Admitting to killing Joanne Tulip, 29, on Christmas Day 1997, Steven Ling, a farm labourer, was imprisoned for life in December 1998.
As they advised his release from jail during his fifth parole hearing, psychologists have talked of a killer’s ongoing “shame” for his “monstrous” history.
In December 1998, farm labourer Steven Ling was imprisoned for life after stabbing 29-year-old Joanne Tulip 60 times during intercourse in Stamfordham, Northumberland, on Christmas Day a year earlier.
There remained on file a charge of rape.
Following events on the first day of proceedings described as a “farce” by Ms Tulip’s mother, the psychologists’ recommendations for release came on the second day of Ling’s public parole hearing.
On Christmas Day 1997, Joanne Tulip passed away.
Doreen Soulsby claimed she believed victims’ families were not given any thought until the panel chair declared Ling’s evidence would be listened to privately.
Two psychologists were asked about Ling’s anxiety and stress related to public evidence delivery on Wednesday.
Under the direction of the prisoner, psychologist B claimed Ling’s worries focused on the “exposure of every detail of his past life”.
“There is no doubt there is a tough month to six weeks in the community, but the intrusion is not about having to give a very, very detailed account of all the monstrous things he has done in the past,” she said when asked whether Ling would be able to manage media scrutiny once he was released from prison.
Under direction from the institution, psychologist A remarked: “Shame has been an ongoing factor which will never disappear for him.”
On a risk management basis, both witnesses advised Ling’s release from jail.
Psychologist A added: “I believe that now indicates his risk is at a level where he does not need to be detained in prison anymore. She believes the risk Ling poses is “not imminent” and is “manageable in the community.”
Psychologist B reported to the panel: “I believe he meets the test for release and no longer needs to be detained for the protection of the public.”
Regarding Ling’s classification as a “high risk of serious injury,” psychologist A responded: “My concept of risk of serious harm is about the level of harm he may inflict if he reoffended, that is always potentially high.
I have also considered imminence and likelihood, which I find low.
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 were among the elements the panel heard identified as leading to him attacking Ms Tulip.
The evaluation also pointed out problems with Ling’s self-esteem and values.
Based on their observations of the risk factors, both psychologists concur that there is no indication of a persistent curiosity in using violence to reach sexual fulfilment.
Psychologist B said: “I think what we have is a much clearer history of something which I think is difficult to explain but often encountered, which is a fantasy that coercion will quickly move into seduction.”
She said data gleaned on Tuesday suggested Ling’s intention in revealing himself was a dream that would result in a consensual sexual encounter.
“He is aroused by the shock on the victim’s face around indecent exposure, and then what people tend to talk about is somehow the woman will admire, or be seduced, or want to go out with them, or want to have sex with them,” she said.
“I’m not denying that the entitled attitude he had to women had an aggressive component,” she said.
“There is no doubt he has got an entitlement frame of mind – I could have her – but it is still associated, despite the coercive, aggressive start, it is associated with somehow leading to consensual encounters.”
Psychologist A added: “There was also a desire to get some form of revenge and humiliation and make women feel bad at the same time. About that, he has been quite forthcoming.
Speaking on Ling’s early experiences, they labelled him as a “loner” who began to rely on sex to feel better and had a negative attitude towards women, which resulted in “harmful sexual fantasies towards women.”
Both witnesses said Ling has chosen abstinence and that risk factors have been addressed; he has developed “insight and awareness” into his behaviour.
Psychologist A asked if he valued the “gravity” of his offending on Ms Tulip and her loved ones. He stated it is something he talks about regularly and could be “helpful” in preventing him from straying into destructive ideas.
Psychologist B said: “He will refer to himself as a monster when talking to me.
“He has also discussed his struggle to come to terms with the person he was that evening and leading up to it.
“I agree that occasionally it helps to review the enormity of the index offence to avoid complacency.”
Psychologist B asked why Ling used so much violence in his offending in 1997. “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 lost control.”
“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,” psychologist A said. “Those factors combined with that extreme emotional reaction, linked to the triggers we have discussed just now, explain that behaviour.”
While presenting testimony, Ling’s community offender management informed the panel that his advice would be to move the convicted killer to open conditions rather than directly release him from prison.
Ling agreed to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, or something like that, being imposed upon him.
After finishing oral evidence and counsel for the Secretary of State, the hearing will provide written closing arguments for Ling.
At a later point, maybe four weeks from now, the panel will announce a conclusion.