Blocking John Worboys's release is feminist campaigning at its finest – but we still need answers from the Parole Board

The board made its highly controversial decision to release Worboys despite opposition from the secretary of state for justice, the senior management team at the prison, the lead psychologist for the area, the prison’s psychology department and from the probation service

When the Parole Board made its disastrous decision to release John Worboys, known as the black cab rapist, in January, the reasons were not made public. But the board had to have decided that Worboys, who police believe raped well over 100 women between 2002 and 2008, was no longer a “danger to the public”.

Today, the court allowed the challenge brought by two of Worboys’s victims and ruled that the decision of the Parole Board to release him was “irrational”. They ordered that a fresh decision needed to be made, following a fuller inquiry by a newly constituted board. Worboys will now stay in prison, but his numerous victims and the general public are deserving of some answers. The Parole Board chair, Nick Hardwick, resigned – a symbol of the serious consequences of the board’s original decision.

It now transpires that the board accepted Worboys’s assurances that he was only responsible for offending against the 12 women for which he had been convicted.

In choosing to put only a small proportion of the offences he committed on the indictment, the CPS made a grave mistake. Other credible witnesses had come forward, but prosecutors told these women that Worboys was going to prison for a “very long time” and there was no need to add any further charges. Consequently, Worboys was sentenced on the basis that he had committed one rape, and a number of sexual assaults and drugging offences. The opportunity to convict him for some of the many other rapes he clearly committed was lost, and the women who were desperate for justice were betrayed.

One of the arguments put forward by Worboys as to why he was safe to be released was that he had participated in “sex offender treatment” programmes. But such programmes have long been criticised as ineffective. Indeed, I have argued that they are counter-productive, and have enabled a number of participants to simply learn the language required to manipulate professionals into believing that they are rehabilitated.

Any perpetrator programme that seeks to “heal” the abuser is bound to fail. These men are not sick: they are choosing to exert their power over women for sadistic pleasure. They know fine well prior to attending these programmes that their actions are harmful and criminal, but are perfectly happy to play along.

There is evidence that such programmes can result in an increase of offending, and yet Worboys apparently used the fact that he attended such a course to present himself as a reformed character. This is a man whose modus operandi consisted of lies, manipulation and charm.

In addition to arguing that the Parole Board’s decision was wrong, the claimants also challenged the rules that prevent the publication of the reasons for a decision. The court has accepted the argument that the blanket ban on disclosure is against the fundamental principle of open justice.

The board made their decision to release Worboys in circumstances when he was still a “category A prisoner” , had denied responsibility for his offences until 2015 and had never been tested in open prison. The board made its highly controversial decision to release Worboys despite opposition from the secretary of state for justice, the senior management team at the prison, the lead psychologist for the area, the prison’s psychology department and from the probation service.

Instead, the board relied upon three psychological assessments prepared by psychologists, all of whom had been instructed by Worboys.

The board ignored the police’s conclusions, following their investigations published in a public report, that Worboys may have raped more than 100 women. Worboys is a highly skilled manipulator. That is how he managed to dupe so many women to take a drink with him in his cab. Should a parole board not have the skills to see through such tactics?

In accepting the assurance from Worboys that he was “only” guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted, the Parole Board dismissed all other allegations made by the dozens of other women who came forward to report him. One of the claimants, identified as DSD, was raped by Worboys in 2003. There is significant evidence that shows he was offending earlier than that.

Police officers that investigated this case from the outset, who did not believe the early victims that came forward, should be disciplined. If they are found to have failed in their duties, then they should be sacked. At the very least, they need to attend training on rape myths. Because Worboys was a black cab driver, police made the wrong assumption that he could not possibly be a rapist.

The Parole Board decision was a huge mistake, and it must never happen again. Only full disclosure of the board’s decision-making, and evidence used to help reach that decision, will ensure that such an atrocity will not be repeated. Worboys’s victims have been let down every step of the way by the criminal justice system. The victory won today is feminist campaigning at its finest. The tenacity and courage of DSD and fellow survivor NBV, who fought this case on behalf of all women, deserve to be hailed as heroes in the war against the pandemic of male violence.