Muriel McKay’s family cannot scan London garden for her remains, judge rules

The family of Muriel McKay, who was kidnapped and murdered more than 55 years ago and whose remains have never been found, cannot perform a radar scan of a shared back garden in east London where they believe she is buried, a High Court judge has ruled.

Ms McKay, the wealthy wife of newspaper executive Alick McKay, was kidnapped for a £1 million ransom in 1969 after being mistaken for Anna Murdoch, the then-wife of media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

On Monday, barristers for two of her children, Ian McKay and Dianne Levinson, asked a judge to order that the homeowners of two neighbouring properties on Bethnal Green Road allow them to conduct a “ground-penetrating radar survey” of a shared back garden.

The hearing in London was told that the family now believe Ms McKay’s remains are buried at the site, following new information coming to light.

One of the homeowners, Madeleine Higson, opposed the injunction bid, which would have stopped her and the owner of the other property, Janis Cross, from disturbing the garden.

Barristers for Ms Higson also claimed that she had been subjected to “borderline harassment” and caused “significant distress” by the McKay family, who it was claimed had repeatedly attempted to gain access to the property through false representations.

In a ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Richard Smith said that while Ms McKay’s kidnap and murder was an “abhorrent crime”, his role was to consider the case “objectively and dispassionately”.

He said: “The claimants have not established that such relief is needed now, or why the usual pre-trial procedures should not be observed.”

He continued: “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.”

Concluding his judgment, Mr Justice Richard Smith said that he would have also refused the injunction on the basis of “egregious conduct” towards Ms Higson from Ms McKay’s family, including her grandson, Mark Dyer.

He added that this 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.”

He continued: “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.”

Ms McKay, 55, was taken from her home in Wimbledon, south London, on December 29 1969.

Brothers Arthur and Nizamodeen Hosein were later arrested and found guilty of her murder, and sentenced to 25 years and 15 years in prison, in one of the first murder cases to be brought without a body.

The court heard on Monday that the injunction bid came after the family received new information from a woman called Hayley Frais, whose father ran a tailor shop at the premises on Bethnal Green Lane at the time of the killing, where Arthur Hosein was employed.

Benjamin Wood, for Mr McKay and Ms Levinson, said Ms Frais had claimed that her father said on his deathbed that he noticed a strong smell at the premises at the time of Ms McKay’s disappearance.

Mr Wood added that the police were not willing to excavate or survey the garden as it did not meet their “evidential threshold”, but were “receptive to information” coming from any scan.

Mark Dyer, Ms McKay’s grandson, told the PA news agency on Monday that the bid to discover her remains was “important to the whole family” and she would “like to come home for Christmas”.

Callum Reid-Hutchings, for Ms Higson, said in written submissions for the hearing that while his client has “considerable sympathy” for Ms McKay’s family, there was no “proper legal foundation” for the injunction.

He said that the survey would be a “significant intrusion into her private space and her right to peaceful enjoyment of her home”.

He added that it was “telling” that police had decided not to scan the garden.

He continued that the McKay family “cannot be said to come to the court with clean hands”, stating in court that Ms Higson had been subject to a “bombardment” of requests to enter her property.

These included unsolicited visits from a man who claimed he wished to take photos of the garden for a “sentimental montage” for his grandfather, and a woman who claimed to be purchasing a nearby property and wished to conduct a drainage survey.

They also included visits from a “solicitor or consultant” connected to the McKay family, who did not disclose their position and said they would visit “every day”, Mr Reid-Hutchings said.

Mr Wood said that the McKay family “offer their sincere apologies for the distress and inconvenience caused in relation to this deeply personal and sensitive matter”.