TL;DR
- The High Court has denied the children of Muriel McKay permission to conduct a radar scan in a garden where they believe she may be buried, citing insufficient evidence.
- Justice Smith highlighted the lack of conclusive data and expressed concerns over the claims made by a witness regarding a smell observed after her disappearance.
- Allegations of harassment towards homeowners opposing the survey contributed to the court’s refusal of the injunction, with the judge condemning the conduct of McKay’s family as “immoral.”
Children of murdered Muriel McKay lose bid to scan garden for her remains | UK News
The children of murdered Muriel McKay have lost their bid to radar scan a garden where they believe she is buried.
Mrs McKay, the wife of newspaper executive Alick McKay, was kidnapped for a £1m ransom in 1969.
But it was a case of mistaken identity, as her killers had intended to seize and ransom Anna Murdoch, the wife of Alick’s then boss, Rupert Murdoch.
Two brothers, Arthur and Nizamodeen Hosein, were convicted of Mrs McKay’s murder and kidnapping 55 years ago, though her remains were never found.
Hoping to find her body, two of her children – Ian McKay and Dianne Levinson – asked the High Court to allow a “ground-penetrating radar survey” at two neighbouring London properties.
On Tuesday, the court denied them the injunction that would have enabled the survey.
Giving his ruling, Justice Richard Smith said that while Ms McKay was the victim of “abhorrent crime”, he had to consider the case “objectively and dispassionately”.
He said: “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.”
It comes after new information from Hayley Frais, whose father ran a tailor shop on the site in Bethnal Green Road, where Arthur Hosein worked at the time of the killing.
She claimed her father said on his deathbed that he noticed a strong smell at the premises after Mrs McKay disappeared.
Benjamin Wood, speaking for Mrs McKay’s children, admitted Frais’ testimony did not cross the “evidential threshold” for police to survey the site.
One of the affected homeowners, Madeleine Higson, opposed the injunction bid.
Callum Reid-Hutchings, speaking for her, argued that the survey would constitute a “significant intrusion into her private space and her right to peaceful enjoyment of her home”.
He added that his client had “considerable sympathy” for the family of the deceased, but the injunction lacked a “proper legal foundation”
It was “telling”, he added, that police had decided not to scan the garden.
The court also heard that Ms Higson had endured “borderline harassment” and “significant distress” from the victim’s family and Mrs McKay’s grandson, Mark Dyer.
This included repeated attempts to gain access to the property through false representations.
The judge said he would also have refused the injunction on the basis of this “egregious conduct”, which 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.
“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.”
Speaking ahead of the verdict, Mr Dyer said: “We’ve been told she’s there… so we need to pick her up.
“She would like to come home for Christmas this year.”
