The family of Linda Razzell have expressed their deep distress following the Parole Board’s decision to potentially release her convicted murderer, Glyn Razzell, from prison. Linda, a mother of four from Wiltshire, disappeared in March 2002 while en route to her workplace at Swindon College during divorce proceedings. Despite being convicted of her murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of nearly 16 years in 2003, Linda’s body has never been found.
The Parole Board had previously rejected Glyn Razzell’s applications for parole three times since 2019, but in April this year reversed its decision, recommending his release under licence. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) challenged this outcome by referring the decision to the High Court, arguing that the Parole Board did not adequately assess the risk Razzell poses. Razzell, who denies responsibility for the murder, has opposed this challenge.
At the High Court hearing in London, Linda Razzell’s partner, Greg Worrall, gave evidence via video link, describing the ongoing impact of Razzell’s potential release. He spoke of the enduring distress and coercive influence Razzell exerts even after death, saying: “We have rebuilt our lives based on the fact he cannot harm us any more.”
READ MORE: Bats threaten delay to £19.7m Bridgwater health academy project
READ MORE: Children’s home plans rejected for isolated Somerset village site
Mr Worrall reflected on the family’s efforts to rebuild their lives with the support of friends, acknowledging a lasting sadness and trauma, particularly on significant dates. He emphasised how Razzell had shown a pattern of remorse during parole applications, including promises to reveal the location of Linda’s remains, which never came to fruition. “He knows the pain this is causing Linda’s family and children. We need an end to this ongoing agony,” Mr Worrall added.
The Parole Board’s decision invoked ‘Helen’s Law’, legislation that requires consideration of a prisoner’s refusal to disclose the whereabouts of their victim’s body before release decisions are made. Mr Worrall asserted that Razzell’s continued refusal amounts to a crime of preventing lawful burial, raising safety concerns for the community.
Legal representatives for Razzell have argued that the denial of guilt and non-participation in offending behaviour programmes were appropriately weighed by the Parole Board, and that psychological assessments conducted extensively-one psychologist spent 17 hours with Razzell, significantly more than usual-support his case for release. They contend that the MoJ’s challenge unfairly equates denial with risk.
Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb presided over the hearing and indicated she would deliver a judgment within weeks, expressing hope that Razzell might reconsider his stance. The court faces the delicate balance of assessing public safety concerns while considering rehabilitation prospects in this highly sensitive case.