Lynette White killer avoids public parole hearing

Martin Shipton

A notorious murderer who allowed five innocent men to be jailed in his place won’t have to endure a public parole hearing after his solicitor pleaded that he would find doing so stressful.

Jeffrey Gafoor, now 59, stabbed Cardiff sex worker Lynette White, 20, more than 50 times in 1988 at her flat in the Butetown district of Cardiff.

But five black men, known as the Cardiff Five, were wrongly charged with the killing and held in prison on remand. Three of them were convicted and jailed for life in what has often been described as Wales’ most notorious miscarriage of justice. They were subsequently exonerated, with their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal.

It wasn’t until a decade and a half later that Gafoor, who is white, was identified as the real murderer following advances in DNA technology. In July 2003 he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum tariff of 13 years before he could be considered for release on licence by the Parole Board.

So far, he has made five applications for release, all of which have been turned down, He has now made a sixth application which is due to be considered by the Parole Board shortly.

Public interest

The Board has to decide whether he is safe to be released. While such hearings are normally heard in private, they can be heard in public if it is considered in the public interest to do so.

Three individuals, including investigative journalist Satish Sekar, who has written extensively on the case, and a relative of one of those wrongly accused argued that Gafoor’s hearing ought to take place in public because of its notoriety and the strong level of public interest. Their arguments were backed by Shabana Mahmood, the Secretary of State for Justice.

But Judge Peter Rook KC, the Judicial Vice Chair of the Parole Board of England and Wales, decided that the hearing should be in private.

DNA age

Explaining his decision in a letter to the parties involved, Judge Rook said: “There is an application from a journalist who has an interest in this case. He has pointed out that this was the first murder case in the DNA age in Britain where a miscarriage of justice was resolved by the conviction of the real killer. Since 2005 he has been campaigning on the basis that the tariff imposed by the trial judge was inadequate, and the criminal justice system failed to utilise its own procedures to ensure that Mr Gafoor received a just tariff.

“His opinion is that the victims of this case include not only the deceased and her family and friends, but also the Cardiff 5, their friends and families as well as the community of Butetown, where the murder took place, which was unjustly vilified. Finally, he states that if Mr Gafoor was ever released back into the community that he lived in when arrested, he would be living less than a kilometre away from the children of one of the men who was falsely accused of the murder.”

In a letter dated September 10 2024, Gordon Davison, on behalf of the Secretary of State, indicated that she had studied the reasons given in the applications for a public hearing and had consulted those prison and probation service staff who would appear as witnesses at the oral hearing and who were responsible for providing the Board’s Panel with assessments of Gafoor’s current risk.

Public hearing

Judge Rook stated: “He indicates that the Secretary of State fully supports the applications for a public hearing and asks that full weight be given to the reasons given within the applications for requesting it. He adds that whilst the Secretary of State acknowledges that Mr Gafoor has certain neurodiversity issues, the Secretary of State observes that the Parole Board can take measures to alleviate his stress during the hearing (for example, by ensuring that there are regular breaks), such that the case for a public hearing is not undermined in any way.

“In the light of the necessary tight time limits Mr Gafoor’s legal representative originally made submissions on the client’s behalf without having had an opportunity to take instructions from him. They believe there is little merit to having a public hearing, stating that Mr Gafoor has willingly engaged in all matters related to the victim(s). The legal representative submits that as this case has attracted significant media attention, a public hearing would impact negatively on the decision making process and the public hearing would provide nothing of value to the case. They point to a number of further licence conditions which have been added as requested by the victim’s family.

“By an email dated September 13 2024 it was indicated that Mr Gafoor has now confirmed the submissions made on his behalf. Two points are added. It is contended that media attention could cause potential danger to Mr Gafoor if he is released. It is submitted that Mr Gafoor’s diagnosis with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) means that he would be under a significant amount of stress when giving evidence which is likely to have a negative impact upon the hearing.”

Psychological reports

Giving his decision, Judge Rook said: “I note that there are a number of psychological reports in the dossier. Mr Gafoor has been diagnosed with ASD and this may mean that a public hearing will increase the stress when giving evidence. I acknowledge that the Panel Chair can take steps to reduce any stress Mr Gafoor might feel if he gives evidence at a public hearing including allowing him to give evidence off camera so the public hearing observers cannot see him. This could also reduce the dangers to Mr Gafoor if he is to be released.

“Whilst this may not eliminate the additional stress or perceived danger, I accept that reasonable adjustments may be able to alleviate the stress that is likely to arise when a hearing is held in public and there is intense media interest.

“I acknowledge that a public hearing might be a suitable way of allowing all involved insight into the case and the parole process rather than excluding those who are ‘indirectly’ involved. However, it must be appreciated that the Panel’s sole focus at the hearing will be on an assessment of Mr Gafoor’s risk and whether that risk can be safely managed in the community. The matters that have led to the case’s notoriety are unlikely to feature in the risk assessment. The hearing will not be a resentencing exercise.

“After considering the competing arguments, I have concluded that this is a case where a public hearing is not appropriate. In my judgement, having a public hearing is unlikely to provide the public with any significant further understanding of the parole process. There are no special features to the case apart from the fact that a number of men were wrongly convicted of this offence before Mr Gafoor was convicted. The role of DNA in unmasking Mr Gafoor is of historical interest only.

“.I note that one of the applicants [Mr Sekar] is running a campaign in respect of the minimum sentence Mr Gafoor received. That is not a matter that the Parole Board is entitled to consider. The issue of the appropriateness of the tariff will not feature in the hearing. The hearing will be focused on current risk, and will not investigate any past miscarriage of justice, so having it in public would not shed any further light on these issues. The appropriateness of the sentence, the miscarriage of justice, the repercussion on the community are all matters that will not be explored at a public hearing.”

South Wales Police

Mr Sekar, who has written three books on the case and pressured South Wales Police to undertake the DNA tests that resulted in Gafoor’s conviction, said: “”I have been in touch with the Parole Board for a few years now. They said they want to encourage victims to have their say. The Cardiff Five are not just victims of a miscarriage of justice, they are victims of Gafoor’s cynical conduct over many years – conduct which destroyed their lives. If they and their families are not victims of Gafoor’s appalling murder, the definition of the word victim is flawed.

“The Parole Board or Probation Service should have directly contacted all the victims of Gafoor’s crime, which on a sensible view must include the Cardiff Five and their families too. This has never happened. It is also interesting that Judge Rook describes the murder as having 25 stab wounds to her chest, but he does not call it a sexually-motivated murder. Why not?

“My ‘campaign’ over tariffs does not affect Gafoor’s hearing, although his tariff was clearly utterly inappropriate as will be made clear in my forthcoming book, Bad Form: How Tariffs Protect the Guilty and Punish the Innocent. I fully accept that the Parole Board’s function is to decide whether it is safe to release Gafoor, not the inadequacy of the tariff, although inadequate tariffs inevitably mean that the Parole Board must consider releasing prisoners earlier than the public would like.

“I expect that there will come a time when Gafoor will be released, but it is essential that the public fully understand both the decision to release him and the process. That will not happen in a private hearing and it won’t happen if the public does not understand the flaws in the parole process, exemplified by this case.

“It should be pointed out that the Secretary of State fully supports a public hearing, and the reasons not to do so are not convincing. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to challenge the decision or a judicial review will be considered. Given that at least parts of the hearings of two notorious murderers, Colin Pitchfork and Steven Ling were held in public, I see no reason why this case is to be heard behind closed doors for the sixth time.”