The Parole Board decided that Colin met the criteria for release, and he was pleased. How the board had determined they were fit for release in the first place was merely skimmed over. Colin had got into another physical altercation, inflicting extreme harm on another man, while David had disappeared to Russia to meet another woman (who, he says, ended up defrauding him). The second half of the film revealed that both David and Colin had been granted parole before and both had since been recalled to prison. “I heard his brain crack,” he said, sitting in prison.īut it also didn’t go far enough. Soon, Colin had filled a sock with pool balls and swung it at his victim. The details of the “index offence”, as the Parole Board calls it, were brutal: he had gone to the pub with a mate and got into a fight about football with a stranger. The first case we were introduced to was that of 54-year-old Colin, serving a life sentence in Kent for the murder of a man 25 years earlier. Unfortunately, the first episode felt more like an instalment of 24 Hours in Police Custody – a fly-on-the-wall excuse to nosey into some distressing true-crime stories. I hoped the BBC’s new documentary series Parolewould shed some light on their process. How could these apparent experts get things so wrong? (The board later reversed its decision, before he was freed). Despite fresh allegations readied against Worboys, the board determined him fit for release and subsequently failed to inform those affected by his crimes. I have been fascinated with the inner workings of the Parole Board ever since its proposed release of John Worboys – the “Black Cab Rapist” who is thought to have attacked more than 100 victims – in 2018.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |