Parole Board Considers Open Prison Transfer for Murderer William Dunlop Amidst Unprosecuted Allegations

A parole board hearing has revealed that a convicted murderer, whose conviction followed a change in the double jeopardy law, is deemed ready for transfer to an open prison, notwithstanding findings that he committed other offenses. William Dunlop received a life sentence in 2006 for the 1989 murder of Julie Hogg, a 22-year-old mother-of-one, whom he strangled and concealed behind a bath panel at her home in Billingham, County Durham. After completing the minimum term stipulated by a judge, Dunlop, now 61, has sought release. Although Parole Board proceedings are typically private, his case is undergoing a partial public hearing, with a decision expected at a later date. The panel was informed that professionals advise transferring Dunlop to an open prison, but not granting full release. Conversely, Ms Hogg’s family, who actively campaigned for his conviction, objects to Dunlop’s transfer from high-security conditions. The four-member panel, chaired by a retired crown court judge, participated in the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London via video link from an undisclosed prison. The panel chairman stated that they possessed a dossier exceeding 1,400 pages concerning Dunlop and had received testimony from Ms Hogg’s family regarding the impact of her murder during a private session. He indicated that the panel had reviewed approximately 900 pages pertaining to at least 12 additional allegations made against Dunlop that were not prosecuted, and had established several findings of fact, with certain accusations deemed proven on the balance of probabilities. The chairman stated that the specifics of these allegations were withheld to protect the privacy of the complainants, but affirmed that these details would be taken into account when assessing the risk Dunlop might present. A prison offender manager, who has been working with Dunlop since his transfer to her facility in December 2022, expressed confidence that he should be moved to an open prison. The manager further stated that no additional rehabilitative work could be performed with him in a closed prison setting and that it was “important” for him to now be assessed in open conditions. She noted that Dunlop continued to deny one of the allegations, even though the panel had found it proven, but she attributed this denial to “shame” rather than intentional deceit. She clarified that his full release was not being advised, explaining that his prolonged incarceration meant that re-entry into the community could be “destabilising” and potentially result in a return to his “unhelpful thinking,” for which he had developed coping strategies. Dunlop’s key worker stated that the killer “wished he could turn back time” and undo the murder, further noting Dunlop’s claim that he “wasn’t in a good place” and was “angry” and “rageful” at the time. The key worker also mentioned that Dunlop felt “aggrieved” by the panel’s finding that he had committed other offenses and had expressed a complaint about not being “trusted,” while also acknowledging that Dunlop had “owned up to” certain parts of the accusations. The chairman recounted that Dunlop strangled Ms Hogg on 16 November 1989, subsequently “mistreated” her body, and then concealed it beneath a bath, where it was discovered on 5 February 1990 by her mother, Ann Ming. The chairman noted that two juries “disagreed” on his guilt, leading prosecutors, in adherence to convention, not to pursue a third trial, which resulted in Dunlop’s formal acquittal. In 1997, Dunlop assaulted an ex-girlfriend and her new partner and was sentenced to seven years in prison for wounding with intent. While serving that sentence, he confessed to a prison guard that he had killed Ms Hogg, which resulted in an additional prison sentence for perverting the course of justice. Dunlop could not be retried for Ms Hogg’s murder due to the so-called double jeopardy law, a statute that had existed for 800 years, prohibiting a person from being prosecuted a second time for a crime of which they had been acquitted. Ms Ming spearheaded a successful campaign to reform the law, leading to Dunlop’s admission of murder and his subsequent life sentence at the Old Bailey in 2006, with a minimum term of 17 years. The chairman noted that Dunlop possessed a “relatively minor record” of offending, commencing in the 1970s when he was 12 years old, but that in the late 1980s, he began committing more violent crimes for which he was not prosecuted. Dunlop fostered a reputation for instilling fear and notoriety, which, according to the chairman, rendered his victims “frightened” to come forward. The hearing is ongoing, with the parole board chairman stating that the panel would assess the future risk Dunlop might pose and the feasibility of managing it.