Vagrant who murdered dog walker in random attack is convicted

A man who brutally attacked a dog walker in a random act of violence has been found guilty of her murder – after prosecutors pieced together CCTV, DNA, and bad character evidence to put before the jury.

56-year-old Roy Barclay murdered Anita Rose in Brantham on 24 July 2024 – she was walking her dog Bruce on a public footpath in a rural location when she was viciously kicked and stamped on by Barclay and left for dead.

She was rushed to hospital by emergency services but tragically died four days later from traumatic head injuries.

Barclay, who was already on the run to avoid being recalled to prison, was hiding out in two self-made outdoor camps in Suffolk. It was in each of the respective camps that personal items belonging to Anita Rose were found including a backdoor key, a mobile phone case and her distinctive pink jacket.

For three months, Barclay continued to live in the shadows, rarely being seen and changing his appearance to avoid detection. The level of his deception was considerable and even included shaving his head. During this time, the police work was extensive to ensure that sightings of other individuals were investigated and eliminated. Many people in Brantham came forward and assisted the inquiry.

Working closely with police, the Crown Prosecution Service painstakingly pieced together CCTV evidence which showed Barclay in the vicinity of the attack and disposing of Anita’s possessions, including her phone, as well as forensic evidence linking him with the murder scene.

He has been remanded in custody since his arrest in October 2024 and will be sentenced on August 6 at Ipswich Crown Court.

Nicola Pope of the Crown Prosecution Service said: “This was a savage attack on a much-loved mother who was murdered in an act of terrifying senselessness – and we were determined to ensure the perpetrator was brought to justice.

“As we combed through the evidence collected by police it became apparent that at almost every turn Barclay made it his mission to deceive the investigation. He thought he was too cunning to be caught, but today’s verdict proves otherwise.

“By carefully building a case with DNA recovered from Anita’s belonging and sightings on CCTV – combined with previous bad character evidence against Barclay – we were able to present a clear picture to the jury.

“I hope today’s result provides some measure of solace to all those who knew and loved Anita, as they continue to mourn their loss.”

Building the case

Forensic Evidence:

With no eyewitnesses or CCTV directly at the scene of the attack, we relied on other forms of evidence to prove our case. This included mobile phone searches made by Barclay on the murder investigation and CCTV footage showing his attempts to dispose of her mobile phone. DNA forensics and material discovered at his camps located at Orwell Bridge and in Brantham also helped to link him not only to the scene but also confirmed that he was the person who had effectively kicked her to death.

Evading justice:

Barclay had already lived off-grid for two years whilst on the run from prison and he used his extensive skills, resources and determined state of mind to take a variety of steps to evade justice. Initially living life between two self-made and heavily concealed camps by the Orwell Bridge and in Brantham he was able to exist with minimal contact with others.

His actions included showering in a sewage works in the early hours of the morning, ordering necessary items to a dropbox, hardly using his mobile and bank account to reduce his digital footprint and changing his appearance. The police found lock picking kits and other items which would indicate self-sufficiency and an ability to remain on the run.

Bad character evidence:

Evidence of a defendant’s previous misconduct, such as earlier convictions, is known as bad character evidence and is not automatically admissible in court. The Crown Prosecution Service took the view that Barclay’s previous conviction for assault formed an important part of the case, and we successfully argued for this information to be presented to the jury.

While a defendant’s previous convictions are not always relevant to a prosecution, in this case the similarities between the attack on Anita Rose and the other offence committed by Barclay ten years earlier were significant and proved his propensity to act with unprovoked violence. Although the attack in 2015 was non-fatal, the victim was severely injured and whilst initially unable to move, his dog was tied to his leg via his lead and a similar action was taken after Barclay’s attack on Anita.