Dunblane Massacre survivor in court for sex attack

[faceless]

Chilling secrets of Dunblane massacre survivor who attacked OAP
Ben Archibald,
Sunday Mail
Jun 5 2011

SEX fiend Ryan Liddell broke into the house of an elderly man and climbed into bed with him - just nine months before he tried to rape another OAP victim. The Dunblane tragedy survivor did not face trial and was not put under supervision for the chilling crime. Instead, Liddell, 20, was offered a "direct measure" by prosecutors - letting him off with a small fine and a warning despite an earlier housebreaking conviction. Yesterday, politicians and senior police officers called for an urgent review of the fiscal fines system.

Liddell - who was shot by gunman Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane Primary in 1996 - was last week convicted of walking into a 76-year-old woman's home in the middle of the night, attempting to rape her and battering her. The Mail can reveal that less than a year earlier, he broke into an 83-year-old man's house, ransacked his wardrobes and jumped into bed with him. The terrified widower woke up and scared Liddell off before calling police. The short order cook was arrested and appeared in court in November 2009.

But before he went on to commit the second attack in June, a deal was agreed where he was given the direct measure - usually a fine or a warning. Last night, the Crown Office refused to say which direct measure was used in the case. A spokeswoman confirmed: "The procurator fiscal at Stirling received a report in relation to an 18-year-old man in connection with an alleged housebreaking on September 22, 2009. There was insufficient evidence to prove housebreaking. The direct measure was issued in relation to another reduced crime which could be proved. The decision to issue a direct measure as an alternative was entirely appropriate on the information provided to the procurator fiscal."

Seven months after his court appearance, Liddell burst into the 76-year-old woman's home and punched her and kicked her before stripping her naked and demanding sex. The retired nurse was found by neighbours covered in blood on her living room floor. After he was found guilty, it was revealed Liddell was a victim of the Dunblane tragedy when he was five. He survived after Hamilton burst into the primary and opened fire in the gym, killing 16 children and their teacher. Liddell's mum Alison had gone to the school by chance and found her young son lying with a bullet hole in his arm. Friends said he had struggled to overcome the horror of the massacre. But experts insist the trauma cannot be used an excuse for his crimes.

There have been concerns that direct measures, including fines and warnings, are being used in serious cases to save time. The number of fiscal fines has almost doubled from 28,690 in 2005-06 to 52,665 in 2009-10. Yesterday, there were calls to review the system. Chief Superintendent David O'Connor, president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, said: "Housebreaking with intent to steal is a common law offence at the more serious end of the scale for crimes of dishonesty. It is one thing to steal something that is lying around. It is another thing to go into someone's property. Such a case needs to be reviewed to find if there are lessons to be learned."

A spokesman for the Age Scotland charity said: "The failure to prosecute in this case must be questioned - particularly as this breakin had sexual overtones and the person responsible had a previous conviction for housebreaking." Dunblane councillor Colin Finlay said: "There should definitely have been more action taken by the fiscal. They must have thought it odd that a young man would wander into an elderly man's home." Yesterday, the familes of Liddell's victims said they didn't want to talk about him. The victim of the first incident, a tenant farmer, passed away earlier this year.

A Scottish government spokesman said: "Decisions on whether to deal with cases by way of a fiscal fine are taken by prosecutors on a case-by-case basis. Fiscal fines are intended to deal with cases which would otherwise have clogged up the courts and would have been expected to result in a fine. However, the Crown Office's guidance makes it quite clear that they must not be issued where there is a clear sexual aspect to the offender's behaviour and, in particular, where it is likely or desirable that the accused will be placed on the sex offenders' register. There is no reason to believe that the guidance was not followed in this case."