K.i.l.l.e.r Husband Who Hid Wife’s Body for 24 Years Will STAY Locked Up After High Court Crushes Parole Board’s Shock Release Decision
A man convicted of murdering his estranged wife and concealing her body will remain behind bars after a High Court judge overturned a Parole Board ruling that would have freed him.
Glyn Razzell, now 66, was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2003 for the murder of Linda Razzell, a 41-year-old mother of four. Linda vanished on 19 March 2002 while on her way to work at Swindon College in Wiltshire. The couple were in the middle of divorce proceedings at the time. Despite extensive searches, her body has never been found. Razzell has always maintained his innocence and has consistently refused to reveal what happened to her remains.
He received a minimum term of nearly 16 years. Over the years he applied for parole several times and was refused, including becoming one of the first prisoners affected by Helen’s Law. That legislation requires the Parole Board to take into account a killer’s refusal to disclose the location of a victim’s body when assessing risk and suitability for release.
In April 2026 the Parole Board reached a different conclusion. A panel decided that continued imprisonment was no longer necessary for public protection and directed that Razzell could be released on licence. The Ministry of Justice immediately referred the decision to the High Court, arguing that the Board had not properly assessed the ongoing risk he posed.
At a two-day hearing, the court heard that Razzell remains fundamentally dishonest, continues to withhold information he could provide, and shows significant gaps in his understanding of the risk he presents, particularly in the context of relationships and violence towards women. Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb ruled that she was not satisfied the risk had diminished to a level that could be safely managed in the community. She quashed the Parole Board’s decision, meaning Razzell must stay in custody.
The judgment marks the first time the Justice Secretary’s power to refer a Parole Board release decision to the High Court has been successfully used to overturn such a ruling. Razzell is currently held in an open prison in Suffolk, where he has been allowed limited external work and accommodation arrangements. Those privileges will now be reviewed in light of the court’s findings.
For Linda’s family the outcome brings relief but not closure. Her daughter has spoken of the continuing harm caused by the refusal to disclose the location of the body, describing it as an ongoing form of control that prevents the family from holding a proper funeral or finding peace. Relatives have repeatedly emphasised that without the recovery of Linda’s remains, the trauma remains unresolved more than two decades later.
The case highlights the difficult balance the parole system must strike between rehabilitation, public safety and the rights of victims’ families. While denial of guilt is not in itself an automatic bar to release, the court found that in this instance the combination of denial, non-disclosure and incomplete insight into risk left no secure foundation for concluding that the public would be adequately protected.
Razzell retains the right to apply for parole again in the future. Until then, and until he chooses to provide the information that could finally allow Linda’s family to lay her to rest, he will remain in prison.
