Leicestershire lab assistant jailed for life for colleague's murder

A laboratory assistant from North West Leicestershire has been sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering a work colleague in a case where the CPS successfully applied for the jury to disregard the principal defence argument of loss of control.

Ross McCullum killed Megan Newborough in August 2021. The two had begun to form a relationship and had agreed to meet up at McCullum’s house. During the encounter, McCullum turned on Megan, strangling her to death. After she was dead, McCullum cut her throat, which he said afterwards was to make sure she was dead, and took her body and phone to separate remote locations nearby, before abandoning her car in a car park at Loughborough College.

On returning home afterwards, McCullum sent a series of text and voicemail messages, starting with references to the time they had spent together, then feigning concern that she had not answered.

Once it was clear that Megan was missing, McCullum was arrested. He eventually admitted that he had killed her, but maintained he had lost control of his actions and had not intended to kill or seriously harm her.

He was convicted after a six-week trial at Leicester Crown Court. During the trial, the CPS took the unusual step of applying to the court to have the jury disregard his defence of loss of control because it did not meet the legal criteria to put forward that defence. As a result, with medical experts also providing evidence that he was in control of his actions, he was today sentenced to life imprisonment for Megan’s murder, with a minimum term of 23 years.

Fernando Rodrigues from the CPS said: “Megan Newborough was a bright young woman, whose life was cruelly taken by someone she should have been able to trust.

“Ross McCullum claimed he had lost control because something that happened between them triggered memories of abuse he alleged had happened to him in childhood. Our case was that his actions were those of someone in control.

“In putting this case to the jury, we analysed every single one of his actions and concluded that this was a series of calculated decisions made by someone in complete control of their actions.

“Applying to have the jury disregard a defence argument is an unusual step to take. However, in this instance, the defendant’s account of events were not consistent with the legal framework for a defence of loss of control, so we made the application

“I would like to offer my heartfelt sympathies to Megan’s family. They have shown courage and dignity at what has been an incredibly difficult and painful time for them.”

Building the case:

To prosecute a case of murder, the CPS must be satisfied that the defendant intended to kill or do serious harm to the victim, whether or not they have planned or premeditated the killing.

In law, to put forward a defence of loss of control, there must be what is know as a qualifying trigger – an event that is sufficient to cause the defendant to lose control of his actions. This may include fear of violence, sexual infidelity or things said and done directly to the defendant. In this instance, McCullum’s defence was that a minor action on the part of the victim triggered memories of events he alleged had happened in childhood, which the CPS argued is not a qualifying trigger. The judge heard these legal arguments and ruled that this partial defence should not be considered by the jury.

Throughout the rest of the trial, the CPS still had to prove McCullum’s actions and his intent.

The attack itself was violent and sustained. The CPS highlighted the level of violence McCullum used to strangle Megan as evidence that he could only have acted with the intent to kill or do serious harm.

The prosecution also highlighted McCullum’s admission that he had repeatedly used a knife to cut her throat ‘to make sure she was dead’ as evidence of his intent.

To further demonstrate McCullum’s intent, the CPS analysed each of his actions after he had killed Megan. These were:

Disposing of her phone by throwing it out of the car window in a remote spot to avoid it leading people to her body.

Taking her body out of the house and abandoning it in undergrowth in a different location from her phone.

Abandoning her car in a car park at Loughborough College.

Sending repeated messages to her phone, initially relating to having spent time together, one that made a falsely inadvertent admission of being in love with her, then expressing concern that she had not responded. He knew her phone was concealed where he had thrown it, so can only have sent these messages to try to appear blameless when it was found.

On returning from abandoning her car, asking the taxi to drop him some distance from his house.

The CPS presented each of these actions as calculated decisions on the part of the defendant that showed he was fully aware of what he was doing, acting in an icy, detached manner and in control of his actions throughout.

The prosecution shared details of McCullum’s correspondence with Megan to demonstrate that there was a sinister undertone to his perception of the relationship.

The CPS also presented evidence of McCullum’s internet history before and after he had killed Megan, which included searches relating to notorious serial killers and pornography.