Outrage at appeal victory for child rapist

A CHILD rapist today sparked fury after winning a landmark appeal against his sentence, with the possibility of his early release branded "horrendous".

Morris Petch, 54, was given life with an order to serve at least 12 years before becoming eligible for parole for his part in an Edinburgh paedophile ring.

Petch lodged an appeal against the punishment part of his sentence - the minimum term he must serve before being considered for release on licence.

A specially convened bench of seven judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh yesterday cleared the way for people serving these discretionary life sentences to challenge the length of time they must spend in jail following the appeal by Petch and convicted rapist, Robert Foye, 31.

Petch appealed against the length of his sentence, arguing that it was "excessive", in a move which has set a new legal precedent.

Other offenders given discretionary life sentences, mainly sex offenders, could now follow suit.

His bid for early release was previously attacked by Dana Fowley, one of two sisters raped and abused by Petch and a group of up to 15 family members and friends.

Richard Baker, Labour's justice spokesman, today said: "Our first thoughts have to be with the victims of these two men. It must be horrific for them to have to deal with the fact that they could be released earlier as a result of this ruling. It would be horrendous if these men end up serving shorter sentences than those convicted for lesser crimes.

"We can only hope that common sense will prevail and they would be denied parole.

"We are very concerned about this ruling and the implications on sentencing.

"The Scottish Government have to stop sitting on their hands and hold a proper review of sentencing."

Petch was ordered to serve a minimum of 12 years after a judge branded him a "serious risk to the public" in May 2007.

The Lord Justice General, Lord Hamilton, called on the Scottish Parliament to introduce clearer guidelines to assist judges. He acknowledged "with regret" that in some cases a prisoner sentenced to life may become eligible for consideration for parole earlier than an offender sentenced to a determinate term for a similar crime.

The appeal will now be looked at by a regular panel of three appeal judges according to the interpretation of the law established by the ruling.

The previous guidelines allowed courts to set the punishment part of a sentence at two-thirds or more of the determinate sentence by building in a public protection element.

But the appeal judges have decided that the issue of public protection should be decided by the parole board.

The judges ruled that courts should now follow the guidelines established in a case heard in 1999, where the determinate sentence is identified, the public protection element stripped out, and a 50 per cent reduction applied.

[email protected]