Family member of murder victim Lynette White calls for killer’s parole hearing to be held in public

Martin Shipton

A family member of a young woman whose murderer is applying to be released from prison has strongly criticised a judge who decided the killer’s Parole Board hearing should not be heard in public.

Lynette White, a 20 year-old sex worker,, was stabbed around 60 times at her flat in Cardiff’s dockland district of Butetown on Valentine’s Day 1988.

Police issued a photofit of a white man as the main suspect, but three black men – Tony Paris, Yusef Abdullahi and Stephen Miller – were wrongly found guilty of the murder and jailed for life. Their convictions were later quashed by the Court of Appeal. Eventually, following advances in DNA technology, Jeffrey Gafoor, a white security guard, was convicted of the murder in 2003. He was also jailed for life, and the sentencing judge said he should serve a minimum of 13 years in prison.

For the sixth time, Gafoor has now applied to the Parole Board to be released. The hearing is due to take place within days, but a judge has rejected calls – including one from the Secretary of State for Justice Shabana Mahmood – for the case to be heard in public.

A relative of Lynette’s also made representations for the hearing to be in public, but her arguments were also rejected.

Intervention

The relative, who has kept a low profile since the murder and does not wish to be identified publicly, has now written to Ms Mahmood hoping for a further intervention.

In a letter to Ms Mahmood, the female relative said: “ As a family member of Lynette White, Mr. Gafoor’s victim, this issue is of deep personal significance to me. I had submitted a formal request for the hearing to be made public, but this and two other applications were unfortunately denied by Judge Peter Rook KC, Judicial Vice Chair of the Parole Board of England and Wales. I was informed of this decision via email from my Liaison Officer earlier this week. While it was suggested that I might attend the private hearing as an observer, the short notice of the refusal has made it impossible for me to prepare or pursue any alternative course of action.

“As you are likely aware, the case of Lynette White stands as one of the most profound miscarriages of justice in British legal history. Over the past 36 years, my family, the wrongly convicted men, their families and their community, have repeatedly been failed by the authorities, and it is heart-breaking that this pattern of neglect continues.

“I would like attention drawn to the fact that, earlier this year, the parole hearings for murderers Colin Pitchfork and Stephen Ling were held publicly. I find no compelling reason why Jeffery Gafoor’s hearing should be treated any differently.

“I was deeply offended by a number of Judge Rook’s points made within his summary, but in particular a reference which referred to ‘applicants’ misunderstandings and misapprehensions with the process of applications to the parole board’. With all due respect, I was assisted by a Liaison Officer and had never completed such paperwork prior to this.

“The remark made has left me feeling as though I, along with the other two applicants, are being perceived as incapable of handling such forms. However, the timeline provided for completing these documents was not within my control. The schedule for submitting the paperwork was dictated by external factors, and I did my best to comply given the constraints. “Therefore, it feels unjust to suggest that the delay or any perceived inefficiency was due to a lack of ability on my part or that of the other applicants.

‘Barred’

The letter continues: “It was never clearly communicated to me that a 12-week submission rule applied to such requests; rather after the event I was sent ‘small print’ stating the 12-week deadline. The fact that the rejection was issued with only seven days remaining before the hearing has effectively barred me from seeking further recourse. I was invited to apply to attend in observation only, to the private oral hearing. However, given the time scale, it was explained to me that it would be highly unlikely that the application would be processed in time, due to the weekend, and that lawyers may not be able to make the appropriate contact or telephone calls to explain the situation to Gafoor. Once again, something that is external and out of my power to achieve.

“Furthermore, the summary’s failure to acknowledge the wrongly convicted men as victims is both deeply troubling and unjust. These individuals served time for a crime they did not commit, and to dismiss their suffering in such a manner is unacceptable, particularly in a case of such magnitude.

“Given the gravity of the situation and the continued impact it has on those involved and affected by this heinous and abhorrent crime, which has now stretched over a 35-year span, one would expect that the powers that be would at least want to ensure that the victims affected by Gafoor’s crime would be treated with care and dignity.

“I feel as if everything is done to help and protect Gafoor, but the victims have to suffer. It begs the question, how victims and indeed the public, can be expected to understand the procedures, if such events are held privately.

“I accept that Gafoor will, one day, be released. However, I would like to see a change in the current system that allows transparency and saves other people from feeling inadequate through no fault of their own.”

Sympathy

A spokesperson for the Parole Board said: “A judicial member, on behalf of the Parole Board Chair, has refused the application for Jeffrey Gafoor’s parole hearing to be made public.

“The judicial member making the decision, and the Parole Board, have the deepest sympathy with the victims in this case including those deeply impacted by this offence, who may not fall within the formal definition of victim under the Victim Contact Scheme (VCS). The VCS is managed by the Probation Service, and they decide on eligibility for the scheme.

“A copy of the public hearing decision explains the reasons why the application was refused, and that decision is available on the Parole Board website. Any victims involved in this case are able to apply to observe the private hearing, via a separate process.

“Parole Board decisions are solely focused on what risk a prisoner could represent to the public if released and whether that risk is manageable in the community.

“A panel will carefully examine a huge range of evidence, including details of the original crime, and any evidence of behaviour change, as well as explore the harm done and impact the crime has had on the victims.

“Members read and digest hundreds of pages of evidence and reports in the lead up to an oral hearing.

“Evidence from witnesses such as probation officers, psychiatrists and psychologists, officials supervising the offender in prison as well as victim personal statements may be given at the hearing.

“It is standard for the prisoner and witnesses to be questioned at length during the hearing which often lasts a full day or more. Parole reviews are undertaken thoroughly and with extreme care. Protecting the public is our number one priority.”