Creation of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in the UK offers the opportunity for a new appeal

Although Alice Wheeldon and her family had continued to maintain their innocence, leave to appeal had been refused at the time, and even as new evidence of the unfairness of the trial was unearthed, no recourse to further appeal or review was possible – until the establishment of the UK’s Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) in 1995.

The idea to apply to the CCRC was conceived in 2012 and many years of research and investigation followed.  Chloë Mason worked on the case jointly with her sister, Deirdre Mason, until Deirdre’s untimely death in 2017. Legal advice was provided pro bono by Ben Williams, David Crigman QC and Andrew Smith QC of St Philips Chambers, Birmingham. Essential references and copies of documents were generously supplied by historians, particularly Dr Nicholas Hiley and Sheila Rowbotham. Friends and newfound relatives helped by tracking down records held in libraries and archives across England and ploughing through the British Newspaper Archive.

Application submitted

On 19 November 2019 Chloë Mason lodged an application to the CCRC with the aim of having the convictions of Alice Wheeldon, Winnie Mason and Alf Mason formally quashed.

The core premise of the application was that the case had been an abuse of process driven through by unfair means, and that the defendants’ right to a fair trial was sacrificed in the name of political interests. Three grounds for appeal were submitted, supported by extensive documentation including newly discovered archival records that had been suppressed for a very long time. 

The main ground for appeal concerned the role of the undercover government agent, William Rickard, known to the Defendants only as ‘Alex Gordon’.

He was not called as a witness at the trial, having been kept out of the way in February and March 1917. After the application to appeal was rejected, he was sent to South Africa with his wife. Furthermore, he was a man of mental instability and serious criminal history, but those facts were never disclosed to the Defence.

It was the defendants’ case at trial in March 1917 that ‘Alex Gordon’ had persuaded Alice Wheeldon to procure poison for the purpose of killing internment camp guard dogs, and the notion that the poison was to be used to kill the Prime Minister and a member of the Cabinet was a contention of the Prosecution.

The application to the CCRC contended that the absence of ‘Gordon’ was deliberately contrived to prevent the defendants from properly developing their explanation regarding the poison, and that his history was knowingly concealed to prevent his character, or the credibility of his superior (the key prosecution witness), being properly scrutinised.

Additional grounds of appeal were the restarting of the trial following replacement of the ill juror, and the prosecution’s use of ‘bad character’ evidence against Alice, alleging that her suffrage activity involved arson and a failed “poison nail in the boot plot against Lloyd George”.

The CCRC application consisted of more than 170 pages of referenced argument [see Downloads below], supported by copies of hundreds of original documents. These documents included records from newly opened government and institutional archives, letters written in custody, family papers, photographs, digitised newspapers, and historical research.

In September 2021 the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) decided not to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, providing a final ‘Statement of Reasons’ for this decision in February 2022 [see Downloads below]. This brought to an end the efforts to quash the convictions of Alice Wheeldon and her family through the English legal system.

However, the news was not all bad. The CCRC’s statement of reasons noted [para 75] that “the submissions identified in the application may raise a real possibility that these convictions would be overturned”. The Commission further noted [para 33] that “if the defendants were alive today and the convictions were more recent, and the allegations being made by the applicant could be substantiated to the satisfaction of the Court of Appeal, then there is prima facie a real possibility that the Court of Appeal would consider these convictions to be unsafe”.

Regarding the various grounds of appeal, the statement commented [para 32]:

i. The role of ‘Gordon’, specifically the failure to call him as a witness and the failure to disclose his background: It is accepted that Gordon, was deliberately kept out of the trial and should have been called as a witness, where his evidence could have been properly tested.

ii. Discharge of Jury 1 and empanelling of Jury 2: The CCRC accepts that the replacement of the juror was wrong, and the trial should have continued with the 11 jurors.

iii. Admission of and judicial reference to evidence of the defendants’ ‘bad character’: The CCRC would agree that the admission of the ‘bad character’ evidence should have been considered separately and submissions to challenge this should have been allowed by the defence.

The CCRC’s reasons for its decision not to refer the case focused primarily on the cost to the public purse. In the CCRC’s view, a costly appeal was not sufficiently in the public interest, given that the case is more than 100 years old, the defendants are deceased, and “any lessons from this case, such as use of undercover officers, the possibility of the state acting as an ‘agent provocateur’, jury irregularities and bad character, have been and are being remedied and would have no practical relevance today” [para 71].

In announcing the decision, Chloë Mason commented that she accepted the reasoning behind it. “I acknowledge the severe austerity currently imposed on the criminal justice system in the UK, and it is appropriate in this context that priority be given to people who are alive – some of them actually serving prison sentences,” she said.

“However, I am very glad and grateful for the Commission’s positive view: that there could have been a real possibility that the Court of Appeal would hold the convictions unsafe. For me, this vindicates the denials by the defendants, of what was, in Alice’s words, ‘this preposterous conspiracy for murder’. It also vindicates the efforts by many people, since the trial, to discover evidence and raise their voices about this apparent miscarriage of justice.”

Copies of key documents submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) on 11 November 2019:

• Skeleton argument (18 pages): a summary of the case and the key arguments for referring it to the Court of Appeal

• Expanded argument (173 pages): builds on the skeleton argument and provides collated references to extensive supporting material, including court reports, newly released government and institutional records, photographs, family papers, historical research and digitized newspapers

Decision by the CCRC:

• Criminal Appeal Act 1995: Statement of Reasons for a decision not to make a reference to the Court of Appeal, 2 February 2022

• Chloe Mason’s announcement, 14 June 2022 (Word document or PDF)

Get in touch

Please contact us if you have any comments or questions, or would like access to any of the original materials referenced in the CCRC submission.

Media coverage