The Parole Board failed to take into account the full extent of John Worboys’ offending and therefore miscalculated the danger he still poses, the high court has been told.

Phillippa Kaufmann QC, opening arguments on behalf of two of Worboys’ victims opposing his release, said psychologists had been misled into believing they understood the factors that triggered his campaign of violence against women.

Worboys, 60, a former black-cab driver, consistently told those who assessed him that his offending was restricted to an 18-month period between 2006 and 2008, the hearing was told. He also explained that it started because his partner had temporarily left him.

Kaufmann said the police believe his first offence against a passenger was as early as 2002 and that he went on to assault at least 105 women. That first offence long predated the breakdown of his relationship.

“This throws into doubt the entire account he gave of his offending behaviour,” Kaufmann said. “And if the triggers of his offending are not understood then how can the controls [governing his release] be considered? This blows out of the water the Parole Board’s assumption that [Worboys] was open and honest.”

Worboys repeatedly told the Parole Board that he was guilty only of the far smaller number of offences of which he was convicted, it was said. But, the court was told, he had agreed to pay £241,000 in compensation to a significant number of victims, including many whom he had not been convicted of assaulting.

In negotiations with lawyers about settling those claims, Worboys had brought along the convicted rapist and murderer Levi Bellfield to assist him in the discussions, the court was told.

In March 2009, Worboys was convicted of 19 offences against 12 women, including one count of rape.



Kaufmann told the court he only admitted to any offending two and a half years ago. “It is a very short amount of time for those concerned to assess his risk,” she said.

The Parole Board determined two years ago that it was not safe to move him to more open conditions. It was “extraordinary”, Kaufmann added, to release someone directly from category A conditions into the community.

Kaufmann said the Parole Board was entitled to consider any relevant evidence when assessing whether Worboys was dangerous or fit for release.

She said it was reasonable for the board to consider criminal allegations for which Worboys had not been convicted, since it would not have to make any findings as to whether he actually committed the offences.

The two victims who have brought the challenge have not been identified, but are known by the initials DSD, one of his first victims, and NBV. Both women have raised money for their claim through the crowdfunding website Crowdjustice.

Gavin Millar QC, for News Group Newspapers, said media outlets had been unable to report the facts behind the Parole Board’s decision owing to rule 25 of the organisation’s rulebook that prevents publication.

The ban, he said, prevented the press from scrutinising the state’s exercise of its powers. “The trend towards greater openness in government has improved media and therefore public access to most areas of government,” Millar noted. “This has not, however, been the case with the Parole Board.”

The hearing continues.

