Why is John Worboys, a man who raped “hundreds of women”, being released from prison after only 9 years? Storm clouds are gathering over the news that former taxi driver John Worboys, the convicted rapist who police believe may […]

Storm clouds are gathering over the news that former taxi driver John Worboys, the convicted rapist who police believe may have drugged and attacked hundreds of female passengers, is to be released from prison after reportedly serving nine years of an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment.

How, it is being asked, can one of Britain’s most prolific rapists be back on the streets less than a decade after his conviction for multiple sexual offences against vulnerable women? Is this another example of soft sentencing by out-of-touch liberal judges (©Andrew Pierce)? Or might it just possibly be a little more complicated than that?

‘While headlines have referred to “hundreds” of victims, his trial was in fact in relation to twelve complainants’ i's opinion newsletter: talking points from today Email address is invalid Email address is invalid Thank you for subscribing! Sorry, there was a problem with your subscription.

Let’s have a peek behind the headline.

The offences

Part of the anger appears to arise out of a conflation between what the police believe Worboys to have done, and the offences for which he has actually been convicted. While the headlines since his conviction and sentence have referred to “hundreds” of victims, his trial at Croydon Crown Court in 2009 was in fact in relation to twelve complainants.

Worboys committed the offences between 2002 and 2008 by trawling London’s West End in his black cab searching for vulnerable lone women, whom he would invite into his cab and ply with sedative-laced champagne under the pretext of celebrating a lottery win. He then sexually assaulted or raped his victims.

Following his conviction, a number of women came forward with further complaints, although the effect of the sedatives rendered many unable to specifically recall what took place, presenting an evidential problem in proving the sexual assaults to the “criminal standard” (making a jury “sure”, or proving “beyond reasonable doubt” being the standard formulations of the high evidential threshold). This perhaps explains the gulf between the number of women that the police believe Worboys assaulted, and the number of offences for which he has been convicted and sentenced.

Ultimately, Worboys was convicted of nineteen offences. According to the BBC, these comprised one count of rape, five counts of sexual assault, one count of attempted sexual assault and twelve counts relating to “drugging”. I cannot find the precise offence specified in any of the news reports, nor in the transcript of Worboys’ unsuccessful trip to the Court of Appeal in 2010, but assume that these were offences contrary to either section 61 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (administering a substance with intent to stupefy) or section 22 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (administering a stupefying drug with intent to commit an indictable offence).

Breaking this down, it would appear that, of the twelve complainants, six were able to give evidence of sexual offences committed by Worboys while they were drugged, whereas six were able to give sufficient evidence only of the drugging, albeit Worboys’ intentions in so doing were beyond doubt.

What was the sentence?

On 21 April 2009, Worboys was sentenced to terms of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) on all counts. For all but two, the tariff was 5 years, with the tariff for two offences (one presumes the rape and one of the sexual assaults) being set at 8 years, to run concurrently.

This was widely reported as being an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment, or “indefinite imprisonment” – which is true, but without further explanation perhaps gives a misleading impression of what such a sentence actually means.

So what does “imprisonment for public protection” mean?

Imprisonment for public protection (IPP) was a headline-grabbing sentencing initiative introduced in 2005 and available until 2012, designed to ensure that dangerous violent and sexual offenders were not released until the Parole Board deemed that they no longer posed a risk to the public.

‘Those who took their rehabilitation seriously and were able to demonstrate their reformation would be allowed back into society’

The idea, in short, was that an offender convicted of a serious specified violent or sexual offence and who was considered to pose a significant risk of serious harm to the public, would be sentenced to a “tariff” – equivalent to the period they would have spent in custody under a standard determinate prison sentence – at the end of which they could apply to the Parole Board to be released on licence.

The burden was on the prisoner to satisfy the Parole Board that they were no longer dangerous – that is, that they no longer posed a significant risk of serious harm. Those who took their rehabilitation seriously and were able to demonstrate their reformation would be allowed back into society under strict monitoring and a ten-year licence period. Those who remained a danger would remain in prison, indefinitely if need be.

In Worboys’ case, therefore, the judge considered that the appropriate determinate sentence for an offence of this type would have been sixteen years. All prisoners serving determinate sentences are automatically released at the halfway stage – so 8 years was the appropriate tariff.

As to whether a sixteen year sentence was sufficient for this type of offence, opinions will differ. The Attorney General did not apply to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient, which indicates that the prosecution did not consider the sentence to be inappropriate. But whatever your view, the key point to bear in mind is that the sentence did not reflect “hundreds” of sexual attacks – had Worboys been so convicted, his tariff would have been significantly longer.

Why has Worboys now been released?

Quite simply, because his tariff of eight years has now been served – it is reported that he has in fact served 10 years including time spent in custody on remand awaiting his trial – and he has satisfied the Parole Board that he longer presents a risk to the public.

The Parole Board has released a brief statement to this effect:

“We can confirm that a three member panel of the Parole Board has directed the release of Mr John Worboys, following an oral hearing. “The arrangements for Mr Worboys’ release will be managed by the Ministry of Justice.”

Parole Board hearings are held in private and the full reasons for release decisions are not publicly available. Further information about Parole Board hearings in IPP cases is available here. The panel of three – often (although not always) chaired by a judge – will in appropriate cases also include a psychiatrist or psychologist, and the panel will have a dossier containing relevant materials about the prisoner and their progress. The panel can hear live evidence from offender managers, supervisors and psychiatrists, and there is scope also for victims to put forward their views.

As to exactly what happened in this case, we simply don’t know any more than the short statement above discloses. One presumes that Worboys will have completed a sex offender treatment programme, although as has been pointed out by barrister Matt Stanbury, it is unclear whether this will be the same programme that was scrapped by the government earlier this year after it was found to increase rather than reduce sexual offending.

One presumes that there will have been highly persuasive evidence and strong recommendations by Worboys’ offender managers to convince the usually risk-averse Parole Board to direct his release, and there will be stringent restrictions on his movements with the threat of an immediate return to custody hanging over him at all times, but as to the details we are largely, and regrettably, in the dark.

What about the hundreds of other potential victims?

This aspect of the story may be only just beginning. For the reasons explained above, we cannot know whether and to what extent the evidence of further potential offending by Worboys was considered by the Parole Board during its deliberations, but questions are now being asked about the decision not to bring further criminal proceedings in relation to the complaints made following Worboys’ conviction.

Political ammunition is being loaded and turrets are whirring round towards Keir Starmer MP, who as Director of Public Prosecutions in 2009 is said to have taken the decision that no further proceedings against Worboys were appropriate in light of the indeterminate sentence passed. In order for the CPS to prosecute a criminal allegation, it must be satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of conviction on the available evidence (“the evidential test”), and that it is in the public interest to prosecute (“the public interest test”).

We simply don’t know, in the case of any one of the further complaints, whether the evidential test is met. The public interest is perhaps a grainier issue. On its face, were the Crown in possession of compelling evidence demonstrating that Worboys was guilty of sexually assaulting not six women but ten or twenty times that number, it would seem difficult to justify not prosecuting. But, as with so much about this case, we should pause and await further information before any rush to judgment.

@BarristerSecret

This article was amended on 5 January to remove the claim that “there were no Sentencing Guidelines in place in 2009” – there were in fact sentencing guidelines that would have applied to this case, viewable here.