Decision to release rapist John Worboys overturned by High Court
A decision to release black cab rapist John Worboys from jail has been overturned by the High Court.
Three judges in London ruled on Wednesday that the Parole Board must make a "fresh determination" in the case of the 60-year-old serial sex attacker following a challenge by victims.
Parole Board chairman Nick Hardwick resigned ahead of the ruling, according to unconfirmed reports.
Sir Brian Leveson, Mr Justice Jay and Mr Justice Garnham said the board should have "undertaken further inquiry into the circumstances of his offending".
The judges announced that, in the light of their findings, the "release decision will be quashed" and the case "remitted to the Parole Board for fresh determination before a differently constituted panel".
Lawyers for the two women who brought the challenge argued during a hearing earlier this month that the Parole Board's decision to release Worboys, who now goes under the name of John Radford, was "irrational", and should be overturned.
At the conclusion of the hearing on March 14 the judges continued a temporary bar preventing Worboys' release, which was originally granted in January.
Worboys was jailed indefinitely in 2009 with a minimum term of eight years after being found guilty of 19 offences, including rape, sexual assault and drugging, committed against 12 victims.
He became known as the black cab rapist after attacking victims in his hackney carriage.
Police believe he committed crimes against 105 women between 2002 and 2008, when he was caught.
The two women who challenged the decision - who cannot be named for legal reasons - said something had gone "badly wrong" with the Parole Board's decision to free him.
They said the Parole Board should have taken into account "critical evidence" of the "wider allegations" against Worboys.
The judges heard that Worboys, who has served 10 years behind bars, including remand time, has denied committing any offences other than those for which he was convicted.
The Parole Board argued that its decision was "lawful and and rational" and was based on appropriate evidence.