Colin Pitchfork: Double schoolgirl murderer can be released

[DumplingsAndStew]

www-bbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-57384393

His release is subject to a number of licence conditions.

These include living at a designated address, taking part in probation supervision, wearing an electronic tag, taking part in lie detector tests and having to disclose what vehicles he uses and who he speaks to, with particular limits on contact with children.

He will also be subject to a curfew, have restrictions on using technology and limits on where he can go.

So they clearly don't think he's 'rehabilitated'?

Does anyone know if these restrictions expire?

Thinking of Lynda Mann and Dawn Ashworth, and their families.

It's a justice system created by men for men. There is literally nothing a man can do that won't have him garner sympathy and excuses from other men.

Around the time of the John Worboys debacle, somebody on this board linked to an article written, IIRC, by a former prison governor who had also sat on parole boards. He argued that those working in the justice system are more invested in proving the system works than in actually making it work and are too ready to be convinced that prisoners have been rehabilitated. Most often parolees have been through several processes, e.g. sexual offenders' courses, but there is no evidence that the processes have actually worked.

Those poor girls and their families. I remember this case at the time, I was the same age as the second victim, Dawn Ashworth. It looks like the South Leicestershire MP, Alberto Costa, tried to prevent this from happening, and the Justice Secretary may try to reconsider the parole decision under this mechanism:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/parole-board-reconsideration-mechanism-decisions

There are fairly narrow grounds to reconsider, similar to the judicial review test:

Procedurally unfair - the correct process was not followed in the review of the offender for parole - for example, important evidence was not shared
OR
Irrational - the decision makes no sense based on the evidence of risk that was considered and that no other rational panel could come to the same conclusion. Being unhappy with the decision is not grounds for reconsideration.

I'm not fancying their chances, provided the procedure was correct, the rationality one is a difficult threshold, even in the case of this evil man. I wonder if there's some other reason they have let him out, illness or something? All the licence conditions involved don't sound like they apply to a fully rehabilitated individual.

Is there anything that can be done?

Is it worth writing to the Home Secretary? Justice Secretary? Liz Truss?

@TedImgoingmad

That was my thought, they are very strict license conditions, not typical are they? It doesn't suggest that he is capable of behaving without them, so why let him out?

Isn’t it just being cautious? To have electronic tags and reporting after release? Wouldn’t it be completely negligent to release any murderer without any safeguards? I think it’s more about others who have been released and then gone on to kill rather than what they feel this person might or might or do.

After all, there was that terrorist they released with none of the above and then he stabbed two people on a bridge in London. Wasn’t that a big deal in U.K.? Asking police and MI5 “why weren’t you tracking him” and “why did no one check up on him” etc?

I think U.K. police have simply realised through past releases that have then killed that they cannot know if a prisoner is rehabilitated or not prior to release on parole. That it is hit or miss, trial by release. Sort of like you cannot know with certainty if your rescue dog that you trained to be friendly to other dogs won’t actually growl and snap at another dog until after you’ve met that other dog on a walk....

@PlanDeRaccordement

But there's no new legislation that this will be the typical license conditions for released offenders. They obviously have concern that this child murdering rapist might be more likely to reoffend than another. Then why release him? It's not like his time has been 'spent' and now he must be released.

He's a sexual sadist who preys on the vulnerable and I'm at him learning skills to help disabled people.

Who the fuck is going to trust a sexual sadist with any potentially vulnerable person?!?!

But apparently, they don’t need new legislation to implement this? Why ask for a special law when police already have the legal ability to do this..it could be a new internal policy for all we know.

Yes they have concern he might reoffend, they’d be stupid not to have that concern about every murderer they let out on parole, but I’m thinking the conditions are not particular to the individual but possibly more across the board for all criminals of this level.

Or at least I hope so.

Something to keep in mind is that there are good reasons in many cases to release someone on parole before they have completed their sentence, even if they may be a danger.

Once they are finished, there are no conditions on them. They have finished their time and the authorities have no rights to monitor them or anything else ,they can go what they want and do what they want.

So unless a person has been incarcerated permanently or so long they are likely to die before they are released, it can be a lot better to allow them to live out in the world, monitored, toward the end of their sentence, when any bad behaviour is more likely to be observed.

What the hell? He should be hung. Not released

@SmokedDuck

Something to keep in mind is that there are good reasons in many cases to release someone on parole before they have completed their sentence, even if they may be a danger.

Once they are finished, there are no conditions on them. They have finished their time and the authorities have no rights to monitor them or anything else ,they can go what they want and do what they want.

So unless a person has been incarcerated permanently or so long they are likely to die before they are released, it can be a lot better to allow them to live out in the world, monitored, toward the end of their sentence, when any bad behaviour is more likely to be observed.

This is a good point. Perhaps it's a strategic move

Sickening news. He should be in for life, it should mean a whole life term. 33 years is not long enough and my heart goes out to the families of Dawn and Lynda.

@ArabellaScott

Thinking of Lynda Mann and Dawn Ashworth, and their families.

Indeed.

@PlanDeRaccordement

but I’m thinking the conditions are not particular to the individual but possibly more across the board for all criminals of this level.

As far as I've heard, these are very strict conditions. If you can find a similar case with similar parole conditions, that would reassure slightly.

@SmokedDuck

Once they are finished, there are no conditions on them. They have finished their time and the authorities have no rights to monitor them or anything else ,they can go what they want and do what they want.

Do you mean after the parole conditions are finished? How likely are they to be in place?

He is was only caught because he asked someone else to take the DNA test for him, someone overheard that and reported him to the police so he clearly cunning, and that’s unlike to change.

Is he on parole or on licence? If the latter he can be recalled for any offence. I pray that nobody is stupid enough to allow him to use his newly acquired skills to work with vulnerable people. I feel utterly sick at the thought of it.

@SmokedDuck

Something to keep in mind is that there are good reasons in many cases to release someone on parole before they have completed their sentence, even if they may be a danger.

Once they are finished, there are no conditions on them. They have finished their time and the authorities have no rights to monitor them or anything else ,they can go what they want and do what they want.

So unless a person has been incarcerated permanently or so long they are likely to die before they are released, it can be a lot better to allow them to live out in the world, monitored, toward the end of their sentence, when any bad behaviour is more likely to be observed.

I don't think this applies in this case as he is on life license, which means he has to report to probation and follow the rules of his release for the rest of his life or he can be recalled to prison.

[quote DumplingsAndStew]@PlanDeRaccordement

but I’m thinking the conditions are not particular to the individual but possibly more across the board for all criminals of this level.

As far as I've heard, these are very strict conditions. If you can find a similar case with similar parole conditions, that would reassure slightly.

@SmokedDuck

Once they are finished, there are no conditions on them. They have finished their time and the authorities have no rights to monitor them or anything else ,they can go what they want and do what they want.

Do you mean after the parole conditions are finished? How likely are they to be in place?[/quote]
I mean that as long as he is on parole, they can put these conditions on him. He will be watched. If he screws up he is very likely to be back in prison quickly, even for a parole violation possibly.

If he finishes his sentence, he will go where he wants.

Of course he can try and run off while on parole, and maybe do it, but since he is being monitored closely there is some chance he would be caught. If he gets out at the end of his sentence he will be gone and entitled to be gone.

If he's smart, he will sit tight while on parole and be good until his sentence is finished. But that is no worse than if he was just let out at the end. At least this way there is a chance that he will make a miscalculation and be back in prison sooner rather than later.

@SmokedDuck

Something to keep in mind is that there are good reasons in many cases to release someone on parole before they have completed their sentence, even if they may be a danger.

Once they are finished, there are no conditions on them. They have finished their time and the authorities have no rights to monitor them or anything else ,they can go what they want and do what they want.

So unless a person has been incarcerated permanently or so long they are likely to die before they are released, it can be a lot better to allow them to live out in the world, monitored, toward the end of their sentence, when any bad behaviour is more likely to be observed.

I'm not very familiar with English law, but I assumed that if you commit a crime like murder, even if you complete the sentence you will always be on licence.

purpleboy As far as I know however the monitoring is nowhere as much. They can't really tell him where to live and it isn't that hard to lose track, especially as often there aren't really enough people to offer adequate oversight. He wouldn't for example be required to wear monitoring equipment, or have to live in a halfway house.

Honestly, cases like this make we wish we had a death penalty. There’s no doubt about his guilt and the world would be better off without him

I remember this case. I don't share the same confidence as the parole board that he's rehabilitated enough for release.

Depending on his current health he may have aged out of being as dangerous as he was in his 20s but I doubt he's changed a great deal and is probably still a risk to woman and children.

Those are within the range of standard conditions for release on life licence. They will typically start very stringent and slowly be reduced. He will be subject to probation supervision until he's dead.