A murderer who refuses to reveal where his estranged wife’s body is will remain in prison after a High Court judge overturned the Parole Board’s decision to free him.
Glyn Razzell was convicted of the murder of Linda Razzell, 41, who disappeared on her way to work at Swindon College, Wiltshire, amid ongoing divorce proceedings in March 2002. He was jailed for life with a minimum term of 16 years in 2003. No trace of Linda’s body has ever been found.
Helen’s Law and Parole Reviews
Razzell, now 66, became the first prisoner to be refused parole under the so-called Helen’s Law in 2021. Helen’s Law – or the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Act 2020 – aims to make it harder for killers to get parole if they refuse to reveal where they hid their victim’s body.
It was considered again in Razzell’s third and most recent review hearing last August, when the panel found there was ‘ample evidence that Mr Razzell is capable of wholesale deceit (and) that his wilful and deliberate withholding of the relevant information indicates that he continues to be a risk’. Despite that, the Board ruled he could be released on licence months later in April – a decision the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) referred to the High Court.
Court Ruling and Family Reaction
Senior judge Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb quashed the decision on Friday after finding Razzell was ‘fundamentally dishonest’ and ‘continues to withhold information that he could deliver up’.
In a statement following the ruling, Linda’s daughter Catherine Razzell said the decision was a ‘relief’ to her and her family, and that her father’s continuing decision not to disclose the location of the remains was ‘cruel’. She said: ‘By choosing to withhold the only information that could provide us with some comfort and closure, and preventing us from being able to hold a funeral for our much-loved mother, he is clearly demonstrating he is still abusive – retaining power over the situation and prioritising his narrative, where he can deny killing her, despite being found guilty and given a life sentence.
‘To our knowledge, he is of sound mind and knows what he is doing, so there is no reason for him to be released while he is still actively choosing to be controlling and abusive from within prison.
‘However, it is important to recognise that while we welcome the decision made today, part of my father’s abuse is that, as a family, we have to go through this process.
‘As well as experiencing the most devastating loss of my mother, 24 years later we are still in court trying to keep the rest of our family safe from a man who is continuing to do our family harm.
‘None of us want my father to die in prison; what we want is for him to acknowledge what he has done, show remorse and tell us where our mother’s body is so that we can finally lay her to rest.
‘There is no peace for us until that happens.’
Over the course of a two-day hearing earlier this week, Linda’s family urged the judge to overturn the decision to release Razzell, saying all hopes of finding her body will be lost if Razzell were released.
Family and Legal Arguments
Julie Westmore, Linda’s cousin, said Razzell was a ‘master manipulator’ who has ‘always failed to take responsibility for his actions’. She said 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’, adding: ‘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.
‘If Glyn Razzell is released now, all hope of ever finding Linda’s remains will be lost.’
She continued: ‘We will not feel safe if Glyn Razzell is released. We know him to be a violent man and an accomplished liar.’
Tristan Jones KC, for the MoJ, said that Razzell had made a ‘degree of progress’, and that professionals who worked with him supported his release, but that the Parole Board’s report ‘loses sight of the fact that he has not been honest or transparent’.
‘Mr Razzell is a deeply deceitful individual who carried out a campaign of violence against Linda, some of it witnessed by their children, and then planned and carried out her murder,’ he said. ‘He is so attached to his narrative of innocence that he is willing to continue inflicting pain on the victims.’
Linda’s partner Greg Worrall appeared via video link and told the court that Razzell was continuing to exert ‘coercive control over people even in death’. He said that during Razzell’s multiple parole applications, he could ‘show remorse’ and disclose where Linda’s remains were. Mr Worrall later said: ‘He knows the pain this is causing Linda’s family and children.’ Referencing Helen’s Law, Mr Worrall said: ‘We were assured he would never be released if he did not reveal Linda’s whereabouts.’
Razzell, of Crewkerne, Somerset, attended the hearing in London and opposed the move, with his barristers telling the court that there was no basis to overturn the decision. He has always denied being responsible for the killing.
Razzell is currently held in an open prison in Suffolk and has both a job and a property outside the prison.
Judge’s Ruling
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’. 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.’
Razzell, the judge found, is ‘fundamentally dishonest’ and she is ‘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’.
Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb said that Linda’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?’
