- .David McGreavy murdered three children he was babysitting in 1973
- .He is currently living in closed conditions in a vulnerable prisoners' unit
- .Was put in open prison in 1994 but returned to main prison for his own safety
- .Moved from prison to bail hostel in 2006 but jailed again for his own safety
- .Applied for parole several times since 2009 when gagging order was first imposed but he was told he would have to stay in prison
Pictured during day release from prison in 2006, child killer David McGreavy can be named after a High Court order
A triple-child killer dubbed the Monster of Worcester can today be revealed as the prisoner who tried to use human rights laws to conceal his bid for freedom.
Murderer David McGreavy secured a gagging order in January which prevented him being named by the media.
But today, the judge quashed that ruling after a legal challenge by the Press which revealed the monster’s request to move to an open prison from the closed jail where he is currently placed.
The 62-year-old is considered to be one of the UK's most notorious and longest-serving prisoners after killing the children of Dorothy Urry.
He was lodging with the family in 1973 and was babysitting them when nine-month-old Samantha Ralph began crying for her bottle.
He strangled her then cut the throat of her sister, Dawn, two, before also strangling her four-year-old brother, Paul.
The children were then mutilated before being impaled on railings outside the house.
The Mail led the legal challenge against the anonymity order – which would have kept the public entirely in the dark about the monster’s bid for freedom.
But in a victory for the Daily Mail and Press freedom we can now reveal details of McGreavy's request to be moved to an open prison - one step from being free on our streets.
Mrs Urry, 62, today said he should never be freed, adding that she still grieves for her lost children every day.
'I am glad about (the decision),' she said. 'I am very pleased. That is what I wanted.
'Why should it be kept a secret. I am just coming to terms with it.
"I went to (Sir George Young) the local MP and he wrote up for me about the Human Rights business.
'What human Rights does he have? I do not get any human rights so what human rights does he have?'
The Mail led the legal challenge against the anonymity order – which would have kept the public entirely in the dark about the monster’s bid for freedom.
Paul (left), Dawn (right) and Samantha (centre) were murdered by David McGreavy in 1973
A picture from the time shows the scene where the bodies of Paul, four, Dawn, two, and nine-month-old Samantha Ralph were found after being impaled on railings
Justice Secretary Chris Grayling supported the Mail’s challenge. Today he said: 'I welcome the Court's decision. This is a clear victory for open justice.
'The public has every right to know when serious offenders are taking legal action on matters which relate to their imprisonment.'
Counsel to the Press Guy Vassall-Adams told the court that 'the full facts are exceptionally horrific by even the standard of murders.'
The order restricted the media to saying they were 'three sadistic murders - but that doesn't even give you the half of it', said Mr Vassall-Adams.
HOW THE MONSTER OF WORCESTER SHOCKED THE NATION
The sheer brutality of the murders carried out by David McGreavy shocked and horrified the nation.
To this day, 40 years on, his crimes remain some of the most horrific of modern day killings.
McGreavy murdered three children in Gillam Street, Rainbow Hill, Worcester, then impaled their bodies on railings.
The youngsters - Paul Ralph, four, and his sisters Dawn, two, and nine-month-old Samantha were all killed in different ways.
When nine-month-old Samantha Ralph began crying for her bottle, he strangled her.
He cut the throat of her sister, Dawn, two, before strangling her four-year-old brother, Paul.
He then impaled them on the spikes of a neighbour's metal fence.
They were the children of Dorothy Urry, who now lives in Andover, Hampshire.
McGreavy, who was lodging with the tots' parents, was babysitting in April 1973 when he carried out the killings, earning him the title Monster of Worcester.
He was jailed for life for the children's murders in 1973.
Mr Vassall-Adams told the judges McGreavy's lawyers were arguing the case was about 'whether the media should be allowed to imperil (McGreavy's) life or scupper his chances of rehabilitation'.
He said those arguments really applied to a different type of case in which individuals - like Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, who killed James Bulger - were provided with a new identity and there were injunctions against the media aimed at protecting them from being attacked while living in the community.
'The injunction protects confidential information, which is the new identities. It doesn't prevent the media reporting what is already public,' said Mr Vassall-Adams.
McGreavy had already been in prison 40 years serving multiple life sentences and there was no imminent prospect of him being released - 'furthermore his identity has not only been public but received massive previous publicity'.
Anyone interested in finding out about his crimes could do so by a click of a button on the internet, Mr Vassall-Adams said.
Not allowing the nature of his victims to be identified 'masked' what the case was about, which was the Parole Board's refusal to recommend that he was fit for open conditions.
'Understanding the nature of the victims and the terrible treatment meted out to them gives a completely different complexion to this whole case,' Mr Vassall-Adams said.
Today Lord Justice Pitchford, sitting in London with Mr Justice Simon, ruled the anonymity order must be discharged.
The judge said that the course adopted by McGreavy's legal advisers when applying for anonymity was 'wrong'. Lord Justice Pitchford said: 'This has been frankly accepted by them.'
The High Court heard McGreavy has now served 18 years in excess of his 20-year tariff - the minimum term he had to serve to meet the demands of retribution and deterrence. Post-tariff, it is for the Parole Board to deem whether it is safe to release him.
But it has become clear that publicity surrounding McGreavy is affecting the parole process and is a key reason, along with fears for his safety, why a cloak of anonymity was first thrown round McGreavy as long ago as 2009.
His counsel Quincy Whitaker told the court that naming him would be in breach of Article Two of the Human Rights Act - the right to life - put him in danger from other prison inmates and he had already been the victim of a serious assault.
He had previously spent two years in an open prison until 'hostile media coverage' led to him being returned to closed conditions 'for his own safety'.
Ms Whitaker said the triple killings were 'notorious', but no concerns had been subsequently raised about his behaviour.
There were 'more than reasonable grounds' for believing that a fair parole hearing could mean him being returned to open conditions, which was a pre-requisite for release from custody.
A police officer stands guard outside the house in Gillam Street, Worcester, where McGreavy was a lodger and scene of the murder of the children
McGreavy was first transferred to category D open conditions as long ago as 1994, but the transfer to Leyhill Prison in south Gloucestershire broke down after other inmates learned of his offence.
He was subsequently returned to Category C closed prison conditions, though he retained Category D status.
Since then he has launched a series of bids to win parole. In February 2009 he unsuccessfully challenged the Home Secretary's decision that he must remain in Category C conditions while undertaking further assessments and work.
FROM HUNTER TO HUNTED
1973: David McGreavy murders the three children of the family he is lodging with
1975: He is the victim of a serious assault in prison
1978: Threatened with violence
1991: Prison cell fouled by other inmates just four days after he goes into closed conditions
1994: Threatened with violence after press reports
1995: Several prisoners try to attack him in an open prison but their plan is thwarted
1996: Victim of another serious assault while serving in the general prison population
2005: Threatened with violence after press reports
2006: Pictured in Liverpool where he was visiting a hostel from Ford Open Prison
2009: Unsuccessfully fought Home Secretary's decision that he must remain in Category C prison but was given anonymity order that lasted until today
January 2013: Keeps anonymity as he applies to be moved to an open prison
May 22, 2013: Anonymity order overturned
The 2009 bid was rejected by Mr Justice Silber - but it was during that case that the judge made the anonymity order that has shielded his identity until today.
McGreavy is currently living in closed conditions in a vulnerable prisoners' unit.
Lord Justice Pitchford described in his ruling how McGreavy was the victim of a serious assault in 1975, and then again in 1996, while serving his sentence within the general prison population.
An attempt was made by several prisoners to attack him in May 1995 while he was in an open prison but the attempt was thwarted.
In January 1991 his cell was fouled when he had been back in closed conditions for only four days.
He was threatened with violence in 1978 and 1994.
The judge said: 'Threats of violence or a risk of violence appeared to have been precipitated by press reports in 1994, 1996 and 2005.
'On only one of those occasions was an assault committed.'
The judge held out the possibility that in future McGreavy could be allowed a change of name to protect him.
The judge said McGreavy's ninth parole review was under way, with August 1 the target date for a hearing, though it was 'doubtful' that date would be met.
If it was, and there was a recommendation that he be returned to open conditions, it was improbable that could occur before October, said the judge.
If he did go back to open conditions the board review would have to consider steps that could be taken to protect him - 'they might include a change of name'.
McGREAVY TRIED TO USE THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS
In their attempt to keep his name anonymous, McGreavy's lawyers cited the 1998 Human Rights Act.
McGreavy's Quincy Whitaker told the judge there was 'a serious likelihood of a serious attack' on McGreavy if his identity were revealed.
She argued this would infringe his rights under the 1998 Human Rights Act to not have his life endangered or be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment.
The Act says: 'Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.'
The application was made by the man's lawyer, Quincy Whitaker.
Mr Whitaker argued that, under the Human Rights Act, he has a duty to be protected from ill-treatment.
A senior politician, who represented the family of the killer's victims, told the Daily Mail: 'People will be outraged to find out that his case is being held in secret. It is hardly a way for the public to be reassured that the justice system is on their side and not that of the criminals.'
No comments:
Post a Comment