Steven Puaca's conviction was quashed by the appeal court earlier this month.

The judges said pathologist Dr Michael Heath's view that Mr Puaca's partner, Jacqueline Tindsley, was suffocated was not supported by the evidence.

In their written ruling on Thursday the judges expressed "strong criticism" of Dr Heath's evidence at the trial.

Seven pathologists said there was no pathological evidence to support Dr Heath's view.

'Strong criticism'

Mr Puaca, 38, from Lowestoft, was found guilty in November 2002 of murdering Miss Tindsley, 55, in March of that year.

Mr Puaca's defence was that his girlfriend died after taking a drug overdose and having a fit.

On 10 November the appeal court quashed Mr Puaca's conviction and freed him from his life sentence.

On Thursday in a written judgment Lord Justice Hooper and two other senior judges expressed their "strong criticism" of the "way in which" evidence was given during the trial by Dr Heath, who is facing disciplinary proceedings in connection with two cases, including that of Mr Puaca.

Prosecution witness Dr Heath, who had carried out a post-mortem examination on Miss Tindsley, stated that she had been smothered while on her bed.

But, two pathologists called by the defence advanced a possible cause of death as an overdose of drugs, possibly coupled with a fit.

'Strongly challenged evidence'

Lord Justice Hooper said: "They did not, however, rule out the possibility of smothering. But what they did say, and say most forcefully, was that there was no pathological evidence to support Dr Heath's view.

"They have subsequently had the backing of five further pathologists who either gave evidence before us at the request of the appellant or who provided reports which were before us."

He added: "Those pathologists said that they would not have given suffocation as the cause of death. They strongly challenged a number of matters on which Dr Heath relied in order to reach his conclusion."

Lord Justice Hooper said it was a case "in which the evidence at trial, the manner in which the trial proceeded and the fresh evidence which we have received leave us wholly satisfied that the conviction must be regarded as unsafe".