Sadistic killer who stabbed woman 60 times should be released, Parole Board says
A charge of rape was left on file during the original court case, so Ling is not a convicted sex offender
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
A man who raped a woman and stabbed her 60 times in a sadistic murder 27 years ago should be freed, the Parole Board has said.
Steven Ling was jailed for life in December 1998 after admitting his horrific attack on Joanne Tulip, 29, in Stamfordham, Northumberland.
He has been recommended for release following his fifth parole hearing.
A charge of rape was left on file during the original court case, so he is not a convicted sex offender, but in its ruling the Parole Board stated: “Mr Ling has always accepted that he raped the victim.”
Ling’s vicious murder on Christmas Day 1997 was inspired by sadism, the sentencing judge said back in 1998.
Sentencing him to life at Newcastle Crown Court, Mr Justice Potts told Ling, who was 23 at the time of the murder: “You inflicted appalling injuries on (Ms Tulip) while you were having sexual relations with her.
“I’m also satisfied that there was in your motivation an aspiration of sadism.”
He added: “You will never be released so long as it is thought you constitute a danger to women.”
Ling was sentenced to life with a minimum term of 20 years which was reduced to 18 years by the High Court.
At a parole hearing in July this year, two psychologists agreed that Ling should be freed from prison and spoke of his enduring “shame” about his “monstrous” past.
Ms Tulip’s mother Doreen Soulsby had branded the parole exercise a farce after it was ruled that the killer’s evidence could be given in private.
Two psychologists, identified only as A and B, recommended Ling could be released from prison on a risk management plan.
Psychologist A believed the risk Ling posed was “not imminent” and was “manageable in the community”, adding: “I believe that now means his risk is at a level where he does not need to be kept in prison anymore.”
Psychologist B told the panel: “I believe he meets the test for release and no longer needs to be detained for the protection of the public.”
The panel heard that a past risk assessment identified a number of factors that led to him attacking Ms Tulip which included preoccupation with sex, sexual interest in indecent exposure, capacity to use force to secure sexual gratification, entitlement towards sex and a negative attitude towards women.
The assessment also identified issues in Ling’s own self-worth and self-esteem.
Speaking to the risk factors identified, both psychologists agreed that there was no evidence of an enduring interest in inflicting violence to achieve sexual gratification.
Asked if he appreciated the “gravity” of his offending on Ms Tulip and her loved ones, psychologist A said Ling discussed it quite regularly, which can be “helpful” in deterring him from straying into unhealthy thoughts.
Psychologist B said: “He will refer to himself as a monster when talking to me.
“He has talked about the struggle to come to terms with the person he was that night, leading up to it as well.
“I agree that I think it helps occasionally to revisit the enormity of the index offence to avoid complacency.”
Questioned on why Ling used so much violence in his offending in 1997, psychologist B said: “There was both a panic, a desire to get away with the crime, and there was a kind of rage that erupted that was about her, about women, about his life, about himself and he absolutely lost control.”
Psychologist A added: “I think the areas of risk that we do understand well in regards to attitude towards women, a desire for revenge and humiliation, the sex and rape fantasies … those factors combined with that extreme emotional reaction, linked to the triggers that we have discussed just now, give an explanation for that behaviour.”
In its published decision, the Parole Board panel said: “The panel was satisfied that imprisonment was no longer necessary for the protection of the public.”
His release was subject to conditions, which include informing the authorities of any relationships he might develop; being subject to monitoring and a curfew and staying out of an exclusion zone to avoid contact with his victim’s family.