‘Limbs in the loch’ killer loses fresh challenge against decision not to release him on licence

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] CSOH 63
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Session Outer House
• Judge:
  Lady Drummond

William Beggs, who was convicted of the murder of Barry Wallace in October 2021, argued that the Board had taken account of an irrelevant consideration in that it considered the allegation that he had been involved in another murder despite that conviction having been quashed on appeal. The respondent argued that the Board had made its decision without reference to the contested material based on the severity of his standing murder conviction.

The petition was considered by Lady Drummond in the Outer House of the Court of Session, with Crabb, advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Lindsay KC for the respondent.

Explored the allegation

In 1987, the petitioner was prosecuted in England for the murder of Barry Oldham and for five offences of wounding four other people. At that trial he maintained he had acted in self-defence but was convicted of the murder charge and two wounding charges. The murder conviction was quashed on appeal after it was held that the trial judge should have separated the murder charge from the other charges, with no possibility of a retrial.

On 27 February 2024, the respondent refused for the second time to direct the petitioner’s release on licence. Within the dossier before the Board was an opinion from senior counsel dated 15 January 2024 that the evidence of a police officer who gave evidence in the Barry Wallace trial had been discredited in other proceedings. The Board also has access to the trial judge’s report to the Board following the trial for the murder of Mr Wallace. The dossier also contained the decision of the English Court of Appeal quashing Mr Beggs’ conviction for the murder of Mr Oldham.

It was submitted for the petitioner that, in relying on the allegation relating to the death of Mr Oldham, it had failed to appropriately assess the risk posed by the petitioner. Should the Board have wished to rely on risk assessments including this allegation, it should have explored the allegation in order to make findings on the balance of probabilities. Further, the Board had failed to take the opinion of senior counsel into account and addressed the concerns about the reliability of the police evidence.

For the respondent it was submitted that the Board’s tribunal correctly applied the statutory test. It had not attached weight to the evidence relating to the death of Mr Oldham. The tribunal considered that the level of risk disclosed by the matters for which Mr Beggs had been convicted was of such a degree and nature that it was unnecessary to determine whether this allegation information regarding Mr Oldham could or should also be taken into account.

Conviction remained valid

In her decision, Lady Drummond began by dealing with the Oldham allegation: “The question of how the Board should deal with allegation information was considered by the Supreme Court in R (on the application of Pearce) v Parole Board for England and Wales (2023). The court stated there is no rule of substantive fairness, akin to a legitimate expectation, which requires the Board to have regard only to found facts in its assessment of risk. If weight is to be given to an allegation of criminal or other misbehaviour in the risk assessment, the Board should first attempt to investigate the facts to enable it to make findings on the truthfulness of the allegation.”

She continued: “The Board clearly states that it places no weight on the allegation and that it is therefore not necessary to decide at this stage whether it can be taken into account. That is consistent with what was envisaged in Pearce where the Supreme Court note that there can be circumstances where the Board concludes that an allegation should not be taken into account at all. The Board concluded that the conviction information alone is sufficient to determine the level of risk posed by Mr Beggs.”

Considering whether the police evidence ought to have been further scrutinised, Lady Drummond said: “I agree with the respondent’s submission that if there is any relevance to the opinion it can only be to the possibility of an appeal founded on the alleged discredited evidence. But the opinion does not recommend that an appeal should be made or what the prospects of that might be. To date, there has been no appeal against conviction on the basis of this evidence. Counsel advised me at the hearing that an appeal is still under consideration. Whether there ever will be an appeal on this ground, and if so, whether it will succeed, is unknown.”

She concluded: “[The Board] did not err by failing to take into account a relevant consideration. Contrary to senior counsel’s assertion, the matter was not of any direct relevance to the Board’s assessment of whether the statutory test was satisfied. The conviction for the murder of Mr Wallace remained valid and the Board had to proceed on that basis.”

Lady Drummond therefore refused to make the orders sought and thus refused the petition.