John Worboys was accused of 23 offences against women and found guilty on 19 counts - 12 of drugging, 1 of attempted assault, 5 of sexual assault and 1 of rape. He was given an indeterminate sentence that required he serve a minimum of 8 years, although the judge also made it clear that he should not be released until the parole board was satisfied that he was no longer a threat to women.
On 4th January 2018, it was reported that Worboys was due to be released following a hearing by the parole board. He has now served about 10 years in prison, including time on remand, and his release will be accompanied by stringent licence conditions; should he breach any of these, he would be returned to prison. However, the fact of his proposed release has resulted in considerable media comment; it's reported that some of Worboys victims are unhappy that they weren't told of the impending release and it's also reported that the police "believe" that he was responsible for a large number of other assaults for which he was not tried. Inevitably the media has responded fairly hysterically to all of this and the government has now indicated that it is considering ways of preventing the release.
That any involvement of the government is dangerous and anti-democratic should be obvious to all. In this country, the system provides for the government to set out the framework and for the rules and laws to be applied by the judiciary in properly constituted courts. Additionally, what the police, or anyone else, "believe" is not evidence and has no relevance in determining criminal liability.
If there are further allegations which the police believe can be substantiated, then the details should be passed to the Criminal Prosecution Service (CPS) for consideration. If they believe there is sufficient evidence, Worboys should be re-arrested and charges should be brought for testing in another court case. Alternatively, if the parole board has failed to correctly follow its own procedures then Worboys release could be reviewed and even prevented by wholly legitimate and appropriate means.
However, media reports suggest that the government is proposing to go somewhat further. It's reported that the Justice Secretary, David Gauke, is considering instituting a 'Judicial Review', in other words, a review by a judge of the lawfulness of the parole board's decision.
While such a review can be a legitimate part of the legal process, for the government to initiate it in a specific case involving a convicted criminal is highly unusual. Conviction in the courts, sentencing and subsequent release are matters outside of the remit of government beyond the setting of the framework within which they occur. Should any government go beyond this point then the convict becomes, in effect, a political prisoner, held not because of the outcome of due legal process but at the whim of politicians.
Mr Gauke's action is treading a very fine line. He has apparently indicated that a judicial review will only be considered if there is "good chance of success", though that phrase is open to interpretation. Does it mean a 51% chance or a 95% chance ? Given that the government would be involved, how independent would any review really be ? How long would such a review take and what would happen to Worboys in the meantime ? What would happen if the review concludes that the legal process has been followed correctly and that the decision of the parole board should be upheld ?
With all of this, Mr Gauke has opened a can of worms which raises expectations, quite possibly wrongly, offers the prospect of government interference in the due process of the legal system and opens him up to serious criticism whatever the outcome. None of this is good.
No comments:
Post a Comment