Shocking blunders that saw John Worboys declared fit for release laid bare in court judgment
THE shocking blunders that saw John Worboys declared fit for release were laid bare in a High Court judgment yesterday.
Three judges said bungling Parole Board members did not properly quiz the rapist about his crimes.
The panel also failed to fully take into account the possibility he may have attacked more than 100 women.
The catalogue of errors were revealed in a 91-page judgment that said the Parole Board:
- DID not question Worboys’ account of his crimes “to any extent, if at all” and took him entirely at “face value”;
- SNUBBED warnings from police, prison and probation officials that Worboys still posed a “high risk of harm” and should not move from a Category A prison;
- IGNORED vital evidence including the trial judge’s remarks that he had used a “web of deceit” to ensnare “young, intelligent and sensible women”;
- OVERLOOKED key police reports;
- OVERRULED a report that said it would take a “brave Parole Board” to consider switching Worboys from a category A jail straight to an open prison;
- SPURNED a report by the rapist’s probation officer at Wakefield prison that said the jail’s senior psychologist “did not support the recommendation” to move Worboys or release him on licence;
- DISCOUNTED findings of a civil case brought by some of his victims despite claims in it that he had attacked at least 105 women; and
- HAILED Warboys for being “open and honest” and praised him for taking “full responsibility” for his crimes.
In their judgment, the three judges led by Sir Brian Leveson backed a judicial review of the decision to free Worboys brought by two of his victims, who cannot be identified.
The judges upheld their challenge: “On the basis that it should have undertaken further inquiry into the circumstances of his offending and, in particular, the extent to which the limited way in which he has described his offending may undermine his overall credibility and reliability.
“That is so even in relation to the offences of which he is convicted, let alone any other offending.”
Parole Board hearings are held in secret and the details behind a decision are normally kept secret.
But the full background to the Warboys scandal — dating back to 2011 — was revealed yesterday.
It showed how the black cab rapist cynically played the system and attempted to con psychologists during his bid for freedom.
He claimed to have found God and only applied for parole after his attempts to overturn his conviction on appeal were rejected.
Worboys had pleaded not guilty at trial, but was convicted in 2009 of 19 “meticulously planned” sexual offences, including one rape and four sexual assaults.
Between October 2006 and February 2008, he plied his victims with booze and drugged them in his cab before attacking them.
In April that year he was given an indefinite jail term with a minimum of eight years. He was taken to maximum security Wakefield prison, West Yorks.
RELEASE PLEAS BY EXPERT THREE
THREE psychologists played key roles in clearing the way for Worboys to go free.
Two remain unknown, but one is said to be Dr Jackie Craissati — an expert who has been accused of consistently urging leniency for sex offenders.
Dr Craissati allegedly compiled a report that played a key role in the Parole Board’s panel recommending Worboys’ release.
She has previously supported freedom for sex offenders, arguing that they should be “managed in the community” instead of being locked up.
The identities of the three-strong panel that ultimately recommended that the black cab rapist should go free remain unknown.
But it is understood they included two women, including the chairwoman.
Ironically, the High Court judges who overturned the Parole Board’s decision yesterday included two key figures in the inquiry into press standards.
Lord Justice Leveson, who chaired the inquiry, led the three judges yesterday.
He was joined by Mr Justice Jay, better known as the lead inquiry counsel during the Leveson hearings held in 2011 and 2012.
Nick Hardwick resigned as Parole Board chairman before the judges’ ruling emerged yesterday.
His first appeal was rejected in 2010 and he then applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, claiming he had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
A prison psychologist noted in June 2013 that Worboys — by now using the name John Radford — still maintained his innocence.
In January 2015, experts said there had been “no reduction in risk”.
But in May that year he poured his heart out, telling psychologists he “always felt guilty”.
In an extraordinary confession, Worboys said he wanted to “take responsibility”.
He blamed his attacks on alcohol and the stress of the break-up of his marriage.
One psychologist noted how he “appeared nervous throughout, on occasion becoming tearful”.
But the timing of his confession was significant — just nine months before his eight-year tariff expired, which meant he was nearly able to apply for parole.
But his change of heart was not enough to convince the Parole Board in September 2015.
It rejected the notion of even allowing him to move to an open jail.
Worboys then threw himself into rehabilitation in jail.
He completed a sex offender scheme as his legal team eyed his next parole date of September 2017.
A Prison Service report in February 2017 found him a “high risk of serious harm, but low risk of reoffending”.
But it recommended his security category be reviewed.
In July, then-Justice Secretary David Lidington ruled Worboys should remain a category A prisoner.