A dangerous criminal was released from a life sentence because his human rights were put before protecting the public, an official inquiry said yesterday.
Nine months later Anthony Rice strangled and stabbed Naomi Bryant 15 times.
Anthony Rice and Naomi Bryant
Rice should never have been allowed out of jail but obtained legal aid to engage a lawyer to argue for his freedom.
The Parole Board - in deciding to let him out - and the Probation Service - which should have closely monitored him in the community - took undue account of his human rights, fearing legal action against them.
Rice, 48, who is serving another life term for the murder, had a long history of sexual assaults on women and children. He killed Miss Bryant, 40, last August after serving 16 years in prison for attempted rape and other offences.
Her body was found by her daughter, Hannah, 14, and her former boyfriend Michael McGovern. Yesterday, Mr McGovern said: "What on earth could lead people to think that he was ever going to be safe on the streets?"
Andrew Bridges, the chief inspector of probation, who conducted the investigation, said there had been a "systemic failure" that went beyond the apparent inability of individuals to carry out the jobs they were meant to do.
Rice had convinced a Parole Board panel that, because he had served five years longer than the 10-year "tariff" set by the trial judge, he was ready for release.
Mr Bridges said: "The whole process is complicated by the human rights considerations which have grown in importance following a series of court judgments.
"Prisoners are now legally represented at parole board hearings, often by counsel, who also have recourse to judicial review. It is a challenging task for people who are charged with managing offenders effectively, to ensure that public protection considerations are not undermined by human rights considerations."
The courts have taken away the powers of politicians to decide how long prisoners should stay in prison and Mr Bridges said the Parole Board tended to approach decisions about releasing lifers on the basis of "when, not if". In the past two years, there has been a significant increase in the number released and in the proportion re-convicted for serious offences.
Miss Bryant's murder was the latest in a succession of failures that have undermined public confidence in the system of public protection.
It marked another blow to Labour's "tough on crime" reputation, after a litany of similar tales of incompetence, combined with the foreign prisoner release fiasco that cost Charles Clarke his job as Home Secretary last week.
But ministers were unapologetic about the impact of the Human Rights Act on public safety. Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, said last night: "This Act has been one of the great achievements of recent years and indeed of this Labour government.
"It enshrines in our law the principles that all human beings should be treated with respect, equality and fairness; they should all be accorded basic fundamental rights."
This contrasted starkly with the conclusions of Mr Bridges, who felt human rights considerations had been given too much weight throughout the consideration of Rice's case.
From 2001, when he was moved to an open prison in preparation for a release he did not merit, "the people managing the case started to allow its public protection considerations to be undermined by its human rights considerations, as these required attention from all involved, especially as he was legally represented".
So much time was spent focusing on the human rights aspects of cases that sight was lost of the wider public interest and "insufficient weight given to the underlying nature of his risk of harm to others".
In addition, the Parole Board did not even have full details of Rice's criminal record. When he was released from prison, the system failed again.
The case was taken over by Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA), a panel to protect the public from serious offenders in the community.
It found a hostel for Rice in the Hampshire village of Otterbourne - an area with which he, a Scotsman, had no connection - under strict conditions.
These included a ban on meeting women or drinking and restrictions on his movements. Mr Bridges said the probation officers were concerned that the conditions were too severe.
"The MAPPA allowed its attention to the public protection considerations of this case to be undermined by its human rights considerations." As a result, the conditions of his licence were simply not enforced.
On Aug 17 last year, Rice was in Winchester - where he was not allowed to be. He saw Miss Bryant, whom he had briefly met once before, and they went to several pubs before ending up at her home, where she was murdered.
It is the latest case to raise concerns about the systems for dealing with dangerous offenders in the community.
An inquiry this year into the murder of John Monckton, the London financier, identified a series of failures by the probation officers charged with monitoring his killer, Damien Hanson. He was released on probation after serving seven years of a 12-year sentence for attempted murder.
Last month there was another outcry when it was found that several members of the gang that tortured, raped and shot Mary-Ann Leneghan in Reading were on probation for minor offences.
Mr Bridges said the failings in the Rice case were more deep-seated and required a thorough reappraisal of the system for releasing dangerous prisoners.
This was especially important because a new system of indeterminate sentences meant more similar decisions would have to be taken by the Parole Board in future.
Rules to improve public protection were announced last month and John Reid, the Home Secretary, said yesterday that further reforms would be considered if necessary.
He said: "The Government's first duty is to protect the citizens of this country and I am determined that we should make our systems and procedures as effective and efficient as possible."
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "When the Government describes someone as being under close supervision the public has a right to believe that its safety will be protected. This is clearly not true.
