Justice for Women

Summary

On 14th March 2022, 25-year-old, Lea Rose Cheng met her grandfather in the Old Swan area of Liverpool. A few days before, Lea Rose had tried to kill herself by taking an overdose of prescribed medication following the breakdown of a relationship. Lea Rose and her grandfather lived close to one another, and he took her out that afternoon to offer his support.  

They had drinks in an Irish pub before going to The Whitehouse. Whilst chatting together, a local man, 39-year-old Dylan Bacon, joined them at their table. Dylan and Lea Rose’s grandfather often drank in the same pubs, and it was through her grandfather, that Lea Rose first met Dylan.

Dylan was one of a group that Lea Rose had occasionally invited back to her flat for drinks when the pubs reopening during the pandemic. However, more recently, she had complained to police and the housing association that men from the group were turning up late and uninvited and demanding entry to her home by throwing stones at her windows and causing damage. A panic alarm had been fitted and she had requested a house move because she was unable to manage the situation.

Soon after Dylan arrived at The Whitehouse and joined Lea Rose and her grandfather at their table, Lea Rose can be seen on the pub CCTV footage taking a sip of Dylan’s drink. Shortly afterwards she repeatedly vomited onto the table and had to leave. Lea Rose’s grandfather took her outside and according to him, Dylan suggested that he take her home, but her grandfather insisted that he would look after her. CCTV footage shows that Lea Rose was unsteady on her feet and obviously intoxicated as she left The Whitehouse and walked the short distance to her grandfather’s bungalow and went inside.

Dylan left The Whitehouse almost immediately and walked behind them to another pub, The Millfield, which is opposite Lea Rose’s grandfather’s home. He ordered a drink and sat by the window from where he had a clear view of the door of the bungalow. Lea Rose left her grandfather’s address twenty minutes later. CCTV footage showed her walking across the road and past The Millfield. She continued to appear unsteady on her feet. Dylan finished his drink and followed her.

This is where the CCTV footage ends.

Lea Rose is only a couple of minutes from home at this point and there are only two streets between where she was last seen and her block of flats. However, she does not appear there for another 90 minutes and her whereabouts are unknown. When Lea Rose is next seen on the CCTV at the entrance to the block of flats, she is missing her hooded top and her upper clothing appears dishevelled. She enters the building, with Dylan a short distance behind her.

Almost two hours later, just before 9pm, Dylan emerges from the block of flats. He has visible bleeding injuries, he has one shoe on, and his jeans are low and below his waist. He walks the short distance to the next-door block of flats, where he appears to have tried to gain entry before collapsing.

Dylan was later pronounced dead at the scene having suffered eight incised wounds, one of which was fatal.

Police were called by a neighbour who saw blood and Lea Rose at the door of her flat in some distress. Lea Rose had also activated the panic alarm. When police attended, Lea Rose was wearing a different bra to the black one which could be seen on CCTV, and she had a stab wound to her upper thigh. The clothes she had been wearing earlier were found in her living room, including knickers and a bra (which showed signs of forcible damage leaving it unwearable). Her clothing was later forensically examined and this black bra, had Dylan’s DNA on it.

When Dylan’s body was examined during the post-mortem, a swab was taken from his penis, which was forensically examined and found to have Lea Rose’s DNA on it.

During her detention in police custody, Lea Rose complained that she was bleeding when she went to the toilet.

In September 2023, the jury of four men and eight women, at Liverpool Crown Court unanimously found Lea Rose guilty of murder.

About Lea Rose

From an early age, Lea Rose has suffered from poor mental health. She made her first of several suicide attempts aged 11. She had a difficult relationship with her family and went to live with her grandmother. She had several unhealthy and violent relationships with men during her teenage years and at the time of this incident, a panic alarm had been installed in her home following unwanted visits from Dylan and men associated with him.

Lea Rose had more recently fallen in love with man who had a long-term partner and a young child. He had made promises to leave them to be with Lea Rose but instead their relationship ended, and she was devastated and ashamed.

The trial

Like many of the women we speak to who have killed in response to violence, or the threat of violence, Lea Rose has no memory of the killing. Memory loss during a violent incident is not uncommon and can be in response to a frightening and traumatic incident.

Despite house-to-house enquiries, it remains a complete mystery as to where Lea Rose and Dylan were after she left her grandfather’s bungalow, and he left The Millfield pub for an hour and a half.

Whilst in custody, Lea Rose reported bleeding to the police officer who accompanied her to the toilet. The officer noted this and raised it with the custody sergeant but no further action i.e. a forensic examination, was taken.

At trial, the jury were asked to consider self-defence. Whilst Lea Rose could not specifically remember the incident, the evidence suggested that there may have been sexual contact between her and Dylan inside her flat while she was heavily intoxicated. Inside the flat, there were signs of disturbance, and she had a knife wound to her thigh.

The jury were also asked to consider the partial defence of diminished responsibility. Expert evidence was presented about Lea Rose’s mental health history and her mental state before the killing. She had struggled to access mental health support during the pandemic. Psychiatrists agreed that she suffers from Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Another partial defence which could have been available to Lea Rose was loss of control. Lea Rose gave evidence that she was in a vulnerable state following the breakdown of her relationship and suicide attempt. She said she was not sexually attracted to Dylan and would not have consented to have sex with him and that if she had found him having sex with her, for example, while she was heavily intoxicated, she would ‘have flipped’. However, the trial judge decided that there was insufficient evidence for the criteria of loss of control to be met.

Lea Rose is appealing her conviction for murder on the grounds that the judge should have allowed the partial defence of loss of control to be put before the jury for them to consider.

After her conviction, Lea Rose said “Women are not safe. Like many women, this isn’t the first time I’ve been followed by a man. I asked to be moved from the area. The authorities could have helped. I will probably never know what happened to me that evening. Where he took me or what he, or others, did to me. Something must have happened for me to stab him”

Lea Rose is represented Clare Wade KC and Stella Harris of Garden Court Chambers www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk and by Madeleine Corr of Shaw Graham Kersh LLP  www.sgkllp.com

Her Appeal

On 25 October 2024, the criminal appeal court rejected an appeal by 25 year old Lea Rose Cheng who was convicted of the murder of 39 year old Dylan Bacon at Liverpool Crown Court on 4 September 2023. Lea Rose remembers nothing of the events that led to fatal stabbing of Dylan, but CCTV evidence provides a compelling account that she was followed home and sexually assaulted by  the deceased. She triggered a domestic abuse panic alarm in her home, where police found her virtually naked with injuries from a stab wound.

Her lawyers argued that the judge at trial should have left the partial defence of loss of control to the jury.  The court of appeal rejected this argument saying the evidence was speculative.  This was despite DNA evidence revealing sexual contact and of a ripped bra. She had complained repeatedly to the police and her housing association about a group of men including the deceased taking advantage of her. 

Harriet Wistrich, Director of Centre for Women’s Justice and founding member of Justice for Women stated,

“This judgment illustrates how the defence of loss of control does not serve women who kill in circumstances where they are threatened with male violence.  Instead, most Court of Appeal decisions on loss of control have extended the defence to perpetrators of femicide.  The relatively new defence was  introduced to replace provocation widely seen as favouring men who explode in anger over women who respond out of fear of serious violence.  This case shows how the law still does not work for women and more radical reform is needed.”

Lea Rose Cheng was distraught with the outcome but stated she is committed to continue working with campaigners and lawyers to achieve reform and a greater understanding from the criminal justice system towards women subject to male violence.