WORLD's End killer Angus Sinclair has launched a bid to overturn his double murder conviction.
The 69-year-old was last year found guilty of raping and murdering Christine Eadie and Helen Scott after abducting them from Edinburgh's World's End pub in 1977.
Sinclair, who had previously been cleared of the crimes, was the first person to be re-tried under new double jeopardy laws and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum period in jail of 37 years.
He has now been granted permission to appeal the guilty verdict and challenge the sentence in an appeal case expected to cost the taxpayer more than £1 million.
A senior police source is reported as saying: "He's not going anywhere, he doesn't have to do anything, and he's not paying a penny piece towards it, so why not?
"He has nothing to lose by lodging fresh appeals and, I suppose, from a legal point of view the defence will want to rigorously test the conviction and try to test the double jeopardy legislation at the same time.
"The strength of the justice system is that someone like Sinclair, who obviously has no money to support him, can take up a case like this, but the downside is that it's at the public's expense."
It is understood Sinclair's legal team will argue that he did not have a fair trial due to the unique nature of the case.
The Glasgow-born killer was jailed for six years for culpable homicide as a teenager after sexually assaulting and strangling seven-year-old Catherine Greenhill in 1961.
Between 1978 and 1982 he raped and indecently assaulted 11 other young girls, some as young as six, and was eventually handed a life sentence for his crimes.
In 2001 he was also found guilty of raping, strangling and stabbing to death 17-year-old Mary Gallacher in a vicious attack in 1978, and was ordered to serve a second life sentence.
The World's End case saw him handed his third life sentence.
A spokesman for the High Court of Justiciary confirmed Sinclair's appeal had been considered by a judge and a hearing had been allowed.
A date will be set for the case later this year.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article