Parents of murder victim Claire Inglis warn new bail law risks women's lives
Claire's parents want First Minister John Swinney to explain why victims are being placed 'in the line of fire" via new laws that make it easier for violent domestic abusers to be bailed from court.
The parents of a murder victim have warned new laws making it easier for violent domestic abusers to be bailed from court put women's lives at risk.
Claire Inglis, 28, was killed by Christopher McGowan - who had 39 previous convictions including one for a serious attack on an ex-partner - after he was freed to live at the Stirling flat she shared with her son.
McGowan had been bailed three times to Claire's home when he battered and strangled the young mum, burned her face with a lighter and choked her with a wet wipe.
But we can reveal shocking new regulations in the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act which came into force on May 14 will make it even easier for thugs like McGowan to be released on bail.
They removed a 'presumption' for courts to deny release to anyone accused of violent, sexual or domestic abuse if they have a past similar conviction unless the court can determine a good reason for refusing it.
Opposition politicians have accused the Scottish Government of a cost-cutting exercise to free up prison space which puts women's safety at risk.
Claire's parents Ian, 62, and Fiona, 64, whose campaign for tougher bail restrictions is backed by the Sunday Mail, have directly asked First Minister John Swinney to explain why victims are being placed 'in the line of fire.'
Fiona, from Stirling, said: 'These shocking reforms do not protect victims. Instead they put women's lives at risk.
'This new law is going to put women like my daughter in further danger.
'We shouldn't be doing any-thing that makes it easier for violent offenders, especially violent domestic abusers, to be freed from court rather than remanded from custody.
'The presumption against bail was introduced to specially protect domestic abuse victims.
' John Swinney needs to explain to me what he believes has changed that means domestic abusers are no longer a threat to women.
"Why on earth are we allowing domestic abusers to be granted bail to homes where their victims live, where mothers and children have to be rehomed for their safety?
' McGowan had a long list of convictions, including for violence and a pattern of behaviour that was escalating, yet he was released to Claire's home where she lived with her little boy.
'Weeks later he murdered her and we believed she could have been saved.
'If he hadn't been allowed to go to Claire's home, she would still be alive today.
'The new rules won't save victims like Claire.'
Ian added: 'The system is totally wrong, it is not there to protect people who need to be protected. It's putting vulnerable people in the line of fire.
'This is nothing but a costsaving exercise by the government as there are so many offenders and nowhere to put them. They need to build more jails not let them out to harm again.
'As a result, we will see more women like Claire die.'
Victims' groups also opposed the reforms, claiming the law does not do enough to protect those affected by crime.
Kate Wallace, chief executive of Victim Support Scotland, said the regulations do not go far enough to safeguard victims - in particular women who have experienced domestic abuse.
Highlighting Claire's case Wallace said it showed 'in heartbreaking detail the dangers of not adequately scrutinising an offender's criminal history.'
She added: 'An accused person should not be bailed back to an address unless it can absolutely be guaranteed that the people in that home will be kept safe.'
Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay has also criticised the SNP's bail reform.
He said: 'My party and victims groups warned that the SNP government's new bail law will make it even harder to remand accused criminals in custody.
"This is despite the fact the existing system is already deeply flawed with shocking cases like the murder of Claire Inglis by a thug who was repeatedly granted bail.
'The SNP are duping the people of Scotland by saying they care about victims while constantly weakening the justice system to the advantage of criminals.
'Victims can see that the real agenda is cutting corners to save money by a government which usually manages to waste it.
'The problem with this approach is that more innocent people will end up paying a very heavy price indeed.'
The five bail orders in force against McGowan at the time of the murder were granted less than eight months before the killing, one just weeks before Claire's death.
Concerns had been raised over McGowan staying at Claire's home two months before the attack and social workers had visited the address three days before the murder but could not contact her.
In January First Minister John Swinney said rules have been changed after Claire's case and insisted tougher assessments on bail will be carried out by social workers.
He said: 'The national justice social work practice guidance has been updated since this case.'
But Fiona has said that less than six months later, the SNP's new bail regulations have made it easier for violent off-enders like McGowan to be freed.
She added: 'We are living in 2025 and we are no further forward in protecting victims of domestic abuse than we were generations ago. Instead of moving forward, we are going backward. We are incredibly disappointed.'
Charly Sharp, McGowan's ex-partner, was subjected to six years of violence at his hands.
He was also granted bail to her home in 2019 despite a past conviction for domestic aggravation against her in 2014.
Charly had said: 'He was given one too many chances. He should never have been given the chance to kill Claire.'
The latest figures show there were 7988 bail-related offences in 2022-23 - such as breach of bail conditions - up 11 per cent from the previous year.
McGowan, 29, was ordered to serve at least 23 years in jail for the 'beyond sadistic' killing of 28-year-old Claire in 2021.
The Crown Office is considering a fatal accident inquiry.
The Scottish government said:'The new bail test makes clear the court should specifically consider the protection of the victim from a risk of harm when making decisions on bail. This includes risk of physical and psychological harm, which can arise from coercive and controlling behaviour.'
The Crown Office said: 'Prosecutors consider public safety and protection of victims from further harm among other factors when making submissions to the court on bail.'
Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community!
Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today.
You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland.
No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team.
All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in!
If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'.
We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like.
To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Spending Review: Shaping Scotland's priorities for years to come
Increased spending for Scotland on defence, computing and the development of carbon-capture technology have been promised in the chancellor's Spending Reeves has found £250m for the Royal Navy's nuclear submarine base on the Clyde, £750m to bring the most powerful supercomputer in the UK to Edinburgh, and funding for the Acorn Project in St Fergus. Acorn would take greenhouse gas emissions and store them under the North Sea, in a process known as carbon capture and storage (CCS).The news comes as Reeves announces the budgets for all UK government departments over the next few years. Getting the review right is a tricky balancing can see ways that public funds could be used more efficiently or even cut. Everyone has their top priority for spending what happens if there's a root and branch review, with every spending line scrutinised, new priorities set and given more funds and others squeezed or cut?We should find out later. But it may not be as radical a review as sometimes presented as too much is already committed by contract or by government manifesto to make really radical changes. What spending is being reviewed? The clue is in the name. This is not about taxation, and it's not about balancing the books. That's for the Budget, and one of them is expected in autumn, to cover review takes the spending totals already set by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), and chooses how to allocate the day-to-day spending (also known as current or revenue spending) for the next three financial also plans capital spending for four years on projects with a lifespan beyond the year, such as includes the spending in Scotland by Whitehall departments, such as work and pensions and defence. It does not include funds spent by Holyrood. How tight will it be for day-to-day spending? We already know, at least roughly, the total numbers the chancellor has to allocate. The increase in day-to-day spending is an average 1.2% per year over the three years to funds have been front-loaded by the Labour government. In other words, most of the extra spending it gets from big tax increases on business and the wealthy are being used to lift spending in its first two years. Then it gets every department were to retain the same share (which would suggest the review effort has been wasted), it would get the average we already know the defence budget is getting a significant lift, to confront growing challenges and new types of warfare. We also know the NHS requires more than a standstill budget to meet rising demands on it. And the Westminster government has committed to increasing the amount of childcare it provides. That implies an estimated cut of 1.3% in real terms for other items of government and justice have taken the brunt of such cuts in the five spending reviews since they started 27 years ago, though not in the one-year spending review carried out last big question about such cuts is whether they mean a reduced level of provision, or a challenge to get at least the current level of public service out of less sector productivity has gone backwards since the pandemic. There's a need and a big challenge to reverse that and it may need some spending to help the process happen, with perhaps more use of technology to replace civil servants. What's available for the longer term? Capital spending looks in an easier position, not least because Rachel Reeves' spending constraints allow her to borrow for that. She aims to match day-to-day spending with tax revenue, so it should not be funded by recent days, we have seen announcements to fund capital projects for defence, transport in the north of England and a large nuclear power station in capture and storage projects, to trap greenhouse gases, include the Acorn Project in a promise to spend "an initial £250m" over three years on the Clyde submarine base, "supporting jobs, skills and growth across the west of Scotland".A lot of the allocations are being attached to the government's top priority of economic growth, with an emphasis on spreading funds around the UK. Some of this spending precedes the announcement of an industrial strategy, in which the UK government intends to give added backing to industries of strategic importance such as steel, or those with the most growth potential, so there's lots about science and why Spending Review day starts with a further preview of the review: Edinburgh University is to get £750m allocated to a new super-computer, which is billed as the most powerful in the UK, and among the most powerful in the world. It will be available for research into numerous projects such as personalised medicine, sustainable air travel or climate reinstates a project that was cancelled last summer by Rachel Reeves, because it had not been funded by the outgoing Conservative government. What decisions will directly affect Scotland? Much of the state pensions and welfare budget is distributed throughout the UK by the department for work and pensions. But that share has been falling as Holyrood takes on devolved to universal credit would be felt in Scotland. That includes changes to the two-child limit on state pension's triple lock of at least the rate of average pay increase, of price inflation or 2.5%, is being retained and that also covers there are cuts in civil service numbers, that could apply to those who work in Scotland for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, for HM Revenue and Customs and for the Department of Work and there is also a plan to push many more civil service jobs out of London, so there could be gains for Scotland from relocations. How will this affect Holyrood's budget? Many of the changes in day-to-day spending, or capital spending on transport for instance, directly affect other parts of the UK, and in some cases only formula for spending should then apply a share of that change to the block grant passed from the Treasury to Holyrood – whether an increased share or a proportionate the health service gets a boost, above the rate of increase in other departments, that will be a positive for Holyrood as well. But if justice takes a hit, a proportionate share of that will be passed on to Scottish will then be free to allocate the block grant as they wish, so they can pass on the health spending at the same rate as England, or apply that money to another recent years, more and more spending has gone into the new Holyrood welfare budget, so that £1.5bn is being spent each year on making welfare more generous than in the rest of the of that has been to mitigate decisions taken on welfare by the Westminster government. And there could be relatively good news for Holyrood from two decisions in the spending review which have already been the cut in pension-age Winter Fuel Allowance brings a share to Holyrood of the necessary funds to make that happen – somewhere around £125m. That eases the pressure on Shona Robison, Holyrood's finance secretary, as she decides how to use the resources she gets. And if Rachel Reeves follows through on the commitment to increase the level of state childcare support, that will also ease Holyrood's budget challenge, as it has already found funds to increase childcare. A share of that new-found money for England will be added to Holyrood's block grant, but need not be spent that Robison has put off decisions about her medium-term plans until she sees Rachel Reeves' spending review and the impact it has on Holyrood's day-to-day and capital Scottish finance secretary is due to update MSPs by the end of June on how she uses it, including a priority list of capital include high-profile road upgrades in the Highlands and Aberdeenshire, and the stalled programme for building NHS National Treatment faces competing demands to improve the buildings and IT in public services and, on the other hand, improving economic infrastructure such as roads and rail, with a more direct impact on economic also has the challenge of either cutting some public services or reforming them in such a way that they can be provided more spending review may be of major significance for public services for years to it may be replaced by annual budgets, as we've seen in the past, making different decisions depending on funds available and political announcement in the Commons later is only the start of the process of putting those funds to work.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
MoD ‘dishonest' to call 1994 Chinook crash an accident, say families
The families of people killed in the 1994 Chinook helicopter disaster have criticised the Ministry of Defence's description of the crash as a 'tragic accident' as 'dishonest, deceitful and disingenuous'. RAF Chinook ZD576 was carrying 25 British intelligence personnel from RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland to a conference at Fort George near Inverness when it crashed in foggy weather on June 2 1994 on the Mull of Kintyre, Scotland. All 25 passengers – made up of personnel from MI5, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army – were killed, along with the helicopter's four crew members. The families of those who died said earlier this month that they were beginning legal action against the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for not ordering a public inquiry. They want a High Court judge to be able to review information which they say was not included in previous investigations, and which they believe will shed new light on the airworthiness of the helicopter. The families, who have coalesced into the Chinook Justice Campaign, said failing to order a public inquiry is a breach of the UK Government's human rights obligations. An MoD spokesperson said: 'The Mull of Kintyre crash was a tragic accident, and our thoughts and sympathies remain with the families, friends and colleagues of all those who died. 'We have received a pre-action protocol letter from the Chinook Justice Campaign and are considering our response. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to comment further.' Solicitor Mark Stephens, who is representing the families, said: 'The statements issued by the Ministry of Defence in recent days are so blatantly at odds with the facts as we now know them that they have caused immense upset to the families and cast a further cruel and disgraceful shadow on this ongoing travesty of justice. 'We know that the RAF helicopter carrying the 29 service personnel who were killed, serving their country, had been grounded because of fatal flaws in the software on board. 'For the MoD to claim that this was a 'tragic accident' flies in the face of the facts and is blatantly and disgracefully at odds with the truth. 'It is nothing short of dishonest, deceitful and disingenuous and we demand a retraction.' The families have also called for the release of documents that were sealed at the time of the crash for 100 years, something revealed in a BBC documentary last year. The MoD has said that records held in the National Archives contain personal information and early release of those documents would breach their data protection rights. Mr Stephens said: 'For the Government to believe that data protection laws were designed to protect someone who is living – and who may have made a dreadful decision that night – rather than the truth emerging over 29 service personnel who were killed in an unairworthy aircraft, is a total abomination. 'This decision must be overturned, these files must be seen by a judge, and we will fight this in court if necessary.' Niven Phoenix, a commercial pilot whose father Ian was one of the senior RUC officers killed in the crash, said: 'This was about as far from a tragic accident as you could get. Locking the files away until we are all dead proves there is a cover-up about something. 'The MoD's statement that these files have been sealed to protect third party interests is yet another disingenuous, distasteful and outright dishonest assertion designed to hide the truth using data protection laws which only came into force in the UK long after the crash. 'The Government would prefer for all the children of the Chinook victims to die like their parents rather than provide access, answers and take accountability for past mistakes. This is not the duty of candour promised by Keir Starmer in his election manifesto.' Following the crash, the Chinook's pilots, Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper, were accused of gross negligence, but this verdict was overturned by the UK Government 17 years later, following a campaign by the families. A subsequent review by Lord Philip set out 'numerous concerns' raised by those who worked on the Chinooks, with the MoD's testing centre at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire declaring the Chinook Mk2 helicopters 'unairworthy' prior to the crash.
Glasgow Times
2 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Care reform Bill passed unanimously at Holyrood
The Scottish Government proposed to shift accountability for providing social care to ministers and create local bodies that would be responsible for administering care. But serious opposition from political parties, local authorities and trade unions resulted in the plans being ripped out of the Bill despite around £30 million being spent on its development. The name of the Bill was eventually changed to the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill and it was passed with the support of 116 MSPs on Tuesday. Speaking about the failed proposals for the creation of a National Care Service, Scottish Tory health spokesman Dr Sandesh Gulhane said: 'Let's not pretend we've arrived at this moment by design. 'We're here because of yet another SNP policy that promised the world and delivered a fiasco. 'The now defunct National Care Service Bill was once hailed as the most significant reform to health and social care since the creation of the NHS. 'But, in reality, it was a half-baked plan dreamt up by ministers, clearly in an ivory tower that was dead in the water before the ink had dried on the first draft.' While Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie said: 'The way we care for our most vulnerable is more important than party politics. 'That is why Scottish Labour committed to help the Scottish Government deliver such a service, but as I warned at the time, the devil would be in the detail.' The Scottish Government, Ms Baillie claimed, 'attempted a power grab'. 'Four years later, three first ministers later, three health secretaries later and £31 million later and what we have before us is a drastically reduced Bill with not a National Care Service in sight, and not a single extra penny of that money going directly to social care,' she added. Despite the changes, social care minister Maree Todd said the Government remained committed to the creation of a National Care Service. The remaining provisions will implement changes to the existing care system, the biggest of which has been dubbed 'Anne's Law'. The change will allow family and friends to be named as 'essential care supporters' and require care homes to facilitate visits from them in all but the most extreme circumstances. The proposals grew from a Scottish Parliament petition by Natasha Hamilton, who was unable to visit her mother Anne Duke in her care home during the pandemic, ultimately missing her death. Speaking in Holyrood on Tuesday, Ms Todd praised the work of campaigners for Anne's Law, some of whom were watching proceedings from the public gallery. 'I have been profoundly impacted by the conversations that I have had with them,' she said. 'The emotional harm and trauma that they and their loved ones and many others suffered from being unable to see one another for such long, isolating periods during the pandemic must be acknowledged to make sure that this never happens again.' As well as Anne's Law, the legislation will also give unpaid carers the right to take breaks.
