Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

355 replies

Unfinishedkitchen · 04/01/2018 16:25

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

OP posts:
Ereshkigal · 05/01/2018 15:08

Wouldn't that be what most people assume is the point of an indefinite sentence? (yes I know it was a political thing)

prh47bridge · 05/01/2018 15:19

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

Don't know where they got that from. The chair is male, the Chief Executive is male. Possibly the chair of the hearing that made this decision was a woman but I don't have any information on that.

Wouldn't that be what most people assume is the point of an indefinite sentence

Not just what most people assume. It was the point of these sentences. They were for criminals who were a danger to the public but who had not been convicted of a crime warranting a life sentence. They should only be released when the parole board considers that they are no longer a risk to the public.

wibblywobblywoo · 05/01/2018 15:35

So apparently the parole board are quite confident that he won't offend again -

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42574651

So, that's alright then. And Keir Starmer says that if anybody felt allegations they had made about Worboys had not been sufficiently investigated they should "go to the police" - Errrm that would be go to the police like they already did only for him, as DPP at the time to allow all of their cases to be basically set aside. Angry

CoolCarrie · 05/01/2018 15:47

It is fucking disgusting, I feel sick at the thought of it walking around free. I noticed on the early news yesterday, that the reporter said “spokesman “ for the board, but the later reports said “spokesperson “ it jumped out at me. I bet they are all men, I hope to fuck their wives, daughters and mothers give them hell about this!

MrsHathaway · 05/01/2018 15:56

Someone mentioned earlier that they'd like to see the Secret Barrister's thoughts on this.

They were published yesterday. (Apologies if duplicate link: can't see it on the thread)

Very interesting reading. Many questions raised but not answered.

Eltonjohnssyrup · 05/01/2018 16:00

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

I'm sure prosecutors care very much. But politicians and civil servants have a different set of priorities.

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

It's been widely reported. Reference to it in this article:

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-law-chief-backed-lenient-term-for-taxi-rapist-john-worboys-tcv6lc9nw

Gingernaut · 05/01/2018 16:03

According to BBC Radio news, Worboys was charged and convicted of a sample of charges.

This begs the question "Why?"

Chesterwife · 05/01/2018 16:15

Where do I start?

Firstly, this individual is not known to have committed hundreds of rapes. There is a suggestion, from police, that he could have commmited more than a hundred sex assaults (not always the same thing as rape) but that is speculation.

Worboys was convicted of one rape, a handful of sex assaults and a few offences of administering a stupefying substance (likely under OAPA). This is all he could therefore be sentenced for.

The CPS generally do a reasonably good job in difficult circumstances. Sadly, when someone alleges a sex assault or rape months or even years down the line, it is almost impossible to prove this to a legal standard in these types of instance (no longer prospect of DNA, little recollection if drugged etc). Therefore, there can be absolutely no prospect of a reasonable and fair jury convicting on those accounts.

Awful that's the reality.

prh47bridge · 05/01/2018 16:16

Reference to it in this article

That refers to the allegations that emerged after his conviction and says the police were told that further prosecutions were not in the public interest. That suggests the CPS thought that further prosecutions would not increase his sentence. I am not saying they were right.

According to BBC Radio news, Worboys was charged and convicted of a sample of charges

I had understood he was charged with everything that was available at the time. However, if the news report is correct, the usual reason for only proceeding with a sample is that the evidence for the others is weaker. Including weaker cases can undermine the prosecution - the defence pick holes in the weak cases and the jury can end up acquitting on all charges.

Elendon · 05/01/2018 16:18

That link to the secret barrister is rubbish. It is a self publishing piece for a news item he did.

It's clear and obvious that Warboys was a prolific sex offender. The parole panel need to explain their decision.

Eltonjohnssyrup · 05/01/2018 16:26

All of the cases weren't prosecuted because Starmer deemed it not in the public interest as he had been given a determinate sentence.

It's reported here too:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/man-raped-hundreds-women-released-prison-9-years/amp/

Also Guido Fawkes, Fleet Street Fox

nocake · 05/01/2018 16:26

The parole board aren't allowed to explain their decision, beyond what has already been reported.

MrsHathaway · 05/01/2018 16:28

It may well be, Elendon, but people were waiting for it. Because however self-aggrandizing the author, it's a more qualified opinion than unqualified speculation here or on FB ... where of course everyone has already moved on to a different apparent miscarriage of justice.

I found there was very little opinion in it, FWIW, but mainly clarification. And I was very interested to see that the SB hadn't been able to find the court transcripts.

BitOutOfPractice · 05/01/2018 16:29

In fairness to Kier Starmer Elton, it was the CPS who made that decision, not him personally I'm sure. I know the buck stops with him as the big cheese in terms of ultimate responsibility but to say that he actually decided personally is a bit disingenuous

CoolCarrie · 05/01/2018 16:42

So who does the buck stop at then? The police, or the CPS? All of whom are supposed to be public servants, there to administer justice. They have done us all a great disservice in this, to say the very least! This doesn’t just affect the women who were attacked, it affects their families; husbands, sons, fathers of the victims. It is truly sickening

BitOutOfPractice · 05/01/2018 16:44

It stops with the head of the CPS as I said. Which at the time was KS. But to say that her personally made every decision that he CPS made during his tenure is a little unfair, even if he has to take ultimate responsibility for them

CoolCarrie · 05/01/2018 16:46

Then the buck indeed stops with Mr Starmer, something we should bear in mind...!

Eltonjohnssyrup · 05/01/2018 16:50

practice, I think it would be naive to think he wasn't briefed and didn't sign off on such a high profile sensitive case. It's not like it was some petty criminal being done for shoplifting that wouldn't even have come into his orbit.

Anyhope · 05/01/2018 17:07

Yes as see absolute nightmare. At least he was arrested & charged for some time. Many are not. Appalling.

MrsHathaway · 05/01/2018 17:09

I agree it's likely such a high profile (at the time) case must have passed over his desk even if he only rubber stamped his juniors' decisions.

Anyhope · 05/01/2018 17:09

Just shows the attitude to women & rape, child abuse does not matter. The police & TM took the case to Supreme Court sonpolice not responsible for how treated.

BishBoshBashBop · 05/01/2018 17:12

But to say that her personally made every decision that he CPS made during his tenure is a little unfair, even if he has to take ultimate responsibility for them

He should however, like the parole board and police etc explain their position and that responsibility that comes with your title and pay cheque.

He is very very quiet on the subject.

Motoko · 05/01/2018 17:13

Don't know where they got that from. The chair is male, the Chief Executive is male.

Sorry, prh47bridge I meant the panel that made the decision. It was 3 people, headed by a woman.

CarysMa · 05/01/2018 17:17

absolutely disgraceful. If he'd raped even two men, never mind a hundred, I bet he wouldn't be out after 9 years.

100 women, a hundred, omg. how much pain and misery he has caused. I can't believe he will be able to just stop raping.

Grunkalunka · 05/01/2018 17:33

Good comment by Julie Blindel:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/05/john-worboys-women-serial-sex-attacker-released

Also this seems to be being forgotten about how the police dealt with early victims of Warboys:
www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/women-defend-human-right-to-hold-police-to-account-in-the-supreme-court/

A woman reported her assault by Warboys to police in 2002 and another woman in 2007 but police dismissed their allegations. The women eventually sued the Met for not dealing with their allegations properly but the Met is still seeking with the backing of May and now Rudd to have the ruling in favour of the women overturned.