What a week.
So many thanks again from everyone involved in this case but particularly from DSD and NBV. They have truly been heartened by the support. In fact, DSD has felt confident and supported enough to write a powerful first-person account of her experience in HuffPost which you can read here:
Please share on social media and make sure as many people as possible see why this campaign is so important.
Please continue to support the campaign by taking a couple of minutes to:
- Share the case page on social media - www.crowdjustice.com/case/challenge-worboys-release
- Email five friends telling them about the campaign
- Talk to people about what we're doing and why you're involved - you are the best person to spread the word about this campaign - it's happening because of you!
In terms of the case itself, we are making good progress and your incredible support enabled us to issue a judicial review in the High Court yesterday. You can see the details below in the full press release.
We will keep you updated on our deveopments.
As we've said before - if for some reason our JR is unsuccessful we will be using the funds to prosecute other cases in support of women who have been victims of violence, sexual assault and rape.
In particular, we have been contacted by a number of Worboys' victims and we will be presenting a dossier of cases to the police and Crown Prosecution Service requesting they investigate further and prosecute.
Thanks again for your support means a huge amount,
Harriet (Lawyer for DSD and NBV)
On 25 January solicitors on behalf of two women who were raped and sexually assaulted by John Worboys issued a claim for judicial review against the Parole Board and the Secretary of State for Justice (SSJ) challenging the decision to release John Worboys (now known as John Radford) from prison. The application includes a request for urgent consideration seeking a stay of the release of Worboys pending the outcome of the proceedings.
The two Claimants are known as ‘DSD' and ‘NBV' from previous proceedings against the Metropolitan police arising from their failures to investigate their original reports of attacks by Worboys. The Claim incorporates two grounds. The first ground directed at both the SSJ and Parole Board argues that Rule 25 of the Parole Board rules which prohibits the publication of any reasons for a Parole Board decision is ‘ultra vires' and therefore unlawful as it imposes a blanket ban on disclosure of reasons and thereby abrogates the fundamental principle of open justice. The second ground argues that the Parole Board decision is irrational on the basis of all known facts including: the long history of cold calculated attacks on a large number of women; Worboys' failure to acknowledge his guilt until, if at all, very recently; and the fact he has remained throughout his sentence in a high security prison without testing in open conditions, the Board having decided he was unsafe to transfer as recently as two years prior to the Parole Board decision to release him.
The two Claimants who were not informed of the decision to release Worboys nor consulted on licence conditions are convinced that Worboys remains a danger to women. Their view is shared by many victims who have come forward recently, as well as the public at large. The Claimants, who would much rather put this case behind them, consider they must do all they can to reduce the risk to other women and seek public accountability. To ensure that they are not at any financial risk by bringing this claim a Crowd Justice campaign has been launched and an appeal for ongoing support is being made. Although other parties may also be launching challenges the perspective of victims is paramount in a case of this nature https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/challenge-worboys-release/.
Harriet Wistrich, solicitor for the Claimants has been contacted by a number of other victims of Worboys and she will be presenting a dossier of cases to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service requesting they investigate further and prosecute. The dossier includes two previously unreported cases from 2002 and 2003 and two cases that were investigated by the police that would pass the evidential threshold but have not been prosecuted.