Parole Board releases Joanne Tulip's murderer, Steven Ling

Steven Ling was sentenced to life imprisonment in December 1998 after admitting his brutal attack on 29-year-old Joanne Tulip in Stamfordham, Northumberland.

After his fifth parole hearing, his release was recommended.

During the original trial, a charge of rape was left on record, meaning he is not a convicted sex offender, but in its decision the parole board stated: “Mr. Ling has always admitted to raping the victim.”(Image: Newsquest)

Ling's brutal murder on Christmas Day 1997 was sadistically motivated, the judge said at the verdict in 1998.

Sentencing him to life imprisonment at Newcastle Crown Court, Judge Potts told Ling, who was 23 at the time of the murder: “You inflicted appalling injuries on (Ms Tulip) while having sexual intercourse with her.”

“I am also convinced that your motivation was sadistic intentions.”

He added: “You will never be released as long as you are considered a danger to women.”

Ling was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years, which was reduced to 18 years by the Supreme Court.Joanne Tulip (Image: Doreen Soulsby)

At a parole hearing in July this year, two psychologists agreed that Ling should be released from prison, speaking of his ongoing “shame” about his “monstrous” past.

Doreen Soulsby, Ms Tulip's mother, had described the parole proceedings as a farce after it was decided that the killer's testimony could be given in camera.

Two psychologists, identified only as A and B, recommended that Ling be released from prison based on a risk management plan.

Psychologist A considered that the danger posed by Ling was “not immediate” and “manageable by society.” He added: “I believe this means that his risk is now at a level where he no longer needs to remain in prison.”(LR) Doreen Soulsby, her mother Georgina Miller and her daughter Joanne Tulip (Image: Doreen Soulsby)

Psychologist B told the panel: “I believe he qualifies for release and does not need to be detained any longer for the protection of the public.”

The panel heard that an earlier risk assessment had identified a number of factors that led to his attack on Ms Tulip, including a preoccupation with sex, a sexual interest in indecent exposure, the ability to use violence to obtain sexual gratification, an entitlement to sex and a negative attitude towards women.

The assessment also revealed problems with Ling's self-esteem and self-respect.

Regarding the identified risk factors, both psychologists agreed that there was no evidence of a sustained interest in the use of violence to obtain sexual gratification.

When asked if he was aware of the “seriousness” of his offence towards Ms Tulip and her relatives, Psychologist A said Ling talked about it quite regularly, which could be “helpful” in preventing him from giving in to unhealthy thoughts.

Psychologist B said: “He calls himself a monster when he talks to me.

“He also talked about the struggle to come to terms with the person he was that night and how it came about.

“I agree that I think it is helpful to remind ourselves from time to time of the enormity of the Index offence in order to avoid complacency.”

When asked why Ling used so much violence in his 1997 crime, Psychologist B said: “On the one hand there was a panic, a desire to get away with the crime, and on the other hand a kind of anger erupted that was about her, about women, about his life, about himself, and he completely lost control.”

Psychologist A added: “I think the risk areas that we understand well in terms of attitudes towards women, the desire for revenge and humiliation, the sex and rape fantasies… these factors combined with this extreme emotional response, coupled with the triggers that we have just discussed, provide an explanation for this behavior.”

Reading tip:

Get more from the Northern Echo with a digital subscription. Get 3 months' access for just £3. Click here.

In its published decision, the Parole Board stated: “The Board was satisfied that detention was no longer necessary to protect the public.”

His release was subject to conditions, including that he inform the authorities of any relationships he might have, that he will be monitored, must observe a curfew and must not stay in a restricted area to avoid contact with his victim's family.