Crime

John Cooper appeal file still under review, but CCRC says process ‘will take time’

Published

9 months ago

March 10, 2025

THE CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION has confirmed that its review of John Cooper’s convictions remains ongoing, with no fixed timeline for a decision. The process, described as extensive due to the volume of evidence and the potential need for expert analysis, is expected to continue well into 2025, with an update likely in October.

Cooper, who is serving a life sentence for the murders of Richard and Helen Thomas in 1985 and Peter and Gwenda Dixon in 1989, applied to the CCRC last year for a review of his convictions. Unlike many applications, which are dismissed early, Cooper’s case has progressed further than most, with dedicated case workers assigned—suggesting it is being taken seriously.

***Richard and Helen Thomas who died in 1985 (Left) John Cooper (Centre) and Peter and Gwenda Dixon who died in 1989 (Right)***

A spokesperson for the CCRC told The Herald on Monday (Mar 10): “Reviews can often be extensive, particularly when there is a lot of evidence to analyse; if we need to consider new case law or instruct scientific experts. A more complicated review can take many months, or even years.”

Sources close to the matter indicate that Cooper’s application, which exceeds 1,000 pages, is well-researched and has met the threshold for further scrutiny. While the CCRC operates under strict resource constraints, it is understood that this case is receiving significant attention.

Despite the high-profile nature of Cooper’s original trial, particularly following the ITV drama The Pembrokeshire Murders, the CCRC review has received little media coverage so far.

Cooper has always maintained his innocence, though previous appeals have failed.

If the CCRC ultimately refers his case to the Court of Appeal, it would be a significant legal development.

When approached for comment, Dyfed-Powys Police told The Herald: “We will comply with our obligations in any judicial process, but consider it inappropriate to provide specific comments at this time.”

***Cannot disclose too much at this stage: The Criminal Cases Review Commission***

The CCRC plays a crucial role in determining whether there are any anomalies in Cooper’s conviction or sentencing. If any are identified, the case will be referred to the Court of Appeal.

Cooper’s case gained national attention partly due to its dramatization in the ITV series The Pembrokeshire Murders, which highlighted his appearance on the TV game show Bullseye—a crucial yet circumstantial piece of evidence in his conviction.

At his 2011 trial, Justice John Griffith Williams sentenced Cooper to life imprisonment, describing him as a “very dangerous man” whose conviction relied heavily on advances in forensic science.

As readers may recall, The Pembrokeshire Herald previously uncovered significant concerns about the handling of forensic evidence in Cooper’s case. An investigation by this newspaper revealed a series of procedural failings, including missing or incomplete exhibit logs, the mixing of different evidence samples, and a previously unreported flood in the storage area where forensic materials were kept.

***The case was turned into a major ITV drama, The Pembrokeshire Murders***

Documents obtained by The Herald suggested that some forensic exhibits were not properly logged at key stages of the investigation, raising concerns about gaps in the chain of custody.

The absence of complete records makes it difficult to determine whether all items were handled and stored correctly, an issue that is particularly significant in cases where forensic evidence plays a central role in securing a conviction.

The mixing of evidence samples was another area of concern. It was found that items from different cases had been stored together, a practice that increases the risk of cross-contamination. The potential for DNA transfer between exhibits, particularly when stored in close proximity, is well-documented in forensic science. Any such contamination could have serious implications for the reliability of the evidence used to convict Cooper.

Perhaps most troubling was the discovery of a flooding incident in the forensic storage facility. The flood, which had not been disclosed in court or in any official reports at the time, raised concerns about whether water damage may have compromised key exhibits. The extent of any damage and whether steps were taken to mitigate the risk of evidence degradation remain unclear. The possibility that critical forensic materials were exposed to moisture, mould, or other contaminants could be a crucial issue for the CCRC to consider.

Despite these concerns, the forensic evidence presented by the Crown was substantial and was not challenged during Cooper’s unsuccessful 2012 appeal. However, advances in DNA testing and forensic methodologies since his trial may now allow for more sophisticated analysis of key exhibits. If the CCRC determines that new scientific techniques could yield different results, this may influence its decision on whether the case should be referred to the Court of Appeal.

Statistically, Cooper faces an uphill battle. Between April 1997 and February 2023, the CCRC received 29,845 applications but referred only 811 cases to an appeal court.

However, if his case does reach the appeal stage, historical data suggests a roughly 70 percent chance of a successful challenge.

Chloe Handling from the CCRC press office confirmed to The Pembrokeshire Herald previously: “I can confirm we have received two applications for John Cooper.”

“However, we won’t be able to comment any further while the review is underway.”

With no fixed timeline for completion, Cooper’s case remains under detailed review.

The Herald will continue to follow developments and provide updates as they emerge.

(Cover image: Athena Picture Agency)

Crime

Banned for 40 months after driving with cocaine breakdown product in blood

Published

18 minutes ago

December 4, 2025

Sarah-Jane Absalom

A MILFORD HAVEN woman has been handed a lengthy driving ban after admitting driving with a controlled drug in her system more than ten times over the legal limit.

SENTENCED AT HAVERFORDWEST

Sally Allen, 43, of Wentworth Close, Hubberston, appeared before Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court on Thursday (Dec 4) for sentencing, having pleaded guilty on November 25 to driving with a proportion of a specified controlled drug above the prescribed limit.

The court heard that Allen was stopped on August 25 on the Old Hakin Road at Tiers Cross while driving an Audi A3. Blood analysis showed 509µg/l of Benzoylecgonine, a breakdown product of cocaine. The legal limit is 50µg/l.

COMMUNITY ORDER AND REHABILITATION

Magistrates imposed a 40-month driving ban, backdated to her interim disqualification which began on November 25.

Allen was also handed a 12-month community order, requiring her to complete 10 days of rehabilitation activities as directed by the Probation Service.

She was fined £120, ordered to pay £85 prosecution costs and a £114 surcharge. Her financial penalties will be paid in £25 monthly instalments from January 1, 2026.

The bench—Mrs H Roberts, Mr M Shankland and Mrs J Morris—said her guilty plea had been taken into account when passing sentence.

Crime

Mother admits “terrible idea” to let new partner change her baby’s nappies alone

Published

6 hours ago

December 4, 2025

Tom Sinclair

Court hears from timid mother who was barely audible in the witness box who said she carried out no checks to establish whether Phillips was safe to be around her child

A MOTHER who cannot be named for legal reasons gave evidence yesterday in the trial of Christopher Phillips, the man accused of physically and sexually assaulting her infant son – referred to as Baby C – and causing him life-changing injuries in January 2021.

Phillips, 37 at the time, had been in a relationship with the mother for only a few weeks when Baby C, then around 10 weeks old, suffered catastrophic anal injuries at a flat in Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire. The child was rushed to Glangwili Hospital in the early hours of January 24 and survived, but the harm was permanent. Phillips denies 11 counts of sexual penetration of a child under 13, four counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, all between December 20, 2020, and January 25, 2021. The mother denies two charges of causing or allowing a child to suffer serious physical harm and two charges of child cruelty by neglect.

The prosecution alleges that Phillips deliberately inflicted the injuries while alone with the baby during nappy changes, using a finger coated in Sudocrem as lubricant on multiple occasions, leading to escalating harm including blood in the nappies and ultimately a massive tear and prolapse. A central part of their case is that the mother repeatedly allowed Phillips unsupervised access to her son – including taking him into another room to change his nappy and shut the door – despite knowing very little about him and despite behaviour that should have raised alarm, such as his insistence on privacy and her own unease.

Late on Thursday morning (Dec 4), under lengthy and forceful cross-examination by Caroline Rees KC, prosecuting, the mother appeared composed but spoke so quietly and timidly that people in court struggled to hear her answers. She conceded point after point:

She carried out no checks to establish whether Phillips was safe to be around her child.
She allowed him to be alone with Baby C from the very start of January 2021 (possibly even before 2 January).
She ignored her own concerns and permitted Phillips to shut the door while changing the baby’s nappy, telling her not to enter or accusing her of “micromanaging”.
She accepted that this had exposed her son to “a massive risk” and had been “a terrible idea”.

The mother explained that Phillips had said he wanted to learn nappy-changing because he “never got the chance” with his own child. She initially stayed in the room but soon permitted him to take Baby C into a separate room alone. She also recounted noticing odd details during changes, such as Phillips having Sudocrem around his finger “as if it had come from a pot” – despite her not owning a pot of the cream – and him leaving the room without putting the baby’s babygro back on after fastening the nappy, which immediately struck her as wrong. A few days earlier, she had discovered extensive bruising to the baby’s bottom, a swollen testicle and blood in his nappy, prompting her to confide in family and seek medical advice, though Phillips became angry when she mentioned the appointments.

Key moments from the cross-examination

Caroline Rees KC: “You took no steps whatsoever to keep Baby C safe, did you?” Mother (barely audible): “No.”

Caroline Rees KC: “You did absolutely nothing to keep him safe, did you?” Mother: “No.”

When His Honour Judge Paul Thomas KC asked her to clarify for the jury why she let Phillips change the baby alone, she confirmed:

“I wasn’t allowed in the room. If I tried to go in he would accuse me of micromanaging.”

She said this made her feel “annoyed”, but she “ignored it”.

Caroline Rees KC put it directly to the mother:

“The signs were all there, weren’t they?”
“It was a terrible idea, wasn’t it?”
“You could have stopped it at any time – by doing the changes yourself or by ending the relationship.”
“This man wanted to have your baby on his own more than is normal.”

The mother eventually accepted each proposition, agreeing that:

Allowing Phillips to change the baby alone had been “a terrible idea”;
The warning signs that she should have stopped it were present;
Phillips’ desire to be alone with her son was greater than normal.

She admitted she had been “keen to have company” and had tolerated behaviour she should never have accepted.

Legal matters will be dealt with tomorrow morning only. Closing speeches are expected to continue into Monday.

The trial continues.

Crime

Pembroke rape investigation dropped – one suspect now facing deportation

Published

1 day ago

December 3, 2025

Tom Sinclair

DYFED-POWYS POLICE have closed an investigation into an alleged rape and false imprisonment in Pembroke after deciding to take no further action. One of the two men originally arrested is now in immigration detention and faces deportation.

The incident took place on Main Street over the weekend of 8–9 November 2025. Police were called at 9:45am on Sunday 9 November after reports of a woman in distress. She was taken to hospital for treatment.

Two men – aged 36 and 27 – were arrested at the scene on suspicion of rape and false imprisonment. They were subsequently released on bail while enquiries continued.

On Tuesday (2 December 2025), the force announced the criminal investigation has concluded and no charges will be brought. A police spokesperson said the decision took full account of the victim’s wishes.

Outcome for the two suspects:

The 36-year-old man has been transferred to the custody of the Home Office Immigration Enforcement team and is now detained pending deportation.
The 27-year-old man has been released with no further police action.

A Dyfed-Powys Police statement read: “This investigation was not terrorism-related, and we have no knowledge of any linked incident in Monkton. All rumours suggesting otherwise are incorrect.”

The force has also dismissed separate community speculation that the men entered the UK illegally on fraudulent passports or were due in court this week on terrorism charges.

Detectives stressed that every report of rape or serious sexual assault is treated seriously and victims are supported throughout. Anyone affected has been directed to specialist services, details of which are available on the force website.

No further police updates are expected.