Ryland Headley: Cold case rapist and killer, 92, jailed for life
At the time of her death, Mrs Dunne was living alone.Mr Sweeting told the court that Headley had been planning to rape Mrs Dunne when he broke into her home and "brutally" attacked her. "The nature of these offences demonstrates a complete disregard for human life and dignity. "Mrs Dunne was vulnerable, she was a small elderly woman living alone. You treated her as a means to an end," he said. "The violation of her home, her body and ultimately her life was a pitiless and cruel act by a depraved man. "You may not have intended to kill, but you did rape her and you brutally attacked her," he added.
Mrs Dunne's granddaughter, Mary Dainton, took to the witness box to give a victim impact statement. She spoke about the "far-reaching" devastation left by Headley's actions. She said that it fell to her to "speak for the people who are no longer here". Ms Dainton, now 78, was 20 years old when Mrs Dunne was killed. She told the court that people "withdrew" from her family when they found out about the circumstances of her death.
'Saddens me deeply'
Ms Dainton said: "I have struggled emotionally in ways I did not anticipate."There is a stigma attached to rape and murder."It has turned my life upside down. I feel sad and very tired, which has affected the relationships I have with those close to me."It saddens me deeply that all the people who knew and loved Louisa are not here to see that justice is being done."Mr Sweeting commended the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and forensic scientists involved for their hard work.Headley, who had denied the rape and murder, will spend a minimum term of 20 years in prison. After sentencing, Mr Sweeting told him: "You will never be released. You will die in prison."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
34 minutes ago
- Reuters
Sean 'Diddy' Combs jury to resume deliberations after partial verdict
NEW YORK, July 2 (Reuters) - The jury in Sean "Diddy" Combs' trial will continue deliberations on Wednesday, a day after reaching a verdict on four of the five counts the music mogul faces in his sex trafficking case but failing to agree on a racketeering conspiracy charge. U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian said on Tuesday the jury had reached a verdict on the two counts of sex trafficking and two of transportation to engage in prostitution faced by Combs, a former billionaire known for elevating hip-hop in American culture. The judge did not reveal the verdict on those counts. Subramanian instructed the 12-member jury to keep deliberating about the racketeering count after the panel sent him a note indicating jurors had "unpersuadable opinions on both sides." Combs, 55, has pleaded not guilty to all five felony counts. He faces a mandatory 15-year prison sentence if convicted of sex trafficking. A guilty verdict on either that charge or the racketeering conspiracy count could result in up to a life sentence. Jurors must be unanimous to reach a verdict on any count. After reading the note the jury sent Subramanian, Combs appeared emotional, rubbing his eyes and resting his face against his palm while seated at the defense table with his lawyers huddled around him. Over the course of a seven-week trial in Manhattan federal court, prosecutors sought to persuade jurors that Combs for two decades used his business empire to force two of his romantic partners to take part in drug-fueled, days-long sexual performances sometimes known as "Freak Offs" with male sex workers in hotel rooms while Combs watched, masturbated and occasionally filmed. Two of Combs' former romantic partners, the rhythm and blues singer Casandra "Cassie" Ventura and a woman known in court by the pseudonym Jane, testified that he beat them and threatened to cut off financial support or leak sex tapes if they stopped taking part in the performances. Combs' lawyers acknowledged that the Bad Boy Records founder, once famed for hosting lavish parties for the cultural elite in luxurious locales like the Hamptons and Saint-Tropez, was at times violent in his domestic relationships. But they said the sexual activity described by prosecutors was consensual. The apparent discord among the jurors had echoes of the sometimes fractious deliberations in movie producer Harvey Weinstein's trial in June on sex crime charges in New York state court in Manhattan, just across the street from where Diddy is on trial. Jurors spent five days deliberating Weinstein's fate, with some acrimony directed toward the foreman. They eventually convicted Weinstein of one felony sex crime but deadlocked on a rape charge, leading to a mistrial on that count. To convict Combs of racketeering conspiracy, prosecutors would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was part of a criminal enterprise consisting of his employees and other associates whose aim was in part to facilitate his sexual abuse and keep evidence of wrongdoing under wraps. Jurors heard testimony from Combs' former personal assistants who said their jobs included setting up hotel rooms for "Freak Offs" and buying their boss drugs. An InterContinental security guard testified that Combs, in the presence of his chief of staff, paid him $100,000 to hand over what he thought was the only copy of the surveillance tape of his attack on Ventura. And Scott Mescudi, the rapper known as Kid Cudi, told jurors Combs was likely involved in an arson on his car after Combs found out he was romantically involved with Ventura. The defense argued Combs was a successful entrepreneur who used drugs recreationally, but kept his professional and personal lives separate. Combs has been held in federal lockup in Brooklyn since his September 2024 arrest.
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
WFH justice boss quits after Andrew Malkinson scandal
Ms Kneller became chief executive in 2013, having joined as director of casework in 2005. Her departure follows the enforced resignation of the previous chairman, Helen Pitcher, who claimed she had been made a scapegoat. Dame Vera said: 'The CCRC has a vital role to play in the criminal justice system, but confidence in the organisation has been badly damaged. Confidence in our work must be restored. I thank Karen for her work at the CCRC over many years.' Amanda Pearce, CCRC the casework operations director, has been appointed interim Chief Executive. In February, the CCRC received an application from Lucy Letby, the former nurse convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others. Asked if she thought the CCRC could deal with it, Dame Vera said: 'Remember I'm quite new to it. It will need complexity. It will need a team. It will need the readiness to commission reports, I would guess from what's been said about the lack of scientific value in some of the things that were asserted. 'So it's going to be a very complex task.'
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘My neighbour's rat-infested garden is devaluing my house. What can I do?'
Do you have a legal question to put to Gary? Email askalawyer@ or use the form at the bottom of the page. Dear Gary, My concern is that an empty house next door is devaluing my property. The owner was reclusive and died a year ago after being in a care home for some time. When he lived at home, his garden became untidy, and after he vacated the property, it became very overgrown. There are substantial saplings growing down the sides of the house between paving stones, which will obviously do the building no good. I know our neighbour has a grandson. My one conversation with him resulted in him saying he would be back soon to 'fix' things, but he has not been seen again. While our neighbour was alive and in care, I did contact the local authority about the state of the house, particularly with the trees growing out of the sidewalls. It would only tell me that my neighbour was in care, but not where, and that it would pass my concerns on to the 'relevant party' – without telling me who that party was, or indeed if that party was now the local authority. I recently reported that rats seem to be nesting in the rear garden somewhere, and I have also seen a mink poking its head up from underneath the adjoining fence. The front hedge has been trimmed once by the council after a report from another neighbour that it had completely overgrown the pavement forcing pedestrians on to the road. It is now in that same state again. I have specific questions: Is the local authority obliged to look after the house or force the owner to do so, or do we just have to wait until the situation somehow resolves itself? If there is a local authority obligation, how do we get it to do anything? Can the immediate neighbours on either side enter the garden to cut down the trees/bushes that are damaging the dividing fences? – Simon, by email Dear Simon, This is a sad situation arising from the death of your neighbour. We must have sympathy for his family who will be grieving, and who may have a good reason not to have tackled the house. When someone dies, their executors (if there is a valid will) become responsible for the estate. They are called 'administrators' if there is an intestacy (no valid will). The executors or administrators should be stepping up here to secure the property. By 'secure', I mean both protect it from intruders and damage, but also protect its value for the beneficiaries. This makes me think the ongoing lack of action and neglect of the house may be because there are unknown legal issues going on in the background. Maybe there is no valid will or some other dispute. It is odd if someone has inherited a house and is letting it continue to deteriorate. First off, try to find out in whose name the house is registered at the Land Registry and if – as assumed – it is your deceased neighbour, see if anyone has stepped up as executor or administrator and taken out a Grant of Representation naming them as responsible for the estate. These checks can be carried out at the Land Registry and Probate Registry, and in each case cost less than £5. In other words, get some facts and then attempt to contact anyone who is responsible for the house. If you end up going back to the local authority, any enforcement action they take will be against the person with legal responsibility for the estate. To answer your questions: Firstly, the short answer is that the local authority is not exactly obliged to look after the house, nor take enforcement action on the owner. But they can act if the property becomes a public health hazard, a so-called 'statutory nuisance', or causes issues like dangerous structures or vermin. All of these may be relevant in this case, so I would urge you to continue to press your case and produce succinct and compelling evidence of what is going on. Relevant legislation is the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which allows the local authority to serve notices and take enforcement action in relation to statutory nuisance (things occurring which spoil 'enjoyment' of neighbouring land or which are a hazard), and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Section 215, which allows the local authority to serve an 'untidy land notice'. In extreme cases, the local authority can insist on repairs, and if the owner does not act it may take over and put a charge on the property. As an aside, there may already be a charge with regard to care home fees, which may incentivise the local authority to step up. Secondly, in terms of how to get the local authority to take action, I say report in writing (ideally by email so you have a record), to Environmental Health (for rats/minks/other vermin), and Planning Enforcement (for visual amenity or Section 215 concerns), and Highways (for overgrown hedges blocking the footpath). I know you have been in touch already, but be persistent and be specific – document sightings, dates and effects on your property (for example, garden fences damaged, evidence of vermin infestation). Ask for a reference number or a case officer and keep photos and logs of what's happening. Also involve your local elected councillor. Finally, as to whether neighbours can enter the garden and cut down the trees or bushes damaging their fences – the short answer is not without permission. That's unless the branches or roots cross the boundary into your land, in which case you can cut them back. You cannot enter the neighbour's garden or do works on their land without permission. You must not remove or damage anything that does not cross the boundary.
