Husband 'strangled wife in his sleep after stopping his medication to enjoy an intimate camper van holiday'

By Luke Salkeld
<http://www.network54.com/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Luke+Salkeld>
Last updated at 3:24 PM on 18th November 2009

* Add to My Stories
<http://www.network54.com/news/article-1228609/Husband-killed-wife-dream\
-tackling-burglar.html>

A devoted husband who allegedly strangled his wife as he dreamed he was
fighting off an intruder had stopped taking tablets so he could enjoy
sex while on holiday, a court heard today.

Brian Thomas stopped taking anti-depressants so he could enjoy intimate
nights with his wife Christine, 57, while they were on holiday in their
camper van.

But in the night Thomas, who suffers from a chronic sleep disorder known
as automatism, killed his childhood sweetheart as he slept.
Enlarge [Brian Thomas is accused of murdering his wife Christine, as
he slept]
<http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/17/article-1228609-0740CF1E00000\
5DC-289_468x483_popup.jpg>
Sleep disorder: The court was told Brian Thomas was not in control of
his actions when he killed Christine

Today Paul Skett, an expert in prescription drugs, told Swansea Crown
Court that the defendant was taking three separate drugs to combat
depression and hand tremors.

He said that Thomas had stopped taking them as he believed they affected
'his performance in bed'.

The court heard the couple slept in separate rooms at home but were
'intimate' while on holiday, when they shared a bed in their camper van.

Dr Skett said Thomas would have experienced nightmares after coming off
the drugs he was taking.

He said: 'The anti-depressant should be slowly withdrawn, over at least
two weeks.

'Withdrawal will cause some sleep disturbances, most notably very vivid
dreams during withdrawal.'

Dr Skett told the jury that one of the effects of hand tremor drugs is
to inhibit rapid eye movement sleep which is associated with dreaming.

He said: 'With withdrawal you get a rebound effect where the individual
suffers more rapid eye movement and more dreaming.

'These can be very vivid and take the form of nightmares.'

Thomas was also taking tablets for high blood pressure which he carried
on taking.

The jury also heard strands of Thomas's hair showed he may have stopped
taking the drugs up to two months before he killed his wife.

Elwen Evans, QC, defending, said: 'Mr Thomas tells us that when he and
his wife went on holiday he stopped taking his anti-depressants and a
drug for the symptoms of Parkinson's Disease.

'He did this because they were sleeping together - they were intimate
together - in a way they weren't when they were in their separate
bedroms at home.'

In a highly unusual move, prosecutors have agreed that although Brian
Thomas killed his wife Christine, they will not seek a guilty verdict
because he was not in control of his actions.

Both prosecution and defence say he did not intend to kill her and are
arguing for different 'not guilty' verdicts.

If the jury finds in favour of the prosecution he could be sent to a
secure mental unit, but if they favour the defence he will go free.

Elwen Evans, defending, said today that the family treated Thomas's
sleep disorders as 'something of a family joke without realising the
potential seriousness."'.

The jury was told Thomas suffered from sleepwalking since a child but
had never sought medical help.

Miss Evans, said: 'In fairness to Mr Thomas he had never been diagnosed
with a sleep disorder prior to these events.

'It had never been explained to home that there was any risk of him
doing anything while asleep.'

But the jury was told Thomas is now a broken man because he is
responsible for the death of his wife.

Elwen Evans, defending, said: 'He is deemed to pose a risk of suicide.

'His realisation of what has happened led to him being detained under
the Mental Health Act. He spent some time in a psychiatric ward as a
detained patient because of the risk it was felt he posed to himself.'

Yesterday Thomas wept as a recording was played of the 999 call he made
just minutes later.

In the call, which was timed at 3.49am, he can be heard crying: 'What
have I done? I've been trying to wake her.

'I think I've killed my wife. Oh my God. I thought someone had broken
in.'

Minutes later, when police arrived at the scene to find the
father-of-two crying and shaking, he told them: 'She's my world.'

He then said that he and Christine had been disturbed by a group of 'boy
racers' performing driving stunts near where their motor home was
parked.
[how the law sees it]
Prosecutor Paul Thomas QC said Mr Thomas later 'became convinced that
one of these youths had broken into the van and a fight erupted in which
he grabbed one of them in an arm lock.

'But it must have been a dream because there turned out to be no
intruders and the person he had seized by the throat was his wife.'

He added: 'The defendant accepts he caused the death of his wife, but
the prosecution do not seek a verdict of guilty to murder or
manslaughter.

'Instead, very unusually, we seek what is called a special verdict - a
verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.'

Swansea Crown Court heard that Mr and Mrs Thomas were a 'happy, devoted
couple who enjoyed going away in their camper van'. They had two
grown-up daughters.

But the jury was told that 'for the best part of 50 years Thomas had
been prone to episodes of sleepwalking and other sleep-disorder
behaviours'.

Detectives were initially sceptical when Thomas claimed he had been
asleep.

But scientists specialising in sleep disorders conducted a series of
tests and agreed his behaviour was consistent with the 'legal concept of
automatism'.

The barrister said: 'In other words, at the time of the killing the
defendant was asleep and his mind had no control over what his body was
doing.'

He stressed that this did not mean that Mr Thomas was insane in the
'everyday sense of the word'.

'This was a case of insane automatism - because the sleeping disorder
the defendant had suffered from since childhood was 'part of him' and
not something that could be cured,' he said.

It is for this reason, he said, that the prosecution is seeking the
particular verdict.

[Aberporth Beach.jpg]
The couple often went on jaunts in their camper van and had driven 60
miles to the seaside village of Aberporth, Cardiganshire (pictured)

But Mr Thomas's defence team claim he was affected by ' non-insane
automatism' brought on by the stress of the boy racer youths in the car
park.

The couple, from Neath, South Wales, often went on jaunts in their
two-berth white Peugeot camper van and had driven 60 miles to the
seaside village of Aberporth, Cardiganshire, on July 26 last year.

They had been due to go on a luxury Mediterranean cruise to celebrate
their 40th wedding anniversary shortly.

That evening they were seen enjoying a meal together in a local pub. Mr
Thomas had stopped taking some of his medication before they went on
holiday, the court heard.

Elwen Evans, QC, defending, said: 'Mr Thomas tells us that when he and
his wife went on holiday he stopped taking his antidepressants and a
drug he was taking for the symptoms of Parkinson's Disease.'

He continued to take tablets for his high blood pressure, however.

'Dream killer' cleared of murder [Brian and Christine Thomas]

The couple were together for 40 years and had two daughters
A husband who killed his wife while he said he had a dream about an
intruder has been cleared of her murder.

Brian Thomas, 59, admitted killing Christine, 57, in their camper van,
but blamed his rare sleep disorder.

He was discharged after the judge told the jury to return a not guilty
verdict at Swansea Crown Court after the death at Aberporth, Ceredigion.

He told Mr Thomas, of Neath, that "in the eyes of the law you bear no
responsibility for the events".

Mr Thomas's brother Raymond, speaking on the court steps, said: "This is
absolutely wonderful.

"This is the right decision. Justice has prevailed."

The case was described as "highly unusual" by prosecuting barrister Paul
Thomas.
[http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif]
[http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif] This is
the right decision. Justice has prevailed
[http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif]
Raymond Thomas, brother
Jurors were told at the start of the trial that they could reach only
two verdicts for the murder charge - not guilty, or not guilty by reason
of insanity.

The court heard that tests commissioned by both the prosecution and the
defence were carried out on Mr Thomas as he slept following his claims
of a sleep disorder.

Both sleep experts agreed his behaviour was consistent with automatism,
which meant at the time he killed his wife, his mind had no control over
what his body was doing.

But the jury has been told there are two types of automatism: insane
automatism and non-insane automatism, which they will have to decide
between for their verdict.

In court on Friday morning, however, the prosecution told the jury that
it was no longer seeking a special verdict of not guilty by reason of
insanity and that there would be no purpose in sending Mr Thomas to a
psychiatric hospital.

'Not a risk'

Mr Thomas described how Mr Thomas killed his wife, his childhood
sweetheart to whom who he was married to for 40 years, because he had
dreamt she was a man who had broken into their motor home.

The court heard how Mr and Mrs Thomas, who had two daughters, had gone
on holiday in their camper van in July 2008 and stayed the night at a
vehicle park in Aberporth.

A group of younger people turned up at the car park after they had gone
to bed, and the screeching of brakes and tyres - described in court as
"boy racer activity" - disturbed the couple, who moved from the site's
lower to its higher car park.

The prosecution said that at 0349 the next morning, Mr Thomas made a 999
call, which was later played to the court, in which he said he had
killed his wife because he had mistaken her for an intruder in a dream.

He said he had dreamt he was fighting one of the boy racers.

The court heard that the daughters said their father had been prone to
episodes of sleepwalking, during which he had been known sometimes to
act strangely.

During the trial a psychiatrist for the prosecution, Dr Caroline Jacob,
said she did not think he posed a risk and should walk free.