The Worboys case

There were plenty of representations to the government against the Parole Board decision to let Worboys out of prison soon. The Justice Secretary promised to rewiew the situation to see if he could intervene. He has  now concluded he cannot  mount a successful legal challenge. The Parole Board is an independent body where Ministers do not involve themselves in decisions on individual cases. I assume  the Justice Secretary thinks the Parole Board followed the proper process, even if he along with many other people think they reached the wrong conclusion. Judicial review concentrates on process, not on outcome.

This will  be a disappointing conclusion to the constituents who wrote to me about this case, but they can be assured the government did know the strength of public feeling on this issue.

This entry was posted in Wokingham and West Berkshire Issues. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. NHSGP
    Posted January 21, 2018 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    You are just offering platitudes, you are not offering to do anything about it.

    Why not (examine failure to prosecute more cases originally? ed)

    Why didn’t he appeal the sentence asking for a longer tariff?

    It is an offence confined to those who are public office holders and is committed when the office holder acts (or fails to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office.

    Why not do the same for the Parole board? For example, why were victims not told and not allowed to make representations? That’s clear grounds for a JR.

    Sorry but you are passing the buck.

    Reply I am not offering platitudes but explaining what has happened.

  2. alan jutson
    Posted January 21, 2018 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    Perfectly understand that Politics should not interfere with Justice, but if so many people (including those who matter in Government) were concerned about so called wrong outcomes because a case has not been thought to have been reviewed correctly, then surely those who made the mistake, or who did not request further more detailed information, should be held accountable, and should be removed from post if that is the case, as we do not want repetitions of this type to become the norm.

    Perhaps our sentence review system should be rather more transparent so that more can see exactly why the decision was made.

  3. Dennis
    Posted January 22, 2018 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    Apparently the parole hearing are completely open to the public in Canada. They are astounded that this is not the case in the UK.

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, He graduated from Magdalen College Oxford, has a DPhil and is a fellow of All Souls College. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page