To be relieved that the Worboys parole decision has been overturned

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Hopefully, the new ruling will give additional clarity on what the parole board should take into account when making its decisions.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43568533

Excellent news

It looks like the rules keeping parole board decisions confidential will also be abolished.

I'm not sure actually. It seems to me that what was wrong, is that he wasn't charged and tried for more of the other crimes in the first place.

The parole board seems to have done its job, based on the law and the facts it had to work with.

Well done those two women for challenging the verdict.

It's an odd case in that he had an indeterminate sentence which have since been abolished on human rights grounds. Its probable that had he been charged to day his original sentence may well have been longer.

I agree that the decision by the CPS not to pursue more of the cases against him looks flawed. However, if they took the view that an indeterminate sentence would effectively mean he was never released because no parole board would ever be satisfied that he no longer presented a danger then it makes a bit more sense.

I have to admit I haven't read widely on the subject but it leaves me feeling a bit uncomfortable that this decision seems to have been made on the basis that he's assumed to be guilty for more crimes than he was tried for. That might be true but that's not the way justice is supposed to work in this country.

Well done to those brave women who challenged this, it's disgusting how lightly rape is treated.

The parole board seems to have done its job, based on the law and the facts it had to work with.

Really? You don't think this serial rapist a danger to women anymore then? That's what their decision is meant to be based on.

Well done that Justice Secretary who refused to take the case to JR and is now piling everything onto Nick Hardwick whilst the CPS and the Met without whose complete fuckwittery JW woukd have been charged with many more offences ( and caught sooner) . And who starves th3 Met and CPS of resources - as I said well done DG and TM

That's what I thought Passport. Whatever the mistakes make by the police in not bringing more cases to court, surely the principle of innocent til proven guilty should still apply, however obvious it is, in this case, that more crimes were committed.

It's a bit like trial by public opinion, which we're seeing more and more.

Bagel, the police do not have any say on what cases go to court. It's down to the CPS.

The parole board seems to have done its job, based on the law and the facts it had to work with.

The parole board has the fact the police did not pursue other convictions, that at the time the sentence was handed down it did not seem possible whole life tarifs would be abandoned. Why do you think they should not take this info into account?

Yes, I realise that. Wasn't specific enough

Because he wasn't found guilty of any of them GreyGaunlet. Knowing that there were other crimes he "might" have committed is not the same as him being guilty. Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for him based on what he know he's done and I have every sympathy for the victims, both those who got due process and those who didn't but I'm nervous of a system that allows, as PP said, trial by public opinion.

This should be only the first step towards justice for victims. The allegations made of many more crimes should have led to a second trial. The decision made not to pursue them, and indeed many years ago of the further allegations against Harold Shipman, denies victims or their families justice.

It's good news and a relief if only because 3 months ago he was judged dangerous enough to be in a Cat A prison,
Further because the prison service is adamant he is manipulative and unrepentant, and the parole board refused to listen.

If they go through the process, time in a cat C prison under observation and reach the same conclusion then ok, but they should stick to their own processes.

Its scarey that he could have been freed if it wasnt for peoples intervention. Those taking the decision to free him should be disciplined

I've read the judgement from end to end, twice.

It's pretty clear that naive "independent" psychologists, at least one of them in the pay of Worboys, were willing to be taken in by an accomplished liar. Experienced prison psychologists said he should not be released, but were over-ridden on the basis of a 40 minute questioning of Worboys at which inadequate notes were taken. The issue of further offending was not investigated, and the court quite rightly expresses its scepticism at the contention that the CPS by magic managed to charge Worboys with exactly and precisely only the offences of which he was actually guilty.

Those who follow the Parole Board's enthusiastic support of freeing rapists because they're probably nice people really will be horribly reminded of the case of Anthony Rice, who was freed on the basis of flawed assessments by do-gooders and went on to commit a murder. The whole case, which shows that the claims of the Parole Board to be sharp and incisive are rather self-serving, can be read about here in the report by HM Inspectorate of Probation, as it then was.

Whatever the mistakes make by the police in not bringing more cases to court, surely the principle of innocent til proven guilty should still apply,

In the case of Parole hearings, no, that should not apply. It is the task of someone applying for parole to show that they do not present a risk to the public, not the task of the Parole Board to show that they do. Worboys was given an indeterminate sentence. At the parole hearing, the presumption should be that he not be released, unless he can show that he does not present a risk. A reading of the judgement shows that was quite clearly not made out, even if you discount the uncharged offences (ie, looked at solely on the basis of what he was convicted of, his sudden switch from claiming innocence to "accepting" his guilt is not convincing). It's precisely what happened in the Rice case - an accelerating race towards release, based on the most optimistic reading of the evidence, on the assumption that ultimately release is inevitable and the question is "when?" rather than "whether?"

The parole board seems to have done its job

The court, given all the evidence, disagrees. See paragraph 159 onwards.

Cubodial
Thanks for the link to the judgment. It certainly makes interesting reading. The willingness of so many professionals to take Worboys’s statements at face value is worrying.

Yes I'm assuming the criminal is going to lie about being repentant if it means they get out of prison. Or they are going to be actually repentant.

lie about being repentant if it means they get out of prison. Or they are going to be actually repentant.

It's the job of the Parole Board to tell the difference. A reading of the judgement shows that the evidence that they did this in sufficient depth is pretty thin on the ground. If nothing else, the judgement reveals (at paragraph 43, particularly subsection (v), and paragraph 44) that this process was sketchy, to put it mildly. The claims of the forensic precision and depth of the Parole Board are revealed as self-serving: this was a rubber-stamping exercise.

Those who want to talk about "independent experts" are advised to turn to paragraph 125 of the judgement. The only people who spoke in favour of releasing Warboys were three psychologists. According to paragraph 125, "two of whom had been instructed by Mr Radford [ie, Warboys] and the third had previously been instructed by him".

So that's the whole shambles, neatly summarised. A rapist pays three psychologists to write reports, those are accepted as "independent" and the Parole Board recommends his release, on the basis of a dossier of evidence which is accepted as having both required and recommended elements missing and a 40 minute interview. People who want to jump to the Parole Board's defence are welcome to tell us the charitable interpretation of this: I'll settle for "best psychological assessments money can buy".

No words can describe the relief I feel as one of his victims

Well done to these women. Thank God for crowd funding too

Meercat.

This is a brilliant example of what crowd funding can do despite the views towards it on the skin removal thread.

Meercat

This case has shone a much needed light on the whole parole process. I appreciate it is a balancing act. People who no longer present a risk shouldn't be held in prison if they are eligible for parole on the other hand the consequences of wrongly releasing someone can be catastrophic.