Muriel McKay's family's conduct 'appalling' in bid to find remains - judge
It's after the High Court ruled against a radar scan of a back garden in east London.
Last updated 1st Dec 2025
Members of Muriel McKay's family showed "appalling" conduct in an effort to force access to a garden where they believe her remains are buried, a High Court judge has said.
Mr Justice Richard Smith said the conduct of Ms McKay's family and their associates towards the residents of two properties in east London "represented threats, deception, dishonesty, lies, bullying and harassment".
Ms McKay, the 55-year-old wife of newspaper executive Alick McKay, was kidnapped for a £1 million ransom and murdered in 1969 in a case of mistaken identity, but her remains have never been found.
Two of Ms McKay's children, Ian McKay and Diane Levinson, asked the judge on Monday to force the residents of two addresses in Bethnal Green Road to allow a "ground-penetrating radar" survey of the properties' shared back garden.
One of the residents, Madeleine Higson, opposed the bid at a hearing on Monday, with her barristers claiming Mr McKay and Ms Levinson had no "proper legal foundation" for the injunction.
In a witness statement for a hearing, Ms Higson also claimed the McKay family and their representatives had "unlawfully sought to gain access to my property through deception" over several months, which left her "genuinely fearing for my safety".
Dismissing the injunction bid on Tuesday, Mr Justice Richards said he was "satisfied that the conduct undertaken by the claimants or on their behalf was appalling".
The judge said there was "no excuse for the deception and lies that then unfolded", which also involved a solicitor acting on behalf of the family, and Ms McKay's grandson, Mark Dyer.
He said: "It was obviously immoral and, in part at least, likely unlawful. There was no justification for it."
"Something has gone seriously wrong here."
He continued: "They have not shown (Ms Higson) the dignity that she deserved.
"I am in no doubt that (Ms Higson) was genuinely in fear of the claimants' actions and the pressure on her as a result of the claimants' publicity.
"I am also satisfied that she still remains in fear."
He concluded that he would have refused the injunction bid based on "such egregious conduct" alone.
Ms Higson, who said in her statement that she lives at her property with her partner and her dog, said that she had "a great deal of sympathy" for the McKay family.
But she objected to the scan of the garden as the police had told her they deemed it unnecessary and that the injunction would allow others to access her property "on their own terms".
She continued that in July this year, a man who identified himself as "Ricardo" asked to enter the garden to make a "sentimental montage" for his grandfather, who, it was claimed, used to live in the house.
"Ricardo" then contacted Ms Higson again, claiming that he was buying a nearby property and needed further access to the garden to conduct a radar survey to assess "drainage issues".
Similar requests were made by a woman named "Jess", who "continually and aggressively asked for permission" to conduct the ground survey, the court was told.
The house was also visited by another woman, who Ms Higson said was later identified as a consultant at Berkeley Rowe, a law firm representing Mr McKay and Ms Levinson.
On one visit, this person engaged in "persistent doorbell ringing" and "made a direct threat to visit the property 'every day' until we eventually answer the door", Ms Higson claimed.
She said some incidents had been reported to the police and that she believed she had "behaved in a way which went above and beyond tolerance".
She added: "Despite all of the behaviour I have endured, if I was contacted by the police and told that they truly believed the evidence to meet the required threshold, I would of course let them into my property to conduct the necessary investigation."
"The added treatment of me, my privacy, my time, my peace of mind and my safety compound why I have not permitted access," she added.
At the hearing in London on Monday, Benjamin Wood, for Mr McKay and Ms Levinson, said the family "offer their sincere apologies for the distress and inconvenience caused in relation to this deeply personal and sensitive matter".
Speaking to the PA news agency, Mr Dyer accepted that the people who visited the house "perhaps, you know, are some of our team".
He said: "It's a backyard that no-one uses and to go in there with a little bit of a scanner, a cover story, it probably was a sensible idea, because you see where we are now.
"I don't think anything was meant to harm anybody. I think it was more to protect people."
But on Tuesday, Mr Justice Richard Smith found the claimants harassed Ms Higson and her partner "on a number of occasions" and that Mr Dyer's threat to have her property "swarmed" was "perhaps the most appalling aspect of that harassment".