A BRADFORD criminal serving a life term for his part in a savage murder a decade ago has failed in his bid to force a new appeal against his conviction.

Great-grandad and businessman, Edward Simpson, 56, was battered to death during a planned robbery at his home in August 2008.

A gang of robbers from Leeds were enlisted to rob him in his home, but the raid turned violent and his body was dumped in woodland.

Anthony Davies, 37, was an “organiser” of the robbery, but was convicted alongside the killers of the murder of Mr Simpson.

He was jailed for life, with at least 35 years to serve, at Bradford Crown Court in August 2009.

Davies, of Low Moor, lost an appeal in 2010 and the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) last year refused to let him have another go.

But, in October, the killer took his case to the High Court in London in a bid to force the CCRC to refer his case to the Court of Appeal.

His lawyers claimed the body - which investigates miscarriages of justice - was “irrational” in refusing to put his case before appeal judges.

His conviction was a “substantial injustice” because, although he planned the robbery, Davies did not plan on violence being used, it was argued.

The victim had been known as a “shiverer”, someone who would not resist if confronted and hand over the loot.

But Mr Simpson did resist when attacked at his home in Laisterdyke, leading to the brutal assault by the robbers which caused his death. His body was found in the grounds of a former nursing home off Huddersfield Road, Wyke.

Davies had not intended for any of that to happen, his lawyers insisted.

Returning to court to deliver judgment, Lord Justice Irwin said the CCRC was not wrong in rejecting Davies’ bid for a new appeal.

“It is very far from the facts to suggest...that there was a ‘plan’ here to proceed with the robbery, but without violence,” he said.

“There is all the difference in the world between planning to proceed without violence and planning to proceed and to use violence only if need be.

“In my view, there is every indication here that such was the plan.”

He continued: “I see no realistic prospect of another outcome from a retrial on the same evidence. I see no sensible basis on which this conviction should be regarded as unsafe, let alone constituting substantial injustice.”

He said the CCRC decision not to send the case back for another appeal was not irrational.