THE rape and murder of the Glasgow pensioner Esther Brown is a sickening case, correctly described by the judge, Lord Armstrong, as “the gravest of crimes” characterised by “utter brutality”. The life sentence, with a minimum tariff of 19 years, handed down to the perpetrator, Jason Graham, reflects the gravity of this repugnant crime.
What many will have found almost as shocking, however, is that Graham, who had 23 previous convictions, committed this crime while on licence, having obtained early release in 2018 from a seven-and-a-half-year sentence for a previous violent rape.
The First Minister’s response was to say that her “thoughts and sympathies” were with the victim’s family and friends, and that she could not comment on individual cases. That is not good enough. Now that this case is concluded, the public is entitled to answers, since it is obvious that something has gone very seriously wrong, and it is vitally important that there is no repetition of this sort of failure.
Graham was supposed to be closely monitored by specialist officers; the agencies and authorities that granted his early release and failed to ensure the protection of the public from a known danger should now be subject to the closest scrutiny. The Serious Case Review Nicola Sturgeon mentioned must identify those failures, and measures to ensure they are not repeated must be implemented.
Ms Sturgeon claims that early release was a contentious issue reviewed in 2016, and we acknowledge that changes made then could not be retrospective. But the SNP’s position – labelled “soft-touch” by critics – in its latest consultation, still leaves open the prospect of violent offenders being released after six or seven years. Many will think that thoroughly inadequate.
Scotland has a very high prison population by European standards, and there are certainly arguments that it may not always be the most effective measure – especially when the aim is rehabilitation, rather than punishment or containment. But the case for early release – with the Scottish Government considering some prisoners serving just a third of their sentence – must go hand in hand with options for ensuring the risk of reoffending is minimised, that there is adequate supervision, and above all that the public is protected.
Early release may be a reasonable aspiration in the case of minor offences, or those unlikely to involve reoffending. Few, we suspect, will want it applied as a matter of routine to those guilty of serious, and especially violent, offences. Something – more likely a whole string of things – has clearly gone wrong in this case, and it is the Government’s duty to ensure that it cannot happen again.
IT may never be possible to determine whether Glasgow’s Queen Elizabeth University Hospital was, as it maintains, “open and honest” with the family of Andrew Slorance, who died while undergoing cancer treatment, or whether, as his family suggests, it failed to mention treatment for an infection in order to “protect a building, a health board and political decision-making”.
The hospital is already the subject of a public inquiry, and widely criticised for huge cost overruns and build deficiencies, widespread contamination of its water supply, avoidable infections and other practical failings that have dogged it since its opening. Against that background, whether or not there have been any clinical failures in this case, rectifying its poor communication with patients and families should be a priority.
Unfortunately, the lack of transparency and reluctance to be held to account that are now evident in so many spheres of public life in Scotland seem to have got a grip in health services and their ministerial oversight. Yet health, in particular, is an area where openness and trust are vital; the impulse to deny first and investigate only when dragged into the spotlight mars any institution’s reputation.
A reflexive impulse to conceal can only encourage suspicion – even if ill-founded – and mistrust. If there is nothing amiss, the disinfectant of sunlight does no harm; if something is awry, it is all the more important to expose it. The inquiry into this must encourage a healthier approach in future.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel