Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
GuiltyPleasure · 04/01/2018 20:51

With reference to the Secretary of State. The SoS has to agree any Parole Board decision, but it's effectively rubber stamping it. I believe in this case the SoS has already agreed the Parole Board decision. I've known cases where an appeal has been made about the outcome of a hearing, but this has usually been on technical grounds, so a public appeal against a decision will probably be futile.
Just wanted to offer a bit of practical knowledge about the system as I work in it. Not defending the decision itself in any way.

RaspberryOverload · 04/01/2018 20:52

I am wondering...

Would any new victim (ie, from after his release) be able to sue the Parole Board members who agreed to release him? (This is hypothetical, I certainly don't want to see any new victims.)

Given the shit storm being generated about this already, then surely the board members can't be that naive about re-offending risks?

WitchesHatRim · 04/01/2018 20:55

Would any new victim (ie, from after his release) be able to sue the Parole Board members who agreed to release him? (This is hypothetical, I certainly don't want to see any new victims.)

Imo that would be a bad president. Where would you stop? The judge for the sentence? The report from the prison? Starmer as he was DPP at the time?

GuiltyPleasure · 04/01/2018 21:14

@RaspberryOverload. No they probably wouldn't. The risk assessment system for re-offending and risk of harm works on a scale of very high to low. Even a low risk offender might reoffend but it's assessed there's a lesser chance of it happening taking into account static & dynamic factors. The Parole Board would never say there's no chance of re-offending & on that basis probably couldn't be sued. The decision to release is based whether,on the evidence presented at the time, the risk of harm or reoffending is able to be managed in the community.
Again I'm not defending decisions. Just explaining the system

Bindibot · 04/01/2018 21:29

I wonder where all the usual rape apologists are today?

You know the ones who appear on rape threads who always claim to know someone; a relative, friend of friend, bloke from the pub who was done for rape but everyone knows she lied…

BigBaboonBum · 04/01/2018 21:33

36 days per victim. Sickening

EnthusiasmIsDisturbed · 04/01/2018 21:36

I am shocked by this

I am stunned that he isn’t serving at least 20 years

It’s disgraceful

Could this be reversed?

Fatbergs · 04/01/2018 21:41

We need to start demonstrating.
Nobody is listening

EnthusiasmIsDisturbed · 04/01/2018 21:42

Signed

prh47bridge · 04/01/2018 21:45

I am stunned that he isn’t serving at least 20 years

If he had been convicted of all the rapes he probably would have been - certainly longer than 10 years. However, he was only convicted of one rape, five sexual assaults, one attempted sexual assaults and twelve drug offences. That resulted in him being given an indefinite sentence (a form of sentence that is no longer used) with a minimum term of 8 years.

VioletCharlotte · 04/01/2018 21:46

Signed.

I was shocked when I heard about this on the radio earlier. Unbelievable and makes a complete mockery of his victims.

Grandmarmalade · 04/01/2018 21:49

Thank you for the email details. I’ve emailed the JM and My local MP. But I think it’s going to take more than that to get changes :(

Wormysquirmy · 04/01/2018 21:51

I have signed.

I am furious. But not surprised. Sexual violence against women is becoming acceptable, isn't it? We are going backwards.

prh47bridge · 04/01/2018 21:56

Could this be reversed

I don't think so. Politicians cannot overrule the parole board.

But I think it’s going to take more than that to get changes

There have already been changes. The form of sentence he got has been abolished. If he had been sentenced under the current guidelines he would have got a longer sentence. However, the big problem is that he has not been tried for most of the crimes the police believe he committed. The reason for this is unclear.

I am not saying the system is perfect. I am sure further change is needed. But some aspects of this case do not reflect the current system. They reflect the system as it was in 2007.

Judashascomeintosomemoney · 04/01/2018 22:08

This isn't a policing issue. They did their job by catching him and gathering evidence. This is a criminal justice issue
Oh but it really really is a policing issue

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/10/police-appeal-against-ruling-in-favour-of-worboys-survivors

So, the Metropolitan Police take two of Worboys rape survivors to the Supreme Court. After not believing them and not investigating and presumably leaving him free to rape again and again. The survivors win a high court case to say their human rights were breached, the court of appeal uphold it and yet as recently as March 2017 the Met feel it appropriate to take these two rape survivors to the Supreme Court? If any of us here were, God Forbid, raped tomorrow would you have confidence in the Metropolitan Police?

LineysRunes · 04/01/2018 22:10

Bloody hell. This is horrific.

Lilimoon · 04/01/2018 22:14

This news has made me feel completely hopeless.

beyondworriedmum · 04/01/2018 22:36

Absolutely disgusted rape destroys lives petition signed!

yolofish · 04/01/2018 23:12

signed and shared.

prh47bridge · 04/01/2018 23:38

The petition appears to be asking parliament to overrule the parole board in this case. That isn't going to happen. Parliament cannot overrule the parole board. They can discuss the case, express views and possibly change the law for future cases but that is all they can do.

Note that things have already changed since Worboys was convicted. If convicted today his sentence would have been different. But changes do not apply retrospectively so his sentence was not affected by the changes in the last 10 years. Equally, any changes introduced now would not affect anyone already in prison.

My view is that the big failure in this case is that he has only been convicted of a handful of offences including just one rape. If he has really committed as many offences as the police suggest he should have been prosecuted for them.

GoReylo · 04/01/2018 23:55

Would it be possible for some of his other victims to prosecute him, or is the paltry 9 years considered adequate and complete punishment for 100+ rapes?

prh47bridge · 05/01/2018 00:41

No, the time he has served is definitely not considered adequate for 100+ rapes. Even by the sentencing standards of the time it would not be adequate.

The victims could attempt to bring a private prosecution. They would face a number of obstacles. They may not have access to all the evidence needed to secure a conviction. And they may find that the courts rules that a fair trial is not possible because of all the publicity. Note, for example, the header of this thread which states as fact that he raped 100 women. From the point of view of the courts, the fact is that he raped one woman and is alleged to have raped or sexually assaulted 100 or so other women, so the thread header is prejudicial to any possible trial. Just to be clear, I'm only using that as an example. A thread on Mumsnet would not, on its own, be anything like enough to stop a trial.

If any of the victims thinks they have the evidence, has or can raise the necessary money to fund the prosecution and wants to give it a go, they could do so. As far as I am aware nothing has happened that would completely prevent him being tried on these charges.

PickingOakum · 05/01/2018 01:03

This sort of thing is dangerous.

People forget that one of the roles of our justice system is not just to either punish or rehabilitate an offender, but to prevent extrajudicial or vigilante justice. The state prosecutes and incarcerates to stop mob violence (aka. torches and pitchforks) after a crime has been committed. It's to stop people taking the law into their own hands and the streets thus descending into riots, violence and the destruction of property.

In short, the state punishes so you have no reason to.

Crap like this severely undermines that principle. If the state will not prosecute Warboys appropriately nor sentence him appropriately, then it's not such a leap to assume this could stand for many other perpetrators of similar crimes. So then what are victims and their families and surrounding communities to think?

And such a state of affairs is the start of a very short road to people being dragged from their homes by angry mobs, based on false accusations, after a crime has been committed in their area.

UnRavellingFast · 05/01/2018 01:04

another one with the link to the petition www.change.org/p/uk-parliament-reverse-the-parole-board-s-decision-to-free-the-black-cab-rapist-john-worboys please drum this up on all your social media and throughout mumsnet ppl