The serial sex attacker John Worboys is to face a fresh Parole Board hearing after a decision to recommend his release was quashed in an unprecedented high court ruling that prompted the sacking of the board’s chairman.

Nick Hardwick, chairman of the Parole Board, was forced to resign after David Gauke, the justice secretary, told him his position was untenable.

His removal was announced moments before Sir Brian Leveson, Mr Justice Jay and Mr Justice Garnham ruled in favour of two of Worboys’ victims who brought the challenge. The Parole Board should have undertaken “further inquiry into the circumstances of his offending”, the judges said.

Many of Worboys’ victims expressed relief at the decision to overturn his release. Phillippa Kaufmann QC, who represented the two women who brought the case, said Hardwick had been “scapegoated” and that Gauke bore some responsibility for systematic failures.

Worboys, 60, now goes by the name John Radford. He was jailed indefinitely in 2009 with a minimum term of eight years after being found guilty of 19 offences, including rape, sexual assault and drugging late-night passengers, committed against 12 victims. He has spent 10 years in jail.

In the ruling, Leveson said that the Parole Board should have looked at “the extent to which the limited way in which he has described his offending may undermine his overall credibility”.



He said that Worboys’ “apparent deftness in impression management” should have raised doubts about how genuine was his belated admission of guilt.



The board, he said, should have been aware that it did not have material from the police or Crown Prosecution Service to challenge his version of events. A key issue in assessing the risk posed by releasing Worboys, Leveson pointed out, was “whether he was being open and honest”.

The judgment also concluded that rule 25 of the Parole Board rules, which prevents publication of any of the reasoning behind decision-making, was illegal. The board makes 25,000 decisions on whether or not to release inmates every year.

“There are no obvious reasons why the open justice principle should not apply to the Parole Board in the context of providing information on matters of public concern,” Leveson added.

The judgment will have significant implications for the way the Parole Board conducts its hearings in future, requiring it to take into account far more material.



Precisely how wide that research will have to be is not yet clear. One possible consequence of the changes is that fewer inmates may be released.



Some key evidence that could have been gathered in Worboys’ case was not sent on in the dossier gathered by lawyers acting for the Ministry of Justice, the Parole Board pointedly said.

The departure of Hardwick raises awkward questions about the supposed independence of the Parole Board. The chair of the justice select committee, Bob Neill MP, said there should be a fundamental review of the way the board operates. Richard Burgon MP, the shadow justice secretary, called for an “end-to-end review into the whole handling of the Worboys case ... to re-establish public confidence in our justice system”.

Hardwick defended 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.

In his resignation letter to the justice secretary, Hardwick made it clear he was forced to resign. “You told me that you thought my position was untenable,” he wrote. “I had no role in the decision of the panel in the case and believe I am capable of leading the Parole Board through the changes, many of which I have advocated, that will now be necessary.

“I am sorry for the mistakes that were made in this case but I have always made it clear that I will support the members and staff of the board in the very difficult individual decisions they make and I will accept accountability for the work of the board.”

Gauke decided in January against launching a judicial review of the decision to release Worboys.

The justice secretary announced his intention to “conduct further work to examine the Parole Board rules in their entirety”. On Hardwick’s resignation, he said: “I ... believe this is the correct decision in light of the serious failings outlined in today’s judgment.”



Lawyers for the two women who brought the case said Gauke “bears some responsibility” for the failings made in the case.

Speaking after the ruling, Kaufman said it was the Ministry of Justice that was responsible for putting the dossier of evidence before the Parole Board for it to make its decision regarding his release.

Harriet Wistrich, the solicitor who represented the two unnamed victims, said afterwards: “It was immediately clear that all those who had encountered [Worboys] previously were convinced he was a danger to women and would offend again.”

One of the two victims, known only as NBV, said: “Since 4 January [when the decision to free Worboys was revealed] I have felt frozen in shock, disgusted and traumatised by the thought that Worboys could be on the streets so soon … News that we have won this case finally brought huge relief.”

Lawyers for Worboys can, technically, appeal against the judgment but are not expected to do so.

