UKC

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/28/parole-board-must-reconside...

So the court has overuled the parole board, scumbag remains in the nick, so far so good; but the court decided the parole board should have considered allegations not covered in his trial. Is this good justice? Just to be clear, I'm not saying Worboys deserves freedom, I'm wondering how this applies to other cases, where the police suspect the prisoner has also done x, y and z but they have not been tried for those offences.

It all seems as if the Police/CPS were lazy in the first place. When they got him for some offences they appear to have ignored the rest, and not followed up to ensure that he ended up with no chance of ever getting out. This has led to the situation we are now in. This inaction was never going to make the other victims feel anything other than having been ignored by the entire police/legal system.

I do hope some inquiry is initiated which gets to the bottom of this - and ensures both that if anyone is guilty they get their just deserts, and that it can never happen again.

I think ‘lazy’ is a bit daft. The police don’t have infinite resources; they have to prioritise.

Is someone convicted of 30 rapes more likely to get parole than someone convicted of 10? I don’t know.

jcm

The trouble I have with this is that a parole board could be said to be imprisoning people without trial, if they can refuse parole on the grounds that the police think it's likely the prisoner committed other (related) crimes, for which they have not been tried.

Its been a pretty traumatic episode for quite a few women. Probably entirely avoidable too.