| answer text |
<p>Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, who represented the Secretary of State,
opposed release in this case. Indeed, the experienced offender manager, who recommended
that Worboys remain in custody, considered that the Parole Board could undertake a
thorough risk assessment based on the current convictions and the numerous references
to wider allegations contained in the rest of the dossier.</p><p> </p><p>The High
Court’s findings on how the Parole Board reached the decision in this case, highlighted
its failures to undertake further inquiry into the circumstances of offending and,
in particular, the extent to which the limited way in which Worboys described his
offending may undermine his overall credibility. The High Court found that this was
so, even in relation to the offences for which he was convicted. It is the responsibility
of the Parole Board to satisfy itself that an offender is no longer a risk to the
public and it has powers to request further evidence it deems appropriate. The judgement
of Sir Brian Leveson is clear that the Parole Board failed in its duty here.</p><p>
</p><p>The High Court found that although the sentencing remarks had been omitted,
they did not detail the precise circumstances of Worboy’s offending.</p><p> </p><p>Her
Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service submitted the dossier to the Parole Board on
26 April 2017. The Parole Board had sufficient time to request the sentencing remarks
before the oral hearing, which took place on 8 November 2017, but did not so.</p><p>
</p><p>The sentencing remarks in this case were omitted as the result of an administrative
oversight. I can provide reassurance that Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service
had implemented fresh and robust checks on every dossier, before the High Court handed
down its judgment, to ensure that dossiers are complete for the Parole Board to undertake
its consideration in all future parole cases.</p><p> </p><p>However, it is not usual
to include police evidence, or information in respect of civil actions, in the dossier
submitted to the Parole Board. In respect of the kit found by police, I can confirm
that the dossier submitted to the Parole Board contained detailed descriptions of
Worboy’s method of offending, including his use of substances to drug his victims.</p><p>
</p><p>As the High Court said, this was an exceptional case, as there were a very
high number of complaints to the police, and two of Worboys victims brought a successful
action against the Metropolitan Police for its failures to properly investigate their
complaints.</p><p> </p><p>Therefore, in the light of this judgement, the Secretary
of State has pledged that all relevant evidence of past offending should be included
in the dossiers submitted to the Parole Board, including, possibly, police evidence,
so it can be robustly tested at each Parole Board hearing. Her Majesty’s Prison and
Probation Service is in the process of issuing new guidance to ensure that this is
absolutely clear to those submitting evidence.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>
</p>
|
|
