A 42-year-old man given a life sentence after being found guilty of murdering a six-year-old boy nearly 30 years ago is waiting for a ruling on an appeal.
James Watson was handed a minimum jail term of 15 years by a judge in June 2022 after being convicted of killing Rikki Neave following a trial at the Old Bailey.
Trial judge Ms Justice McGowan said the law meant Watson, who was 13 when Rikki was found strangled in woods near his home in Peterborough in November 1994, had to be handed a minimum term relevant to his age at the time of the offence.
Watson had challenged his conviction at a Court of Appeal hearing in London in June 2023.
Three appeal judges – Lord Justice Holroyde, Mr Justice Morris and Judge Angela Morris – are scheduled to deliver a ruling on Monday.
Rikki’s mother, Ruth Neave, had been found not guilty of his murder following a trial in Northampton Crown Court in 1996 – although she was given a seven-year jail term after admitting child cruelty.
Watson, who denied murder, had been 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 had been taken in 1994 but technology was not “sufficiently advanced” to provide a DNA match until 2015.
Watson had told police that he had lifted Rikki so the youngster could see over a fence, prosecutors said.
A barrister leading Watson’s legal team had told the appeal hearing that a “wholesale loss and destruction of evidence” meant a fair trial was not possible.
Jennifer Dempster KC said there had been a “total disregard” towards preserving exhibits in the case.
“The reality we submit was that this was a wholesale loss and destruction of evidence, so much so that a fair trial of this applicant is no longer possible,” she had told the appeal hearing.
“It closed down completely any opportunity for the defence to explore the potential of other suspects.”
Prosecutors had said there was no evidence that Watson’s case had been affected.
John Price KC, for the Crown, had told appeal judges there was no evidence that Watson’s case had been affected.
He said: “The applicant failed to demonstrate that there was any prejudice caused to him by the loss of the material that has been identified.
“If there was… we do not accept that it was not capable of being ameliorated in the usual way.”
