Ruth Ellis, last woman hanged in UK, granted posthumous conditional pardon

[IwantToRetire]

Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be hanged in the UK, has been granted a conditional pardon in light of evidence that she was a victim of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour.

Ellis was executed in 1955, aged 28, after she shot and killed her partner, David Blakely, whom she met two years earlier while working in the nightclub she managed.

The application for a pardon was brought by four of Ellis’s grandchildren who said her responsibility was profoundly shaped by domestic abuse, trauma and circumstances that were never properly recognised at her trial.

On Wednesday, the deputy prime minister and justice secretary, David Lammy, announced in parliament that, on his advice, King Charles had granted Ellis a conditional pardon.

It reflects the fact that, had the case been heard today, it is possible partial defences of loss of control or diminished responsibility could have been put before a jury. If accepted, they might have reduced her conviction from murder to manslaughter.

Full article https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026/jul/08/ruth-ellis-last-woman-hanged-uk-posthumous-conditional-pardon

Ruth Ellis was a murderer. She doesn’t deserve a pardon

As a grounds of excusing murder, this is somewhat dangerous, and rather demeaning to women. Apart from the fact that she clearly appears to have been a woman with a will of her own, however many mistakes she made (and she managed, after all, to divorce an abusive husband, divorce not being easy in 1951), the argument could be applied to untold thousands of women in Britain – alas, as I know from having listened to the stories of hundreds of them myself in a British hospital. None of them shot their abusers, however, and most managed in time to escape them, though they often found someone similar.

Telegraph article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/08/ruth-ellis-murderer-doesnt-deserve-pardon/

Also in full at https://archive.is/c6lZD

Press comment - Centre for Women's Justice

Centre for Women’s Justice (CWJ) welcomes the decision to grant a posthumous conditional pardon to Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be executed by the British state just over 70 years ago. We pay tribute to her grandchildren who have fought for this important outcome on her behalf. In making this announcement, the government has accepted that Ruth Ellis’ actions were “profoundly shaped” by the abuse and trauma she experienced, and argue that if the trial had occurred under modern law, she could have put forward partial defences of loss of control or diminished responsibility and benefited from an ‘improved understanding’ of the impact of domestic abuse, including coercive control.

Sadly, under the current law it is very possible that Ruth Ellis would still have been convicted of murder. CWJ is working with more than 30 women who are victims of domestic abuse who have killed their abuser and been convicted of murder in circumstances very similar to hers. Evidence of domestic abuse and coercive control is still not well understood or properly applied by the courts in these cases. The only difference between then and now is that we don't have the death penalty.

Evidence relating to the defence of loss of control is that it is almost completely unavailable for victims of domestic abuse who kill their abuser, and requires urgent reform. Likewise very few women in such circumstances can access self defence as our research shows. The Law Commission are currently undertaking a consultation on reforms to the Homicide Laws, which includes looking at much needed reforms to ensure there are effective defences to murder for victims of domestic abuse who kill their abuser.

She might still have been convicted of murder but she would hardly have received a custodial sentence today, let alone the death penalty.

That is good news.

Good. If you don't want to get killed, don't abuse people. It's not actually our job to judge people or punish them. Who gave solicitors and judges the right? God? Something in their blood? If that woman were an actual danger to society then fair enough, get her out of the country (or kill her..?) but this bloodthirsty need for punishment is bizarre. A dangerous man was removed from society. I'm not sad about that.

You can't 'prove' it's wrong to kill people, you just don't want to live in a society where that happens (neither do I). Let's move away from punishment and look to prevent. How can we prevent men (and women) from abusing their partners.

I'd like to see a pardon for poor Edith Thompson (Bywaters and Thompson). She didn't kill anyone. She was judged on her adultery, and dragged drugged and weeping to the gallows.

This is long overdue

Agree @FizzingAda; absolutely

I understand Ruth Ellis had been a victim of abuse (sexual ??) throughout her life and was traumatised by that but what exactly did David Blakely do to justify being shot?

I think I read he was unfaithful, but it can't just be that.

He beat her up and may have caused her at one time to have a miscarriage.

What on earth are the conditions?

Who gave judges the right to judge people? Well it's literally their job!

If you want to live in a country with a justice system, we need people to fulfil these roles.

Unfortunately these people are only human and prone to the same mistakes as the rest of us. Thankfully there are more checks and balances and oversight than there used to be, and poor decisions can be challenged.

Their relationship was toxic and obsessive. Blakely beat and abused her consistently throughout, punched her in the stomach so she miscarried - and if I remember correctly, it was not long after the miscarriage that she killed him and there's a question mark over her state of mind, even though it was premeditated. So yes, he was cheating, but it isn't 'just' cheating, it was a compounded and highly toxic situation.

I seem to recall, though, that there is also some murk about her friendship/relationship with his jealous rival Desmond Cullen, supposedly on her side, who may have encouraged Ruth and I believe bought her the gun she shot Blakely with. And then scarpered once she was convicted and hung. There's definitely more suspicion on his role these days in encouraging Ruth and what was going on there than there used to be.

I don't see it as a pardon in the traditional sense, because that it just a posthumous change in the sentence that should have been given.

I do think it will mean something to the family to have official recognition that she should not have had the death penalty.

Yes. I mean, not much help to her now, is it, but it will give the family some comfort as it was highly controversial at the time, even.

There were appeals for clemency even back then, and the judge (Nigel Havers' grandfather) wasn't particularly happy about having to pass the death sentence on her, from what NH has said, it played on his mind for the rest of his life and he even contributed to funds for her kids, but the Home Secretary (Gwilym Lloyd George) had refused all calls for clemency so that was that.

I don't agree with this being a good thing, sorry.

I don't think, horrible as it is, that someone being abusive to you in the past is excuse for murder. Just the same as I don't accept the 'mental torture' excuse from men who have killed their wives after discovering adultery.

It is different if it is active self defence and they are attempting to harm/kill you.

Women shouldn't be infantalised. We all have the power to walk away from abusive men and choose differently.

Women shouldn't be infantalised. We all have the power to walk away from abusive men and choose differently

I don't think you have much understanding of abusive relationships. Some women will be able to walk away. Many, many more won't. You are victim blaming.

It's not letting her off murder though - it's saying she'd have been sentenced to life imprisonment rather than hanged. There were extenuating circumstances, and that's the whole point with coercive abusive relationships - it's not as simple as just "walking away".

What a total nonsense.

We're officially saying: 'Yes she did a murder but no she shouldn't have been killed, only sentenced to life in prison'.

We don't have the death penalty anymore. Literally every person who has been killed by the state for a crime would not have been sentenced to death had they done their crime today.

Performative gibberish. Stop trying to right perceived wrongs of the past that have no bearing on today. Instead, right the wrongs of today.

Let's start off with the BBC apologising to every terf they've traduced in the last decade.

Then you would be thinking wrong. Unless you have also escaped an abusive relationship?

What helped was support to see that it was in the end all down to me. No one else could make the decision for me. I was the one with the power to walk away, I didn't have to stay and put up with what he was doing to me. The final say so was always mine.

I was the one convincing myself it was love, because I was desperately afraid that no one else would want me. Because he had ground me down so far I thought I deserved to be treated that way.

And despite the demonic things that man did, I still don't believe I would have the right to go back and kill him after.

I think there’s a real danger amongst all the “Well I was forced to sleep on a bed of nails and I still wouldn’t hurt a fly so I’m better than her and she deserved to be hanged” that people are making the horrible logical error of thinking that there is a “right” way to be an abuse victim. I thought we had moved on from that internalised misogyny and certainly would hope so on FWR! This is also what I think of the Telegraph article.

The only thing that stopped me killing my abusive parent as a teen was the knowledge that if I went to prison for murder they would have won and my adult life would be over as well as having lost my childhood to the fucker. If I’d been more impulsive during my final escape when the parent was actively trying to kill me with their bare hands, I can’t say for sure what might have happened. But society doesn’t like women to be angry, we’re supposed to take every abuse and violation and keep being polite and kind little lambs. People are all different.

I have far more understanding than I'd like of abusive relationships, put it that way. I am very glad you escaped.

Another case of society today trying to make itself feel better by rewriting history.

What happened, happened. She will not be brought back from the dead, it changes nothing. As a society we have to learn that our forebearers did stuff we don't agree with today, and have to learn to live with it and to learn and make sure it doesn't happen in the future.

Much easier for the government to focus on historical injustices, rather than focusing on the injustices people face today, particularly with their decision to restrict access to trail by jury.

This conditional pardon is long overdue and has moved me greatly. I remember my family talking about her in the 60’s/70’s and how wrong it was to execute her. Ruth Ellis suffered a lifetime of trauma in very different days - this trauma and execution clearly affected her children and grandchildren greatly - the very definition of generational trauma it seems.
I hope that this gives them some peace.
May Ruth and her children Rest In Peace.

Nobody is re-writing history.

It is a campaign that said had this happened today, thanks to the ground breaking word done by women's rights activists on coercive control, she would have been judged differently.

Just as the Government has only recently apologised to single mothers.

It acknowledging that we now do have different standards. Some of which are that the inherently patriarchal society we live in means that women have and still are subjected to male dominance.

Really strange that on a feminist forum some seem to want to argue against the campaigning work of women's rights activists.

https://womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/coercive-control/

https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-intimate-or-family-relationship

https://safelives.org.uk/about-domestic-abuse/what-is-domestic-abuse/coercive-control/

https://refuge.org.uk/i-need-help-now/coercive-control/

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6267c429e90e0716982a3250/ContCoerBehavStatGuid_V3-10-04-22.pdf

Thank you for this shocking and shameful information.

While this decision about Ruth Ellis is very good news and may help her poor family heal, it is effectively a somewhat empty gesture if the current state of the law is not improved very soon.

The fact that this organisation is currently dealing with 30 women who have killed their husbands means the Telegraph is wrong in what they say re R E does not deserve a pardon…..other abused women don’t kill their husbands etc

Yes.. someone told them they had that job. Why is that more valid than telling yourself you have the job? Who authorised the hangman to murder people? Just someone else saying it was fine? We're heavily institutionalised and conditioned so it's difficult to grasp at first: it's all backwards. Only the person or victim affected has any genuine claim to justice and so logically, anyone else locking someone away for life is just kidnapping and false imprisonment.

I do agree we need social order but not in its current form.