Receiving death THREATS is not generally what being a solicitor is meant to be about.

And it is certainly not what Andrew McCooey was anticipating when he entered the legal profession.But hate mail is what Mr McCooey is getting, and plenty of it.

Few criminals have aroused as much passion in this country as 'moors murderers' Ian Brady and Myra Hindley.

For the last seven years Mr McCooey has been the latter's solicitor and, as he says, 'it has not been an easy brief'.

Letters frequently come through his home letter box in Sittingbourne, Kent, filled with obscenities and threats of violence.Difficult the brief may be, but it has also turned out to be extremely interesting in legal terms - especially over the last two months.

Just before Christmas, it emerged that Myra Hindley's file at the Home Office has been stamped 'whole life'.

In other words, unlike nearly every other lifer in British prisons, Ms Hindley is currently ineligible for parole.Mr McCooey, a devout Christian, was introduced to Ms Hindley by a Methodist minister.

The solicitor now maintains she is completely repentant for her crimes of nearly 30 years ago: 'In my judgment, she is a fully reformed and genuinely repentant human being, albeit with her own shortcomings, weaknesses and difficulties of coping with the enormous guilt she must carry.

But she is someone who is completely different to the perception of her as is particularly advanced by the tabloid newspapers.'One of Mr McCooey's most difficult tasks in representing Ms Hindley has been to address harsh media onslaughts.

'It is not easy to counter the Sun's readership poll which showed 99.9% of respondents saying Myra Hindley should rot in hell.'Mr McCooey also points to the difficulty of overcoming another bugbear in the public psyche: Ms Hindley's gender.

'Because she is a woman, she is perceived as a double demon,' he says, meaning that women are expected by the public to protect children so that when they act to harm them, women are seen as even more evil than men who commit similar crimes.While he in no way attempts to diminish the horror of the five murders, Mr McCooey is nonetheless outraged at what he views as a political decision taken purely to win votes and with no regard for the law.

Technically, Home Secretary Michael Howard is still considering Ms Hindley's status.

But it is anticipated that he will soon support the decision taken in 1990 by David Waddington that Ms Hindley's tariff should be whole life.If he does, then Mr McCooey intends to seek leave for judicial review on two points.

First, he will attack what he interprets as home secretary-made law.

His argument runs that, under the parole provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, all life prisoners had hope of release as long as they met two basic criterion.

The first was that they had served a sufficient period to satisfy the twin concepts of retribution and deterrence applicable to each individual murder.

Secondly, experts, such as psychiatrists, the prison governor and probation officers, had to determine whether the prisoner still posed any danger to the public.But last year Mr Howard, in an answer to a House of Commons question, added his own, third, criterion.

Essentially, it boils down to asking the question: will the public wear the release? In other words, if there is a perceived public unease surrounding a possible release, then the prisoner will not qualify for parole.'That is a dangerous new development,' says the 45-year-old sole practitioner.

'The goal posts have been changed without the input of the prisoner or the penal reform people or those who manage prisoners' lives.'Mr McCooey is especially concerned at what he interprets as politicians riding roughshod over judicial recommendations.

He points out that in 1966 the original trial judge had said there was a distinction between Mr Brady and Ms Hindley.

While the former was 'wicked beyond belief' there was hope that, once separated from Mr Brady's influence, Ms Hindley could be reformed.That view was subsequently supported by the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane.

Mr McCooey points out that Lord Lane wrote to the Home Office in 1982 suggesting that Ms Hindley should serve a minimum of 25 years.

But, importantly, he did not indicate that she should effectively be ineligible for parole.Lord Lane reiterated that view three years later when Home Office officials were fixing tariffs for all life prisoners.

It is believed that ministers at that time set a minimum of 30 years as Ms Hindley's tariff, which itself would have been the longest any woman has served in a British prison.But in 1990 David Waddington - for reasons known only to himself, maintains Mr McCooey - refixed the Hindley tariff as 'whole life'.

Ms Hindley herself would never have known had the House of Lords not ruled in 1993 in Doody that the Home Office was obliged to inform all lifers of their tariffs and the reasons for arriving at them.Mr McCooey has subsequently written to Mr Howard, laying out his arguments for rescinding the whole life tariff.

The home secretary is understood to be considering the case but it is expected that he will stick with his predecessor's assessment.

If he does, Mr McCooey will seek le ave for judicial review.'The only safe way in which a human being's liberty should be handled is by an independent judiciary,' he says.

'When sentencing someone you need to be dispassionate.

Making decisions based on what the political outcome will be for an individual minister is wholly wrong.'That sort of approach has not made Mr McCooey a popular man.

Apart from the objectionable, anonymous personal abuse and threats received from the public, the case has also come between him and members of his extended family.But, ultimately, Mr McCooey must seek solace in his professional commitment.

'My position is that I am a lawyer first and foremost and the issues raised by Myra Hindley's case are very interesting and challenging.

From a legal standpoint, her case should be heard.'