The partner of a mother murdered by her estranged husband today begged for "an end to the ongoing agony" after the killer was cleared for release.
Greg Worrall told the High Court that Glyn Razzell, 67, was exerting "coercive control over people even in death" nearly 25 years after he killed his estranged wife, Linda, 41, in 2002. The mother-of-four disappeared on her way to work at Swindon College, Wiltshire, amid divorce proceedings but her body has never been recovered.
The Parole Board has cleared Razzell for release from a life sentence but the Ministry of Justice has called for the decision to be reversed, telling a two-day hearing Razzell's risk was not properly considered.
Partner's plea in court
Today Linda's partner Mr Worrall appeared via video link and told the court: "We have rebuilt our lives based on the fact he cannot harm us any more." He said Linda's family had "picked up the pieces of our shattered lives" with the support of friends and family.
He said: "We have found love and purpose in our new lives." Mr Worrall added that there is a "sadness which will always be there" after his partner's murder, especially on holidays and anniversaries. He said that during Razzell's parole applications in 2019, he could "show remorse" and disclose where Mrs Razzell's remains were.
Mr Worrall later said: "He knows the pain this is causing Linda's family and children. We need an end to this ongoing agony."
Parole history and legal challenge
Razzell, who is attending the hearing in London and sitting in the dock, was jailed for life with a minimum of almost 16 years in 2003 for murdering Linda. The Parole Board ruled three times from 2019 that Razzell should remain behind bars, but in April decided he could be released on licence.
The Parole Board's decision came after consideration of Helen's Law, named after Helen McCourt, who vanished on her way home from work in 1988. The law requires the Parole Board to take into consideration a killer's refusal to disclose where they hid their victim's body.
Referencing the law, Mr Worrall said: "We were assured he would never be released if he did not reveal Linda's whereabouts." He continued that he felt Razzell was still a danger to women and was committing the crime of preventing a lawful burial. He added: "Am I safe? Are my family safe? Are the wider community safe?"
Defence arguments
Razzell, of Crewkerne, Somerset, has always denied being responsible for the killing, and a Parole Board panel found in 2023 that he "does not want to lose his desired status of being a 'wrongly convicted murderer'".
In its April decision, a Parole Board panel said that it had "serious doubts" about Razzell's honesty and that there was a "very significant" risk in the context of relationships, but said this was "not imminent". It decided that he would comply with licence conditions as he was "strongly motivated not to return to custody".
The MoJ can refer a Parole Board's decision to release a prisoner to the High Court if it believes the release would undermine public confidence in the parole system, and the court must be satisfied that imprisonment is no longer necessary for the protection of the public.
Matthew Stanbury, for Razzell, told the court that there should not be "undue focus on one particular course which is seen as a silver bullet in fixing risk". He also said that psychologists had paid "close attention" to Razzell's case and that a psychologist had spent 17 hours with him, as opposed to an average of about six with other prisoners.
Mr Stanbury said this gave professionals a "much deeper understanding of Mr Razzell". The barrister said in written submissions that the Parole Board's decision was "detailed and thorough", and that the MoJ's case "comes close to treating denial as conclusive to risk".
He said: "The claimant's case is predicated on wrong assumptions or assertions that the defendant's denial of his offending, and attendant non-completion of offending behaviour programmes, are a bar to release. Both factors were properly considered and weighed by an experienced Parole Board panel which considered the countervailing factors and matters in the round.
"There is no, or no sufficiently cogent, basis for departing from the panel's decision." The hearing before Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb continues.
