A UK coroner has found that a New Zealand man murdered his wife for financial gain, despite his earlier acquittal on a criminal murder charge for the same death - a case that shows how life insurance beneficiary disputes can continue, and be decided differently, even after a failed criminal prosecution.
Paula Leeson, 47, drowned in a swimming pool at a remote holiday cottage in Denmark on June 6, 2017, during a trip booked by her husband, Donald McPherson. Before her death, McPherson had taken out about £3.5 million (NZ$8 million) in life insurance cover on her.
McPherson was charged with her murder, but in 2021 a judge at Manchester Crown Court directed a not guilty verdict, ruling there was insufficient evidence for the case to proceed to the jury after prosecutors were unable to rule out the possibility that Leeson had fallen or entered the pool accidentally.
That criminal acquittal did not end the matter. Leeson's family pursued separate civil proceedings to stop McPherson benefiting financially from her death, including from her life insurance policies, her estate, and jointly held assets. In September 2024, the UK High Court found - on the civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities, rather than the higher criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt - that McPherson had deliberately and unlawfully killed Leeson. Justice Richard Smith said: "His motive for killing Paula was clear - money."
That civil ruling applied the forfeiture rule, under which a person who unlawfully kills another can be prevented from acquiring a benefit as a result of the killing. The court blocked McPherson from certain joint-life insurance policies and from Leeson's £4.4 million (NZ$10 million) estate, and removed him as trustee of separate LV and Scottish Widows life insurance policy trusts, replacing him with Leeson's son.
The inquest into Leeson's death, delayed for years by the criminal trial and the civil proceedings, has now reached the same conclusion as the 2024 civil ruling. Senior Coroner Alison Mutch told Stockport Coroner's Court that McPherson, who was in debt at the time, was the only person who stood to benefit from Leeson's death. "I am therefore satisfied he did murder his wife," Mutch said. "Her death occurred because her husband compressed her neck to render her unconscious, causing her body to enter the pool, causing her to drown, to financially benefit from her death. Her death was as a result of an unlawful killing."
For insurance brokers and other life insurance professionals, the case is a clear illustration of why a criminal acquittal does not automatically preserve a beneficiary's rights to an insurance payout. A criminal court must be sure of guilt before convicting; a civil court, or a coroner's inquest, can reach a finding of unlawful killing on the lower balance-of-probabilities standard. McPherson's 2021 acquittal addressed only whether he could be criminally convicted - it never resolved, and could not resolve, whether he was entitled to benefit from Leeson's insurance and estate. That question was decided separately, years later, in the civil courts.
Court records show McPherson had arranged multiple policies on Leeson's life, and other reporting on the case indicates he took out seven life insurance policies on her in total. The 2024 civil proceedings specifically identified £2.99 million of cover under joint-life policies, alongside the separate LV and Scottish Widows policies written in trust; those figures reflect the policies actually litigated in that case rather than necessarily the full extent of cover McPherson held. The High Court found McPherson had made claims against the joint-life policies following Leeson's death and had attempted to use his position as trustee to benefit from the LV and Scottish Widows proceeds intended for Leeson's son.
The insurance arrangements had become an issue even before the civil ruling. Nine insurers - Scottish Widows, Countrywide Assured, Vitality Life Insurance, LV, Aviva, Zurich, AIG, Aegon and Royal London - were interested parties in a 2023 High Court case concerning what evidence the coroner should consider ahead of the inquest. The court records said the insurers had provided life policies relating to Leeson and that written submissions from the insurers supported a challenge to the original scope of the inquest.
At the inquest, Detective Chief Inspector Daniel Clegg of Greater Manchester Police testified that he had "no doubt this was a homicide." Asked by Sophie Cartwright KC, representing Leeson's family, whether his firm belief was that McPherson had murdered Leeson, Clegg replied: "That's correct. Donald McPherson had backed himself into a financial crisis and the only way out was with the death of his wife." McPherson had previously been convicted over a £12 million fraud in Germany in 2006.
The inquest heard that a further murder trial would require compelling new evidence. Leeson's family is continuing to pursue a retrial and hopes material recovered from an old laptop belonging to McPherson could "get them over the line for a retrial." McPherson, believed to be living in New Zealand, has maintained he had no involvement in his wife's death and has previously described it as a "tragic accident." He has not been convicted of murder, and the coroner's finding, like the 2024 civil ruling, does not amount to a criminal conviction.
For insurers and their claims teams, the case is a reminder that a criminal acquittal doesn't close the question of whether a beneficiary can lawfully collect. Where a criminal case ends in acquittal or doesn't proceed, but suspicion around a policyholder's death remains, insurers may still need to weigh parallel or prospective civil forfeiture proceedings, which apply a lower evidentiary bar, before finalising payment to that beneficiary.
