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?
My piece is available for iNews here.
I’m sure you are right about this being the correct sentence but there are a number of issues left unanswered. This man was extraordinary lucky in 1. Not being charged when arrested earlier 2. An Indictment that included just one count of rape, effectively tying the Judge’s hands. 3. Failure to proceed on other cases that rose as a result of the publicity. 4. A first time release on parole.
You say there was publicity before trial and sentence but is that accurate? I recall the publicity coming after his sentence. It’s a weak point to say that the other 100 or so complainants may not have been able to recall events because of the drugs they’d be given: an investigation may have revealed otherwise?
Today the CPS apparently said they had never received a police file about further offences. Odd!
Everything about the case suggests this man had, to use the criminal expression, “help”. It’s easy to blame the CPS but they are very likely to be unable to reveal things such as the ubiquitous “texts” sent to prosecutors and Courts by police to urge leniency, usually because of their valuable informing. That system has long been questionable, ever since the days of Commander Lundy when some so called informants turned out to have been anything but. Straightforward bribery was what was often suggested had taken place to secure the “text”.