Man twice found guilty of murder allowed to appeal against latest conviction
A man twice found guilty of murdering a woman and setting fire to her body almost 30 years ago has been given the green light to challenge his second conviction at the Court of Appeal. Justin Plummer was jailed in 1998 after a jury found he fatally attacked Janice Cartwright-Gilbert at the building site of her future home near Wilden in Bedfordshire the previous year.
Ms Cartwright-Gilbert, who was 38, was stabbed with a knife and scissors before her body was set alight in a caravan next to the building site.
READ MORE: Coroner raises concerns about new drivers after 4 teenagers killed in crash
Plummer, who was 24 at the time of the killing, had his first conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal in 2021 but was again convicted of murder following a retrial at Aylesbury Crown Court last year and sentenced to life with a minimum term of 16 years.
On Wednesday, his barristers told the Court of Appeal that he should be allowed to challenge the latest conviction due to an issue with evidence used at the retrial.
Three judges ruled Plummer could bring an appeal, with Lord Justice Edis stating that it was an “extraordinary case” and that Plummer’s challenge was “arguable”.
A full appeal is expected to be held next year.
After being found guilty of murder at St Albans Cron due to concerns over expert evidence.
But he was then found guilty of murder again two years later.
At the sentencing hearing in 2023, which Plummer did not attend, Mr Justice Cavanagh said that he was a “prolific burglar” who attacked Ms Cartwright-Gilbert after she confronted him as he attempted to steal power tools.
Ms Cartwright-Gilbert suffered a broken nose in the attack before being stamped on, stabbed in the heart, lungs and neck and then set on fire, with her two dogs also killed in the blaze.
Plummer appeared at Wednesday’s hearing on a video link from HMP Belmarsh.
His barrister, Katy Thorne KC, told the court in London that the trial judge was wrong to allow the jury to hear evidence from a police informant who shared a cell with Plummer, who claimed he had confessed to the murder.
The “cell confession” was not used in the first trial, but was in the second despite the informant having since died, with Ms Thorne claiming the use of “hearsay evidence” was an “inherent unfairness”.
She said: “It was a cell confession, always troubling, from 25 years ago.
“Because this evidence had not been adduced in the previous trial, it was not fair, it was not ever tested for reliability, and it was never asked of Mr Plummer to provide a response to it.
She continued: “We say that Mr Plummer was being asked to recall very tiny details of conversations he may or may not have had with a cellmate so many years ago.
“He says he did not make any such confession. He was able to say that because he did not do it.”
Allowing the appeal to go ahead, Lord Justice Edis, sitting with Mr Justice Bright and Judge Angela Morris, said: “It appears to us to be arguable that in these circumstances the judgment made by the judge that the value of the evidence in question was so high that the interests of justice required its admissibility may have been flawed.”
He continued: “Cellblock confessions are and always have been a source of concern for obvious reasons.
“It appears to us that given the extraordinary circumstances of this case, it is right that the full court should evaluate this evidence in the context of all of the other evidence to determine whether the conviction is safe.”
Addressing Plummer at the end of the hearing, Lord Justice Edis said: “All we have decided is that your appeal is arguable. That does not mean it will succeed.
“You need to have appropriate expectations about what might happen.”