Murderer and rapist David Lawson has spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ cash after claiming his human rights have been violated.

Lawson raped and murdered 14-year-old schoolgirl Gaynor Batty at a Sunderland city centre car park in 1988.

He was jailed for life and ordered to spend 16 years in jail.

Still in prison and “post tariff”, Lawson has taken Justice Secretary Jack Straw to court over a failure to give him access to a treatment programme known as a “Better Lives Booster”.

It aims to reduce the risk of re-convictions for sexual and violent offenders, and is completed by those who are close to being released back into the community.

However it wasn’t available at HMP Ackington, where Lawson was being held.

Since he began his judicial review challenge, Lawson has completed the course after a move to a different jail, but he still went to the High Court to seek “declatory relief” that his human rights had been breached.

Today, George Batty, Gaynor’s father, slammed the move as a “waste of cash”.

He added: “He talks about human rights – what about the human rights of the victims? No one ever seems to talk about them any more.

“He got to do the course in the end, but still carried on taking this to court, I don’t understand that.”

Mr Justice Sales today dismissed what he said amounted to an academic challenge that would have made no difference to Lawson’s position behind bars.

And the judge expressed concern about the cost to the public purse as a result of the case.

Lawson – who said that his right to liberty and freedom had been violated – is legally aided, while the Ministry of Justice will have to pay the cost of its own lawyers attending court.

Lawson, of Thorney Close, Sunderland, was just 20 when he beat Gaynor to death and dumped her body on the top of a multi-storey car park at the Crowtree Leisure Centre.

He was found guilty of rape at Newcastle Crown Court after admitting murder.

Although he has long-since served his minimum jail term – or “tariff” – for his crimes, he will still only be freed once the Parole Board is convinced that he no longer poses a danger to the public.

Taken from court records

1. On 10 July 1989 the applicant, David Lawson, pleaded guilty to the murder of a girl of 14.  He pleaded not guilty to raping his victim but was convicted by a jury on 10 July 1989 and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment to be served concurrently with the life sentence imposed for murder.

2. The deceased regularly attended a Sunderland leisure centre.  On 20 December 1988 the applicant persuaded her to accompany him from the centre, took her to the top floor of a nearby multi-storey car park and there raped her.  He then removed her shoe laces, tied them together and used them as a ligature to strangle her.  According to the report on the trial Judge at some stage he stamped on her face at least twice, probably before tying the ligature around her neck.  As a result of the stamping or possibly initial attempts at manual strangulation, she was almost certainly unconscious before he applied the ligature.  The trial Judge concluded his report in the following terms:“Despite the relative youth of this defendant it seems to me that, danger aside, punishment requires his detention for 14 years.  This was a terrible case which not unnaturally attracted considerable publicity national as well as local.”
The Lord Chief Justice agreed with the recommendation.

3. The applicant’s defence to the charge of rape was consent.  In his report to the Secretary of State thetrial Judge observed that it was rightly rejected.  He continued:“The defendant’s final story (after abandoning a number of earlier lies to the police such as that he was not the killer and then that although he had killed the girl he had never had intercourse with her) was that he killed her because she threatened to accuse him falsely of rape.”

4. The Home Secretary set the tariff at 20 years, having taken account of a statement made to the House of Commons by the then Secretary of State in 1983 indicating that sexual and sadistic murders of children could normally expect to be detained for at least 20 years.

5. This is an application under Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.  I have to decide whether I should order that the early release provisions under the 2003 Act should apply to the applicant after a shorter period than 20 years.  It is not open to me to order that they should apply after a longer period.

6. In considering this application I must have regard to the seriousness of the offence of murder that the applicant committed, and in so doing, I must have regard to general principles set out in Schedule 21 of the Act and also to the recommendation made to the Secretary of State by the trial Judge and by the Lord Chief Justice as to the minimum term to be served by the applicant before release on licence.

7. I am also to have regard to the effect that section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 would have had if the applicant had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, provided I am satisfied that, if he had been so sentenced, the length of his sentence would have been treated as reduced by a particular period under that section: therefore the Court takes account of any period that a person has spent in custody only because he was committed to custody by an order of the Court made in connection with proceedings relating to the murder.  I am satisfied that here I should have regard to a period spent in custody on remand of 200 days.

8. Written representations as to the minimum term have been submitted by the applicant’s legal representative.  His legal representative has also applied for an oral hearing to determine the setting of the minimum term, relying on the decision of the Divisional court in R (Hammond) v SSHD [2004] EWHC (Admin) 2753.  There are no exceptional features requiring an oral hearing.  The application is refused.

9. In my judgment this case falls within paragraph 5 of Schedule 21 as it was a murder involving sexual conduct.  Accordingly the appropriate starting point would be 30 years under the 2003 Act.

10. The age of the victim is a serious aggravating factor.  Against that, the offence was mitigated to some degree by the relatively young age of the applicant, 20 at the date of the offence and by the lack of pre-meditation as it would appear that the killing was precipitated by the victim’s reaction to the rape.  It is also submitted on behalf of the applicant that he has shown a genuine and deep remorse.  That submission is not entirely consistent with the defence that the applicant ran at his trial for rape, but I accept that he has shown remorse.

11. It is also submitted on his behalf that his progress in prison should be taken into account it is to his credit that he has successfully completed a number of offending behaviour courses and a number of educational courses.  Whilst laudable, his progress in prison is not so exceptional that it should be taken into account in determining the minimum term.  His progress in prison will no doubt be taken into account when in due course the parole board consider his release on parole.

12. As the murder was committed in 1988 I am obliged to take account of the guidelines set out in the practice direction issued by Lord Bingham LCJ on 10 February 1997.  In my judgment the age of the victim and the sexual context of the killing called for a minimum terms substantially more severe than the norm of 14 years under those guidelines.  Taking account of the mitigating factors identified above the appropriate term under the 1997 guidelines is one of 18 years. 

13. Finally it is necessary to take account of the applicant’s plea of guilty.  The applicant was interviewed under caution under 24 December 1988, four days after the murder.  In the final interview he admitted murder, and it appears that he indicated that he would plead guilty to murder at an early stage.  In those circumstances he is entitled to credit for his plea but it is to be borne in mind that he pleaded not guilty to the charge of rape, advancing the defence that he had not raped his victim and had killed her when she threatened to make a false allegation of rape.  That defence was rejected by the jury.  In my judgment, and given the direct relationship between the rape and the murder, the plea of not guilty to the rape and the nature of the defence advanced by the applicant must reduce the credit to be given for the plea of guilty to murder.  I have come to the conclusion that the appropriate reduction in the minimum term to reflect the plea of guilty is 18 months.

14. Accordingly the early release provisions under the 2003 Act will apply to the applicant after he has served a minimum term of 16½ years, less the period of 200 days spent in custody on remand before his life sentence was imposed, namely a period of 15 years 347 days.

15. The minimum term is the minimum amount of time that the defendant will spend in prison from the date of sentence before the parole board can order early release.  If it remains necessary for the protection of the public, the defendant will continue to be detained after that date.  When the defendant has served the minimum term, and if the parole board decides to direct his release, he will remain on licence for the rest of his life and may be recalled to prison at any time.