The fantasist who invented false claims of rape and murder by a VIP paedophile ring has lost a bid to reduce his 18-year prison sentence.
Carl Beech, 52, was the driving force by the disastrous police investigation into famous Westminster figures from the 1970s and 1980s, which probed allegations against Normandy veteran Field Marshal Lord Bramall, former Home Secretary Leon Brittan and ex-Tory MP Harvey Proctor.
Police chiefs accepted Beech’s claims as “credible and true”, but he was later exposed as a habitual liar who had spun a web of untruths about sadistic rape and abuse.
Beech was jailed at Newcastle crown court last July after being found guilty at trial of 12 counts of perverting the course of justice and one of fraud.
At the Court of Appeal today, his barrister Collingwood Thompson QC urged justices to reduce the 18-year jail sentence, pointing out none of the falsely accused men had gone on to face court proceedings as a result of Beech’s lies.
“If you look at this case, it lacks one aggravating factor, which is that as a result of the false allegations someone was charged”, he said, appealing on a specific part of the sentence relating to perverting the course of justice.
However prosecutor Tony Badenoch QC insisted Beech had “traduced reputations” of his victims by making “the most lurid accusations”.
Beech had named former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath and the former heads of MI5 and MI6 as members of the supposed paedophile ring, claiming he had witnessed other boys being raped and even murdered.
Lord Brittan died before he was told that the police investigation into him had been stopped and Beech’s lies were unravelling.
Dismissing the appeal, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith agreed that the reputations of the victims were “traduced” on a national and global scale.
He said victim impact statements showed the “devastating impact” the accusations had, not just on the victims, but on their friends and family, and that the sentence imposed was “fully justified”.
Speaking after the hearing, Mr Proctor said: “The decision of the court is excellent and it draws attention to the damage that false accusers can make and is a deterrent to further false accusers in the future.”