A PRISON officer has been jailed for life for the murder of his girlfriend.
Lee Shaun Lucas, 36, of Park Road, Golbourne, admitted the offence, and was told he must serve a minimum of 16 years.
Police were called to the Wigan Royal Infirmary shortly after 12.10pm on Saturday 20 September 2008, after Helen Lucas, 45, had been brought into hospital from her home on Park Road.
A post mortem examination revealed that she died from trauma to her head and neck.
Helen and Lee had been dating for about 14 months. The couple weren't married but Helen had changed her name.
Both Helen and Lee worked as prison officers at Risley Prison, near Warrington.
On the evening of her death Helen and Lee went to a number of nearby pubs, starting at the Royal before moving onto the Sir Charles Napier.
The pair left the pub and went home at about 3am on Saturday 20 September 2008.
Lucas called the ambulance service at about 11am, claiming to have found Helen collapsed on the floor of the upstairs landing.
His account of what happened has changed numerous times.
Senior Investigating Officer, Andy Tattersall, said: "Helen was a lively, popular woman with a large circle of friends and family, many of whom are still struggling to come to terms with her death.
"Although Lee has admitted killing Helen, it still remains unclear exactly what took place in their home when they got back from their night out.
"I believe he attacked Helen in the early hours of the morning, leaving her for dead and only bothering to call for help hours later. By then it was too late.
"He made considerable efforts to clean up after himself and make it look like an accident, but the injuries Helen suffered were so severe it was clear he was lying.
"She was battered by someone who was supposed to love her and look after her.
"Lucas has proved he is a violent man but also a complete coward. Thankfully he will now spend many years behind bars where he belongs."
Tweet
Prison officer jailed for murder
April 28, 2009
Lee Lucas
Lee Lucas
1/2
Play Slideshow
Showing comments 1 to 11 and replies | View All
MancLadUK, Manchester (27/04/2009 at 22:09)
Bejjy ex Salford now Malta, Malta (28/04/2009 at 07:13)
So what are you suggesting that because of the extra cost of "protecting" this murderer in prison he shouldn't be in prison but should be serving a community service instead? He is a killer who brutally murdered the woman that he supposedly loved. She didn't have any protection from this monster so why should he be offered extra protection solely because he was previously employed as a prison officer. He should have thought of the consequences before he committed this murderous act and deserves everything that is coming to him. I, for one, have no sympathy whatever for this excuse for a man.
CorneredAllTheLuck, Tameside (28/04/2009 at 07:19)
Frostee, Oldham (28/04/2009 at 11:16)
The background (including jobs) of killers and most other criminals are always highlighted in the media. The press have not made a special deviation in this case to what they normally do. I cannot understand what your gripe is - surely he deserves whatever is meted out to him, although he will no doubt be spared the worse by segregation and be housed with the paedophiles etc where the most prisoners won't be able to get to him. That would have happened whether or the press published his details.
MancLadUK, Manchester (28/04/2009 at 12:01)
I think you really need to take the time to read what's written before you type your responses, you'll look less silly if you do.
I never said he shouldn't be in prison, of course he should be!
The point I was making was that the inclusion of his job title in the story, which the story would be the same without, will put this man in serious danger inside prison which in turn will put a demand on the prison service, more cost and could potentially cause issues for prison guards in charge of his care. So why include the 'prison guard' part? Why not just put all the other details that were there already? That way he could do his time like everyone else instead of being in a protected area, which in some ways will be more pleasant for him.
Bejjy ex Salford now Malta, Malta (28/04/2009 at 12:47)
Most reports of court cases whatever the crime that has been committed generally mention the occupation, or non-occupation, of the accused; why should this man be any different because he was a prison officer. And why should we the tax-payer pay for any added protection for this vicious murderer? As I and others have pointed out that this killer deserves everything that is coming to him.
Rather than me looking silly, I think it is you in trying to defend the indefensible who looks silly. You are not a serving police or prison officer yourself are you?
Frostee, Oldham (28/04/2009 at 14:02)
I think you should take a step backward and consider what you have written. Even if his job title hadn't been published (which is ludicrous to suggest otherwise) he would still have to go into special protection. Surely you don't believe that he could serve his time in the general prison without anybody ever finding out about him? It's highly likely he could have come face to face with a prisoner(s) he once had custody of. But above all, prisoners will soon get to know when a police officer or a prison officer is in their jail as a convicted criminal - there are numerous ways they will find out.
vinay, rochdale (28/04/2009 at 14:48)
MancLadUK, Manchester (28/04/2009 at 17:20)
Perhaps it's time that the press considered if publishing job details of someone puts an added risk for them? I am all for offenders being punished, but should we be allowing the press to publish information that puts them further at risk? I appreciate that people are angry and want this man punished, including myself, but that doesn't mean it's ok to simply put him at an increased risk while he's being punished, that wouldn't make us much better than the offenders we punish in the first place.
As for the extra cost, it's not a case of choise, the prison has a duty of care for this man and as a result of people knowing what he did previously he will certainly need to be handled in a way that increases the cost of his case to the prison service and ultimately the tax payer.
And my comment re you looking silly had nothing to do with defending this man (which I would never do), it was to do with your comments to me about this man not going to prison, which I never even came close to suggesting and my comments were never anything to do with that at all. I was merely suggesting you read my posts properly before you reply to them so you don't look silly.
MancLadUK, Manchester (28/04/2009 at 17:24)
I am not sure why you would suggest I need to take a step back, I have simply posted my view on something that concerns me each time the press publish information on a victim or offender that perhaps isn't required. This story would still be the same without the offender's ex job title being mentioned. I don't see what need there was to say ex prison officer.
I appreciate that eventually people may have found out what this person did, but by putting it in the press it's pretty much ensured and I think that perhaps the press on a whole, not just the MEN, could look to act a little more responsibly with things like this in future.
This is of course my view on the matter and you are welcome to have a different one, which is what makes reading this section so interesting. At least you read my post properly though, so thanks for that :o)
Enigma, Trafford (28/04/2009 at 19:04)
Sadly some officers see themselves as being above the law and don’t seem to accept the responsibility that comes with the job. This occurs more and more due to the recruiting age and overall standards being lowered no matter what Mr Fahy says!