This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/05/john-worboys-release-distressing-for-victims-says-parole-board-chair

The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 6 Version 7
John Worboys: alleged victims ready to bring fresh prosecutions, lawyer says John Worboys: alleged victims ready to bring fresh prosecutions, lawyer says
(about 2 hours later)
Alleged victims of the serial sex offender John Worboys are ready to bring fresh prosecutions against him and send him back to jail, their lawyer has said. Alleged victims of the serial sex offender John Worboys are ready to bring fresh prosecutions against him and send him back to jail, according to their lawyer.
The victims, all women, are devastated by the imminent release of Worboys who “denied his heinous crimes and then forced them to endure the torment of a criminal trial,” said Richard Scorer of Slater Gordon who represents eight of the London black taxi driver’s alleged victims who have yet to have their claims heard in a criminal court. Women targeted by Worboys are devastated by the imminent release of the black-cab driver, who “denied his heinous crimes and then forced [victims] to endure the torment of a criminal trial”, said Richard Scorer of Slater and Gordon. Scorer represents eight of Worboys’ alleged victims who were not included in the original criminal prosecution.
On Friday evening, the Crown Prosecution Service revealed that while it prosecuted Worboys for attacks on 14 women, it dropped cases involving three other women even though it assessed they “passed the evidential test” because there were sufficient counts “to enable the judge to impose an appropriate sentence”. The Parole Board is able to assess the continued risk posed by prisoners based on psychiatrist and prison guard reports at Parole Board hearings that take place around once a year for each offender. Some of the hearings are oral, some of them written.
Worboys, 60, has served nine years and nine months of an indeterminate sentence, which had a minimum term of eight years for drugging and sexually assaulting 12 women, including raping one of them. He is likely to be freed within weeks. In November, a three-person panel of the Parole Board directed the release of Worboys, following an oral hearing. He will be released back into society under strict monitoring on a licence period of at least 10 years.
After he was jailed in 2009, police told prosecutors about another 19 alleged victims, but the CPS advised that it would be in the public interest only to prosecute allegations of rape. Parole Board hearings are held in private and reasons for release are not made public, although a consultation is to be launched on how the body shares its decision-making with the public.
One victim, who gave evidence against Worboys in his 2009 trial on Friday, lambasted the parole board’s decision to let him go. Speaking on condition of anonymity, she led calls, backed by the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and the chair of the home affairs select committee, Yvette Cooper, for a full explanation of why he was now considered no danger to the women. The Parole Board is an independent body and its recommendation for Worboys’ release cannot be overturned by the Ministry of Justice.
“For the parole board to find Worboys safe to release, after such a short time, is shocking, not least because they won’t tell us why,” she told the Guardian. “We need transparency as a matter of urgency. What do the parole board know that we don’t that means he’s no longer considered a serious danger to women?” There are examples of Parole Board decisions being challenged by judicial review in the courts, but only when the prisoner has been denied release.
One hundred and five complaints against Worboys reached the CPS but the Guardian understands he was formally protesting his innocence as recently as two years ago. In March 2013 he applied to have his convictions reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, only to then withdraw the claim in May 2015. Read a fuller explainer on John Worboys
Scotland Yard said in statement: “No new information has been received at this time, there is currently no live Met investigation. Should any further information come to light it will be fully investigated.” On Friday night the Crown Prosecution Service revealed that while it had prosecuted Worboys for attacks on 14 women, it had dropped cases involving three other women, even though it assessed they “passed the evidential test”, because there were sufficient counts “to enable the judge to impose an appropriate sentence”.
On Friday evening, the Ministry of Justice declined to comment on whether it would change the law to allow details of parole decisions to be released, and the political fallout of the case looked set to spread to the Theresa May. The prime minister has backed the police against two of Worboys’ victims in an ongoing supreme court battle over police blunders in their investigations, which is set for a ruling within weeks. Worboys, 60, has spent nine years and nine months in prison, including time on remand. He was given an indeterminate sentence, which had a minimum term of eight years, for drugging and sexually assaulting 12 women, including raping one of them. He is likely to be freed within weeks.
As home secretary, May intervened to support Scotland Yard’s case that it should not be held liable under the Human Rights Act for its failings. Two of Worboys’ victims had already won an appeal court ruling that police failed to carry out an effective investigation. Even though he drove one of those victims to a police station, having been persuaded to do so by another man, officers dismissed her as a drunk and failed to take Worboys’ name or car registration. The other victim, who was drugged and raped, went to police but they did not even log it as a serious sexual assault. After he was jailed in 2009, police also told prosecutors about another 19 alleged victims, but the CPS advised that it would be in the public interest only to prosecute allegations of rape.
The human rights organisation Liberty said May “has serious questions to answer” about her backing of the police. One victim, who gave evidence against Worboys in his 2009 trial, lambasted the parole board’s decision to let him go. Speaking on condition of anonymity, she led demands for a full explanation as to why he was now considered to be no danger to women. The call was backed by the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and the chair of the home affairs select committee, Yvette Cooper.
“For the parole board to find Worboys safe to release after such a short time is shocking, not least because they won’t tell us why,” she told the Guardian. “We need transparency as a matter of urgency. What do the parole board know that we don’t that means he’s no longer considered a serious danger to women?”
A total of 105 complaints against Worboys reached the CPS, but the Guardian understands he was formally protesting his innocence as recently as two years ago. In March 2013 he applied to have his convictions reviewed by the criminal cases review commission, only withdrawing the claim in May 2015.
When she comes to, the victim finds Worboys attempting to put his hand inside her underwear. She reports it to the policeWhen she comes to, the victim finds Worboys attempting to put his hand inside her underwear. She reports it to the police
Remembers nothing moreRemembers nothing more
She escapes without being assaultedShe escapes without being assaulted
Remembers Worboys kissing her, but nothing more. The following day her legs are bruisedRemembers Worboys kissing her, but nothing more. The following day her legs are bruised
Remembers nothing moreRemembers nothing more
Victim six claimed she was drugged, but insisted on being taken home without being assaulted. Worboys was found not guilty of administering a drug with intentVictim six claimed she was drugged, but insisted on being taken home without being assaulted. Worboys was found not guilty of administering a drug with intent
Victim seven picked up later the same evening. Drugged and sexually assaulted while unconscious, finding her tampon missing the following day. She reports it to the policeVictim seven picked up later the same evening. Drugged and sexually assaulted while unconscious, finding her tampon missing the following day. She reports it to the police
Worboys arrested after his cab's licence plate was identified on CCTV from the building where victim seven lived. Released on police bail and no further action is takenWorboys arrested after his cab's licence plate was identified on CCTV from the building where victim seven lived. Released on police bail and no further action is taken
She reports the attack to policeShe reports the attack to police
She reports the attack to policeShe reports the attack to police
Worboys was found not guilty of administering a drug with intentWorboys was found not guilty of administering a drug with intent
Remembers finding her skirt pushed to her waist. Later discovers from police that she had been forcibly penetrated with a vibratorRemembers finding her skirt pushed to her waist. Later discovers from police that she had been forcibly penetrated with a vibrator
She goes to the policeShe goes to the police
The court heard she lost a wristband which was later found at Worboys' home. The court heard she lost a wristband which was later found at Worboys' home. 
Worboys arrested at 10am on suspicion of repeated sexual assaultsWorboys arrested at 10am on suspicion of repeated sexual assaults
Total later rises to 14 as more victims come forward Total later rises to 14 as more victims come forward 
The parole board is meanwhile facing anger at the decision to release Worboys, and for the failure to inform all of his victims before the announcement was made. Scotland Yard said in statement: “No new information has been received at this time; there is currently no live Met investigation. Should any further information come to light it will be fully investigated.”
Nick Hardwick, who chairs the board, has been called to explain its decisions to the Commons justice committee. The Ministry of Justice declined to comment on whether it would change the law to allow details of parole decisions to be released, and the political fallout of the case looked likely to spread to Theresa May. The prime minister has backed the police against two of Worboys’ victims in a continuing supreme court battle over police blunders in their investigations, which is due for a ruling within weeks.
Bob Neill, who chairs the committee, said: “In my view it is ridiculous that the current rules prevent the board making public the reasons for their decisions.” As home secretary, May intervened to support Scotland Yard’s case that it should not be held liable under the Human Rights Act for its failings.
Two of Worboys’ victims had already won an appeal court ruling that police failed to carry out an effective investigation. Even though he drove one of those victims to a police station, having been persuaded to do so by another man, officers dismissed her as a drunk and failed to take Worboys’ name or car registration. The other victim, who had been drugged and raped, went to police but they did not even log it as a serious sexual assault.
The human rights organisation Liberty said May “has serious questions to answer” about her backing of the police.
The parole board is meanwhile facing anger over the decision to release Worboys, and for the failure to inform all his victims before the announcement was made.
Nick Hardwick, who chairs the board, apologised unreservedly because two victims had not been informed of the decision, but pointed out that it was the role of the probation service’s victim contact team to pass on the information.
Hardwick defended the decision, saying the law prevented any publication of the three-person panel’s decision-making process. However, he said the case highlighted the need for greater transparency and that he had “radical plans” to change the rules.Hardwick defended the decision, saying the law prevented any publication of the three-person panel’s decision-making process. However, he said the case highlighted the need for greater transparency and that he had “radical plans” to change the rules.
Scorer is representing women who successfully sued Worboys in the civil courts but were not included on the indictment in his 2009 trial although they gave statements to the police. He has been called to explain the parole board’s decisions to the Commons justice committee. Robert Neill, who chairs the committee, said: “In my view it is ridiculous that the current rules prevent the board making public the reasons for their decisions.”
He said the question of whether Worboys had admitted his crimes was key. “If he still denies his crimes, then he clearly poses a continuing risk to women,” he said. “If he now admits that he deliberately and systematically drugged and raped women, then the police need to look at whether there are any crimes that he was not convicted of and seek justice for those victims.” Scorer is representing women who successfully sued Worboys in the civil courts, but were not included on the indictment in his 2009 trial, even though they gave statements to the police.
He said the question of whether Worboys had admitted his crimes was crucial. “If he still denies his crimes, then he clearly poses a continuing risk to women,” he said. “If he now admits that he deliberately and systematically drugged and raped women, then the police need to look at whether there are any crimes that he was not convicted of and seek justice for those victims.”
Scorer said that when he visited Worboys in jail in 2013 he was “clearly a very manipulative and dangerous individual” and that he was “concerned [Worboys] may have fooled the board into believing he is no longer a threat”.Scorer said that when he visited Worboys in jail in 2013 he was “clearly a very manipulative and dangerous individual” and that he was “concerned [Worboys] may have fooled the board into believing he is no longer a threat”.
But Deborah Russo, joint managing solicitor at the Prisoners’ Advice Service which helps inmates through parole hearings, said: “Knowing how thorough they normally are and how concerned they are about risk, they will have considered whether a prisoner poses any danger of harm on release. He must have shown through his progress in custody that he doesn’t pose any risk in future.” Keir Starmer, who was the director of public prosecutions at the time of the conviction and is now a member of the shadow cabinet, said: “It is very important that if there are any allegations anybody thinks have not been looked into sufficiently, they go to the police.”
The Metropolitan police said there was no current investigation into further allegations against Worboys, but Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions at the time of the conviction and now a member of the shadow cabinet, said: “It is very important that if there are any allegations that anybody thinks have not been looked into sufficiently, that they go to the police.”
The political fallout of the Worboys case looks set to spread.
The Parole Board is able to assess the continued risk posed by prisoners based on psychiatrist and prison guard reports at Parole Board hearings that take place around once a year for each offender. Some of the hearings are oral, some of them written.
In November, a three-person panel of the Parole Board directed the release of Worboys, following an oral hearing. He will be released back into society under strict monitoring on a licence period of at least 10 years.
Parole Board hearings are held in private and reasons for release are not made public, although a consultation is to be launched on how the body shares its decision-making with the public.
The Parole Board is an independent body and its recommendation for Worboys’ release cannot be overturned by the Ministry of Justice.
There are examples of Parole Board decisions being challenged by judicial review in the courts, but only when the prisoner has been denied release.
Read a fuller explainer on John Worboys
Cooper said: “There are many serious questions why this dangerous man has been given parole after serving such a short sentence for his attacks against women. Given the seriousness of this case, the Parole Board should publish their reasons immediately so both the decision and the process can be scrutinised before this man is released.”
The Ministry of Justice declined to comment on whether it would change the law which prevents the Parole Board from discussing the reasons behind decisions.
Hardwick said the case highlighted the need for greater transparency. “One of the frustrations of my role is that we are specifically forbidden by the Parole Board rules from disclosing the details of why we made a decision. I have set out, prior to this case, some radical plans for changing that.”
“It goes with the territory that we have to make very unpopular decisions. The offender has to demonstrate to us that they are safe to be released; for a prisoner like Worboys, who had an indeterminate sentence for public protection, that’s a hard thing to do.”
Hardwick apologised unreservedly that two of Worboys’ victims had not been informed of the decision, but pointed out that it was the role of the Probation Service’s victim contact team to inform victims.
Later the Ministry of Justice said some of Worboys’ victims had chosen not to be updated.
Stella Creasy, a Labour MP, led a cross-party group of almost 60 MPs demanding that David Lidington, the justice secretary, launch an investigation into whether Worboys’ victims were allowed to make representations as part of the parole process. One told the Guardian she was not invited to do so.