He raped 100 women, was jailed for life in 2009 and is about to be released on parole

[Unfinishedkitchen]

AIBU to believe raping 100 women is worth more than nine years in jail?

www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/04/black-cab-rapist-john-worboys-released-prison

Fuck human rights? Is that you katie Hopkins?

I am shocked at how he only got 9 years. His crimes involved a level cold blooded premeditated planning and wickedness. A man of his age is too old too ever to change and at 60 years old if he's in good health he could still be a threat to women and if he's drugging people he doesn't even need to be fit or strong.

It's a fucking outrage.
I can only hope and pray that other victims come forward and he can be arrested as soon as he released to face more charges and be put away again.
I despair at being a woman sometimes.
Second class citizens that we are

I think we should have public parole hearings like in America with the people making decisions having to justify and explain their decisions.
This is a problem that could have been foreseen as he was only convicted of 1 rape and the other offences don't carry the same harsh sentence as rape.
He probably wasn't prosecuted for the other reported rapes because of lack of evidence. If you have witnesses who can't remember much or anything at all it then comes down to forensic evidence like toxicology and DNA. But many were reported too late to collect such eveidence. So unless it emerges that the CPS had strong evidence and still didn't prosecute I am not going to criticise them for this one.

The parole board have made a recommendation it can be rejected by Amber Rudd

I'm afraid that is wrong. The Ministry of Justice (NOT the Home Office, so Michael Gove, not Amber Rudd) must comply. No politician has any power to change or reject the parole board's decision in this case.

If the decision was to move him to an open prison it would be different. That would indeed be a recommendation and would not be binding. But a parole board decision to release is final and cannot be overruled.

I don't understand why he has only been charged and prosecuted for a small number of the offences he allegedly committed

The additional offences did not emerge until after his conviction. There are a number of possible reasons why he was not prosecuted for them.

It may be that the police or the CPS decided that there wasn't enough evidence of the additional offences to give a reasonable prospect of conviction. The police telling the press they believe he committed over 100 rapes is a long way from them having enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did so. And prosecuting him with inadequate evidence makes successful prosecution later more difficult.

It is possible that they could only prove relatively minor offences (drugging, for example), in which case conviction may not have led to any change in his sentence. If that was the case they may have concluded that it wasn't worth taking it to trial.

It may be that they believed publicity around the case meant a judge would decide that a fair trial was not possible. I think it is unlikely this was the reason.

And, of course, it could be incompetence. And there may be some other explanation I haven't thought of.

I have no inside information but I would say the most likely reason is lack of evidence - either they didn't have enough to prove anything or they could only prove some of the more minor offences.

could Worboys technically be tried for the other offences

It depends on exactly what happened but, based on the information I can see, I believe he could still be tried for the other offences provided the judge was happy that a fair trial was possible. There is no time limit for prosecutions for serious sexual crimes.

Thanks prh.

Yes you are right pro, it is moj. Thanks for clarification

Posted about this in Feminist Chat but posting here too because I'm fucking fuming. I shared a petition on Facebook about the black cab rapist (can't bring myself to say his name). Someone commented how they were sick of soft penalties for attacks on women and children. MY OWN MOTHER replied with "Men get hurt too xxx". Speechless. I've got a battle to fight at home first then Where do I even start with a comment like that?

@alarox men usually get hurt by other men

I wonder if he wasn't prosecuted for the other crimes to save money and court time.

One of the hurdles that parole boards should have to pass for serious crimes is "Am I so confident that this man is no longer a risk to society, that I am happy to have him living next door to me for six months?" Or how about "If I were a teenage girl, would I feel confident getting on an empty bus with this man as the only other passenger?"

The lack of any other prosecutions could also have been a function of his indeterminate sentence. If it was assumed he would struggle to get parole at the end of the minimum term further prosecutions wouldn't make any difference to how long he would be in prison.

Sadly, he seems to have got parole rather too easily.

At the time of his conviction, 83 women had come forward with complaints against him. Another 19 have come forward since then.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5237363/Questions-Labour-John-Worboys-early-release.html#ixzz53JeVWlKt

The Times has a fuller article about Baroness Scotland's involvement in the decision not to appeal against the leniency of the sentence.

Yvette Cooper has, as chairwoman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, called for the Parole Board to immediately publish its reasons for allowing his release.

I wonder if he wasn't prosecuted for the other crimes to save money and court time

That is not directly a consideration. It is indirectly in that the CPS only prosecute where there is a realistic chance of conviction. It also comes in slightly more directly if the evidence was only likely to lead to conviction for some of the lesser offences, leaving his sentence unchanged. If additional convictions would not change the length of his sentence the CPS may think it is not worth the time and expense of proceeding.

At the time of his conviction, 83 women had come forward with complaints against him. Another 19 have come forward since then

In saying the offences did not emerge until after his conviction I was simplifying a complicated situation. My understanding is that some came forward too late to be added to the original trial and that for others there was insufficient evidence to proceed with their complaints. Since the investigation seems to have been botched, this could be a failure of the investigation. But my understanding is that the bulk of the allegations were too late for the original trial.

Sadly, he seems to have got parole rather too easily

Well this is it and exactly the reason why Labour introduced these sneaky sentences. Justice system looks tough at the time of sentencing but when they're released early shrug and blame it on the parole board.

I've had a look at the CPS process and it appears that you can't overturn a decision not to prosecute because it was 'unreasonable', but only if it is 'wrong' e.g. on a point of law. So probably most if not all are unprosecutable and if any are they're probably the latest reported weakest cases.

prh47bridge just wanted to say thank you for the time you've taken explaining some of the legal issues here. I didn't know or understand some or all of them and you've explained it all so clearly and calmly. Thank you

My understanding is that some came forward too late to be added to the original trial and that for others there was insufficient evidence to proceed with their complaints.

Some came forward to late, but the others weren't set aside because of lack of evidence, but because of the expectation it wasn't in the public interest to pursue because he was expected to get a long sentence from the charges already laid and if he didn't then they didn't care anyway.

and if he didn't then they didn't care anyway

In my experience prosecutors care a lot about ensuring sex offenders get long sentences.

Do you have a source for your statement that others were set aside on public interest grounds?

I find myself wondering if this is a "lightning conductor" exercise on the part of the parole board ... make an obviously perverse decision in an emotive case concerning women, watch while the fury descends and hope that countless lesser cases will go under the radar

Yes I also wondered what might go under the radar while we're all exercised about this.

I find myself wondering if this is a "lightning conductor" exercise on the part of the parole board ... make an obviously perverse decision in an emotive case concerning women, watch while the fury descends and hope that countless lesser cases will go under the radar

Very unlikely. Relatively few parole board decisions get into the press. The countless lesser cases would go unremarked normally. Now they are more likely to come under scrutiny as people look for other similar issues. And this decision would have been made by just three members of the parole board, not by the board as a whole.

Where do I even start with a comment like that

Yes, men do get hurt too but for every male rape victim there are 7 female victims.

just wanted to say thank you for the time you've taken explaining some of the legal issues here

You are very welcome.

They said on the radio earlier, that the head of the parole board was a woman.

And there is this from the chairman of the Parole Board, Prof Nick Hardwick -

Prisoners held indefinitely after they have completed their minimum sentence should not have to prove they are safe before being released.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3709195/Parole-Board-chief-claims-rules-releasing-offenders-no-fixed-end-sentence-EASED-festering-jail.html