Murder Of Don Banfield

Donald Banfield (born 1937 or 1938) was a British man who disappeared from his home in Harrow, London in suspicious circumstances on 11 May 2001. His case is notable for being a rare case in which a murder conviction was secured without a body, and for this murder conviction being subsequently quashed on the grounds that a joint enterprise conviction in such a case where no body was found was not viable, even though the defence themselves said, for the purposes of the appeal, that the "likelihood" was that "one or other" of the women had murdered him.The defence concessions of this "likelihood"were for the purposes of the appeal. They sought to demonstrate that there were various different scenarios, thus showing that the guilty verdicts in the original trial were illogical. Mr Clegg, has stated that " there was absolutely no evidence supporting any of those scenarios " and " even assuming any were correct, there was no evidence as to which one It was". Somehow the jury in the original trial had found them guilty on the basis that it was joint venture.

Despite never finding a body, his own wife and daughter, Shirley and Lynette Banfield, respectively, were convicted of murder in 2012 in high-profile circumstances, whilst also pleading guilty to fraudulently stealing his pension money and proceeds from the sale of the family house for years after his disappearance, apparently knowing that he would not be able to return to expose them for taking more than £120,000 of his money. The fraud had started only days after he disappeared, with the women pretending to be Don in documents to request his money be transferred into Mr and Mrs Banfield's joint account. The defence allege that this was because the house sale wasn't completed, and the papers needed to be signed to finalise it. Banfield had signed one set, and without the second set being signed this was calculated to force him home at a crucial time. It was further alleged by the prosecution that some previous incidents were "indicative"of murder attempts in the days before he vanished, and police discovered that the last confirmed sighting of him was on the exact day that he had signed the contract with his wife in the first stage agreeing to sell the family home. Although there was still paper work to complete, and the sale that had not been completed at the time of his disappearance.On the morning of the day he vanished he had also told a policeman of how the women had been attacking him. The women were released on appeal for the reason stated above, a year after their conviction for murder, although their convictions stood for their crimes of fraud, which they had admitted. Officially a miscarriage of justice case, Banfield's murder remains unsolved.

Background

Banfield disappeared from his home in May 2001. His marriage to his wife was turbulent and he was believed to be a heavy gambler and womanizer. They had agreed to sell the house, and stood to (jointly) make £179,000 from the sale. In January 2001, he abruptly retired from his job at William Hill, and stood to inherit a large pension and lump sums. Banfield personally had debts of £50,000 along with "tangled" financial problems. He withdrew £30,000 from his pension funds just prior to his disappearance. He had also previously abruptly left Trinidad without warning.

Investigation as a murder case

Until 2009 the case was treated by police as a missing person's case, but in that year police re-opened the investigation after his employers became suspicious, and suspicion immediately fell on his wife Shirley Banfield and daughter Lynette Banfield. Before he had vanished, Don had told others that he was being "mentally and physically tortured" by the pair, saying he thought his wife had been trying to poison his food and telling his doctor the day before he vanished that he had previously been handcuffed to his bed all night. The day before he vanished he told his doctor that his wife had tried to tie down his legs and put a plastic bag over his head while he slept two weeks earlier, but he had woken up and started kicking and screaming. Lynette let him go. There are numerous variations of this same incident, which all vary in what was purported to have actually occurred. Don had been planning to leave his marriage to Shirley, a former tax inspector, and take his pension with him, and it was found that the last known record of him being alive was on the day he had signed the contract agreeing to sell the family house, the proceeds of which were jointly due to him and Shirley. On the morning he disappeared he had told a policeman that he thought he had been struck on the back of his head, and also said that he had awoken to find his daughter squirting furniture polish into his eyes before being confronted by his wife with a knife with them both shouting "why don't you die?". He had shown one friend marks on his wrist as proof that he had been handcuffed. His friend said he thought it was a "kinky scene". Don had previously thought his post was being interfered with and only after his friend allowed him to send his mail to his address did he start receiving it. However, his post was then intercepted and he found a stash of letters addressed to him hidden behind the sofa, including cheques from William Hill. Nothing like this ever happened before he retired.

After 11 May Shirley and Lynette had forged documents with his signature on, had fraudulently collected his pension, and had suddenly moved 200 miles away to Yorkshire and then to Kent. Only four days after he vanished, as asked by Shirley, Lynette forged a letter to Don's pension administrators pretending to be him, suspiciously requesting that his pension go into his joint account with Shirley. Don was only reported missing eight days after his disappearance, and by his friend and not Shirley or Lynette. It was later noted by the prosecution that they could only have decided to steal his pension money and his proceeds for the sale of the house in the knowledge that he would not be coming back to expose them. The defence explanation was that the sale of the house was not completely finalised at this stage, and after trying to contact her husband's mobile several times with no response, it was calculated to bring him back.Shirley Banfield had asked her daughter to request the transfer of his pension into the joint account in the hopes of forcing him to make contact and making him return to sign the necessary final papers, which he hadn't at the time of his disappearance. This was to enable the transfer of the deed, so that the sale could be completed. This would have finalised the sale of the house, as this had not been dealt with at the time of his disappearance. They then continued with this as Banfield did not return, and they feared the repercussions of the fraud. The daughter said that it was to force his return, and that she did not realise the seriousness of it at the time, believing that he would come back to sign the necessary papers. When Banfield did not return, Mrs Banfield was forced to go to court to regularise this, and to finalise the sale of the house.

Shirley and Lynette would have known that Don would become eligible for his state pension in January 2003, and fraudulently collected it on his behalf from 22 February that year. In June 2005 Shirley made a claim for disability allowance including an entry supposedly written by Don that she and Lynette had forged. Staff from the Department for Work and Pensions helped collect evidence to demonstrate Shirley and Lynette's fraud. Shirley and Lynette spent his funds on luxury holidays and on properties for years. In total, they made £120,000 from the sale of the house that was agreed by Don on the last day he was known to be alive, and £64,000 from stealing from his pension funds over the years. They had not touched Banfields share of the property, Mr Clegg said that "The only motive they could have had was to take his share of the house sale, but his share had not been touched"

When questioned by police in 2009, Shirley and Lynette claimed to have seen Don the previous Christmas, but this was proven to be a lie. Both later admitted in court to lying about seeing Don after May 2001 to cover up their fraud, having pretended he was still alive so they could continue to claim his pension. Police enquiries across the world failed to find any evidence that he was still alive. Shirley had also given a false description to police about Don for a missing persons' poster, falsely claiming his hair was grey and that he had shaved his moustache and wore glasses, and the result was that they were tricked into releasing an entirely inaccurate and misleading image of him for missing persons' posters appealing for information of his disappearance. Don's son Kevin later said it looked nothing like him.

Don's son Kevin described how, on the last occasion he had spoken to his father, Don cried and told him he was scared of his mother and wanted to come and stay with him.

Trial

In 2012 Shirley and Lynette Banfield were brought to trial for his murder at the Old Bailey and also for fraud, forgery and conspiracy to pervert justice, which they pled guilty to. It was alleged that the women had killed him for his share of the proceeds of the sale of the family home, which was being prepared at the time he vanished, and for his new pension money. Shirley had indeed been paid all the money due to her and Don for the house in June 2001, falsely telling the authorities that while her husband had disappeared he had been seen locally. Although there were alleged sightings of Banfield, one of which was by a local police officer, who saw Banfield driving his car shortly after his disappearance. Whilst Don would have had a pension to live on, Shirley faced the prospect of severe financial difficulties, being 54 and on the verge of being left by Don without money to rehouse both herself and Lynette. The court heard that a neighbour had reported Shirley shouting "one of these days I'll kill you" before the disappearance, but Shirley said she had been talking to her parrot. The defence admitted that the pair were guilty of lying and deception, but said that this was not evidence of murder. Shirley claimed that Don had faked his own death,. His son said that he had spoken of starting a new life, and of the appeal of "doing a Reggie Perrin". though there was no evidence that he had been alive since 11 May 2001. They were both found guilty of the murder and sentenced to a minimum of 18 and 16 years imprisonment respectively, something which was reported widely in the press and media in Britain and abroad. Neither of the women showed any emotion upon the guilty verdicts being announced. Mrs Banfield collapsed in the dock as the verdicts were announced against her and her daughter.

After the conviction Don's sister Kay begged the women to reveal what they had done with his body so they could bury him. His mother had died in 2004 without knowing what had become of her son. The lead detective on the case speaking after the trial commented: "Shirley and Lynette Banfield convinced themselves they would never be found guilty of his murder, however today's verdict shatters that belief". He stated that "throughout the whole process they had just lied and lied and lied". A spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service said: "Their actions were motivated by greed and they robbed a man of his life purely for monetary gain. Almost 11 years since Don's disappearance, his wife and daughter no doubt believed they may have got away with their crime."

Appeal

In 2013, Lynette and Shirley Banfield's convictions were overturned by the Court of Appeal. Both had been convicted of the joint enterprise murder of Banfield, but the appeals court found that the prosecution had failed to prove that both had been involved in the murder, though Shirley Banfield's lawyer accepted, for the purposes of the appeal, that it was likely that either Shirley or Lynette Banfield had killed Don Banfield.

Quashing the convictions, Lady Justice Rafferty said: "This was an alleged joint enterprise murder with no body, no suggested mechanism of death, no identified day when the murder was said to have occurred, no time and no place and no suggestion of what happened to the body Suspicion without more does not equate to proof". She said that "The submission of no case to answer should have been allowed" and that the case was "speculative and circumstantial".

See also

*Murder of Simon Dale – similar 1987 UK case
* List of miscarriages of justice in the United Kingdom
* Double jeopardy in the UK post-2003
* Simon Hall – convicted of another 2001 UK murder and similarly campaigned to be cleared, only to go on to admit his guilt
*Ernest Barrie – UK man who was released on appeal after a '' Rough Justice'' campaign, only to go on to kill a man
*Stephen Downing case
*Jessie McTavish
*Murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins
*Murder of Alison Shaughnessy
*Murders of Harry and Megan Tooze

References

{{DEFAULTSORT:Banfield, Don
2000s missing person cases
2001 in England
2012 in England
2013 in London
2001 in London
2012 in London
2001 murders in the United Kingdom
2000s murders in London
2010s in London
2001 in British law
2012 in British law
Murder in London
Crime in London
People acquitted of murder
People convicted of murder by England and Wales
People wrongfully convicted of murder
People from Harrow, London
English prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment
Overturned convictions in England
Overturned convictions in the United Kingdom
Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
Unsolved murders in London
Deaths by person in London
May 2001 events in the United Kingdom
Missing person cases in England
Murder convictions without a body
2013 in British law
Trials in London
Murder trials
Trials in England
2010s trials
Old Bailey