A callous killer who gunned down a man while his victim's 11-year-old daughter looked on has failed in his brazen attempt to win compensation for a breach of his human rights.
William John Mullan (59) remains behind bars after his licence was revoked in the wake of a botched loyalist attempt to carry out a violent bank robbery.
But that didn't stop him going to the High Court - and then the Court of Appeal - asking to be compensated out of the public purse because it took so long for a panel to decide he was a menace to society.
Mullan (above) was put back behind bars after he was arrested when cops swooped on a UDA gang about to kidnap a bank official just over three years ago.
The loyalist killer had been freed on licence a decade earlier after serving 14 years of a life sentence for the brutal UFF murder of a man in north Belfast. Mullan was part of a two-man loyalist death squad who called at the Oldpark home of William James Carson in April 1979. When they discovered their victim was not at home, they coldly sat and watched TV with his 11-year-old daughter until he arrived.
They then gunned him down as the horrified little girl looked on.
While on licence, he was one of five loyalists - including exiled Alan McClean, a crony of the Shoukri brothers - arrested when cops foiled a UDA plot to rob the First Trust Bank in 2004. And while on remand for his alleged part in the 'tiger kidnapping', Mullan's life licence was revoked.
Although charges against him were dropped in relation to the foiled bank plot, Mullan was still regarded as a danger to the public and the decision to send him back to jail was upheld.
Last week his brazen bid for compensation - claiming the decision had been in breach of his human rights - was thrown out of the Court of Appeal.
Lord Chief Justice Sir Brian Kerr ruled that the Life Sentence Review Commissioners' had acted lawfully when they revoked Mullan's licence.
He added, however, that the failure of the LSRC to review the legality of the detention until June 2007 was in breach of Mullan's rights, but that he was not entitled for any compensation.