Subscribe to trusted local news
In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever. By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.
- Subscription costs less than £1 a week with an annual plan.
Already a subscriber? Log in here.
23
Jun
‘Fresh’ burns on Harrogate murder accused after makeshift flamethrower used during attack
A plastic surgeon today (June 23) told a court that marks found on a Harrogate man accused of murder were “fresh” burns.
Philip Watson, 34, has admitted murdering Paul Tillet at the victim’s home on Strawberry Dale in September 2024. However, his co-accused, Jason Johnson, 27, denies the charge.
Mr Tillet, 56, was found bound and gagged on the floor of his flat by police on September 29 last year.
Professor Steven Jeffery, a consultant plastic surgeon, gave evidence on day eight of the trial at Leeds Crown Court this morning.
Dr Louise Mulcahy, a Home Office pathologist, last week told the court Mr Tillet’s forehead had been “singed" due to an aerosol being used as a flamethrower.
Professor Jeffery had been asked to confirm if marks on Mr Johnson’s hand, which were believed to be burns when photographed in police custody on September 30, were indeed burns.
Jamie Hill KC, prosecuting, also asked Professor Jeffery how old the marks would have been when the photo was taken, how they could have come about and how close someone would have to be to a flame to sustain such injuries.
Professor Jeffery told the court there were “two lesions present” on Mr Johnson’s hand – both of which he confirmed were “burn injuries”.
One of the burns was at the base of Mr Johnson’s right thumb, and the other, at the base of his right index finger, was “more circular” in shape.
Citing photos of the burns, Professor Jeffery said they looked “relatively fresh” at the time of being photographed.
He believed the burns had been sustained within 72 hours – or three days – of the photos being taken.
“I’m not able to be more specific than that…I would say anytime within three days of the photos being taken”, he told the court.
Mr Hill asked Professor Jeffery to give his opinion on how the burns could have been caused, such as by a naked flame or by another heat source, like a hot kettle.
Professor Jeffrey said:
These were flame burns, but there are two localised areas.
If there had been a “big flash” of fire, the whole hand would likely be burned, Professor Jeffery said.
“That is not the case here”, he added.
The unconnected burns suggest two small episodes of flame burns. When there is vaporisation, droplets are formed - this is what that would look like.
A spray of flammable liquid would create burning droplets.
Mr Hill also asked Professor Jeffery how close Mr Johnson would have to be [to the flame] to sustain such burns.
The court heard:
He would have to be very close. Droplets do not travel far and they burn out as they travel, so if you are far away you would not get burned.
Professor Jeffery believed Mr Johnson would have been “within a metre” of a flame.
Cross examination
Simon Kealey KC, defending, asked Professor Jeffery if an injury to Mr Johnson's left hand was consistent with a burn.
Professor Jeffery said it looked "more like a traumatic wound". A traumatic wound would be caused by a trauma, such as a cut or laceration, he added.
He told the court he thinks it is "very unlikely" the injury to Mr Johnson's left hand was caused by the spray of [vaporisation] droplets.
Mr Kealey asked Professor Jeffery if he had been made aware that Mr Johnson is a crack-cocaine user.
Professor Jeffery said there were “mentions of drug use” but no mention of a specific substance.
When Mr Kealey asked Professor Jeffery if the burns could have been caused by a [cigarette] lighter, he said:
Possibly, if deliberately held to the area.
Mr Kealey also asked: 'if the hand with burns was holding a pipe to light it, would droplets form from a lighter being present?'.
“I do not think there are many droplets from a lighter, they do not come out as far as I’m aware”, Professor Jeffery responded.
Professor Jeffery said the burns could have been caused by a lighter flame being applied to the skin, but added the burn on Mr Johnson’s index finger was “too superficial” to be consistent with a burn directly from a lighter flame.
He told the court it “would not take very long” for a burn of that kind to form on the skin if a person deliberately held a lighter flame to their skin, but added it would “very difficult to do to yourself” due to the level of pain it would cause.
Torture
Earlier in the trial, Jamie Hill KC, prosecuting, said that Mr Tillet had been subjected to a “prolonged and persistent” attack which had “elements of torture”.
Mr Hill told the court that it was the prosecution’s case that Watson was the “main offender” and carried out most of the attack.
However, he said Mr Johnson encouraged Watson to murder Mr Tillet.
In a statement during police interview, Mr Johnson accepted he was present at the attack in Mr Tillet’s flat. However, he said “at no point” did he come into physical contact with Mr Tillet and that he considered the victim a friend.
The trial continues.
0