Loyalist hitman jailed for the “chilling execution” of a Catholic taxi driver loses High Court battle

A loyalist hitman jailed for the “chilling execution” of a Catholic taxi driver has lost a High Court battle over being denied the opportunity of an early release.
By Courts
Published 29th Oct 2022, 07:49 GMT
Michael McGoldrick on his graduation day, 2 days before he was shot dead at the wheel of his taxi cab by the LVF.Michael McGoldrick on his graduation day, 2 days before he was shot dead at the wheel of his taxi cab by the LVF.
Michael McGoldrick on his graduation day, 2 days before he was shot dead at the wheel of his taxi cab by the LVF.

Clifford McKeown is currently serving a minimum 24 years behind bars for the murder of Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan, Co Armagh in July 1996. He challenged NI’s Sentence Review Commissioners for refusing his request to be declared eligible for release on licence.

But yesterday a judge ruled that the panel was entitled to reject the killer’s application based on an assessment of the threat posed to members of the public.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Mr Justice Scoffield said: “It is plain that they considered Mr McKeown in the past to have been a dangerous and prolific offender and were simply not persuaded, to the requisite degree of confidence required, that he would not re-offend in future.”

Mr McGoldrick, a 31-year-old father of two, was lured to an isolated country road and shot dead by the Loyalist Volunteer Force at the height of the Drumcree marching dispute. A trial judge described the shooting as a “chilling execution”.

McKeown, 63, has now served more than 22 years of the tariff imposed following his conviction. He is believed to hold a unique status within the NI penal system as the only remaining prisoner sentenced for a scheduled offence who is eligible to apply but never released.

In November last year his latest application to be declared eligible for release under the provisions of the NI (Sentences) Act 1998 was denied.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The Commissioners could not be satisfied that he would not pose a danger to the public, and cited a lack of evidence of any significant rehabilitation work.

Lawyers for McKeown claimed it was absurd and irrational to adopt that position after he met other qualifying criteria of not supporting a proscribed organisation and being assessed as unlikely to become involved in acts of terrorism.

Disputing the concept of danger applied, they argued that it must involve a serious risk of injury or psychological harm to the public.

Dismissing the legal challenge, Mr Justice Scoffield said: “I have not been persuaded that any aspects of the applicant’s case have highlighted a legal error on the part of the Commissioners.”