Double jeopardy murderer should never go free, says family of woman he killed before hiding her body under the bath as he prepares for parole hearing
William Dunlop, who murdered pizza delivery woman Julie Hogg in Billingham, County Durham, in 1989 and hid her body behind a bath panel, is due to face a new parole hearing in October, and her family have said he should never be released. Dunlop escaped justice for years after two 1999 trials ended without a verdict, leading to his formal acquittal, before he confessed in 2002 while in prison for another offence. His case prompted a 15-year campaign by Miss Hogg's mother, Ann Ming, that led to the abolition of the ancient double jeopardy rule, allowing Dunlop to be retried and convicted in 2006.
Dunlop, now 61, strangled and sexually assaulted 22-year-old Miss Hogg, who had a three-year-old son, and was jailed for life with a minimum of 17 years after pleading guilty. He has faced three parole reviews, with then-justice secretary Shabana Mahmood blocking a move to open prison in April 2025. Ms Ming, now 80, and Miss Hogg's son Kevin Hogg, 40, say the family continues to live with the trauma and fear a future release, despite Dunlop claiming to have reformed; the family's campaign inspired the ITV drama "I Fought The Law", starring Sheridan Smith, which recently won best new drama at the National Television Awards.
- William Dunlop faces new parole hearing in October over 1989 murder
- Victim's mother campaigned 15 years to change double jeopardy law
- Family say convicted killer should remain in prison indefinitely
New here? Start with this
William Dunlop was convicted in 2006 of murdering Julie Hogg, a 22-year-old pizza delivery worker from Billingham, County Durham, who disappeared in 1989. Her body was later found hidden behind a bath panel in her home. Dunlop was not convicted at the time because two trials in 1999 failed to reach a verdict, meaning he was formally acquitted under the law as it then stood.
That law was the "double jeopardy" rule, a centuries-old legal principle that generally prevented someone from being tried twice for the same crime, even if new evidence emerged. Miss Hogg's mother, Ann Ming, campaigned for 15 years to have the rule changed, and in 2003 it was reformed to allow retrials in serious cases where compelling new evidence comes to light. This paved the way for Dunlop, who had confessed to the killing while in prison for another offence, to be retried and convicted.
Dunlop was jailed for life with a minimum term of 17 years. Parole boards periodically review such sentences to decide whether an offender can be safely released, and he is due to face another hearing. His case remains significant both for the legal precedent it set and because it continues to affect Miss Hogg's family, including her mother and her son, who was a young child when she died.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates of the parole process argue that a fixed minimum term was set precisely so that, once served, an independent board can assess whether an offender now poses a manageable risk, based on evidence of behaviour and rehabilitation rather than the horror of the original crime alone. They contend that if the system's own risk assessment concludes a prisoner is safe to release, overriding it purely because of public or family pressure undermines the rule of law and the principle that sentences must have a genuine prospect of ending for reform to mean anything. They also note that parole decisions can include strict licence conditions and recall provisions, allowing monitored reintegration rather than an all-or-nothing choice.
The case against
Miss Hogg's family and those who share their view argue that some crimes are so grave, and the offender's conduct afterwards so aggravating, that continued imprisonment is the only outcome consistent with justice and public safety. They point to Dunlop's calculated concealment of the body, his acquittals before finally confessing, and the decades of trauma inflicted on Miss Hogg's mother and son as reasons why claims of reform cannot outweigh the risk and the harm already done. For them, protecting the victim's family from the fear of a perpetrator's return, and ensuring the historic abolition of double jeopardy was not fought in vain, justifies continued caution over any presumption in favour of release.