Son of Shropshire murderer in court for coat theft

Robert Stanislaw Ligus, who has appeared before the courts nearly 40 times for more than 75 offences, was in Shrewsbury Crown Court yesterday to admit the theft of a coat from the Mountain Warehouse shop in the town's Pride Hill.

The court was told the 35-year-old, whose father is now detained indefinitely in a secure mental hospital, had had many troubles in his life which had seen him turn to drugs.

Mr Robert Edwards, prosecuting, said a security guard from Boots in Pride Hill, Shrewsbury, watched Ligus, who was known to him, go into the adjacent Mountain Warehouse store.

"He saw him take his jacket off, put a coat on and put the jacket back on on top, walking out without paying.

"There was a chase on foot and Ligus was detained until police arrived," Mr Edwards told the court.

"Ligus is not a stranger to the justice system, with 78 offences in 39 appearances in the courts."

Judge Graham Huston told Ligus he had squandered the chance that he had been given when he received a suspended prison sentence earlier this year for trying to break into three units in Shrewsbury's Indoor Market.

The judge sentenced Ligus, of Avondale Drive, Castlefields, Shrewsbury, to one month in prison and also invoked four months of a suspended sentence that Ligus received earlier this year.

Mr Michael Sherwood Smith, for Ligus, said his client had borrowed a coat from a friend to go to collect a prescription, but knew he had to return it.

"He was cold and that is why he stole the coat," he said.

"He had had many unhappy occasions in his life and had sought solace in illegal drugs.

"However he has reduced his methadone dose tremendously."

While in prison he confessed to committing two other killings in the same year and, in 2011, a Birmingham Crown Court jury found him responsible for the murders of Trevor Bradley, 53, from Ludlow, and Brian Coles, 57, from Whitchurch.

Ligus senior, 62, is now detained indefinitely in a secure mental hospital.

Because of his mental state, jurors were instructed to rule on whether the father-of-three did the acts alleged against him, rather than being required to return verdicts of guilty or not guilty.