Parole Board upholds ruling that sadistic killer should be released

Steven Ling raped and murdered Joanne Tulip in Northumberland in 1997, stabbing her 60 times.

Steven Ling, who raped and stabbed Joanne Tulip 60 times in a sadistic murder in Northumberland 27 years ago (PA) (PA Media)

The Parole Board has refused to overturn its ruling that a sadistic killer who murdered a woman in 1997 should be released.

The board was asked by Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood to reconsider its recommendation that farm worker Steven Ling should be released after serving 27 years of his life sentence for the murder of Joanne Tulip, 29, in Stamfordham, Northumberland.

On Tuesday, a Parole Board spokesman said: “A judge at the Parole Board considered the application for reconsideration and has decided, based on the evidence, that it will be refused.”

The spokesman added: “Decisions of the Parole Board are solely focused on what risk a prisoner could represent to the public and whether that risk is manageable in the community.

“When assessing the reconsideration application, the judge recognised the very significant gravity of the case and the profound ongoing impact on the victim’s family.”

After the recommendation to release Ling was made in September, following his fifth parole hearing, Ms Tulip’s mother, Doreen Soulsby, described the decision as “outrageous”.

Ms Mahmood asked the Parole Board to reconsider its recommendation on the basis that it was legally irrational.

Ling was inspired to murder Ms Tulip on Christmas Day 1997 by sadism, Newcastle Crown Court heard at the time.

He stabbed her 60 times.

A charge of rape was left on file during the original court case, so he is not a convicted sex offender, but in its ruling the Parole Board said: “Mr Ling has always accepted that he raped the victim.”

According to the Parole Board on Tuesday, the judge who considered the Secretary of State’s application said: “Having had the advantage of hearing and assessing all of the evidence, which of course included the evidence of (Steven Ling), a very experienced panel provided a fair and comprehensive decision which clearly considered all of the evidence with great care and considerable sensitivity.

Parole reviews are undertaken thoroughly and with extreme care

Parole Board spokesman

“The panel in my judgment satisfied the public law duty to provide evidence-based reasons that fully and sufficiently justified and explained the various conclusions that it reached.

“In my judgment it cannot be sensibly argued that this was a decision that no reasonable panel could have come to.”

The board spokesman added: “Parole reviews are undertaken thoroughly and with extreme care. Protecting the public is our number one priority.”

After the Parole Board’s original direction to release Ling in September, Ms Soulsby said she “strongly disagreed” with the decision.

She said: “This is a man who committed the most horrific sadistic crimes against my daughter, including stabbing her 60 times and raping her, after having consumed a significant amount of alcohol.”

She said it was apparent during the Parole Board hearing in July that Ling, 49, still fantasised about graphic sex and added: “There is nothing that can be done to stop this man constantly thinking he is entitled to sex.”

Sentencing him to life in prison, Mr Justice Potts told Ling, who was 23 at the time of the murder: “You will never be released so long as it is thought you constitute a danger to women.”

Ling was handed life with a minimum term of 20 years, which was reduced to 18 years by the High Court.

The Parole Board judgment said Ling has since admitted committing a number of acts of indecent exposure before he murdered Ms Tulip and for which he was not caught.

The panel accepted he had undertaken an official programme to address his violent and sexual offending, and his conduct in prison “has largely been exemplary”.

At a hearing in July this year, two psychologists agreed that Ling should be freed from prison and spoke about his enduring “shame” about his “monstrous” past.

His pending release was subject to conditions which include informing the authorities of any relationships he might develop, being subject to monitoring and a curfew, and staying out of an exclusion zone to avoid contact with his victim’s family.