Journalist fears for his safety if Lynette White killer is released

Martin Shipton

The investigative journalist whose campaigning efforts resulted in a murderer being identified and jailed says he fears for his own safety following a decision by the Parole Board to release the killer.

Satish Sekar has written three books about the brutal murder in 1988 of 20-year-old sex worker Lynette White in Cardiff. She was stabbed more than 50 times.

The case became one of Britain’s most notorious miscarriages of justice, with three black men wrongly convicted of murder. They were later exonerated and had their convictions quashed.

Mr Sekar urged South Wales Police to reopen the case and take advantage of advances in DNA technology to catch the real killer. They did so, and security guard Jeffrey Gafoor was identified as the real killer and jailed for life.

Earlier this month the Parole Board decided it was safe to release Gafoor and arrangements are in train to do so.

Deeply concerned

But Mr Sekar is deeply concerned about the lack of transparency over the Parole Board’s decision making. Together with a relative of Lynette White and a family member of one of the men originally wrongly convicted, he made unsuccessful representations to the Board that its panel hearing into Gafoor’s case should be held in public. Since the decision to release Gafoor was made, the Parole Board has refused to release assessments that convinced them he no longer posed a threat to the public.

A summary of the Board’s decision that has been published states: “[At] the time of his crimes Gafoor had a ‘willingness to use extreme violence’, ‘lacked emotional control’ in stressful situations and had anger problems. He would also ‘ruminate about events and hold grudges against people’.

The summary went on to state: “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 offence, 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.”

Violence

There was no evidence of Gafoor engaging in violence while in custody, and as a result of his successful completion of the programmes, he had been transferred to a lower security jail and had experienced periods of day release.

The summary of the decision added: “Psychological assessment reports were available to the panel members.”

In a letter to Holly Coffey, the Senior Challenges and Public Hearings Manager of the Parole Board, Mr Sekar accused the Board of acting in a secretive manner by refusing to hold the panel hearing in public and by refusing to release the detailed information about Gafoor’s current mental state that had been shared with the panel when they met behind closed doors.

Mr Sekar stated: “[There] is material that may suggest that I could be in personal danger as it is very obvious that I played a role in bringing Gafoor to justice, that he has anger issues and a lack of empathy among other issues. I want to know exactly what information the Parole Board gave to Gafoor and his lawyers regarding me, or whether that information could lead to me being identified.

“Given the unsatisfactory way this case has been handled from start to now and the dismal failure of the system to engage with Gafoor’s victims … I do not have confidence that my personal safety has been considered at all by the Parole Board.

“I therefore want assurances that before Gafoor is released, his licence conditions will include a ban on him contacting me and an exclusion zone around me.

“May I point out that the lack of transparency and openness in his sixth application [to the Parole Board] has created an environment where journalists cannot do their jobs safely, and that this may have the effect of preventing journalists from investigating and reporting on such cases.

“Were these matters considered by the panel at all, and if not, why not? I want Gafoor’s case to be reconsidered and in public, so if it is the right decision to release him, the public can see that for themselves and be reassured about that.”

Licence conditions

Responding to Mr Sekar this week, Ms Coffey stated: “I cannot confirm which licence conditions are in place, however if you want to discuss licence conditions being added to protect you, then you should contact the Ministry of Justice as the Probation Service is responsible for requesting specific licence conditions.

“As our legal director has already explained, we cannot comment on what evidence has been put forward during the current review because the relevant law restricts us from passing on information about Parole Board proceedings without permission to do so from the Board Chair, and we do not have that permission. And in relation to past decisions, once these decisions have been made, we come to the end of our statutory jurisdiction and we have no power to revisit them.
“Only a prisoner or the Secretary of State [for Justice] can apply for reconsideration. Unfortunately as you are not a party to the proceedings you cannot apply.”

Mr Sekar said: “The Parole Board claims the safety of victims and the general public is its top priority. Given their lack of transparency, these are no more than hollow words. Nothing that has been said to me makes me feel confident that I will be safe if Gafoor is released.”

He added that he now intends to ask Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood to intervene and order a reconsideration of the decision to release Gafoor.