Freed paedo fails in bid to stop child protection rules
SEX BEAST LEGAL CHALLENGE DENIED Judge dismisses restrictions plea of perv exposed as ‘Walter Mitty medic’
BY SALLY HIND s.hind@dailyrecord.co.uk
A SEX beast accused of posing as a bogus paramedic at a fatal nail bomb blast has failed in a legal bid to challenge conditions on his freedom. Christopher Readings - who was jailed for 13 years in 2011 for subjecting two children to horrific abuse - says his human rights are being infringed by “unlawful” conditions on his licence since his release last year. The 53-year-old launched a legal action at the Court of Session against the Parole Board for Scotland, where he fought to relax rules which say he must report details of any friendships or relationships to his probation officer. But a judge dismissed the legal case this week, saying the importance of monitoring convicted paedophiles like him “cannot be over-emphasised”. Readings was jailed almost a decade ago after preying on two children over an 18-month period. He forced them to commit vile sex acts and tried to rape the girl. He also compelled the youngsters to perform sex acts on each other while he watched on a webcam. Readings had previously worked as an ambulance driver in England but was exposed in a national newspaper in 1999 as having posed as a paramedic at the Soho nail bomb blast in which three people died.
He was reported to have infuriated 999 crews by turning up at the scene and other emergencies on his bike or in a Rover 800 emblazoned with yellow stripes and the word ambulance, while “posturing as a paramedic”.
He denied his crimes until his release from HMP Glenochil in September, after serving two thirds of his sentence.
Court documents said his release to an address in England was dependent on conditions requiring him to “immediately inform his supervising officer of any friendships, associations or intimate or domestic relationships that he enters into with anyone”.
His current probation officer had said he must report anyone he talks to “beyond a hello” and anyone he is ever likely to “have a coffee with”.
Readings’ lawyers asked the court to allow them a hearing to argue that the case was unlawful, infringed upon his human rights and should be relaxed.
They said the condition was “too strict” and “so lacking in clarity and precision” that Readings “did not know what it meant”.
Readings also argued that his probation officer’s parttime hours meant he would not always be able to report contact immediately.
Lawyers for the Parole Board said it was Scottish ministers who had released Readings on licence and they should answer to the petition - but argued that the condition imposed was “reasonable and necessary”, saying parole had previously been denied on two occasions because he was still considered to pose a risk.
The Scottish Government’s legal team insisted the Parole Board should answer the petition as it makes recommendations on release conditions.
Lord Pentland agreed that ministers should answer to the legal action but dismissed the case, saying the condition on Readings was lawful.
He said: “It is notorious that paedophiles, such as the petitioner, often go to substantial lengths to gain the clandestine access to children for the purpose of sexually abusing them.
“The importance of having an effective system for protecting the public against the possibility of further child abuse on the part of the petitioner cannot be over-emphasised.”