The head of the Parole Board has warned politicians not to interfere in the independence of the justice system over the John Worboys case and sharply criticised the probation service’s failure to inform or consult about the terms of his release.
Prof Nick Hardwick said the justice secretary should order an independent investigation into the failure to ensure victims of the sex offender were properly informed and said it was not too late to raise their concerns about the terms of Worboys’ release. “I know that some victims are frightened. The licence conditions are very detailed, but can be varied,” he said.
He revealed that only one written statement from a victim was considered by the parole panel that took the Worboys decision, despite having sought and received assurances “on a number of occasions” from probation’s victim contact service that those who wanted to make representations had been given the opportunity to do so.
The Parole Board chairman’s intervention follows the disclosure that the justice secretary, David Gauke, is considering applying for a judicial review of the board’s decision to release John Worboys, a former black-cab driver, after he has served 10 years in prison and a vow by the new Conservative party chairman, Brandon Lewis, that the party would do everything to ensure the rapist stayed behind bars.
Hardwick said it “would be a bad day for us all” if the “rightful abhorrence” over Worboys’ crimes were allowed to overturn the “basic principles of justice” that lay behind the decision to release the rapist and expressed confidence that any judicial review challenge would uphold that decision.
“We should be open to legal challenge, but I hope people will agree that it is right that we resist political interference in our decisions. Like any court, we must make independent decisions in accordance with the law and on the basis of evidence. It would be a bad day for us all if people’s rightful abhorrence of Worboys’ crimes or concern about a Parole Board decision allowed these basic principles of justice to be overturned. Not on my watch,” he writes in his statement.
Hardwick said he would welcome any judicial review challenge, saying: “I hope such a review will provide assurance that the Parole Board acted in accordance with the law and the evidence.”
The ministry of justice declined to respond directly to Hardwick’s demand for an independent investigation: “The secretary of state has commissioned advice on the possibility of a judicial review and will consider this carefully when it is received – he is minded only to proceed if there is a reasonable prospect of success. He told parliament just last week that he is absolutely clear the parole board should remain an independent body,” said an MoJ spokesperson.
It also emerged on Tuesday that Worboys was denied a move to an open prison from a category A jail in September 2015. That parole decision was made at the “paper stage” – meaning reports and documents were assessed, but no oral hearing held.
In his first detailed statement on the case, Hardwick defends the decision to release Worboys, saying the three-member panel that considered the case was chaired by “one of our most experienced women members”, considered a dossier of 363 pages and heard evidence from four psychologists, and from prison and probation staff responsible for Worboys.
“The secretary of state was represented at our request. Warboys himself was questioned in detail. The panel considered a written statement from one victim,” writes Hardwick.
He stressed that in any Parole Board decision to release a prisoner the burden was on the prisoner to demonstrate that he or she was safe to release.
“The law governing us is clear. We have to decide about future risk. We cannot reassess guilt or innocence, or whether the original sentence was appropriate. Instead, our decisions are informed by evidence of how the prisoner has changed and the plans to manage him or her in the community,” he said.
“Our panels carry out this task carefully. Fewer than 1% of those we release commit a serious further offence. But risk cannot be eliminated completely. We need to be confident a prisoner will not reoffend – but we cannot be certain.”
He also voiced strong concern about the treatment of victims in the case, saying he shared their concerns that they were not informed or consulted about the terms of Worboys’ release on licence.
Hardwick said the Parole Board has no role in this and lays the blame for the failure firmly at the door of the victim contact department of the probation service, saying the justice secretary should order an independent investigation.
“It is also worrying that other victims state they did not have an opportunity to give their views. Some are frightened. The probation service must now ensure that victims have their concerns considered and apply to the Parole Board for licence variations where appropriate,” he writes.
