A killer husband who murdered his estranged wife and concealed her body will stay in prison after London's High Court reversed a Parole Board decision to free him.Glyn Razzell, 66, was jailed for life with a minimum of almost 16 years in 2003 for murdering his estranged wife Linda Razzell, whose body has never been found.Linda's daughter Catherine has said that his decision not to reveal the location of her body means 'there is no peace for us'.The mother of four disappeared on her way to work at Swindon College, Wiltshire, in March 2002, amid divorce proceedings.The Parole Board ruled three times from 2019 that Razzell should remain behind bars, but in April decided he could be released on licence.The Ministry of Justice referred the decision to the High Court, telling a two-day hearing it should be reversed because the Parole Board failed to consider Razzell's risk properly.Razzell, who attended both days of the hearing while sitting in the dock of the courtroom, opposed the bid to challenge his release.At the end of the hearing on Tuesday, Razzell was photographed leaving the Royal Courts of Justice in central London - having last been publicly photographed during his trial in 2003 at Bristol Crown Court. Murderer Glyn Razzell has been photographed in public for the first time in more than 20 years amid a legal battle over whether he can be released from prison (Pictured: August 11, 2026) Linda Razzell disappeared on her way to work at Swindon College, Wiltshire, in March 2002, amid divorce proceedings Razzell was jailed for life with a minimum of almost 16 years for murdering his estranged wife, Linda Razzell, whose body has never been found (Pictured: October 15 2003)Mrs Razzell's relatives and loved ones urged the court to block the release, with her cousin Julie Westmore saying the family 'will not feel safe'.She also voiced fears that 'all hope of ever finding Linda’s remains will be lost' if the killer was freed.In a ruling on Friday, Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb quashed the Parole Board’s decision - saying she was 'not satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that Glyn Razzell be confined'.The judge added: 'I am not persuaded that the risk has diminished to such a level that offender management is capable of keeping the public safe if the defendant is released.'Convicted murderer Razzell is currently held in an open prison in Suffolk and has both a job and a property outside the prison.In a statement following Friday's ruling, Catherine Razzell said the decision was a 'relief' to her and her family, and that her father's continuing decision not to disclose the location of the remains was 'cruel'.She said: 'By choosing to withhold the only information that could provide us with some comfort and closure, and preventing us from being able to hold a funeral for our much-loved mother, he is clearly demonstrating he is still abusive – retaining power over the situation and prioritising his narrative, where he can deny killing her, despite being found guilty and given a life sentence.'To our knowledge, he is of sound mind and knows what he is doing, so there is no reason for him to be released while he is still actively choosing to be controlling and abusive from within prison. Razzell, who attended both days of the hearing while sitting in the dock of the courtroom, opposed the bid to challenge his release (Pictured: August 11 2026)'However, it is important to recognise that while we welcome the decision made today, part of my father’s abuse is that, as a family, we have to go through this process.'As well as experiencing the most devastating loss of my mother, 24 years later we are still in court trying to keep the rest of our family safe from a man who is continuing to do our family harm.'None of us want my father to die in prison - what we want is for him to acknowledge what he has done, show remorse and tell us where our mother’s body is so that we can finally lay her to rest. There is no peace for us until that happens.'At the start of the hearing on Tuesday, Mrs Razzell's partner Greg Worrall appeared via video link and told the court that Razzell was exerting 'coercive control over people even in death'.Mr Worrall told the court: 'We have rebuilt our lives based on the fact he cannot harm us any more.'He said that Mrs Razzell's family had 'picked up the pieces of our shattered lives' with the support of friends and family.'We have found love and purpose in our new lives,' he said, adding that there is a 'sadness which will always be there' after his partner's murder, especially on holidays and anniversaries.He said that during Razzell's multiple parole applications, he could 'show remorse' and disclose where Mrs Razzell's remains were.Mr Worrall later said: 'He knows the pain this is causing Linda's family and children. We need an end to this ongoing agony.The Parole Board's decision came after consideration of Helen's Law, named after Helen McCourt, who vanished on her way home from work in 1988.The law requires the Parole Board to take into consideration a killer's refusal to disclose where they hid their victim's body.Referencing the law, Mr Worrall said: 'We were assured he would never be released if he did not reveal Linda's whereabouts.'He continued that he felt Razzell was still a danger to women and was committing the crime of preventing a lawful burial.He added: 'Am I safe? Are my family safe? Are the wider community safe?'Razzell, of Crewkerne in Somerset, has always denied being responsible for the killing, and a Parole Board panel found in 2023 that he 'does not want to lose his desired status of being a "wrongly convicted murderer"'.In its April decision, a Parole Board panel said that it had 'serious doubts' about Razzell's honesty and that there was a 'very significant' risk in the context of relationships, but said this was 'not imminent'.It decided that he would comply with licence conditions as he was 'strongly motivated not to return to custody'.The MoJ can refer a Parole Board's decision to release a prisoner to the High Court if it believes the release would undermine public confidence in the parole system, and the court must be satisfied that imprisonment is no longer necessary for the protection of the public.Matthew Stanbury, for Razzell, told the court that there should not be 'undue focus on one particular course which is seen as a silver bullet in fixing risk'.He also said that psychologists had paid 'close attention' to Razzell's case and that a psychologist had spent 17 hours with him, as opposed to an average of about six with other prisoners.Mr Stanbury said this gave professionals a 'much deeper understanding of Mr Razzell'.The barrister said in written submissions that the Parole Board's decision was 'detailed and thorough', and that the MoJ's case 'comes close to treating denial as conclusive to risk'.He said: 'The claimant's case is predicated on wrong assumptions or assertions that the defendant's denial of his offending, and attendant non-completion of offending behaviour programmes, are a bar to release.'Both factors were properly considered and weighed by an experienced Parole Board panel which considered the countervailing factors and matters in the round.'There is no, or no sufficiently cogent, basis for departing from the panel's decision.'But this has now been rejected by Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb, who had said earlier this week, 'I hope there is some movement in the defendant's mind', adding: 'It is in his hands to do so.'In her ruling today, she said there were 'significant gaps' in Razzell’s 'understanding of the risk he poses', meaning it was 'far from sufficient to persuade me that there is a secure foundation' for the Parole Board’s conclusion.She also said that the plan to manage Razzell’s release 'relies on trust that has not been earned'.Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb said Mrs Razzell’s loved ones had 'described their suffering with remarkable moral clarity'.She added: 'The ongoing agony of not being able to lay their beloved mother to rest and the regular pain of having to write down how they are coping with the hurt that invades so much of their lives should have rung in the defendant's ears. Perhaps it does?'She said in her ruling that Razzell’s refusal to disclose the location of Mrs Razzell’s body had caused 'profound anguish' that 'suggests an inability or unwillingness to appreciate the impact upon the other victims'.She also said he had shown 'inherent vulnerabilities' including a 'need for control' and 'problems dealing with challenge or criticism' and had a 'propensity to violence against women' which meant he remained a danger.Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb said of Razzell: 'Given his failure to carry out any substantive risk reduction work, he is, as far as internal controls go, the same man he was when he killed Linda, and that is relevant to risk.'Frank Mullane, chief executive of the charity Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse which supported Ms Razzell, said the case had 'tested the real life impact of Helen’s Law' and sent an 'important message'.He said: 'The process of seeking justice can be a continuation of the abuse, and it can be exhausting and relentless. No other family should have to go through this.'A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: 'Linda Razzell’s murder was a horrific crime and our thoughts remain with her friends and family.'Public protection is our number one priority which is why we welcome the High Court’s decision to block the release of this offender.'