Date: January l9th 1987
Location: Court 1, Kenton Bar Crown Court, Newcastle upon Tyne
Judge: The Right Honourable Mr Justice Stewart-Smith
Prosecuting: Mr Robin Stuart, Q.C.
Junior: Mr J. Milford
Leader for Frank: Mr Franz Muller, Q.C.
Junior: Mr Patrick Cosgrove
Instructing solicitor: Mr Clive Hindle of Hindle and Campbell
Leader for Wood: Mr Wilfred Steer, Q.C.
Junior: information not available
Instructing solicitor: Mr Chris Baker
At the end of Frank's main evidence, Wood's defence team withdrew from the case and a new team was instructed:
Leader: Mrs Mary McMurray, Q.C.
Junior: information not available
Instructing solicitor: James, Purvis and Long

Submissions to the Judge

An application for the severance of the trials of the two men was made by Mr Muller on the grounds that the verbal statements made by Wood to the police would be totally prejudicial to the case of Wilkinson and not in the interests of justice. Mr Muller maintained that it would not be possible for the jury to exclude from their minds the self- serving admissions of Wood when considering the case against Frank. The Learned Judge refused this and other considerations along those lines put forward by Mr Muller.
Mr Muller also submitted that the charge of murder against Wilkinson be severed from the charges of aggravated burglary and the theft of two motor vehicles. This submission was accepted.
The third submission from Mr Muller was that evidence concerning the charge of aggravated burglary not be introduced into the murder trial because of the improper prejudice it would bring which would not be in the interests of justice. This submission was accepted.

The jury

 At the swearing-in of the jury, Mr Muller objected to three selected jury members. Frank then recognised a fourth juror, a man from around the village of New York. However, having already exercised the right to object to three jurors, the defence team was powerless to reject this man.
On the third day of the trial (Wednesday 2lst January) a witness statement was read out to the court concerning the movements of Alan Raffle on the Sunday he disappeared. The statement was by a Mrs Carnegie. On hearing the name, the jury member mentioned above let it be known that his mother was the best friend of Mrs Carnegie. The jury were asked to leave the court by the Learned Judge so that this jury member could be questioned over this matter. The jury member told the Learned Judge that he had never discussed the case with his mother and he was told by the Learned Judge that he was not to discuss the case with anybody until its conclusion. Mr Muller pointed out that an actual discussion would not necessarily be needed to get over a desired point. Furthermore there was no way that the juryman's mother could be prevented from talking about the case to him. Frank's defence therefore submitted that it would be safer and in the interests of justice to discharge the juror and to continue with eleven jurors. The Learned Judge dismissed the submission and the trial continued with all twelve jurors.
Raffle had been a close friend of Mrs Carnegie, whose home he had been in the habit of visiting on a regular basis for cups of tea, odd meals, to watch a video on TV and so on. Mrs Carnegie knew of Frank's past record and previous convictions for serious crimes, including armed robbery and the possession of firearms. It is unlikely that Mrs Carnegie, who disliked Frank, had had nothing to say to her best friend on the matter, who in turn might very well have passed on such information to her son in general conversation a long time before he knew he was to be a jury member.
While considering their verdict, it transpired that this man had been chosen as foreman by the other jury members. It is difficult to accept that this man was not "tainted" by outside information. His presence on the jury might well have influenced the verdict which, in the event, was by a majority rather than unanimous.

The prosecution case - until lunch time Friday January 23rd 1987

The prosecution case largely depended on: No conclusive evidence of any sort was presented. In the final analysis, it may be that the case was actually decided by Wood's final address to the jury, together with the inferences the jury might understandably have taken from the Judge's summing up. A full account of the evidence given by witnesses called for the prosecution can be found here.

Frank's defence - until Wednesday January 28th 1987

During the break between cases (Friday lunch on January 23rd 1987), a conference took place in the rear cell area of the court building between Mr Muller Q.C., Mr Patrick Cosgrove, barrister, Mr Clive Hindle, solicitor and Frank. Mr Muller was considering putting a submission that there was no case for Frank to answer after the Crown had put their case. This proposal was not implemented as it was felt that Frank still had questions to answer regarding his tools having been found in the Sierra. Putting Frank in the witness box regarding this issue would remove the sinister implications of some of the forensic evidence, and would allow Frank to explain how Wood had borrowed the tools from him before the murder. Although there would be questions to answer over the theft of the vehicle, for which Frank had clearly supplied false number plates, since Frank was not being charged with that offence, it was decided that Frank should appear in his own defence.
The next matter raised by Mr Muller concerned Wood's signed statements to the police. Mr Muller was surprised that copies of these had been given to the jury without a warning from the Judge that they would be considered only as evidence against Wood and not against Frank until such time as Wood repeated them under oath from the witness box. It was felt that Wood would not be giving evidence. Frank was in favour of calling a large number of witnesses, mainly to refute the evidence of Sneap, Lowson, McKenzie and the police officers who had claimed to have interviewed Frank. However, it was decided not to call any witnesses, since an attack on the police officers would have resulted in disclosure to the jury of Frank's criminal record.
A full account of the defence case that was presented can be found here.

Wood's defence

On the Monday morning, January 26th, before Frank could continue with his testimony from the previous Friday afternoon, Mr Steer and the rest of Wood's defence team abruptly left the court. (Read Frank's explanation for this withdrawal.) The Judge adjourned the case to allow Wood time to instruct another team.
The hearing resumed the next day, Tuesday 27th January, with Wood being represented by Mrs McMurray, Q.C. However, the court was adjourned once again to give Wood's defence time to prepare. The trial was reconvened the following day, Wednesday. Astonishingly, after the break for lunch, the court was again disrupted when Mrs McMurray rose to withdraw in her turn from the case as Wood's defence without explanation. Wood was given no further time and was told he would have to defend himself. He agreed to this. The Judge caused all of the case documents to be handed to Wood in the dock. When asked whether he would like a table bringing to the dock, Wood replied, "No, you're alright".
When invited to put the case for his defence, Wood told the Judge that he had no witnesses he wished to call. When it was pointed out that he had made no defence for himself, Wood shrugged as if he did not care.

The summings-up - Thursday afternoon to Friday morning, January 29th-30th 1987

It may be that the case was actually decided during this final phase of the trial itself. Wood's address to the jury and the Judge's summing up could understandably have made a telling last impression on the jury. (The fact that these took the form they did formed part of the appeal case presented the following year.) A full account of the summings-up given by all parties can be found here.

The verdict

The jury was recalled after around two hours. They were asked for their foreman and this turned out to be the very juror that Frank had been concerned about. They had not reached a verdict. The Judge said that he would accept a majority verdict of 10 to 2 and sent them back out.
When recalled later in the afternoon, the jury had still to reach a verdict. They asked to be directed on the law concerning joint enterprise. The Judge told them that if two people set out on an escapade, during which one went further than had been agreed in the original plan, then the other would be considered innocent of any action on the part of that one. The question implied that the jury was giving credence to Wood's statements against Frank despite instructions not to do so.
The jury returned less than 30 minutes later, having reached their verdict: Frank was found guilty by a majority of 10 to 2 and Wood was acquitted. The jury had taken six hours to reach a majority verdict.