Glyn Razzell, who murdered his estranged wife in 2002 and has refused to reveal where her body is, will remain in prison after the Parole Board's decision to release him on licence was reversed at the High Court.
Razzell was jailed for life with a minimum of almost 16 years in 2003 for the murder of mother-of-four Linda Razzell, who disappeared on her way to work at Swindon College, Wiltshire, during their divorce proceedings.
Court ruling
The Parole Board ruled Razzell could be released on licence in April, but the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) referred the decision to the High Court. At a hearing earlier this week, barristers for the MoJ said the Parole Board had failed to assess Razzell's risk properly, and that the decision to free him should be reversed.
Mrs Razzell's relatives and loved ones also urged the court to block the release, with her cousin Julie Westmore saying the family "will not feel safe" and expressing fear that "all hope of ever finding Linda's remains will be lost" if the killer is freed.
In a ruling on Friday, Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb quashed the Parole Board's decision, stating that she was "not satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that Glyn Razzell be confined".
Judge's reasoning
She said: "I am not persuaded that the risk has diminished to such a level that offender management is capable of keeping the public safe if the defendant is released." She continued that she found Razzell to be "fundamentally dishonest" and that she was "satisfied that he continues to withhold information that he could deliver up".
She also said: "Given his failure to carry out any substantive risk reduction work he is, as far as internal controls go, the same man he was when he killed Linda, and that is relevant to risk." The judge continued that there were "significant gaps" in Razzell's "understanding of the risk he poses", meaning it was "far from sufficient to persuade me that there is a secure foundation" for the Parole Board's conclusion.
She also said that the plan to manage Razzell's release "relies on trust that has not been earned".
Background and parole history
Razzell, of Crewkerne, Somerset, has always denied being responsible for the killing. The 66-year-old is currently held in an open prison in Suffolk, and has both a job and a property outside the prison. He was previously denied parole three times from 2019, with a Parole Board panel finding 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 it had "serious doubts" about Razzell's honesty and that there was a "very significant" risk in the context of relationships. But it continued that this risk was "not imminent" and that Razzell would comply with licence conditions as he was "strongly motivated not to return to custody".
The Parole Board also considered 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.
Family impact and next steps
The victim's cousin, Ms Westmore, told the court that Helen's Law meant "it has at last been recognised that it does matter when a murderer refuses to reveal where someone's remains are". She said: "If Glyn Razzell remains in prison, it will be the incentive he needs to eventually do the right thing. It will be the right thing for everyone concerned, himself included."
Mrs Razzell's partner at the time she was killed, Greg Worrall, said in a statement about her estranged husband: "He knows the pain this is causing Linda's family and children." "We need an end to this ongoing agony," he added.
Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb said that Mrs Razzell's loved ones had "described their suffering with remarkable moral clarity". She added: "The on-going agony of not being able to lay their beloved mother to rest and the regular pain of having to write down how they are coping with the hurt that invades so much of their lives should have rung in the defendant's ears. Perhaps it does?"
