Rikki Neave's mother says her boy can 'rest in peace' after murderer loses appeal against conviction
In 2022 James Watson was found guilty of murdering 6-year old Rikki Neave nearly 30 years ago
The mother of a six-year-old boy killed nearly 30 years ago said her "journey of horror and tragedy" is finally over after the schoolboy's murderer lost an appeal against his conviction.
Ruth Neave said the judges' decision to throw out 42-year-old James Watson's appeal marks the "end of a chapter".
She said: "Now Rikki can rest in peace and I can start a new chapter and start living again."
In June 2022 Watson was jailed for at least 15 years after being found guilty of killing Rikki, whose naked body was found near his Peterborough home in November 1994.
Watson was 13 years old at the time of the murder.
Trial judge Mrs Justice McGowan had said the law meant Watson had to be handed a minimum term relevant to his age at the time of the offence.
He challenged the jury's verdict, with judges Lord Justice Holroyde, Mr Justice Morris and Judge Angela Morris overseeing a Court of Appeal hearing in London in June, saying his trial was unfair.
Speaking after the judges dismissed Watson's appeal on Monday, Ms Neave, who was cleared of her son's murder in 1996 but given a seven-year prison term after admitting child cruelty, said: "The news today brings to an end a very long journey of horror and tragedy.
Watson, who denied murder, was charged after a police cold case review produced a DNA match eight years ago.
The Crown Prosecution Service said a "key piece" of evidence against Watson was "DNA he left" on Rikki's clothes.
Prosecutors said samples from clothes were taken in 1994 but technology was not "sufficiently advanced" to provide a DNA match until 2015.
Watson told police he lifted Rikki up so Rikki could see over a fence, prosecutors said.
Lord Justice Holroyde said in a written appeal ruling that lawyers representing Watson argued that his prosecution was an "abuse" of process because the "unavailability of important exhibits meant that it was impossible for him to have a fair trial".
He said Watson's lawyers had also complained about the trial judge allowing "bad character" evidence to be considered by jurors.
Lord Justice Holroyde said prosecutors had "applied to adduce" evidence showing that Watson had a sexual interest in young boys and strangulation.
"We are... satisfied that the judge was correct to find that the appellant could and would have a fair trial," added Lord Justice Holroyde.
Watson's lawyers also argued that remarks by the trial judge placed "undue pressure" on the jury to reach a verdict.
But Lord Justice Holroyde said: "Taking the remarks collectively, we are satisfied that they could not have caused any juror to feel under any pressure to compromise his or her oath, and they do not render the conviction unsafe."