British press reports claim a notorious child killer will be freed after two earlier probation board failures.
On 28 December 2003, a Christmas party was held in a five room house in Normanton, Leicestershire. That night the body of ten year old gymnast and dancer Rosie May Storrie was found. She was on a bed, half naked, not breathing. Her mother, Mary – a nurse – tried mouth to mouth, but the child died two days later in intensive care. The doctor who performed the post mortem said the girl had been smothered when someone forced the blankets over her face. No forensic evidence of sexual assault was found. Police said the killer chased her down a hallway after she knocked over a beer can, and then suffocated her.
The accused was Paul Smith, a 17 year old trainee electrician from Sedgebrook. He was at the party as a guest of his uncle and aunt, Ian and Sharon Smith, who owned the house. In his teens Smith already showed violent behaviour toward girls – one incident involved threatening a 16 year old with a toy gun, gagging her and locking her in his dad’s trunk; six months later he pinned a 12 year old face down in his bedroom.
At the trial psychiatrists noted he had Asperger’s syndrome and learning difficulties, but that did not lessen his guilt.
A jury at Nottingham Crown Court found Smith guilty of murder in 2004. The judge gave a life sentence with a minimum of 14 years. In his words the killing was “sexually motivated” and that Smith was “a continuing danger to young girls.” Those words became the benchmark that later parole hearings would have to measure against. At the time, Mr Justice Astill Imposed a life sentence and said he had no doubt Rosie's murder was sexually motivated, and that the teenager was a continuing threat to young girls.
But pathologist Dr Cary, who carried out a post-mortem examination on Rosie, disagreed with some of the evidence presented to the court. "If the scenario was supposed to be one of deliberate smothering, I don't think the evidence is there to support it," he said.
Dr Nat Cary has become one of Britain's most prominent pathologists, having worked on a number of high-profile cases including the death of Ian Tomlinson who was confronted by police during the G20 protests in London.
Smith became eligible for parole in 2018. Between 2018 and 2023 the Parole Board held two hearings. Both times it suggested moving him to an open prison, but the Secretary of State said no. A third hearing in July 2024 finally led the Board to clear him for release.
At that hearing the evidence was split. A psychologist expert witness, hired by the Board said Smith had taken a long list of approved courses and had been in regular therapy. “His decision making looks better now,” the psychologist said, recommending release.
The prison officer in charge of Smith, however, argued that moving him straight to freedom was too much; they thought he should go to an open prison first. The probation officer added that Smith had been stable for a long time, took part in programmes, and behaved well, so they too leaned toward an open regime.
The Board’s written record says:“Witnesses at the oral hearing had differing views. The psychologist witness recommended Mr Smith's release (but) the official managing Mr Smith in custody felt that this would be a step too far and that he should move to an open prison.”
While ministers rarely step into parole decisions, the Ministry of Justice soon issued a statement that put “public protection as our first priority” and said the Lord Chancellor had asked the Board to look again at the release. The Ministry wrote:
“Our thoughts remain with Rosie May Storrie's family. Public protection is our first priority. After careful consideration, the Lord Chancellor has asked the Parole Board to reconsider its decision to release Paul Smith from prison.”
Neuro developmental Disorders and Proportionality
When a person has a condition like Asperger’s, the law is tricky. The European Court of Human Rights says such disorders can affect risk, but they do not automatically excuse dangerous conduct (Stankov v Bulgaria [2010] ECHR 23). So a proportionality test has to ask if the rehab offered reduces risk enough to let someone go, or if the remaining risk is still too high. The Board said the risk was low enough, while the prison officer and the Minister think otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome#:~:text=The%20syndrome%20was%20named%20in,favorite%20interests%2C%20and%20were%20clumsy.
https://witnessdirectory.com/signup.php
