House Of Lords Appeal of STAFFORD & LUVAGLIO


This is a case in which I have had an interest for many years; you will find my latest - and hopefully last - article about it here.

A few points about this judgment, which was donated by an anonymous supporter. First, thank you to him. Or her! (Regarding its verbatim publication, please refer to the copyright notice page).

The name of the victim is given here as Stuart Sibbett. His full name was actually Angus Stuart SIBBET, and he was known as Angus. The surname is frequently misspelled. Also, Vincent Landa is alluded to as Vincent Luvaglio. Vince Landa - as he was known - and Michael Luvaglio were brothers; on page 739 of this judgment as it appeared in The Weekly Law Reports he is alluded to by Lord Cross as Victor Luvaglio. It remains to be seen if this is an error by His Lordship or by someone further down the food chain, but it is of no consequence, and has in any case been corrected here - page 909 is the corresponding page.

For the record, I am advised of the following: “Vince was smarter [than his brother]...he adopted LANDA, as being, ‘away from’ the Italian sounding Luvaglio... I have also heard it said, that it was made up from ‘LuvaglioANDAngus’, from the early days, when Angus and Vince were close. My impression is...that he never changed his name to Landa in any legal fashion. Anyway, Vince used this as his surname for all the years that I knew of him”.

It is clear from this lengthy and carefully considered judgment that the non-story advanced by these two men is a tissue of lies from beginning to end. In particular, there was forensic evidence against them, including - at page 904 - particles of red paint in the pocket of Stafford’s suit, which he just happened to send to the cleaners. The reader’s attention is also drawn to the paragraph on page 908 beginning “Turning to the facts...”

With this judgment I have included two pages from the memoirs of Sir David Napley, who was a staunch supporter of Luvaglio. Although taken in by his feigned sincerity, he found one stumbling block in Luvaglio’s testimony which, conveniently, he overlooked. (The underlining on page 287 is not mine). Earlier, on page 285, he fails to mention that Sibbet’s glasses were found at the scene.

Stafford & Luvaglio have had due process and then some, especially Stafford; the time has come for their uncritical supporters to move on. There are genuine miscarriages of justice out there that warrant scrutiny.

To Not Without Prejudice..., page 285
To Not Without Prejudice..., page 287

To Stafford & Luvaglio, House of Lords, [1973]

Back To Other Contributors Index
Back To Site Index