Convicted double murderer Hazel Stewart has failed in a new legal bid to secure a reduced prison sentence for murdering her policeman husband and the wife of her ex-lover.
The 62-year-old former Sunday school teacher mounted a fresh challenge based on claims she was under the coercive control of Colin Howell when they plotted their partners’ deaths.
But the Court of Appeal on Wednesday denied Stewart permission to introduce new medical evidence to back her case that she had been suffering from a mental illness.
Lady Chief Justice Dame Siobhan Keegan ruled that her minimum 18-year jail term was “neither wrong nor manifestly excessive”.
“No injustice arises in refusing to reopen this long-concluded appeal on these facts,” Dame Siobhan said.
“This was a double murder of spouses in the cruellest of circumstances.”
Stewart is currently behind bars for murdering her 32-year-old husband Trevor Buchanan and Howell’s 31-year-old wife Lesley Howell.
Both victims were found in a fume-filled garage in Castlerock, Co Derry in May 1991.
Police originally believed they had died in a suicide pact after discovering their partners were having an extra-marital affair.
Instead, they had been drugged and murdered, with their bodies arranged to make it look like they had taken their own lives.
Nearly two decades passed before dentist Howell (66) suddenly confessed to both killings.
He pleaded guilty to the murders in 2010 and was ordered to serve at least 21 years behind bars.
Howell also implicated Stewart in the plot and gave evidence against her at her trial.
He described them as having a “blood pact” which was strengthened when she had a secret abortion in London after becoming pregnant by him.
In March 2011 Stewart was unanimously convicted of both killings by a jury at Coleraine Crown Court.
Since then she has failed in a series of attempts to have her convictions overturned.
The mother-of-two sought leave to reopen the case amid claims the prison term was manifestly excessive.
Stewart’s legal team contended that the sentence was imposed without any available information about her mental illness at the time of the murders.
Newly obtained medical evidence shows her ability to make rational choices or properly comprehend the consequences of her actions was impaired, they alleged.
A consultant psychiatrist who assessed Stewart over the last two years said she was suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) related to the abortion procedure in 1990.
Defence lawyers submitted that her abnormality of mind made her vulnerable to the coercive control of Howell, and directly impacted on her ability to stop him.
The latest legal challenge was mounted after the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) decided not to charge the former dentist with alleged assaults against her.
Stewart appeared remotely from Hydebank detention centre for the ruling on her bid to be granted an extension of time and permission to introduce fresh evidence.
Her current husband, David Stewart, attended the hearing in support of the application.
Present in the public gallery were friends and relatives of the victims.
Senior counsel for Stewart, Brendan Kelly KC, argued the medical diagnosis provided “cogent” new evidence his client may have been mentally impaired and more susceptible to Howell’s control.
The barrister urged the three appeal judges to scrutinise the fresh material in order to avoid the risk of a potential injustice.
His client’s depression and PTSD, coupled with the coercive behaviour of Howell, must be taken into account when determining the minimum term on her life sentence, Mr Kelly submitted.
But Philip Henry KC, on behalf of the PPS, insisted there was no jurisdiction for the court to hear the case because Stewart previously abandoned her appeal over the murder of her first husband.
He also repeatedly questioned the strength of a diagnosis obtained more than 30 years after the killings.
Six reports from other psychiatrists who examined Stewart at earlier stages raised no concerns about mental illness at the time of the killings.
The newly obtained “sympathetic” evidence represents a minority view in direct contradiction to the overwhelming weight of every previous doctor’s expert opinion, Mr Henry stressed.
Refusing leave to admit the new evidence or extend time, the Lady Chief Justice said it had not established a valid ground of appeal.
The court also emphasised the need for finality in criminal proceedings.
“The applicant does not fully appreciate this, and what must be self-evident is the stress and upset that this latest third appeal attempt will have caused to the families of the deceased,” the Chief Justice said.
She added: “The sentence imposed by the trial judge remains unaltered.”
