A prisoner who was freed early under Labour’s release scheme went on to stab a mum to death. Robert Sabat, 59, is due to be sentenced for murder on Wednesday (October 7) after Dickiesa Nurse, 42, was stabbed at her home in McCormick House, Tulse Hill, London, on October 27 last year. Sabat had previously been in prison for harassment and knife offences, but was let out early under a previous round of Government releases.

He was sentenced at Kingston upon Thames Crown Court to 12 months in prison in May last year for possession of a knife and harassment without violence. Sabat was released under the Government scheme by October.

At the Old Bailey on September 17, Sabat pleaded guilty to murder, according to The Sun. His case raises serious questions about the safeguards ministers have in place to protect the public from offenders released early.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “Our thoughts remain with the family and friends of Dickiesa Nurse who have suffered immeasurably. This was a horrific crime and it is right that this offender faces the full force of the law. The Probation Service has been carrying out a thorough investigation to see what happened in this case.

“We are determined to always have the prison places needed to keep dangerous offenders locked up. That is why we’re building thousands more prison places and tagging offenders at record levels to track and manage those in the community.”

A Government source said fewer than 0.5% of those under Probation Service supervision go on to commit serious further offences, which they acknowledged have a “devastating” impact.

In February, a GoFundMe page was set up to help pay for Ms Nurse’s funeral, in which her loved ones described the mum-of-two as a “joyful soul” whose presence brought “light, laughter and love”. The family added: “Our sister Kiesha’s absence has left a space in our lives that can never be filled.”

Under the latest tranche of releases, almost 5,000 prisoners are set to be freed in stages over the next year as the Government tries to ease prison overcrowding. The latest wave began last week when lags thanked Prime Minister Andy Burnham as they celebrated walking free from jail early.

One prisoner said to the press as he left HMP Durham in the North East of England: “Justice system, what justice system? Thank you Andy Burnham.” An inmate released from HMP Cardiff after being jailed for burglary admitted he will “probably be back in the next month or two”.

On Sunday, Justice Secretary Alex Norris was unable to say how many prisoners freed early from jail have been tagged. Officials said there was a presumption that all criminals released early would be fitted with GPS tags, but Mr Norris said it was “too soon” to have the numbers.

Asked how many of those released so far had been tagged, Mr Norris told the BBC on Sunday: “I don’t have that figure today, it only happened on Thursday. You know, there can be a bit of a lag. We don’t have that number. But you know, we’re very candid about who’s leaving prison and when they do.”

Ministers intervened to exclude rapists and the most serious child sex offenders from early release amid criticism of the policy over the summer. The rules will also not apply to those guilty of manslaughter, such as the killers of Pc Andrew Harper, who died in the line of duty in 2019.

Horror as Prisoner Freed Early Under Labour Scheme Stabs Mum-of-Two to Death — Questions Mount Over Public Safety

A horrific murder has intensified scrutiny of Britain’s early prisoner-release system after Robert Sabat, a repeat violent offender released from prison shortly before the killing, was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering 42-year-old mother-of-two Dickiesha Nurse in south London.

The case has raised painful questions about public protection, the management of dangerous offenders and the decisions made when prisoners are released before serving their full custodial sentences. It has also reignited political arguments over whether the government’s efforts to ease overcrowding in prisons have placed too much emphasis on releasing inmates and not enough on protecting the public.

Sabat was released on licence from HMP Wandsworth on 17 October 2025, one day after receiving a 12-month prison sentence for possessing a bladed article and harassment. Nurse was killed at her home in Tulse Hill later that month. Sabat subsequently pleaded guilty to her murder at the Old Bailey. In October 2026, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 17 years and one month. <Cite refs={[“turn886116news4″,”turn886116search1″,”turn886116search2”]} />

The tragedy has become a particularly troubling example in the wider debate about early release. But establishing exactly what went wrong requires examining Sabat’s criminal history, the circumstances surrounding Nurse’s death and the safeguards intended to manage offenders after they leave prison.

A devastating murder that shocked a family

Dickiesha Nurse, aged 42, was a mother of two whose death left her family devastated. Loved ones described her as a warm, loving person whose presence brought happiness to those around her.

The circumstances surrounding her final days have made the case even more distressing. According to court reporting, Nurse had experienced difficulties with Sabat before her death, and a neighbour later said she had attempted to contact police because he would not leave her home.

The neighbour told the press that Nurse had used his phone to call police two days before she was killed. She reportedly ended the call after noticing that Sabat had gone. <Cite refs={[“turn886116search2”]} />

That account has prompted questions about whether the danger she faced was fully recognised and whether more could have been done to protect her.

Such questions must be examined carefully. The available reporting does not, by itself, establish every detail of the police response or prove that a different intervention would certainly have prevented the murder. Nevertheless, the reported warning signs make the case a deeply concerning one.

Nurse’s death was not simply an abstract debate about prison statistics. It was the loss of a woman whose children, relatives and friends have had to confront the consequences of a violent crime.

Sabat’s release from prison

The case has drawn attention to the circumstances of Sabat’s release.

Court reports state that he was sentenced to 12 months in prison in October 2025 for possessing a knife and harassment without violence. The offences followed an incident in which he reportedly went to the door of a former partner armed with two knives.

Sabat had been held on remand before receiving that sentence. He was released on licence on 17 October 2025, having been sentenced the previous day. <Cite refs={[“turn886116search1″,”turn886116search0”]} />

His criminal history reportedly stretched back decades and included burglary, assault, wounding with intent, knife possession and harassment involving former partners. Earlier proceedings had also involved restraining orders and allegations of serious violence.

The significance of that history is central to the public debate. When an offender has repeatedly been involved in violent or threatening behaviour, authorities must assess the risks associated with release and determine what restrictions, monitoring or other interventions may be appropriate.

However, a criminal history alone does not explain every decision made in a particular case. Understanding whether the release decision complied with the applicable rules, what information was available to decision-makers and how the offender was supervised requires examination of the relevant records and official reviews.

The Ministry of Justice said the Probation Service had been carrying out a thorough investigation into what happened in Nurse’s case. <Cite refs={[“turn886116search0”]} />

The findings of that investigation are important because they could help establish whether there were failures in risk assessment, communication or supervision and what changes might be needed to prevent similar tragedies.

The chilling words reported after his arrest

The case became even more disturbing when the court heard about Sabat’s statements following his arrest.

According to reports of the proceedings, he asked to be returned to prison and made comments about committing further murders. He also admitted responsibility for Nurse’s death. <Cite refs={[“turn886116search1″,”turn886116news4”]} />

These statements have intensified questions about his state of mind and the risks he posed. They should be understood as statements reported during the criminal proceedings rather than as a substitute for a full assessment of his behaviour before the killing.

The court heard evidence about the circumstances in which Nurse’s body was discovered. Family members had become concerned after being unable to contact her, and a welfare check was arranged.

When an ambulance crew attended the property, the situation became dangerous. Reporting of the court proceedings described Sabat emerging with a knife, prompting those present to withdraw and police to be called.

Armed officers subsequently entered the property and detained him. Nurse was found dead with multiple stab wounds. <Cite refs={[“turn886116search1”]} />

The details underline the seriousness of the incident and the risks faced by the emergency personnel who attended the address.

They also explain why the case has prompted such strong reactions among people concerned about domestic abuse, repeat offending and the effectiveness of public-protection arrangements.

What was Labour’s early-release scheme?

Britain’s prisons have faced severe overcrowding for years. When the number of prisoners approaches available capacity, governments face difficult operational pressures involving accommodation, staffing, safety and the ability of courts to send convicted offenders to custody.

The Labour government introduced the SDS40 early-release scheme in September 2024. Under the scheme, eligible prisoners could be released after serving 40 per cent of their custodial sentence rather than the previous proportion, subject to exclusions and the applicable rules.

The policy was intended to relieve pressure on prisons and reduce the risk that overcrowding would undermine the justice system. It did not mean that every prisoner was eligible, nor did early release remove all licence conditions or other legal restrictions.

The scheme became politically controversial because it required difficult decisions about balancing prison capacity against the risks associated with releasing offenders into the community.

According to reporting on the wider policy, more than 56,000 offenders were released under SDS40 between September 2024 and December 2025. <Cite refs={[“turn886116search3”]} />

That figure describes the scale of the programme; it does not mean that all those released went on to commit further crimes. The government has said that serious further offences among people under probation supervision represent a small proportion of the overall caseload, while acknowledging the devastating consequences when such offences occur. <Cite refs={[“turn886116search0”]} />

The challenge is that even a low rate of serious reoffending can have catastrophic consequences for the victims and their families. A single case can therefore expose questions that aggregate statistics cannot answer on their own.

Did the system fail to protect Nurse?

That is the central question facing the authorities and the wider justice system.

Sabat’s release and the subsequent murder have led to demands for a closer examination of how his risk was assessed and managed. His history of violence and harassment makes it reasonable to ask what information was available to probation officers and whether the supervision arrangements were appropriate.

It is also necessary to examine the reported contact with police before Nurse’s death. If a person reports that someone with a history of threatening behaviour will not leave their home, authorities need procedures that allow the risk to be assessed and an appropriate response to be considered.

But it would be premature to declare that one specific policy or decision alone caused the murder without the findings of the relevant investigations.

Several separate issues need to be distinguished: the legal basis for Sabat’s release, the risk assessment carried out before release, the conditions attached to his licence, the monitoring provided afterwards and the response to any warnings about his behaviour.

An independent and transparent review could help establish which safeguards operated, where any shortcomings occurred and whether changes are necessary.

The aim should not be limited to assigning political blame. It should be to identify practical measures capable of preventing another family from experiencing a similar tragedy.

Political pressure over public safety

The murder has intensified criticism of Labour’s approach to prison overcrowding.

Opposition politicians and critics of early release argue that reducing the prison population must not become more important than protecting the public. They contend that the government should ensure dangerous offenders are assessed carefully and that people with histories of violence receive appropriate supervision when released.

For Reform UK and other advocates of tougher criminal justice policies, the case provides an opportunity to argue for stricter sentencing, stronger monitoring and a more cautious approach to early release.

The government, meanwhile, has emphasised the need to create additional prison capacity and strengthen the management of offenders in the community. The Ministry of Justice has said it is building more prison places and expanding the use of electronic tagging. <Cite refs={[“turn886116search0”]} />

Those measures address different parts of the problem. More prison places may reduce the pressure that led to emergency release policies, while electronic monitoring can help authorities track certain offenders. Neither measure, by itself, guarantees that a serious offence will never occur.

The effectiveness of any reform depends on how it is implemented, which offenders are prioritised and whether probation services have the resources and information they need.

The wider challenge of domestic abuse and repeat offending

Nurse’s death also highlights a broader concern: the risks faced by people experiencing threats or harassment from current or former partners.

Domestic abuse can involve patterns of intimidation, unwanted contact, stalking and violence. The danger may escalate when an offender ignores boundaries or repeatedly returns to a person’s home.

Authorities must therefore consider more than a single incident when assessing risk. Previous convictions, restraining orders, reported threats and changes in behaviour can all be relevant to decisions about protective measures.

For people experiencing immediate danger, contacting emergency services is important. Non-emergency concerns can also be reported to police, while specialist domestic-abuse organisations can help victims understand available protection and support.

The responsibility for preventing violence rests with those who commit it. At the same time, public agencies must have clear procedures for responding to warning signs, sharing relevant information lawfully and taking appropriate action when risks are identified.

Nurse’s family deserves answers about the events that led to her death, including whether every relevant warning was acted upon.

What needs to change?

The case raises several questions that a serious review should address.

First, were the circumstances of Sabat’s release assessed properly, given his previous convictions and the offence for which he was sentenced?

Second, were the licence conditions and supervision arrangements appropriate to the risks he presented?

Third, what happened when concerns were reportedly raised about his presence at Nurse’s home, and was the response consistent with the information available at the time?

Fourth, did the agencies involved share relevant information effectively?

Finally, what changes would reduce the likelihood of similar cases in the future?

Answers should be based on the investigation’s findings, rather than assumptions about what individual officials knew or what a different decision would necessarily have achieved.

Possible reforms could include better coordination between police and probation services, stronger procedures for handling reports of harassment, more consistent risk assessments and improved access to protective support for victims.

The wider prison system also needs a sustainable response to overcrowding so that governments are not repeatedly forced to choose between emergency releases and the risk of prisons exceeding capacity.

A tragedy that demands answers

Robert Sabat’s life sentence brings the criminal proceedings for Nurse’s murder to a major stage, but it cannot undo the loss suffered by her family.

The case has exposed difficult questions about early release, risk management and the protection of people who may be threatened by repeat offenders. It has also intensified political arguments over whether the government’s response to prison overcrowding has given sufficient weight to public safety.

The facts must remain at the centre of that debate. Sabat was released on licence shortly before Nurse’s murder, had a substantial reported criminal history and was later sentenced to life imprisonment for killing her. The Ministry of Justice said a review was being conducted into what happened. <Cite refs={[“turn886116news4″,”turn886116search0”]} />

The findings will matter not only to Nurse’s loved ones but also to the wider public. If mistakes were made, they should be identified and addressed. If existing procedures proved inadequate, they should be strengthened.

The test of the justice system is not whether it can promise that no offender will ever reoffend. It is whether it takes known risks seriously, learns from devastating failures and acts to reduce the chance of another preventable tragedy.

For Dickiesha Nurse’s family, the consequences are permanent. For the government and the agencies responsible for public protection, the obligation now is to establish what happened and demonstrate that meaningful lessons have been learned.