Report comment

All this criticism of the Parole Board decision in the press is by commentators who know nothing, (and who seek to know even less,) about the way the licence system works. Furthermore, not a scintilla of criticism of the Met. That august body remember, was roundly criticised in the High Court and the Court of Appeal for its inept investigation of offences committed by Mr Warboys and compensation awarded to two ladies who had been attacked by him after the original investigation. (The Met have appealed the award of damages but not I think the findings of negligence. The Supremes have heard the arguments and the judgment is awaited.)

As it is Mr Warboys was convicted of, and sentenced for specific offences. His sentence was line with the sentencing guidelines. The AG didn't think the sentence was unduly lenient and consequently didn't seek to appeal it. So, he has served his tariff. He's therefore fully entitled to apply for release on licence and if the Parole Board have authorised this then as someone who has experience of representing prisoners applying for release, I think that it is right and proper that he is released.

I completely agree with Anon at 16:06.

As to the idea that there should be a right of appeal against a decision to release a prisoner on licence, what are you all on about? Either his sentence is proper at the time of sentence or it isn't. If the AG or SG think the sentence is too low they can appeal to CA Crim Div. If there is no appeal then it is right and proper that the Parole Board independently makes the decision about release.