Jailed robber fails in appeal over conviction

A THUG who left a farmer bound and doused in petrol after beating him unconscious has failed in an appeal bid to clear his name.

Elliot Ricketts was one of two masked men who kidnapped David Turner from his home near Rishworth, Halifax, before dumping him in a pub car park.

He was traced two years later after his DNA was found to be a close match for skin found under the fingernails of the victim, who had scratched one of his attackers during the struggle.

The 52-year-old, formerly of Oak Road, Hollins, was jailed indefinitely at Leeds Crown Court in June, 2010, after being found guilty of kidnap and robbery.

He challenged his conviction at London’s Criminal Appeal Court, with his lawyers arguing his convictions were unsafe.

They said that, because Ricketts had sacked his lawyers during his trial, it should have been stopped to give him the chance to get a new legal team.

His trial was unfair because he ended up representing himself and made no submissions to the jury.

But his complaints were rejected by the three judges, who said he had tried to “play games” with the court and it had “backfired spectacularly”.

The judges also rejected an argument that a report by a DNA expert could have made a difference to his case, saying it did not affect the “safety” of his conviction.

That DNA report gave a different opinion to the prosecution’s expert at trial about the closeness of the match.

The court heard Ricketts and his unknown accomplice kidnapped Mr Turner as he was opening the gates of his secluded farm in October, 2007.

The farmer, then aged 50, tried to fight back and managed to scratch Ricketts, but he was viciously beaten unconscious.

He was found a short while later —- handcuffed, seriously injured and doused in petrol — by a passing motorist in the car park of a nearby pub.

Dismissing the appeal, Mr Justice Singh said Ricketts — who had previous convictions —was “highly experienced” in the criminal courts and had tried to “play the system”.

The judge also said the difference between the DNA experts was so small it could not raise any doubts about the jury’s verdicts.

Sitting with Sir Brian Leveson and Mr Justice Jay, he added: “One of the crucial pieces of evidence was that the appellant did indeed have a scar in the same place the victim said he had inflicted the scratch. It was not the DNA evidence alone, the jury also had that factor in evidence.”