The partner of a murdered woman has told the High Court that her family "need an end to the ongoing agony" after the Parole Board said her killer can be released from prison.
Glyn Razzell was jailed for life with a minimum of almost 16 years in 2003 for murdering his estranged wife, Linda Razzell, whose body has never been found. The mother-of-four, who was originally from Carmarthenshire, disappeared on her way to work at Swindon College, Wiltshire, in March 2002, amid divorce proceedings.
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 Ministry of Justice has referred the decision to the High Court, telling a two-day hearing that it should be reversed because the Parole Board failed to consider Razzell's risk properly.
Family's statement in court
Razzell, who is attending the hearing in London and sitting in the dock, is opposing the bid to challenge his release. At the start of the hearing on Tuesday, Mrs Razzell's partner Greg Worrall appeared via video link and told the court that Razzell was exerting "coercive control over people even in death".
Mr Worrall said: "We have rebuilt our lives based on the fact he cannot harm us any more." He said that Mrs Razzell's family had "picked up the pieces of our shattered lives" with the support of friends and family. "We have found love and purpose in our new lives," he said.
Mr Worrall added there is a "sadness which will always be there" after his partner's murder, particularly on holidays and anniversaries. He said that during Razzell's multiple parole applications, he could "show remorse" and disclose where Mrs Razzell's remains were.
Parole decision and legal challenge
Mr Worrall later said: "He knows the pain this is causing Linda's family and children. We need an end to this ongoing agony." 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 consider 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 added that he felt Razzell was still a danger to women and was committing the crime of preventing a lawful burial. "Am I safe? Are my family safe? Are the wider community safe?," he continued.
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".
Arguments in court
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". Mr Stanbury 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. He said this gave professionals a "much deeper understanding of Mr Razzell".
During his written submissions, the barrister said 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."
Judge Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb said that she would give her decision "in a matter of weeks". She said: "I hope there is some movement in the defendant's mind. It is in his hands to do so."
