Some letters sent to victims of the black-cab rapist, John Worboys, informing them of his impending release, spelled their names wrong and failed to explain the Parole Board’s decision in a way that was readily understandable, an official inquiry has concluded.

The report by Dame Glenys Stacey on the operation of the victim contact scheme in the Worboys case also says some victims who wanted to make a personal statement to the Parole Board were not given enough time and were sent letters that “lacked clarity and urgency”.

Stacey confirmed that the majority of Worboys’ victims who were not covered by the contact scheme learned of the decision to release him from the media. “All who spoke to us described their shock and distress. They had not felt prepared for this outcome,” she said.

The report, ordered by the justice secretary, David Gauke, comes as the high court decides whether to give the go-ahead for a full judicial review hearing of the circumstances in which Worboys’ release was decided. The challenge has been brought by two victims and Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London.

Worboys was ordered by the judges to be brought to the court in person after a videolink failed on Tuesday. One of the judges, Sir Brian Leveson, apologised to victims in the court for Worboys’ presence.



Stacey’s report says that “in the main, the national probation service did as required by the victim contact scheme”.

Only four of the 12 victims whose attacks resulted in convictions opted into the victim contact scheme, her inquiry found. The probation service lost contact with one of them, and there was a period between 2010 and 2012 when contact with the other three lapsed.

“The quality of correspondence was poor. Some letters contained errors in victims’ names and addresses, and the messages were not conveyed clearly. This was particularly significant at the time when the women had the opportunity to contribute their views to the parole hearing,” the report says.

Stacey said the probation service took the well-intentioned step of trying to contact women who had not opted into the scheme: “Unfortunately, however, there was not enough time before the hearing for women to receive the letters, absorb the information and respond.

“What is more, the style and content of the letters lacked clarity and urgency. One woman who had engaged with the scheme from the start did make a victim personal statement to the Parole Board. Others who we interviewed were adamant that they would have wanted to do so, had they had the opportunity.”



She reports that by the time the Parole Board hearing took place, the five women who were in the victim contact scheme were notified by email, letter or telephone depending on their pre-expressed preferences.

“Inevitably, they each received the news at different times, and regrettably the news broke in the press before some had received and read the notification. Those women not in contact with the scheme – the majority – learned of the decision through the media.”