John Worboys’ release has
received considerable media attention, but the details of his case, and the
civil case related to his offending are quite complex. This short post aims to
explore the facts of his case, how the related civil case relates to the
headlines of 100+ victims, and the arguments for and against the way the parole
board operates.
Facts
Worboys was a black cab driver
operating in the west end of London. Between 2002-2008, he would look
specifically for taxi fairs that were women who were alone and vulnerable. His
MO involved giving champagne laced with a sedative to these women, explaining
that he was celebrating money won at a casino or a lottery win. Once the women
were inebriated, Worboys would sexually assault his victims.
He was charged with 23 counts (2
being alternative charges), and at trial, there were 14 complainants.
He was convicted of 19 offences
relating to 12 complainants at Croydon Crown Court, and acquitted of two
offences.
The 19 offences he was convicted
of are as follows:
·
1 Count of rape
·
1 Count of sexual penetration
·
4 Counts of sexual assault
·
1 count of attempted sexual assault
·
12 counts of drugging – presumably s.61 sexual
offences act – intentionally administered a substance with the intention of
stupifying or overpowering them, without their consent, to enable a sexual
activity that involves that person)
The 105 victims
The number of 105 women is more
than mere speculation, though his convictions involve 12 complainants. The
figure of 105 victims comes from a civil case. One of the earliest victims
successfully sued the Metropolitan Police for failing to investigate her
complaint properly, and the judge accepted the number of 105 victims in his
judgement.
It is important to remember the
civil standard of proof that Mr Justice Green applied in this case. The balance
of probabilities used in a civil case is a much lower standard than that used in
a criminal case, which is the substantial ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. The
balance of probabilities requires something to be more likely than not to be
proven. Therefore, Green J essentially stated that it was more likely than not
that Worboys attacked 105 women. Naturally, it is essential to the criminal
justice system that criminal convictions and punishments are not handed out to
those who have only ‘probably’ done what they are accused of doing.
That will invariably leave the question of why the
complaints of the remaining victims were not prosecuted.
The CPS has explained in a statement the reason for limiting
number of cases prosecuted:
·
During the investigation - files related to 83
separate complainants referred to CPS
·
Of those 83, 14 complainants formed part of the
trial. The rest of the cases did not pass the evidential test.
·
Prior to the trial – further 3 complainants seen
to have passed evidential test, but not joined to the indictment because the
existing charges would enable the judge to pass an appropriate sentence.
The evidential test is that prosecutors must consider there
to be enough evidence to provide a real prospect of conviction.
The maximum sentence for rape is
life; the maximum for sexual assault is 10 years; the maximum for administering
a substance with intent is 14 years, and the additional convictions for these
offences are unlikely to have made a significant different to the overall
sentence.
There is more to prosecuting than
bombarding the jury with all the possible evidence. Finding the right balance
between too little evidence and over-complicating a case with unnecessary
charges and evidence can be crucial to securing a conviction.
Further complexities add the
possibilities and potential vulnerabilities for things to go wrong. Adding weak
counts to an indictment can be counter productive for the strength of the case
as a whole. Due to the MO of Worboys, there was a significant evidential
problem, in so far that the drugs he used on his victims fractured their
memories of the events.
Most of the women who complained
were in no position to identify Worboys. Scientific evidence was scant or
non-existent, partly because women complained only long after the event, and
because of the drugs used were designed to confuse and cause uncertainty in its
recipient. It is, as always, unknown as to why a jury has made the decision it
makes, but it might be fair to presume these difficulties were encountered to
some extent, as there were two offences of which it acquitted Worboys of in his
trial.
The sentence
Worboys was sentenced in 2009, and
was given terms of ‘Imprisonment for public protection’, known as an IPP, on
all counts. IPP sentences are no longer used. They were used between 2005-2012.
Their intention was to ensure
that dangerous, violent and sexual offenders were not released until the parole
board considered those offenders to no longer be a risk to the public. Where a
person was convicted of a specified violent offence or sexual offence, they
would receive a tariff.
A tariff is perhaps more easily
thought of as a minimum term. At the end of the tariff, the offender applies to
the parole board and must satisfy the board that it is safe for them to be
released in to the public. The burden of proof is on the offender to satisfy
the parole board that they no longer pose a risk. Normally, this would be
demonstrated by completing a sexual offender’s treatment programme. The Parole
board must look at all the evidence, including the offender’s progress and behaviour
in prison to make their decision.
Worboys received an
‘indeterminate sentence’ to serve a minimum of 8 years’ imprisonment. This
would mean the judge considered the sentence, in effect, to have been 16 years.
In a normal imprisonment sentence,
an offender would serve half of the sentence in prison, and the remaining half
on license. In effect, this may occur in a similar way to the tariff.
Was the sentence
unduly lenient?
A sentence is unduly lenient:
'...where it falls outside the range
of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors,
could reasonably consider appropriate. In that connection, regard must of
course be had to reported cases and in particular to the guidance given by this
Court from time to time in the so-called guideline cases'.
Sentencing guidelines were a
relatively recent tool in the criminal justice system in 2009.
The ministry of justice suggested that sentences for sexual offences are 30%
longer on average than those in 2010.
The current guidelines suggest a
starting point of a campaign of rape is 20 years and above.
However, the 2007 guidelines, to
which Worboys was subject, gives a starting point for repeated rape of multiple victims, being 15 years.
Worboys was not sentenced for the
repeated rape of multiple victims as there was only one count of rape he was
convicted of.
Nevertheless, he was still given
an IPP, and one which was effectively a sentence of 16 years, close to the
starting point of a sentence for repeated rape of multiple victims. It would
appear the sentence adhered to the guidelines, considering the context of the
offences.
In the alternative, where the
sentence was considered to be unduly lenient, that decision should have been
made long ago, and the time to address such a matter has long since passed. A
referral must be made within 28 days of the date of sentence. This therefore
expired on 19th May, 2009.
Equally, the function of the
parole board is not to extend or shorten sentences nor is it to consider
whether sentences are unduly lenient. The sentence is decided by the judge, and
the consideration of undue leniency is for the Attorney-General.
At the time, this was Lady
Scotland. She reviewed the case, and decided it was not unduly lenient.
Worboys’ release
The Tariff of 8 years has been
served and he has satisfied the parole board that he is not a risk to the
public any more. When the time spent in custody on remand is taken in to
account, which normally is, Worboys has in effect served 10 years.
The parole board exists under the
CJA 2003, under section 239 (and schedule 19). It is responsible for conducting
risk assessments of prisoners to determine if they can be safely released into
the community. An oral hearing may be required prior to making a decision.
As for Worboys’ parole hearing,
the chair of the parole board stated there was a 3 member panel, chaired by one
of the boards most experienced female members, with a psychologist on the panel
as well. A dossier of 363 pages was considered and evidence from 4 other
psychologists was heard, as well as evidence from prison and probations staff
responsible for Worboys.
After considering the evidence, it made the decision that he
was safe for release.
Rule 25 of the Parole Board Rules states - “Information
about proceedings under these Rules and the names of persons concerned in the
proceedings must not be made public.”
An exception to rule 25 is where a prisoner
brings a claim for judicial review of a parole decision, and those proceedings
will then normally be in public. A large number of parole decisions have found
their way in to the public domain this way.
There is now a judicial review
application underway, made by two of the victims, the mayor of London and News International,
challenging the legality of rule 25.
Will they obtain permission?
A victim could bring a judicial review claim,
but they face the challenge of not knowing the reasons for the decision. You
are not able to challenge a decision by way of judicial review unless you know
what that decision says. Without knowing the details of a decision, you are
simply unable to say whether it is the right decision or the wrong decision.
There are questions of standing when it comes
to victims bringing judicial review cases, but that is a more complex matter
for another discussion.
Normally, an offender
brings a judicial review, though clearly in this case, Worboys would not bring
a judicial review challenging the decision that he is safe to be released.
Worboys is currently in prison. A stay on his release was
granted after an application was made to the High Court on 22/01/2018.
As of 02/02/2018, the first stage where judges will consider
whether to allow Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London and two of Worboys’ victims to
apply for a judicial review, will take place on Wednesday 7th
February 2018.
Failures of informing victims
One of the great mistakes made
here was the failure to inform the victims of Worboys release. Informing the
victims of the key stages of his release was something which should have
happened.
The Chair of the parole board
accepts this in a statement, and has described it as very concerning and
acknowledges that it would be very distressing that the victims were not kept
up to date. The statutory victim contact scheme is offered to those who have
been the victim of sexual assault or violent offences resulting in a sentence
of 12 months or more. This clearly applies to Worboys case.
This particular scheme entitles
victims to be informed of the key stages of the offenders sentence such as
their release, licence conditions, to which the scheme enables them to make
representations on, and transfers to open conditions. The Code of Practice for victims ‘the victims
code’ gives victims certain rights post trial which include the ability to make
a victim personal statement which can be considered by the parole board. The
code of practice for victims does apply to those who’s complaint has not
resulted in conviction, but only a complainant whos complaint has resulted in
conviction would have the right to make a victim personal statement in this
case
That would mean, of the 105, only
those involved in the trial, who’s complaints resulted in convictions would
have the opportunity to draft a victim’s personal statement which would then be
considered by the parole board. The others would not. It should be noted that
the national probation service, not the parole board, has the responsibility to
ensure that victims who wish to make a VPS can, and complainants are kept
informed.
