John Worboys prison release decision overturned by High Court

Judges rule Parole Board must make ‘fresh determination’ after challenge from victims

The decision to release the black cab rapist John Worboys has been quashed by the High Court after a landmark legal challenge by his victims.

They were “thrilled” by the result, which sparked the resignation of Parole Board chair Nick Hardwick and a government review of the body’s rules.

“Women can go to bed tonight with the knowledge he isn’t going to be on the streets any time soon,” said one of the claimants, named only as DSD, amid jubilant scenes in London.

Police are believed to be investigating fresh reports by victims of Worboys who have come forward during the judicial review, including a woman who said she was sexually assaulted in 1999.

The 60-year-old is believed to have attacked more than 100 victims but was only convicted of a sample of 19 offences against 12 women, and campaigners hope new investigations will see him jailed once more.

Lawyers do not expect the “exceptional” case to cause a flood of legal challenges against the release of other prisoners but the public outrage over Worboys’ potential release has damaged confidence in the Parole Board.

Worboys was handed an indeterminate sentence for public protection in 2009 but a minimum term of eight years meant he was considered for release in December.

A dossier of evidence passed to the panel by the Ministry of Justice did not include details of attacks that were not prosecuted, or the sentencing remarks that called Worboys a “high continuing risk to women and a significant risk of reoffending”.

Sir Brian Leveson, Mr Justice Jay and Mr Justice Garnham said the board should have questioned the evidence handed to them, as well as Worboys’ efforts to present himself as an “open and honest” man who took responsibility for his actions.

“The Parole Board should have undertaken further inquiry into the circumstances of his offending and, in particular, the extent to which the limited way in which he has described his offending may undermine his overall credibility and reliability,” they concluded, calling for a judge to chair the new panel.

Sir Brian stressed that although the judicial review’s findings mean that Worboys will be subject to a fresh hearing, they have no bearing on its outcome and the Parole Board may decide to release him again.

Judges also found the body’s “Rule 25”, which currently prohibits reasons for its decisions being made public or passed to victims, unlawful and a violation of the principle of open justice.

The inquiry found that if the Parole Board accepted Worboys’ own accounts of his behaviour and motivations at face value, despite his history as a “clinical and conniving” manipulator.

He maintained his innocence for six years before an abrupt change of heart in 2015, but only ever admitted the offences for which he was convicted – a coincidence judges called “quite remarkable” given that prosecutors had selected the sample of cases for trial themselves.

Worboys, who now calls himself John Radford, also admitted paying a total of £241,000 to 11 women – including the judicial view claimants DSD and NBV – who launched legal claims after their cases were not prosecuted.

Judges said the size of the payment “should have generated a modicum of scepticism” over Worboys’ claim that he had only assaulted the 12 women included in the 2009 trial.

DSD’s account of the black cab driver drugging her with a spiked alcoholic drink and sexually assaulting her in 2003 was made public in a separate court case that won damages from the Metropolitan Police.

The information was not viewed by the Parole Board, even though it would have contradicted the attacker’s claim that his predatory behaviour was “triggered” by a breakup in 2006.

Members of the panel that decided to release the serial sex attacker also failed to request further information from the Crown Prosecution Service or Metropolitan Police, which would have revealed the discovery of a “rape kit” at his home and other evidence of his obsession.

The Parole Board argued that its decision was “lawful and rational” and was based on appropriate evidence, but its chair was forced to announce his resignation as the High Court judgement was handed down.

Nick Hardwick made it clear he had been forced to step down in a resignation letter, saying the Justice Secretary told him his position was “untenable” in a meeting.

“I had no role in the decision of the panel in the case and believe I am capable of leading the Parole Board through the changes, many of which I have advocated, that will now be necessary,” he said.

“I want to state my concern about the independence of the Board. I believe this matter raises very troubling questions about how the Board’s independence can be safeguarded.”

DSD and the lawyers who represented her accused the government of making Mr Hardwick a “scapegoat” for wider failings, including the dossier submitted by the Ministry of Justice itself.

Phillipa Kaufmann QC said the Parole Board was overloaded with cases without sufficient funding, warning: “The board is constrained by a lack of resources, the judiciary is constrained by a lack of resources.”

David Gauke, the Justice Secretary, admitted that “it may well have been the case that information should have been included that wasn’t provided”.

But while being questioned by MPs in the House of Commons, he placed the blame firmly with the Parole Board for failing to probe the evidence available.

“I think it is right that Professor Hardwick stand down as chair,” Mr Gauke said. “I want to acknowledge that he has been a dedicated public servant and done a number of very good things at the Parole Board, but I do believe at this point that there have been significant failures and new leadership is required.”

He announced a review of all Parole Board rules and said he had already decided to abolish the unlawful “Rule 25” to allow victims to be given information on the release of prisoners, as well as creating a mechanism to challenge decisions.

New guidance will be issued on how panels can consider offences that were not prosecuted, dossiers will be checked, and the panels for considering offenders meeting set criteria will include judges.

“The Parole Board makes thousands of decision every year, they involve very difficult judgements and they are not always going to get it right,” Mr Gauke said.

Justice Secretary David Gauke addressing MPs in the House of Commons (PA)

“I welcome the judgment and congratulate the victims who brought this unprecedented legal action.

“I want to take this opportunity reitierate my heartfelt sympathy for all they, and the other victims, have suffered as a result of Worboys’ hideous crimes.”

Harriet Wistrich, the solicitor for the two claimants, praised their “determination” to launch the challenge, which was driven by an online crowdfunding campaign.

“I have been inundated with calls from other victims of Worboys including several women who had never reported attacks by him before,” she added.

“This case from start to finish has illustrated the weakness of our criminal justice system to tackle serious sexual offending, from the failures of the police to adequately investigate; the weakness of CPS decision making selecting only a small number of cases to prosecute; the failure of the Secretary of State to ensure the Parole Board had all the necessary and relevant evidence; the failure of probation to consult all the victims, to ultimately the incomprehensible decision making of the Parole Board itself.”

DSD is still fighting for her case to be prosecuted but said she was thrilled to have won the case, telling The Independent: “I would like to see more prosecutions because although the Parole Board’s decision was quashed, at some point in the future I think they will decide he is fit to come out and safe… no woman is safe with him free.”

Her co-claimant, NBV, said she had been “frozen in shock, disgusted and traumatised by the thought” that Worboys could be released, feeling compelled to hold authorities to account.

“News that we have won this case finally brought huge relief,” she added. “I can get on with my life again without looking over my shoulder.”

The Metropolitan Police refused to confirm or deny whether new investigations were underway, saying it would not provide a “running commentary” and would release information only when the move is “operationally appropriate”.

A spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: “The CPS has been providing early investigative advice to the Metropolitan Police but no files have been submitted for a charging decision.”