Black cab rapist John Worboys to stay in prison

[Popchyk]

BBC link

The "black cab rapist" John Worboys must stay in prison, the Parole Board has ruled.

Worboys who is now known as John Radford, was jailed in 2009 for assaults on 12 women in London.

Among reasons given for refusing the 61-year-old parole were his "sense of sexual entitlement" and a need to control women.

In January the Parole Board said he would be freed after serving 10 years, but victims challenged the decision.

The High Court overturned the board's original ruling and sided with the legal challenge.

The BBC has seen a summary of the reasons why the Parole Board has now refused to release Worboys, which include "risk factors" such as Worboys' "sexual preoccupation, a sense of sexual entitlement and a belief that rape is acceptable".

At his trial at Croydon Crown Court in 2009, jurors were told Worboys picked up his victims in London's West End.

The court heard Worboys claimed he had won the lottery or had won money at casinos and offered his victims a glass of celebratory champagne laced with sedatives.

Worboys was convicted of 19 offences including one count of rape, five sexual assaults, one attempted assault and 12 drugging charges.
As well as being ordered to serve at least eight years, Worboys was given an indeterminate sentence, meaning he could be kept in prison as for as long as he was deemed to remain a danger to the public.

Police believe Worboys may have carried out more than 100 rapes and sexual assaults on women in London between 2002 and 2008.

Among the documents considered by the panel were a 1,255 page dossier on Worboys and personal statements from seven victims.

It concluded: "After considering the circumstances of offending, the progress made while in custody, and the evidence presented within the dossier, the panel was not satisfied that Mr Worboys was suitable for release or progression to the open estate."

The Parole Board said under current legislation Worboys will be eligible for a further review "within two years", but this would be at a date set by the Ministry of Justice.

That’s a huge about face - Ready for release” to having “a sense of sexual entitlement and a belief that rape is acceptable”. How did they miss those on the first consideration ?

Strange really that this man who police believe raped more than 100 women now has risk factors of sexual preoccupation, a sense of sexual entitlement and a belief that rape is acceptable.

And yet he didn't seem to have any of those in January when he was deemed safe to release.

Cross-posted with Boom.

Yep. What's actually changed about Worboys since January?

Nothing.

Only thing that has changed is that the rest of the Parole Board fear for their jobs after Nick Hardwick was forced to resign.

I'm very glad to hear this. Worboys is an extremely dangerous man.

Strange really that this man who police believe raped more than 100 women now has risk factors of sexual preoccupation, a sense of sexual entitlement and a belief that rape is acceptable.

And yet he didn't seem to have any of those in January when he was deemed safe to release.

Indeed.

So pleased, I was almost in tears of rage when the original release decision was announced. Utterly contemptuous towards his victims.

yes, I'm mystified that they wanted to release him.

I was extremely pleased when I heard this report today. Cannot believe the about face in this decision. Does anyone know if there is going to be any further investigation of how these decisions are made? I can't believe that it's just a case of a one off mistake.

Its good news, but I'm too cynical to take it at face value.

Shows it's worth victims objecting!

that gladness I feel about the fact that that worthless oxygen thief is still behind bars is really kind of ruined by my continuing astonishment that it was ever proposed that he was let out after such a desultory sentence. What were they thinking?

Jesus christ

also "witnesses described positive behaviour in custody...but did not support release or progression to open conditions in their reports"

How the fuck did the original decision get made?

I remember the men online telling everyone Very Patiently why the original Worboys decision was absolutely rock solid, absolutely in line with the approach that should have been taken.

I've often thought of this Marina Hyde piece on the Worboys parole decision

Across the airwaves and the internet since news of his release broke, a lot of chaps have taken the time to explain in small words why what has happened is perfectly reasonable. For my money, rather too many (though not all) of these teeter on the brink of finding many women’s reaction to the news “emotional”...

...to all the Great Explainers out there, allow me to return the favour. Allow me to explain this apparently irrational behaviour of women objecting to Worboys’ minibreak at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. For the avoidance of doubt, I and plenty of other women understand that Worboys was sentenced for 19 offences relating to 12 women, not for the 100 or more others police think he may have committed, nor for potential offences relating to any of the 75 women who came forward after his conviction.

I and plenty of other women understand that those convictions – one count of rape, five counts of sexual assault, one count of attempted sexual assault, and 12 counts of drugging – secured him a so-called indeterminate sentence. I and plenty of other women understand that he was given a tariff of eight years. And amazingly, it is not even beyond us to understand that an eight-year tariff meant he must serve a minimum of eight years. In fact, if we take a big run-up at the thought, we are even capable of understanding that this meant he could be out having served half of the 16-year sentence he would have received had he not been given an indeterminate sentence for public protection.

But the thing is – and the Great Explainers must prepare to have their minds blown by this – it is possible that we also have a problem with all this. We understand it, and we also disagree with it. I know it’s mad, but we don’t feel the automatic need to reflexively rationalise the status quo as if it’s all predetermined science, and you might as well argue against gravity as disagree with it. We even wonder – imagine! – whether getting angry about things is a step towards getting them changed

I'm always reminded of the parole board that lets Sideshow Bob out in The Simpsons, even though he has "Die Bart, Die" tattooed on his chest. He claims it's German for "The Bart, The" and a woman says "nobody who speaks German could be a bad person". Sort of sums up parole boards for me.

Yy Vicky!

At the risk of sounding a bit Daily Mail, we have had a victory for common sense

(As an aside, what's this about a name change? Does every convict change their name these days?)

also "witnesses described positive behaviour in custody...but did not support release or progression to open conditions in their reports"

This is quite damning, isn't it? Presumably the 'witnesses' are prison staff, psychologists etc.

So either:

• the Parole Board didn't even consider the opinions of witnesses before authorising his release in January

or:

• the Parole Board did consider the opinions of witnesses. And rejected these opinions and decided to release Worboys

Either way is bloody scary.

It's extraordinary- and in the original decision he was not just paroled into open conditions, but to be released into the community.

I'm reading the judicial review approved judgement which quashed the original release decision and told a the Parole Board to form a new panel - who've now decided he should not be released.

www.judiciary.uk/judgments/the-queen-on-the-application-of-dsd-and-nbv-ors-v-the-parole-board-of-england-and-wales-ors-and-john-radford/

I have really mixed feelings about this news. Huge relief and some jubilation that he's not being released. Sheer disbelief that he was ever considered for release based on what's now being said about his state of mind. And huge anger and gratitude that those (magnificent, brave) women that he attacked were forced to take action to bring today's decision about.

The QC for the victims in that judicial review, philippa Kaufmann, is a bit great. Here are her arguments why the Parole Board should have exercised caution

) Mr Radford’s change of stance and recognition of any offending was only 2½ years before the hearing.
iii) The fact that it is extremely unusual for a prisoner to move directly from Category A to release on licence not least because of the absence of any testing in conditions other than of maximum security.
[Only 6 out of 63 cat a prisoners were directly released in 2016/17, i.e. it was "exceptional" for this to happen]

iv) There are numerous references in the dossier to Mr Radford’s skills in the realm of manipulation and impression management to which appropriate attention needed to be paid.

Judge did not accept this point as he thought she might be arguing Worboys should have been treated as increased risk as a result of this course:
v) The panel placed some weight upon Mr Radford’s successful completion of the core SOTP, whereas it was discontinued in 2017 because it was found to yield a 2% increase in offending.

This man should never be released from prison. He cannot be rehabilitated. He is a very dangerous man.

to all the incredibly brave woman who spoke out against his release.

to all his victims.

Maybe those on the parole board are on the same trans advisory groups placing all the trans sex offenders in women's prisons? Maybe they use the same level of reading and comprehension skills in ignoring evidence and recommendations? Just a thought.