Inverness Killer Loses Appeal

A killer who has twice been jailed for life after separate juries convicted him of murdering his cousin was sent back to prison today after his latest legal challenge failed.

Ian Geddes (59) had claimed he was a victim of a miscarriage of justice at his latest trial in 2013 when he was again found guilty of murdering Charles McKay in a smothering attack using a pillow at the victim's home.

But judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh today rejected his challenge and Geddes, who had spent more than a year on release from jail pending the appeal, was returned to prison.

The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Carloway, said: "Having regard to all the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death, the jury's verdict must be seen as an entirely reasonable one."

Geddes' lawyers had challenged his conviction arguing that the verdict returned against him was one that no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have returned.

But Lord Carloway, who heard the appeal with Lord Brodie and Lord Drummond Young, said: "That test is not met in this case."

"There was ample justification for the jury to hold that the deceased did not die from natural causes from a fall downstairs, having taken excessive quantities of dihydrocodeine or alcohol. He did not commit suicide," said the senior judge.

"There was evidence that his injuries were consistent with him having been smothered by the pillow, which was seen and photographed on his bed after his death," said Lord Carloway.

Geddes, formerly of Atholl Place, Falkirk, in Stirlingshire, had previously been found guilty of the murder in 2005 and of defrauding his victim of cash and trying to commit another fraud with a fake will.

But following an earlier appeal a re-trial took place because of new medical evidence.

Geddes sought to have his new conviction quashed after he was again found guilty of murdering former offshore electrical engineer Mr McKay (48) on March 18 or 19 in 2003 at his home at East MaxKenzie Place, Inverness, and staging an attempted cover up over the death. .

His solicitor advocate John Scott QC told judges: "I invite the court to accept this is one of those must unusual cases, rare cases, where this court can and should intervene and quash the verdict of the jury as unreasonable."

Following an initial trial in 2005 the fraudster was ordered to serve at least 15 years in prison.

Following the second trial he was told he must serve at least eight years and nine months, meaning the minimum prison term he faced would remain the same.

Mr Scott was critical of pathology evidence led by the Crown in the prosecution of Geddes over the smothering attack.

Other experts offered differing opinions over the cause of death.

He said the ultimate diagnosis of smothering was arrived at because of "flawed reliance and skewed viewing or assessment of the materials".

The defence lawyer said: "Two expert consultant forensic pathologists would have certified a different cause of death."

One pathologist told Geddes' second trial that in her opinion the likely cause of death was a head injury in keeping with a fall.

He said: "None of the pathologists had a vast cupboard full of smothering cases."

Advocate depute Andrew Stewart QC invited the appeal judges to refuse the appeal. He said: "It is obviously a very significant step for the court to decide no reasonable jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt."

"The matters raised in the grounds of appeal were all perfectly valid points to be laid before the jury," he said.

"The Crown position is the matters are matters for the jury.

"It was a verdict which a reasonable jury could have come to," said the advocate depute.

Mr Stewart said the flaw in the appeal grounds advanced was that they focused solely on the medical evidence and did not take into account the wider evidence.

Emergency services were called to Mr McKay's home where they found him lying at the foot of a flight of stairs.

Geddes, who stayed there from time to time, told them he had found his cousin there.

But suspicions were later aroused when a letter emerged seeking to alter Mr McKay's will so that Geddes would inherit pounds 25,000.

Lord Carloway said that the appeal judges considered that the trial judge at the second trial, Lord Jones, had fallen into error in addressing jurors in a manner that favoured Geddes.