High Court ruling denies Muriel McKay family’s bid to scan garden for remains
Mr Justice Richard Smith has ruled against efforts to use ground-penetrating radar in hunt for 1969 kidnap victim.
The High Court has ruled against the family of Muriel McKay, denying them permission to scan a shared back garden on Bethnal Green Road, east London in their search for her remains more than 50 years after her disappearance.
Muriel McKay was kidnapped from her Wimbledon home on 29 December 1969 after being mistaken for Rupert Murdoch’s then-wife, Anna Murdoch.
Her abductors, brothers Arthur and Nizamodeen Hosein, demanded a £1 million ransom but Muriel was never returned. Both men were later convicted of her murder in 1970, despite her body never being found.
The McKay family’s application followed new information provided this year by Hayley Frais, whose father operated a tailor shop at the Bethnal Green site where Arthur Hosein previously worked.
Ms Frais suggested her father had suspected the woman’s decomposing body was buried in the garden behind his shop, based on a strong smell noticed at the time of Muriel’s disappearance.
Injunction from family
Representing her son Ian McKay and daughter Dianne Levinson, barrister Benjamin Wood said this evidence, combined with the circumstances surrounding Muriel’s disappearance, supported the family’s belief that her remains might be located at the site.
The family sought permission to conduct a “ground-penetrating radar survey” of the garden, which the court heard would take no longer than an hour.
One of the property owners opposed the move, citing distress caused by repeated requests for access from the McKay family and their representatives, including visits under false pretences.
Her barrister, Callum Reid-Hutchings, described this as “borderline harassment” and argued the bid lacked sufficient legal foundation, noting it was “telling” that the police had opted not to pursue further investigations despite receiving the new information from Ms Frais.
In a ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Richard Smith said that while Ms McKay's kidnap and murder was an "abhorrent crime", his role was to consider the case "objectively and dispassionately".
He said: "The claimants have not established that such relief is needed now, or why the usual pre-trial procedures should not be observed."
He continued: "I was not persuaded that even if a survey was carried out, that it would be conclusive one way or the other, that it would produce incontrovertible data."
He added: "The evidence of the presence of Muriel McKay's remains at the premises, such as it is presently, seems thin."
Concluding his judgment, Mr Justice Richard Smith said that he would have also refused the injunction on the basis of "egregious conduct" towards Ms Higson from Ms McKay's family, including her grandson, Mark Dyer.
He added that this included "threats, deception, dishonesty, lies, bullying and harassment".
He said: "It was obviously immoral and, in part at least, likely unlawful. There was no justification for it."
He continued: "It seems to me in their desperation to find an answer to what has happened to Muriel's body, the claimants and Mr Mark Dyer have lost a sense of perspective and also respect for the interests, concerns and safety of others who are perceived to stand in the way of their campaign."