPherson took out multiple fraudulent life insurance policies on Paula without her knowledge. Upon her repatriation to the United Kingdom, Greater Manchester police opened a criminal investigation into Paula’s death, and in March 2021 that case went to criminal court. The judge presiding over the case decided that because it could not be ruled out completely that the injuries to Paula were from rescue or resuscitation attempts, he had no choice but to stop the trial at the halfway point and instruct the jury to issue a not guilty verdict after just two weeks.
The Leesons were understandably devastated by this verdict, but they did not give up. They pursued a civil claim against Donald McPherson in the High Court to prevent him from claiming the life insurance policies he had taken out on Paula. In September 2024, the judge presiding over the civil case concluded that it was his “firm view” that Donald McPherson deliberately and unlawfully killed Paula Leeson by compressing her neck in an arm lock, rendering her unconscious and causing her to drown. Crucially, the civil trial heard evidence not presented in the criminal trial, including evidence from a pathologist, who said:
“It was difficult to envisage how the extent of the bruising to Paula could be caused during the attempts to resuscitate her alone.”
There was also evidence from the Fitbit that Paula was wearing when she died. It demonstrated a sharp rise in her heart rate, consistent with an adrenalin response to a violent attack. The Fitbit showed a decline in her heart rate thereafter, consistent with her being rendered unconscious, drowning and dying. The timing of the spike and decline in heart rate directly contradicted Mr McPherson’s timeline of events.
Following the verdict in the civil trial, the Leesons pursued a criminal retrial. That was a long and arduous process in which the Leesons experienced unimaginable stress and uncertainty. In September, the Director of Public Prosecutions declined the request for a criminal retrial. That was a devastating blow to the Leesons from which they have not recovered. The Director of Public Prosecutions made what he admitted was an incredibly difficult decision using parameters set by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. To put it simply, those parameters meant that he was able to grant a retrial only if there was new and compelling evidence, and it was in the public interest for the application to proceed.
The DPP concluded that neither the Fitbit evidence nor the pathology evidence were new. That is because the Fitbit evidence was available to the prosecution in the initial criminal trial, but it was not used because they felt that it would not advance their case. Similarly, the prosecution did not instruct the pathologist I have mentioned to present evidence at the criminal trial, despite having the option to do so. Evidence from Donald McPherson’s laptop showing deleted searches on both drowning and murder was also not deemed compelling new evidence of guilt because the time those searches were made could not be conclusively proven.
The Leesons believe that the prosecution made a significant error in not using the Fitbit or pathologist evidence in the initial criminal trial. They believe that that error has now prevented the DPP from granting a retrial that they believe could give them justice for Paula, and I am inclined to agree with them. I ask the Minister whether we might consider some flexibility in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, so that a potential mistake from the prosecution at an initial trial does not then rule out the possibility of a retrial ever being granted. Can the bar that must be met for a retrial be reassessed in this context? The Leesons understandably believe that the parameters set by the Criminal Justice Act are now preventing it from doing the very thing that it was designed for. I appreciate that this is a complex issue, and that Paula’s case is in many ways unique, but it would bring great comfort to the family if the Minister and the Government considered that specific issue, and Paula’s case in a wider context, to see what lessons can be learned.
I will end my remarks by sharing what Neville said to me yesterday:
“Once again, we find ourselves alone having to fight for justice for Paula because of the failures of the criminal justice system and a Criminal Justice Act 2003 which works very hard to help the criminal over the victims and their families.
Neither Paula nor my family are responsible for all the failures of the criminal justice system for Paula, and yet we are expected to endure the consequences of their failures for the rest of our lives. Is Paula’s life worth less than anyone else’s life? It shouldn’t be this way.”
I agree—it should not. If that is the consequence of our current legislative framework and settlement, I say to the Minister that the current framework, and the parameters that it sets, do not feel right to me.
I sincerely hope that there is something we can do to bring the Leesons some comfort after the horrific ordeal they have endured. I hope that bringing this debate to the Floor of the House, to make this a matter of public record for ever, will be of some small comfort to them, too.