Author calls for ‘Lynette’s Law’ that would make killers explain their motives before they can be freed
Martin Shipton
As a notorious Welsh murderer prepares to be released from prison, an investigative journalist has proposed “Lynette’s Law”, aimed at making murderers explain why they killed their victims before they can get parole.
The murder of Lynette White, a 20-year-old sex worker, in Cardiff’s dockland district of Butetown in 1988, led to one of the most infamous miscarriages of justice in British history. Five black men were wrongly accused of the killing, three of whom were convicted and jailed for life.
They were subsequently exonerated and freed when the Court of Appeal concluded they had been found guilty as a result of police misconduct.
DNA
Years later a white man, Jeffrey Gafoor, was identified as the real killer following advances in DNA technology that placed him at the scene of the crime. Gafoor was jailed for life in 2003.
In October 2024 the Parole Board decided to approve his application to be released from prison, and Nation.Cymru understands that he is due to be set free within the next two weeks.
But questions remain about why he attacked Lynette with such extreme brutality, stabbing her more than 50 times and slitting her throat to her spine.
Journalist Satish Sekar has spent more than 30 years investigating issues related to the case, and it was his tenacity that persuaded South Wales Police to commission the DNA tests that identified Gafoor as the killer. In 2025 his fourth book about the murder will be published.
He unsuccessfully urged the Parole Board not to release Gafoor because of his failure to be candid about why he attacked Lynette with such force. The only explanation Gafoor has offered is that she wouldn’t return the £30 he paid her when she refused his demand for unprotected sex – an assertion Sekar dismisses as not credible.
In an article published on his website, Sekar has made the case for what he calls Lynette’s Law. He has taken inspiration from a successful campaign pursued by relatives of Merseyside murder victim Helen McCourt.
‘Helen’s Law’
Sekar writes: “In November 2020 Helen’s Law, named after murder victim Helen McCourt, received Royal Assent. In 1988 Helen disappeared. The late Ian Simms was convicted of her murder in 1989. He protested his innocence and was eventually released on parole after serving over three decades in prison – he was tagged. Helen’s mother, Marie, wanted Simms to be denied parole if he did not reveal the location of Helen’s body – he never did and never accepted responsibility for Helen’s death, which enraged Marie, who received an MBE in 2023 for her tireless campaigning.
“2020 was a mixed year for Marie – Simms was released on parole, but her campaigning paid off. That November the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Act, known as Helen’s Law which put a legal duty on the Parole Board for the first time to consider the anguish caused by murderers who refuse to disclose the location of a victim’s body when considering them for release became law. It also requires the Parole Board to ensure that murderers and paedophiles who withhold information from victims will face longer in prison. Simms died in 2022.
“While Simms never admitted guilt, the same cannot be said for Gafoor, but despite his guilty plea, serious questions remain. In Lynette’s case, both her family and the Cardiff Five and their family have not received the truth from Gafoor on why Lynette was murdered, and why he allowed the innocent to suffer for his crime. The Lynette’s Law I demand will oblige murderers to reveal the full truth about important facts like this, and if they refuse or provide unbelievable answers, Lynette’s Law should oblige them to do so or have that refusal reflected first in the tariff, and then in parole applications.
“Jeffrey Gafoor should not be allowed to savour freedom without giving his victims the relief of knowing why Lynette died or why their lives were wrecked. Gafoor’s assistance and cooperation has to be seen in the context of his refusal to provide a credible explanation of why he killed Lynette. More than two decades after he was brought to justice, he has yet to provide a believable explanation for why Lynette was murdered. Both her family and the Cardiff Five and their families are entitled to know and he should be obliged to tell them. Murderers who deny their victims such information should pay in the tariff and in parole applications.
“An obvious danger with Lynette’s Law or any other such law is what about the wrongly convicted? They cannot give an honest answer to such questions because they do not and cannot know. They should not be punished for being innocent. We cannot pretend that our system of justice is foolproof – this very case involves a grotesque and notorious miscarriage of justice.
“A solution to that problem is to allow prisoners protesting innocence an appeal to a panel appointed by the Ministry of Justice, consisting of former judges, journalists with experience in this field, lawyers, forensic scientists and members of justice organisations. The prisoner should be allowed to put their case to the panel of why Lynette’s Law should not apply in their case. Both they and the victims of murderers must have their rights respected. Nothing less than Lynette’s Law will suffice.”
Bad Form: How Tariffs Protect the Guilty and Punish the Innocent by Satish Sekar will be published in 2025.
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
An interesting suggestion, but one I cannot agree with. There have been cases in the past where people have been wrongly convicted of murder. Parole has been delayed because of their refusal to admit their “guilt”.
Are you the ghost of Barristers Past? I find it difficult to believe the Parole Board need these laws before they are capable of applying some sense of fairness or natural justice to these cases. Most murder victims are women. Are we saying men don’t need to give a reason for taking a woman’s life? Is the overriding reason because they can? The case in question isn’t concerning someone who may be innocent, but of someone who has admitted guilt. Yet still there is no compulsion for him to supply a reason or an explanation. The victim and victim’s family… Read more »
Agree.
At the point of conviction the prosecution need only prove to a jury, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant done it, not why. To predicate parole with an explanation of motive can lead to ‘bragging up’ by a prisoner either for prowess inside, promote a book, or to take a wrap for unsolved crimes that they did not actually do. Levi Bellfield is a classic. Only where motive is a part of solving a crime is it important, a person known to the victim or patterns of behavior.
The vast majority of women are murdered by men they know. So in the vast majority of cases it is important.
I am not convinced that family and friends will get a coherent explanation, anger whatever the cause can easily escalate for no apparent reason and years later will it be the truth or a imprinted memory.
The vast majority of men are murdered by someone they know, too. Motive is usually already known. Stranger murder is very rare and is usually for an M. Money or Mental. Which does not give solice to victims if identified.
Motive may I suppose indicate the safety of proposed release. To be honest these very dangerous people should never be released however old or young they are.
These very dysfunctional people may not know themselves why they did it. It is possible Gafoor got off on violence.
Judge should have the tools upfront in sentencing for life means life. No parole as an option with review (does it already exist? seems many walk after a paltry sentence).
A solution the author thinks is a panel with amongst others, “journalists in this field”, with the under handedness of some journalists in the past, why does the author think that is a good idea, why not criminologist or maybe there should be a system similar to the jury system that convicted these killers. A panel of their peers who are able to question the parolee with guidance from judicial experts, as recent cases have shown there are still innocent people languishing in prison, who could not provide a motive or location as they have subsequently been shown to be… Read more »