Family member of murder victim Lynette White feels ‘betrayed’ as Parole Board says killer should be freed

Martin Shipton

A family member of murder victim Lynette White has told Nation.Cymru they feel “utterly betrayed” by the justice system after the Parole Board announced that her killer should be released from prison.

Lynette, a 20 year-old sex worker, was stabbed more than 50 times by Jeffrey Gafoor during a frenzied attack at her flat in the Butetown district of Cardiff on Valentine’s Day 1988.

Three black men were wrongly convicted of her murder and jailed for life in one of the most notorious miscarriage of justice cases ever seen in Britain.

Their convictions were quashed amid grave concerns about the conduct of the South Wales Police officers who investigated the case.

DNA technology

In 2003, following advances in DNA technology, Gafoor, a white security guard, was convicted of the murder and given a life sentence himself.

Now the Parole Board has decided he is safe to release. The Parole hearing was heard in private and was told Gafoor had been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Lynette’s family member, who wishes to remain anonymous, said: “Having been informed of the Parole Board’s decision to release Jeffrey Gafoor, I am deeply disheartened. Despite having mentally prepared for this outcome, given that it was his sixth application, I am profoundly disappointed by the apparent lack of attention to certain previously undisclosed factors. Jeffrey Gafoor’s diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder raises concerns about whether all relevant aspects were thoroughly evaluated in the decision-making process.

“Had the hearing been open to the public, there would have been greater transparency in this situation. I feel let down by the process, the broader system and utterly betrayed by the wider justice system, which seems to prioritise the offender over the rights of victims and the public’s rightful expectation of justice.

“Jeffrey Gafoor has served 21 years for murder – 17 years in a secure prison, and four years in open conditions. Yet for 36 years, I and other victims of his heinous crime have endured immense suffering in countless ways, and now we are forced to confront the grim reality that he will soon walk free.”

Investigative journalist

Investigative journalist Satish Sekar, who has written three books on the case and was instrumental in pressing the police to undertake further DNA testing that led to Gafoor’s conviction, said: :”The decision to release Jeffrey Gafoor was bound to happen sooner or later, but it is a bleak day for the entire criminal justice system.

“I first raised concerns over the utterly inadequate system 19 years ago. The Crown Prosecution Service failed miserably to oppose the unduly lenient tariff of just 13 years for the atrociously vindictive sexually-motivated murder of Lynette White. The Attorney General’s office failed to inform me and others of the right to challenge the decision then.

“This seems to be a tactic, as recently the Parole Board made sure that the public would not have the chance to observe the process with a public hearing. They prevented me and other interested parties holding them accountable through the same tactic to deny us the remedy of judicial review.

“They also prevented a reconsideration of that decision with the same behaviour, responding after the hearing had taken place. They have denied victims such as the Cardiff Five [the three men who were wrongly convicted and two more who were charged and acquitted at trial] any say whatsoever.

“In my case, it is common knowledge that I helped to get justice in this case. It has been reported that I wanted a transparent and just process, but what has the Parole Board and its hearings told Gafoor about me? The Parole Board says that the safety of the public is its sole concern. They have not consulted me at all. Instead, they may have put a target on my back. Their actions speak far louder than their words.

“Let them prove that we will be safe. Release the entire files and let us decide for ourselves. A full expose of this shoddy system, Bad Form: How Tariffs Protect the Guilty and Punish the Innocent, will be published soon.”

Safely released

In its released summary of the decision to release Gafoor, the Parole Board panel stated: “Mr Gafoor’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State for Justice to determine whether he could be safely released on parole licence. Mr Gafoor was located in open conditions at the time of his review. The panel could only direct release if it was satisfied that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public that Mr Gafoor remained confined in prison. If the panel did not find that Mr Gafoor could be released, this would raise the question of his suitability for remaining in open conditions.

“This would depend on the extent to which he has made sufficient progress during the sentence in addressing and reducing risk to a level consistent with protecting the public from harm, given that a prisoner in open prison may be unsupervised in the community and taking temporary releases under licence. The Secretary of State only accepts a prisoner for open conditions who is assessed to be at low risk of absconding.

“The case was considered at an oral hearing on October 3 2024 which was conducted by video-links with all participants. Mr Gafoor indicated, through his legal representative, that he hoped to be released as a result of his Parole Board review.

“In reaching its decision, the panel considered the contents of Mr Gafoor’s dossier, prepared and updated by the Secretary of State. At the hearing, oral evidence was given by Mr Gafoor’s probation officer based in the community and the official supervising his case in prison. Psychological assessment reports were available to the panel members. Mr Gafoor also gave evidence.

“The Secretary of State’s representative was party to the proceedings and had provided written assistance but was not present at the hearing. Subsequently, material was provided by the victim liaison service which was added to Mr Gafoor’s dossier.

“The panel had the benefit of a victim personal statement which clearly conveyed the devastating impact of Mr Gafoor’s crime and the continuing consequences of his offending. Its contents were given careful consideration by the panel members.”

Summarising the risk assessment relating to Gafoor, the panel stated: “Having considered the offences, a relevant instance of previous offending and the other evidence before it, the panel listed as risk factors those influences which made it more likely that Mr Gafoor would reoffend.

“At the time of his offending, these risk factors had included Mr Gafoor’s willingness to use extreme violence and a weapon. He had lacked emotional control in situations of stress or conflict and had experienced difficulty dealing with feelings of anger. He could also ruminate about events and hold grudges against people.

“Mr Gafoor could present as emotionally unresponsive. He had demonstrated poor victim empathy. He had met difficulties in his relationships and had become socially isolated. At the time of the [murder], he had misused alcohol.

“Evidence was presented at the hearing regarding Mr Gafoor’s progress and custodial conduct during this sentence. His behaviour in prison had been very good. He had undertaken accredited programmes to address decision making, better ways of thinking, aspects of sex offending, and a tendency to use violence.

“He had participated over a number of years in two specialised regimes to help people identify and deal with their problems. He had also benefitted from educational and vocational training services.

“During the course of four years in two different open establishments, he had successfully completed temporary releases from prison. The official supervising his case in prison described for the panel how well Mr Gaffoor had managed difficult situations.

“His probation officer also noted strategies which Mr Gafoor had developed to cope more effectively. There would be warning signs should anything start to deteriorate in the community. Proactive monitoring would be in place, informed by recent assessments about Mr Gafoor’s style of thinking. “Both witnesses supported Mr Gafoor’s release on life licence at this point.

Release plan

The panel examined the release plan provided by Mr Gafoor’s probation officer and weighed its proposals against assessed risks. The plan included a requirement to reside as directed as well as very strict limitations on Mr Gafoor’s contacts, movements, and activities. The panel concluded this plan was robust enough to manage Mr Gafoor in the community at this stage.

“There had been no evidence of violence in custody. Mr Gafoor had improved his internal controls through steady progression during his sentence, as exemplified by successful completion of several temporary releases.

“After considering the circumstances of his offending, the progress made while in custody and the other evidence presented at the hearing, the panel was satisfied that imprisonment was no longer necessary for the protection of the public.

“Mr Gafoor’s release is subject to the following licence conditions, which must be strictly adhered to:

* To comply with requirements to reside at a designated address, to be of good behaviour, to disclose developing relationships and his use of vehicles, and to report as required for supervision or other appointments;

* To submit to an enhanced form of supervision or monitoring including signing-in times, electronic tagging, and a specified curfew;

* To comply with other identified limitations concerning named contacts, his activities and residency, and exclusion zones to avoid contact with victims;

* To meet specified restrictions relating to the use of electronic technology; and: To continue to work on addressing defined areas of risk in the community.”