Report comment

"...Where a decision appears to be so irrational, as it does in this case given all the known facts,...". Er, no, actually. The 'known facts' are that this man had during his time in prison complied with prison rules (i.e had not commited any signficant disclplinary offences), had befitted from programmes to address his offending behaviour, and that no less than four psychiatrists had given relevant evidence which satisfied the Parole Board that he was safe to be released on licence without representing a future danger to the public. Obviously we cannot know the basis of that evidence because of the rules which prevent public disclosure, and I don't have any problem with those rules being reconsidered, not least because there is a natural concern where people who have committed horrendous offences are deemed rehabilitated without any mechanism to examine the basis of such a decision.
The fact remains when when Worboys was sentenced the judge decided what was an appropriate penalty (i.e. minimum sentence to be served) for the criminality element of his behaviour and that has been served. Any further detention therefore must be justified by a need to protect the public. Any justice system that is not based purely upon principles of strict retribution (as in my view a civilised and protective system cannot be) must permit the possibility of repentence and rehabilitation. I am surprised and depressed to see a lawyer, especially one working for a firm with some reputation for civil liberties work, to assert that the extent of punishment should be decided by whether victims would be insulted and horrifed by anything less than they consider appropriate. Some of them may well consider that nothing short of burning at the stake would have been sufficient.