Advertisement

John Worboys' victims deserved so much more from the Government

Justice Secretary David Gauke addresses MPs in the House of Commons: PA
Justice Secretary David Gauke addresses MPs in the House of Commons: PA

There are many political and moral objections to the imminent release of John Worboys, the taxi driver who preyed on young women for what may well have been a very long time. Even as things stand he was jailed less than 10 years ago for assaults on 12 women. That he is now set go free, albeit on licence and under conditions, seems wrong, unjust – incredible.

It is. Presumably that is why the Prime Minister herself raised concerns. The sentence he served seems grossly disproportionate even to the crimes he was convicted of, let alone the many more he may have been suspected of or accused of. There is serious doubt in the minds of some about whether this man has been sufficiently reformed. Many would argue that the extreme premeditation with which he carried out the multiple rapes – an elaborate story about a lottery win and champagne laced with drugs being the modus operandi – should count for more than it seems to have.

The prospective release of Worboys has caused a political storm, and appalled the public and government ministers alike.

Yet the more powerful – and above all actually effective – arguments against the release of Worboys rest on more purely legal grounds. Public opinion, however passionate, is not justiciable. The judgement of the Justice Secretary, David Gauke, has been found wanting, if sincerely arrived at; many plainly feel that he should have done more to confront perceived failings of the legal system.

Mr Gauke took the view, on advice from his civil servants and lawyers, to not pursue a judicial review because it did not stand a reasonable chance of succeeding. But the authorities owed it to the victims, and to the cause of justice itself, to allow that procedure to be exhausted. It is a necessarily difficult one, and the bar to a successful judicial review is rightly set high – but that is not necessarily a reason not to go ahead. Besides, we cannot know for sure how the review would have proceeded, what unexpected facts or faults in procedure might have been discovered, or what discretion a judge might have exercised.

This is not the end of the matter. Public concern has been practically expressed through the crowd-funded case for judicial review that is about to be launched by the victims of Worboys. They state that he “remains a danger to women and that everything should be done to stop his imminent release”. That case, it seems likely, will be pushed to its logical conclusion. It may be joined by yet another request for judicial review, this time sponsored by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, as the crimes were committed in the capital.

Realistically, it may well be that the justice system, and its secretive procedures, will be found wanting at the conclusion of all of this. The policies and closed procedures of the Parole Board and of the Police and Crown Prosecution Service in cases of this nature will in any case receive yet more unfavourable scrutiny, just as they deserve. The practice of placing a “sample” of offences before a court where the evidence is strongest and where an indeterminate sentence is expected is a long-standing one – but the Worboys example demonstrates all too painfully its limitations.

The welfare of victims, including their finding out on radio news bulletins that their assailant is about to go free, has also been woefully mishandled. Those responsible for failings should be held to account for them, by due process.

Yesterday Mr Gauke told the House of Commons: “Let me be absolutely clear: Worboys will not be released until his victims’ representations have been properly considered and his licence conditions are in place.” That is the very least that the victims should expect, but, it seems, also the most they are likely to receive.