A brother of the Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe last night backed a decision by some of the country’s most senior judges to dismiss his appeal against a ruling that he must spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Mick Sutcliffe, of Cottingley, Bingley, called it “the right decision”.

And he pointed out that his elder brother was “skint” and unable to contribute to the estimated five-figure cost of the appeal hearings which have been funded through the public purse.

Three judges at the Court of Appeal in London yesterday rejected the appeal by Sutcliffe, 64, who now calls himself by his mother’s maiden name of Coonan, against the ruling by a High Court judge last year that he must serve a “whole-life” tariff for the murders of 13 women – meaning that he will die in custody.

The former Bradford lorry driver, was given 20 life terms for the 13 murders, and the attempted murder of seven other women, when he was convicted at the Old Bailey in 1981. He has been held at Broadmoor secure hospital since 1984.

Announcing the decision, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, sitting with Mr Justice Calvert-Smith and Mr Justice Griffith Williams, ruled that the interests of justice required “nothing less” than a whole-life order.

Lord Judge said: “Each of the attempted murders, as well as each of the murder offences, taken on its own was a dreadful crime of utmost brutality: taking all the offences together, we have been considering an accumulation of criminality of exceptional magnitude which went far beyond the legislative criteria for a whole-life order.

“Even accepting that an element of mental disturbance was intrinsic to the commission of these crimes, the interests of justice require nothing less than a whole-life order.

“That is the only available punishment proportionate to these crimes.”

Mick Sutcliffe told the Telegraph & Argus: “It is the right decision. He knows he will never be coming out. For his own protection, he’s better off inside. He will have expected this decision.”

The legal costs of the appeal process are estimated to have cost the taxpayer at least £20,000.

His brother said: “Peter has no money, so I imagine it is taxpayers’ money that has paid for the appeal. But everybody is entitled to be represented in the courts.”