A PRISONER who sued Scottish ministers for damages over an alleged breach of his human rights because of a delay in getting him ready for release has had his case thrown out at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

James Haggerty alleged there had been a breach of human rights law because there had been an 11-month delay in moving him to a less secure prison where he could prove his continued imprisonment was no longer necessary for the protection of the public.

Haggerty, then 35, was convicted in 2011 at the High Court in Greenock of assaulting and robbing a 71-year-old man at his flat in Kilmacolm.

Later at the High Court in Glasgow, Haggerty was ordered to serve at least five years before being eligible for parole, and was made the subject of a lifelong restriction order, which means he will be kept under super- vision for the rest of his life following his release from jail.

During Haggerty’s trial, the court heard how he and two accomplices, who have never been caught, handcuffed the pensioner, ransacked his home and stole £3000 in cash, before the trio bound and gagged him, cut his phone line and fled the scene.

Haggerty has been held in HMP Shotts but with the punishment part of his sentence served, his lawyers told the court he should have been moved to a less secure prison so that he could be tested under temporary licence conditions that would allow him out of prison.

It was argued that the failure to move him for 11 months amounted to a breach of Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which says a prisoner has the right to rehabilitate himself and to demonstrate that he no longer presents an unacceptable risk to the public.

In February, 2016, the Parole Board told Haggerty: “It is essential that you spend a significant period being tested under temporary licence conditions before you can be considered suitable for release.”

No such facilities exist at Shotts, and it was only in January this year that he was moved. Haggerty dem- anded damages for the delay but Lady Carmichael found in favour of the Scottish ministers.

The judge wrote: “The periods for which no particular explanation is proffered … amount in total to about 10 weeks. There is no information to indicate whether they were in excess of what was required, or, if so, by how much.

“They are not particularly lengthy periods, and in the absence of any basis for finding that they were in excess of what was required, I am not prepared to conclude that they were periods of unlawful delay.”

She added that Haggerty had not established that the ministers had failed to provide him with an opportunity rehabilitate himself that was reasonable in all the circumstances.