Family of murder victim describes enduring ‘life sentence’

The mother who successfully campaigned for a legal amendment that led to her daughter’s murderer being imprisoned has stated that she and her family are enduring a perpetual “life sentence.” William Dunlop committed the murder of Julie Hogg, a 22-year-old mother of one, in Billingham in 1989. However, he was not incarcerated until 17 years subsequently, a delay attributed to a public campaign aimed at altering the double jeopardy law. The Parole Board is presently reviewing an application from Dunlop to be transferred to open conditions, having completed 18 years of a life sentence in custody. Ann Ming, Ms Hogg’s mother, who was present at the public segment of the panel hearing, asserted that Dunlop, currently 61 years old, ought never to be released. In the course of a two-day hearing, parts of which were open to the public, Dunlop informed the Parole Board panel that he had previously been a violent “monster” who cultivated a tough persona in Billingham. He confessed to being a “horrible” domestic abuser, frequently assaulting his partners and engaging in pub brawls and attacks, resorting to violence whenever he perceived rejection or a challenge to his pride or reputation. Nevertheless, he claimed to have transformed into an entirely new individual after years of participating in prison courses and therapy programmes, finding contentment in a positive approach to others instead of a negative one. Dunlop was twice acquitted of Ms Hogg’s murder in the early 1990s due to juries being unable to reach verdicts, but subsequently bragged about the homicide to a prison guard. Dunlop faced a successful prosecution for perjury, yet he could not be retried for the murder until Ms Ming’s advocacy led to a change in the law. All correctional professionals associated with his case concurred that the convicted killer and perjurer had genuinely reformed and should now be transferred to open conditions to allow for further assessment of his ongoing rehabilitation. However, Ms Ming contended that the individual who lied and subsequently boasted about strangling and sexually assaulting her daughter before concealing her body beneath a bath should never be set free. She further stated that he ought to reimburse the compensation he was awarded for the period he spent in custody prior to his acquittals at the two early 1990s trials, the specifics of which the BBC is seeking to verify. Outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Ms Ming expressed her continued belief that Dunlop remained a “violent individual” and described listening to his assertions before the Parole Board as “horrendous.” She informed the BBC: “We as a family are doing a life sentence, we are living and breathing what he did until the day I die. No parole, a life sentence.” Ms Ming highlighted that Dunlop had been “bragging” about the killing and had committed additional serious offenses. She questioned: “Does that give any sense of he is safe? Would you want him living next door to you? I certainly wouldn’t.” She conveyed that her grief for Ms Hogg was as profound now as it had ever been, adding: “I wouldn’t want him to put another family through what he has put us through.” Ms Ming also urged the Parole Board and judges to “listen more to the victims’ families.” She described the experience as: “It’s horrible, you feel as though the prisoner is pulling the strings every step of the way.” In addition to the two days of public hearing, the Parole Board panel is also reviewing extensive evidence in private sessions. During these proceedings, Dunlop said he The panel was also informed that Dunlop had violently assaulted a man at a rugby club mere hours before Ms Hogg’s murder. In 1997, he repeatedly stabbed a former girlfriend and assaulted her new partner with a baseball bat in a “murderous attack,” resulting in a seven-year prison sentence, during which he admitted to killing Ms Hogg. Furthermore, there were at least 22 other alleged offenses for which he had not been prosecuted; the panel considered these and found some to be proven on the balance of probabilities, though specific details were not disclosed. Several professionals indicated that these factual findings had not altered their opinion that he was prepared for a transfer to open conditions, asserting that the numerous courses and therapy programmes Dunlop had undertaken in prison had transformed him. He had initially applied for full release on licence but modified his application during the proceedings after considering recommendations from individuals such as offender managers and a psychologist. The Parole Board panel is scheduled to submit its recommendation to the secretary of state, who holds the ultimate decision-making authority, in January.