John Worboys: Black cab rapist's victims to launch own legal challenge to stop release after Government drops efforts

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails

Sign up to our free breaking news emails

Please enter a valid email address

Please enter a valid email address

SIGN UP

I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy

Victims of “black cab rapist” John Worboys have vowed to challenge the Parole Board’s decision to release him, after the Government decided to not to seek a judicial review of the ruling.

Lawyers acting for women abused by the sex attacker have already raised almost £30,000 through a crowdfunding page. They said that they will launch proceedings next week.

The action was announced hours after Justice Secretary David Gauke said “it would not be appropriate” to seek a judicial review of the Parole Board’s ruling to free Worboys after less than 10 years.

The former taxi driver was convicted in 2009 of 19 offences against 12 victims – including one woman who was raped. He served less than a year for each of his victims.

Police have however, linked him to more than 100 attacks where female passengers were drugged with spiked champagne and sexually assaulted.

Harriet Wistrich, a solicitor representing victims, said the decision did not weaken their case.

“They are convinced that Worboys remains a danger to women and that everything should be done to stop his imminent release,” she added. “They bring this case in the wider public interest.”

Lawyers have already sent a letter to the Parole Board threatening a judicial review proceedings on the grounds that its blanket prohibition of publishing reasons behind its decisions is unlawful.

It added that releasing Worboys would be “wholly irrational”.

One of the victims, who was raped by Worboys in 2003, said she has been in a “state of shock” since hearing the news about his release.

She said: “How can a prolific sex offender be rehabilitated in a short space of time when he has never admitted to his guilt or shown any remorse?”

Richard Scorer, who represented 11 other victims in civil cases, said the legal action could still go forward, adding: “It’s imperative that the decision to release this dangerous, manipulative man is properly examined by a court as soon as possible.”

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan also said he was consulting lawyers on the possibility of bringing his own judicial review to block Worboys’ “astonishing” release.

“I am deeply concerned and unhappy about the prospect of Worboys’ impending release,” he added. “At the very least his victims and Londoners need the Parole Board’s decision to be properly scrutinised by the courts. I will do all I can to ensure this happens.”

David Gauke, the new Justice Secretary, commissioned advice on the highly unusual step of seeking a judicial review himself last weekend.

If successful, it would have seen Worboys kept behind bars until the case was reconsidered, but Mr Gauke said there was not a “reasonable prospect of success”.

In a statement to the House of Commons, Mr Gauke said he could not give details of the legal advice receive but described the bar for a judicial review to succeed as “very high”.

“I have decided it would not be appropriate for me as Secretary of State to proceed with such a case,” he told MPs. ”I understand that some will be disappointed in my decision, but I have acted swiftly to ensure this issue is examined and, hopefully, provide some clarity for victims.”

Mr Gauke emphasised that Worboys will not be released until his licence conditions have been finalised, which will see him restricted and monitored, and victims signed up to a contact scheme have had their say on the restrictions.

Announcing that a mechanism to allow Parole Board decisions to be reviewed was being considered, he said the case had shown some “aspects of its decision-making process which need to be examined and improved”.

The Chief Inspector of Probation has also been asked to conduct an independent ”fact-finding exercise“ to probe why some victims were not properly consulted and informed about Worboys’ release.

Lawyers suggested it may have been impossible for Mr Gauke to “challenge his own rules” as the Justice Secretary, with his staff most likely contributing to the evidence used to order Worboys’ release.

Matt Stanbury, a barrister specialising in prison law, cautioned that it will be difficult for any party to bring a judicial review without being able to see the reasons for the Parole Board’s decision.

Under current rules, which could be changed, it is not able to disclose any of the evidence used or testimony from a hearing where Worboys was interviewed.

“The worry on the part of those who appear at parole hearings regularly is that the intense scrutiny of this decision will make the board more cautious in the future, and that it may be less willing to release people who might otherwise have been given a chance,” Mr Stanbury told The Independent.

The Parole Board confirmed it had received a pre-action letter from the victims’ solicitors but said it would not be “providing a running commentary” on its consideration.

A spokesperson welcomed the probe into failures to inform victims and reviews into transparency and whether parole decisions can be reconsidered.

“We think this is a sensible course of action to take to make sure that the public and especially victims have confidence in the Parole Board’s work,” he added. “Justice needs to be seen to be done.”

The board’s chair warned against “political interference” in its work earlier this week amid international outcry over the decision to release Worboys after serving just nine years of an indefinite sentence for public protection.

Lawyers representing 93 women whose allegations did not reach court called for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to reassess the cases, saying some victims had been told Worboys would “not be coming out for a long time” and so a fresh trial was not necessary.

But the Metropolitan Police has no new information to send to prosecutors, who say they cannot launch new charges without fresh evidence.