Sword attack prisoner who sparked manhunt in Edinburgh loses court battle to move to less secure prison

Lee Brown failed to persuade a judge the decision was unfair.

A thug who was jailed for slashing a man with a samurai sword before escaping from custody in 2008 which sparked a Capital-wide manhunt has lost a court battle to be moved to a less secure prison.

Lee Brown, 42, was jailed after he tried to kill the new lover of his ex-girlfriend on Valentine’s Day in 2004.

He also sparked a major manhunt in 2008 when he escaped from police while being treated in a clinic on Lauriston Place in the Capital while serving time in Saughton prison.

Lee Brown made front page news in 2008 when he escaped from custody in Edinburgh

Last year, Brown applied to be moved to “less secure prison conditions” in order to have a “realistic chance of release” in the future, a decision blocked by prison officials.

Now, the criminal has now lost a court battle at the Court of Session to overturn the decision and be moved to an open estate jail.

An open estate gives prisoners more freedom and means they are subject to significantly less severe security measures.

A risk management team (RMT) at HMP Glenochil in Clackmannanshire rejected the initial request in April 2019, stating his previous escape in 2008 meant it was not in the public interest.

Lauriston Clinic on Lauriston Place, Edinburgh where Lee Brown escaped while attending the clinic in 2008.

The RMT said: “The RMT is satisfied that it is in the public interest that Mr Brown should not spend a period in the Open Estate, given the risk factors and the previous escape from lawful custody.”

Lord Tyre, responding to the appeal by Brown who had argued that the fact he was did not appear personally at the RMT hearing was unfair, said the decision was fair and should be upheld.

In a judgement published yesterday, he wrote: “The participants at the RMT meeting included the individuals most closely familiar with the petitioner, including the prison-based social worker and cognitive behavioural therapist responsible for managing him and assessing his progress.

“The issue that the RMT had to determine, namely whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying a recommendation that the petitioner progress to less secure conditions, was one that fell to be resolved by specialist assessment.

“It is difficult to see what the petitioner could have contributed to the meeting other than an assurance, from his personal perspective, that he was ready for progression.

“Such an assurance would not have added anything to the information provided by the petitioner in the application form which he had completed and which was before the RMT at its meeting.”

Lord Tyre added that the fact Brown was not aware of the more stringent criteria for previous absconders was not “wholly excusable”.

He said: “The petitioner founded upon what was said to be his excusable ignorance of the criteria applicable under the guidance to previous absconders/escapees such as himself.

“I am not entirely persuaded that his ignorance of the test should be regarded as wholly excusable: the application form that he completed included a reference to the leaflet which, in turn, referred to the guidance which was available had he sought it.

“But, more importantly, it did not seem to me that counsel was able to identify any particular matter that the petitioner would or might have put forward as an additional argument to address the “presumption against” progression, had he been in attendance at the meeting.

“Nor, for my part, can I see any reason why his awareness of the test in the guidance could have made any difference to the presentation of his case to the RMT.”