Report comment

Witnesses to what, Mr Balchin? If Worboys' conduct inside prison demonstrated a failure to comply then that would have been relevant and would have been (barring utter incompetence) placed before the Parole Board as relevant evidence of his attitudes. Yet the report above tells us that such evidence of behaviour was given. Other evidence would relate to his response to psychological intervention and again we are told that four psychologists gave their professional opinions on the subject. What reason to you have to suggest that they were in some way incompetent or otherwise biased in favour of securing Worboys' release? Or were not mental health specialists capable of assessing propensity to offend? And what does the GLD have to do with it? The processes for presenting cases to the Parole Board are long-established and well-understood. I have no objection to fair criticism and a robust and sceptical attitude towards parole applications, especially where the prisoner has demonstrated a past history of real danger to members of the public, is well-merited, but mere innuendo and snark helps none of us.