William Dunlop, 59, was acquitted twice of the 1989 murder of Julie Hogg in Billingham, Stockton-on-Tees. He became the first person to be retried for murder after a change in the “double jeopardy” law, which Ms Hogg’s mother fought for. The Ministry of Justice stated that his transfer to an open prison was denied “in the interest of public protection.” Dunlop, also known as Billy, was imprisoned after confessing to a prison officer while serving time for assault. He received a life sentence with a minimum of 15 years in prison for murdering the 22-year-old mother and pizza delivery woman in a frenzied sex attack. His case made legal history when he became the first person to be charged twice for the same offence after the repeal of 800-year-old double jeopardy laws. Ann Ming, Ms Hogg’s mother, worked for 15 years to change the law. The Parole Board said in September that Dunlop could be transferred to an open prison, where he could have been granted temporary release on occasion. However, following changes to the parole system, the plan was reviewed by Justice Secretary Brandon Lewis, who now had the authority to approve or deny such decisions. The disappearance of Ms Hogg in November 1989 was initially treated as a missing person investigation. Her mother discovered her partially mutilated body 80 days later, decomposing behind a bath panel. Ms Hogg was “subjected to a violent sexual assault” after she rejected Dunlop, who was described as a “dangerous killer” by the Crown Prosecution Service. Dunlop was tried twice, but each time a jury was unable to reach a decision. He was formally cleared, but later confessed and admitted lying in court, boasting that nothing could be done about it. Judges found Dunlop had a “willingness to use extreme violence” at the time of his offending, fuelled by alcohol, drugs, and his friends, in his second Parole Board review. According to them, he had “difficulties” with relationships, a problematic attitude toward women, and felt entitled to sex. According to documents detailing their decision, he demonstrated a “significant shift in his understanding of his own behaviour and the impact on other people” after completing “intensive therapeutic and offending behaviour work” over a number of years and accepted “full responsibility” for the offence. There had been no evidence of “violence, sexually inappropriate behaviour, or substance abuse for many years,” his behaviour in prison had been “generally positive,” and his maturity had grown. Officials did not believe he was fit for release, but thought a period in open prison could be “helpful and safe.”