In brief:
- 60 years on since the Abolition of Death Penalty Act 1965 abolished capital punishment for murder in Britain, grandchildren of last woman hanged in the UK, Ruth Ellis, are formally requesting a posthumous conditional pardon from the Justice Secretary to recognise that, in light of all the circumstances of the case, her execution should not have taken place. She should have been reprieved.
- The Application demonstrates Ellis was a victim of long-term, systematic emotional, sexual and physical abuse at the hands of her partner and others, which was not adequately taken into account in the criminal proceedings and by the then-Home Secretary on the question of a reprieve.
- There is also evidence of prejudice amongst police and the then-Home Secretary, who had the power to grant a reprieve.
The grandchildren of the last woman to be hanged in the UK have today (Tuesday 21 October) presented a formal application for a conditional pardon to Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Justice, the Right Honourable David Lammy MP. This year marks 70 years since Ruth Ellis was hanged in 1955 for the killing of her partner, David Blakely.
The application details how evidence about the impact of the repeated and long-standing sexual, emotional and physical abuse Ruth suffered at Blakely’s (and others') hands was not given due consideration during or after her trial. It also highlights failings in the investigation of her case, her defence and ultimately the then-Home Secretary’s approach to the question of a delay or reprieve of her hanging, which was likely influenced by social prejudice and resistance to a growing campaign against the death penalty.
A posthumous conditional pardon - which would recognise that Ruth's execution was unjust - would rightfully acknowledge Ruth as a victim of violent physical and mental abuse, manipulation and a deeply inadequate judicial process. It would correct a historical wrong and would send a clear message to future generations that there is no place for violence, misogyny or discrimination against women in the British judicial system.
Ruth was a 26-year-old single mother of two when she met racing-car driver Blakely in 1953 at a club she managed. They subsequently entered into a dysfunctional and abusive relationship, characterised by violence and mental torment from Blakely. According to Ruth's accounts, as well as those of her friends, doctors and other witnesses, she was assaulted in public; pushed down the stairs; struck so hard in the ear she was briefly rendered deaf; punched in the stomach, resulting in a miscarriage; left with “multiple bruises all over the body”; and threatened with murder.
Evidence points strongly to the fact that Ruth was suffering from what is now (already somewhat archaically) referred to as ‘battered women syndrome’. However, the jury at her trial was instructed by the presiding judge not to consider the fact that she had been “badly treated by her lover” as a defence. The law at the time meant that Ruth was unable to use any defences that took account of her emotional state arising from the abuse she had sustained. In particular, diminished responsibility and loss of control arguments were not available to Ruth (although they would become enshrined in law only two years later by virtue of the Homicide Act 1957). It is believed that Ruth's case helped pave the way towards these changes in the law.
With a modern understanding of the impact of abusive and controlling behaviour, the application details that Ruth would at most be considered guilty of manslaughter, which would not have carried a death sentence.
Laura Enston, the granddaughter of Ruth Ellis, said: “Ruth’s execution has had a devastating impact on our family. My mother and uncle suffered from trauma from which neither of them were able to recover, and as grandchildren we have felt these ripple effects. The evidence shared with the Justice Secretary makes clear that the punishment did not fit the crime. We are determined to do what we can to right this historic injustice and honour not only Ruth but all victims of domestic abuse who have been let down by the criminal justice system.”
Alex Bailin KC, representing Ruth’s family, said: “Thankfully, 70 years after Ruth was hanged, there is now a much better understanding of the impact of domestic abuse on the emotional wellbeing and behaviour of victims. Based on the evidence we have reviewed, if Ruth’s case had taken place in modern times, she would have been able to plead a defence of diminished responsibility or loss of control. A posthumous conditional pardon for Ruth Ellis would correct a historical wrong and send a clear message to the public that violence against women and girls is never acceptable.”
James Libson, Managing Partner at Mishcon de Reya, solicitors for the grandchildren, said: “Ruth suffered considerably at the hands of an abusive, violent partner. While there is no dispute that Ruth Ellis killed David Blakely, the weight of evidence of her vulnerability makes it absolutely clear that she should never have been executed, and by today’s standards she would likely not have been convicted of murder. The justice system failed her and there is a strong basis for the Justice Secretary to grant her a conditional pardon.”
Notes
- This Application is brought by a group of Ruth Ellis' grandchildren: Stephen Beard, Laura Enston, James Enston, Chloe Beard. They seek a conditional pardon for Ruth, to give belated recognition to the fact that she should not have been executed. Ruth’s grandchildren have been assisted in the production of this Application, on a pro-bono basis, by James Libson, Katy Colton, Grace Houghton, Alexandra Agnew and Elizabeth Fitton from Mishcon de Reya, and Alex Bailin KC and Jessica Jones from Matrix Chambers, who together have collected and reviewed all of the available evidence bearing on Ruth’s case, including the original documents held by the National Archives and the many subsequent publications addressing her trial and execution.
- The Justice Secretary is entitled to take into account legal developments since the relevant conviction and sentence were imposed when considering granting a pardon. The Court of Appeal must consider the law at the time of the offence, which is what differentiates this application from that made in 2003 to the Court of Appeal.
- Pardons can therefore be granted even if the underlying conviction and sentence were lawful at the time they were imposed. This means that pardons can take into account factors either within or outside the legal process, including social developments and changing societal standards which have brought about recognition that the conviction, or punishment imposed following conviction, was inappropriate or unfair. This was the basis for the 2013 pardon granted to Alan Turing and the posthumous pardons granted to soldiers in World War One who were executed for desertion.