This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/triple-child-killer-david-mcgreavy-named

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Triple child killer David McGreavy can be named, high court judges rule Triple child killer David McGreavy can be named, high court judges rule
(about 3 hours later)
The high court has overturned an order granting anonymity to a killer who committed "exceptionally horrific crimes". An anonymity order preventing the naming of one of Britain's most notorious child killers as David McGreavy has been lifted by the high court.
The murderer known as "M" can now be publicly revealed as triple child killer David McGreavy, who impaled the bodies of his victims on railings. McGreavy, now 62, has spent the past 40 years in prison after being jailed in 1973 for the murders of three infant children in Worcester.
McGreavy, now 62, was jailed for life in 1973 for killing the children he was babysitting at a house in Gillam Street, Worcester, and is one of the country's most notorious and longest-serving prisoners. He killed four-year-old Paul Ralph, and his sisters Dawn, aged two, and nine-month-old Samantha, while he was babysitting when he was a lodger at the house. He left their bodies impaled on the iron railings of a neighbour's fence. The only explanation he gave for the murders was that Samantha would not stop crying.
The gagging order was made in response to fears that the killer's own life was in danger. The anonymity order was lifted after a concerted press challenge by the Daily Mail, the Mirror and the Sun, after being alerted by the Press Association, and which had the backing of the justice secretary, Chris Grayling.
The justice secretary, Chris Grayling, and media organisations argued the anonymity order was legally flawed and wrongly prevented the public from knowing the full facts of the case. The news blackout on naming McGreavy was first imposed in 2009 when a parole board decision not to recommend his transfer to an open prison was challenged in the high court.
The order restricted the media to saying that they were "three sadistic murders – but that doesn't even give you the half of it", said Vassall-Adams. "The full facts are exceptionally horrific by even the standard of murders." At the time, the then justice secretary supported the ban, which was imposed because of fears that publicity about the "monster of Worcester" would put him in danger from other prisoners and disrupt the parole process.
The sheer brutality of the murders shocked and horrified the nation. The youngsters – Paul Ralph, four, and his sisters Dawn, two, and nine-month-old Samantha – were all killed in different ways. Paul had been strangled, Dawn was found with her throat cut, and Samantha died from a compound fracture to the skull. But Lord Justice Pitchford and Mr Justice Simon have ruled that the gagging order should now be discharged. They said in their ruling that while renewed hostility from other prisoners was likely to follow fresh media reporting, there was no real and immediate threat to his life. McGreavy is currently segregated in a vulnerable prisoners' unit where he is closely monitored. He has spent much of his sentence in such units because of the danger to his safety on ordinary prison wings.
McGreavy, who was lodging with the victims' parents, was babysitting in April 1973 when he carried out the killings, earning him the title, the Monster of Worcester. He impaled the bodies on the spiked garden railings of the next-door neighbour in Gillam Street. McGreavy was given multiple life sentences with a minimum term of 20 years. He has been repeatedly attacked and threatened with violence in prison. In 1991, at Channings Wood prison in Devon his bed was soaked in urine and his cell and property smeared with excrement after only four days on a general wing.
He was jailed for life in 1973. In 1996, he was assaulted by prisoners after a Daily Mirror article about him. In December 2005, efforts to resettle him in a bail hostel supported by the then justice secretary were brought to an immediate halt after a frontpage article in the Sun.
Lord Justice Pitchford, sitting in London with Mr Justice Simon, ruled on Wednesday that the anonymity order must be discharged. McGreavy was first considered suitable for an open prison 23 years ago. He has fully co-operated with the rehabilitation process and spent much of his time as an artist. The high court ruling states that he has shown a fine ability as an artist.
The judge said that the course adopted by McGreavy's legal advisers when applying for anonymity was wrong. The challenge to the gagging order by the media, supported by the justice secretary, argued it was legally flawed and wrongly prevented the public from knowing the full facts of the case. The Press Association had previously warned the high court that allowing anonymity in this case would set a precedent for other high-profile prisoners to seek similar orders.
Lord Justice Pitchford said: "This has been frankly accepted by them." Guy Vassall-Adams, counsel for the press, told the court that full facts of the case were exceptionally horrific even by the standards of murders, yet the order restricted the media from stating that there were three sadistic murders. "That doesn't even give you the half of it," said Vassall-Adams.
The ruling was a victory for Grayling and national newspaper publishers who joined him last month, after being alerted by the Press Association, to argue that the order was legally flawed and wrongly prevented the public from knowing the full facts of the case. He told the judges that arguments about whether the media should be allowed to endanger his life or imperil his chances of rehabilitation did not apply. He said such considerations only applied in cases such as that of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, who were given new identities after being convicted of murdering James Bulger.
Vassall-Adams had told the judges that even "the nature of the victims" could not be publicised. In this case not only had McGreavy's identity been public until 2009 but had been given massive publicity in the past.
The anonymity order was made during the course of a legal challenge by McGreavy, who has spent decades in prison, against a Parole Board decision refusing him a transfer to open conditions. The justice secretary welcomed the ruling, saying: "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."
It was granted by Mr Justice Simon, who dismissed M's parole challenge this year.
It followed on from a previous no-names order that had masked McGreavy's identity since 2009.
He rejected submissions from the Press Association that allowing anonymity set a precedent for other high-profile prisoners to seek similar orders.
Because of the widespread implications, the issue returned to court in April for a full hearing before Lord Justice Pitchford.
Vassall-Adams told the judges M's lawyers were arguing the case was about "whether the media should be allowed to imperil (M's) life or scupper his chances of rehabilitation".
He said those arguments really applied to a different type of case in which individuals – such as 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 Vassall-Adams.
M had already been in prison for 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 easily do so on the internet, 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," Vassall-Adams added.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.