Serial rapist feared to have had over 90 victims is refused parole after serving 30 years - because he’s still a risk to women

A prolific serial rapist who may have had more than 90 victims is to continue to be kept in prison after already serving 30 years - because he’s still a risk to women.

Kevin Lakeman was jailed in April 1995 for a series of horror attacks spanning 12 years on female strangers in Sunderland.

The assaults were always carried out at knifepoint and whilst he was high on drink and drugs.

He was initially charged with 30 serious sex offences but 90 women in total have since made allegations against him.

Now, the Parole Board have blocked his release, saying there is a ‘serious possibility’ that other allegations against him are true.

Mr Lakeman’s case was referred to the board earlier this year to determine whether it was safe to release him on licence.

If not, they were asked to agree whether he could be moved to an open prison for further rehabilitation.

But they have now decided neither option is safe, saying there is ‘a serious and critical unexplored area of risk which needed to be explored’ in the confines of a closed prison.

They also decided to hold the hearing in private, in part due to the vigilante risk to Lakeman’s life.

At the hearing on October 29, Lakeman appeared via video link and initially told the board he hoped to walk free.

He then changed his mind, saying he’d rather be in an open prison, before a total turnaround where he asked to remain in closed conditions.

The unemployed father-of-five was 33 years old when he received a life sentence on April 7, 1995, for four offences - three of rape and one of attempted rape.

Three of the offences were carried out in 1982 and one in 1994.

He pleaded guilty to one offence of rape and was convicted at trial of the other two.

Eight allegations of rape and four of attempted rape were the subjects of charges which were ordered to be left on file while 14 other charges did not reach court.

Ninety women in total came forward to say he had assaulted them - potentially making him one of Britain’s worst offenders.

The Parole Board decision summary, released on Wednesday November 12, said: ‘The panel noted that many other allegations of rape and attempted rape were directed by the trial judge to remain on file.

‘These remain as unproven allegations because there had been insufficient evidence for Mr Lakeman to be charged.

‘Mr Lakeman has always denied these allegations. Panels of the Parole Board consider allegations about offending in their assessment of risk and are not confined to simply considering convicted offending.

‘The panel noted similarities to the index offences and it also considered other unproven allegations of sexual offending in this case, which Mr Lakeman had also denied being responsible for.

‘Again, the panel noted the features of some of those allegations to be similar to the index offences.

‘Noting those similarities, the panel considered the allegations to be relevant in terms of its assessment of Mr Lakeman’s case.

‘It considered that there was a serious possibility that most of the allegations against Mr Lakeman may be true.

‘The panel therefore factored into its risk assessment the possibility that Mr Lakeman may have committed a series of serious sexual offences during the intervening years between the index offences.’

Lakeman’s 12-year tariff expired in January 2006 and he progressed to an open prison in May 2012 but was returned to closed conditions in July 2014 following ‘concerns about his behaviour.’

In November 2014, he was returned to an open prison but was again sent back in May 2015 when he produced a positive drug test result.

He was finally released on licence in January 2019 but was recalled to custody two months later after a polygraph test showed he hadn’t stuck to the terms of his licence.

In April last year, the Parole Board refused his release but recommended to the Secretary of State that he should be moved to an open prison, which was not accepted.

The burly rapist, of Sunderland, was aged 33 when he was sentenced at Newcastle Crown Court.

His victims crammed the public gallery, with many crying or cheering when his sentence was passed.

He was found guilty at Leeds Crown Court the month before of two rapes and one attempted rape in the space of 24 hours on New Year's Day, 1982, in the Downhill area of Sunderland.

He had already admitted one charge of raping an 18-year-old girl in a city centre car park at Sunderland in the early hours of New Year's Day 1994.

During Lakeman's trial at Leeds, the court was told that he was trapped by a new technique to test DNA which had only recently become available - scientists ‘grew’ Lakeman’s blood to obtain a DNA sample which was then compared to semen from a 16-year-old he raped on New Year's Day, 1982, in the grounds of Hilton Castle.

When news of his impending release reached one victim in 2018, she said that his attack had ‘killed her life.’

She was one of those women where charges were allowed to lie on file.

She says he attacked her as she walked into Sunderland City Centre in 1985.

Dragged into Sunderland Civic Centre’s Car Park, she was then moved to Mowbray park where her attacker held a knife to her throat and raped her.

She turned to alcohol to cope and said she was ‘heartbroken’ when she learnt he would be freed.

Now 63, Lakeman has completed an ‘extensive range of accredited programmes’ to address his sexual offending but a move was still considered too risky.

The panel took oral evidence from Mr Lakeman’s probation officer based in the community, the official supervising his case in prison, a forensic psychologist employed by the prison service and a forensic psychologist commissioned by Mr Lakeman’s legal representative.

They were also privy to statements from his victims ‘which clearly conveyed the impact of Mr Lakeman’s crimes and the consequences of his offending.’

The decision summary added: ‘After considering the circumstances of his offending, the progress made while in custody, and on licence, and the evidence presented at the hearing, the panel was not satisfied that release at this point would be safe for the protection of the public.

‘The panel disagreed with the witness assessments in this case and it considered there to be a serious and critical unexplored area of risk which needed to be explored and understood and, if necessary, for treatment to be considered.

‘The panel considered that this should take place in a closed prison and it did not recommend to the Secretary of State that Mr Lakeman should be transferred to an open prison.

‘Mr Lakeman will be eligible for another parole review in due course.’