Police 'showed secret file on informant Paul Russell to Thomas Cashman jury' - Court of Appeal told of shock allegation

An appeal by Thomas Cashman (above left) over his murder conviction was built on an extraordinary claim from his solicitor that a mystery man had claimed police secretly showed the jury a file of evidence that wasn't produced in the trial.

Cashman, 36, was jailed for life with a minimum term of 42 years after being found unanimously guilty of murdering Olivia Pratt-Korbel, on March 20 2023 at Manchester Crown Court.

The nine-year-old was shot dead in her own home in Kingsheath Avenue, Dovecot, Liverpool in August 2022.

Cashman, formerly from Grenadier Drive, West Derby, was trying to shoot career crook Joseph Nee, who fled into the home.

Olivia's mum Cheryl Korbel was also hit by a bullet, but survived.

Cashman armed himself with two guns, including a Glock semi-automatic handgun, and waited for Nee to leave a friend's house on the night in question.

Just before 10pm he opened fire at Nee, who fell to the ground, but the gun jammed and the target made a run for it, barging into Olivia's home as her mum opened the door to see what was happening.

But, Cashman followed and fired into the address, killing Olivia (below).

Paul Russell, 43, (above right) helped Cashman try to cover his tracks after the murder by disposing of the clothes he was wearing.

But, after learning a child had been killed, he admitted his involvement and named Cashman as the killer.

Russell later pleaded guilty to assisting an offender before the latter's trial before he was sentenced to 22 months' imprisonment.

Cashman returned to the Court of Appeal last month after an earlier challenge over the length of his sentence was rejected.

In an appeal heard on November 20, the court was told that an anonymous man had contacted Cashman's solicitor Thomas Keaney by phone at his home the day before his sentence on April 3 2023 and asked to meet him.

Mr Keaney thought it was a prospective new client, but the man, named in court only as Male 4, wanted to speak about Cashman's case.

He gave an account involving three other unnamed and unidentified men. Male 4 had a friend, described as Male 3, while Male 3's dad was described as Male 2.

Male 4 told Mr Keaney that Male 2, had met a juror (Male 1) in the case. The description of the meeting was expressed as: "Male 4 had a conversation with Male 3. Male 3 had told him that his father Male 2 was in the pub with the juror before the case concluded."

Male 1 said he was sitting on the jury on the Cashman case, and although not discussing the case in detail, told male 2 over a pint that the police had given them all panic alarms and said if anyone approaches you or your family you must press the alarm immediately. Mr Keaney said following Cashman's guilty conviction, Male 2 asked the juror what happened as he was saying he was not guilty.

Male 1 then informed male 2 that the police had "been in" to see the jury and informed them that "there are things they should know". The Court of Appeal judges said the solicitor was told the police had produced a folder of evidence that the jury had not been privy to. Male 2 was apparently then told by the juror that "he and all the other jury members had no option but to find Cashman guilty".

The folder of evidence was said to include transcripts of what Cashman Russell had said to the police, after turning informant, as well as additional information about the Cashman.

If true, this would be significant, as a reporting restriction prevented the jury from being told about Russell's guilty plea, amid fears it could prejudice the jury.

The Court of Appeal judges said Cashman's challenge was based upon a suggestion that jury irregularities may have affected the outcome of the trial.

Mr Keaney drew these matters to the attention of Cashman's counsel - John Cooper KC and Katy Appleton.

The judge was informed but said the trial had finished and the verdicts had been returned. Cashman's grounds of appeal were dated July 23 2023, but during the intervening time efforts were made to identify the men. However, the judges noted this was without result and they have remained anonymous.

During the hearing Mr Cooper suggested the account, if accepted, would provide evidence of two irregularities.

The written judgement says: "First, the panic alarms would represent an irregularity, because such a step was not known to or sanctioned by the court, and might well have disrupted the careful way in which the judge had dealt with security in addressing and reassuring the jury.

"It might have affected them or prejudiced them against the applicant. Second, the introduction of a body of material prejudicial to the applicant in the way described would obviously be an irregularity. Thus he submitted that both matters should be investigated and leave to appeal considered on the basis of the outcome of the investigations."

Mr Cooper said the irregularities should warrant an investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) and review the matter when the results are available. He suggested that in relation to the panic alarms point, the investigation would be easy and would thus be a proportionate step. It would be a simple matter to ask the jurors whether they had been provided with panic alarms.

In relation to the introduction of prejudicial material into the jury room during the retirement to consider the verdicts, Mr Cooper accepted that would be more complex, involving not merely speaking to jurors but investigating security records, any other material recording movements within the court building over a period and potentially interviewing a number of court staff.

Prosecutor David McLachlan KC said the material lacked all credibility.

In their written judgement, the three judges said "the contents of the conversation with Male 4 represent multiple hearsay, in circumstances which would not persuade this court to admit the material as evidence under any of the gateways set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003".

They added: "Moreover, even if the existing material were in evidential form and could be heard, it would not represent credible evidence of jury irregularity."

The judges said "the conditions under which this 'information' was supposedly obtained and then passed on make it inherently improbable from the start".

They added: "That sequence of events, perhaps better described as non-events, adds to the inherent unreliability of the story.

"Then there is the inherent improbability of what it is claimed took place. Is it feasible to think that the jury were given personal panic alarms by police officers without that fact coming to the notice of court staff and thus to the judge? The nature of the alarms is not specified, and so it is not clear if they are said to be fixed panic alarms attached to the jurors’ houses, or some form of portable panic alarm to be carried by the juror.

"It seems inconceivable that 12 jurors would have been supplied with either kind of device, were told it was a secret, and thus that they were not to reveal what had happened; and then all twelve complied, suppressing any mention of the supply or fitting of the alarms."

Regarding the alleged visit by police with the file, they said: "We find it impossible to conceive how such a visit would have gone undetected by court staff as it happened. We are also unable to accept the suggestion that all twelve jurors who were visited in that way and presented with material which was not evidence in the case, breached the obligations so sternly expressed to them in the jury notice and failed to bring that to the attention of court staff or the judge.

"The jury will have been warned time without number that they must only decide the case on the evidence, and must ignore all other public comment, and private questions and opinions addressed to them. Yet it is inherent in the scenario advanced that they then not only received this material in an obviously clandestine and illicit way, but then suppressed that fact, all of them ignoring the repeated injunctions to decide the case only on the evidence given in court, not one of them choosing to report the intrusion into the jury room despite the instructions in the jury notice, and all of them changing their verdicts as a result."

They fully rejected Cashman's appeal.

Mr Cooper also said the judges should order an investigation into whether the events happened as described, but they said there were not enough credible grounds for the court to intervene in such a way.