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 by Labour Stabs Mum-of-Two to Death

The murder of a 42-year-old mother of two by a man released early from prison has intensified questions about public safety, offender supervision and the consequences of Britain’s controversial early-release policies.

Robert Sabat, 60, was sentenced to life imprisonment after pleading guilty to murdering Dickiesa Nurse at her flat in Tulse Hill, south London. The case has drawn widespread attention because Sabat killed his former partner shortly after leaving prison, despite having a criminal history that included knife offences and harassment.

The tragedy has placed renewed scrutiny on the decisions made by the justice system, particularly at a time when the government has been attempting to ease overcrowding in prisons by allowing eligible offenders to serve a smaller proportion of their sentences behind bars.

For Ms Nurse’s family, the consequences were devastating. For policymakers, the case raises difficult questions about whether existing safeguards can adequately protect people when offenders with histories of violence are released into the community.

A release followed by a devastating crime

Sabat had been sentenced to 12 months in prison for possessing a bladed article and harassment without violence. The offences followed an incident in which he had approached a former partner while armed with knives.

He was released on licence from HMP Wandsworth on 17 October 2025, the day after the sentence was imposed, having already spent time in custody. The release took place under an early-release arrangement intended to relieve pressure on the prison estate.

Within days, Dickiesa Nurse was dead.

The court heard that Sabat and Ms Nurse had known one another for years and had previously been in a relationship. Prosecutors described how he remained at her home during the period leading up to her death, despite her apparent desire for him to leave.

Neighbours reportedly heard Ms Nurse shouting at him to get out of her home. Another neighbour later heard a scream that sounded as though a woman was in distress.

When Ms Nurse’s family became concerned after failing to contact her, relatives arranged for emergency services to check on her welfare.

The visit turned into a frightening confrontation. As ambulance staff attempted to gain access, Sabat emerged from inside the property carrying a knife. The crew and family members withdrew, and police were called.

Armed officers subsequently entered the flat and detained him. Ms Nurse was found dead, having suffered multiple stab wounds.

The circumstances left her relatives facing the loss of a woman whose life had been central to their family. Her children were left without their mother, and those closest to her were forced to confront the fact that the killing had happened shortly after Sabat’s release.

The court hears a chilling admission

The case became even more disturbing when the court heard what Sabat said after his arrest.

He asked to be returned to prison and made statements indicating that he believed he was dangerous. Among his remarks was a warning that he was going to go on a “murder spree”.

The comments have become a central part of the public debate surrounding the case. They raise questions about Sabat’s condition following his release and whether the risks he posed could have been identified or managed more effectively.

However, statements made by a defendant after a serious crime must be considered in their full context. They do not, on their own, establish what officials knew before the offence or whether a particular decision could legally have been prevented.

Those questions require a careful examination of the relevant records, risk assessments and decisions taken by the agencies responsible for supervising offenders.

The court heard that Sabat had accumulated convictions over several decades, including offences involving burglary, assault, wounding and harassment. His record is likely to intensify calls for the justice system to consider patterns of behaviour, not simply the length of an individual sentence, when determining how a person should be managed after release.

A life sentence for murder

Sabat pleaded guilty to murdering Ms Nurse and was sentenced at the Old Bailey in October 2026. The court imposed a life sentence with a minimum term of 17 years and one month before he can be considered for release on parole.

A life sentence does not mean automatic release after the minimum term. It means the prisoner must serve at least that period before release can be considered, and the decision depends on the applicable legal requirements and assessment of risk.

The sentence reflects the gravity of the murder. It also means that Sabat will remain in prison for a substantial period before any potential consideration of release.

For Ms Nurse’s family, however, no sentence can undo the harm caused by the crime. The case has renewed attention on the question of prevention: whether the systems designed to protect the public can identify dangerous situations before another family experiences a similar loss.

Why Labour’s early-release policy is under scrutiny

The government introduced early-release measures in response to severe pressure on prison capacity. When prisons approach their operational limits, overcrowding can create serious difficulties for security, rehabilitation, staff safety and the ability to accommodate people who have been sentenced by the courts.

The early-release scheme known as SDS40 allowed eligible prisoners serving certain fixed-term sentences to be released after serving 40 per cent of their custodial term, subject to the applicable rules and exclusions.

The policy was intended to create space in prisons while the government worked to expand capacity. It was not a blanket release of every prisoner: eligibility restrictions and exclusions applied, and individuals released on licence remained subject to conditions.

Nevertheless, the Sabat case has become a powerful example for critics who argue that reducing the time some offenders spend in custody can expose the public to unacceptable risks if supervision and risk management fail.

The central issue is not simply whether prison overcrowding exists. It is whether decisions about early release adequately account for the nature of an offender’s record, the risk of violence and the circumstances of potential victims.

A person convicted of a relatively short-term offence may still have a wider history that deserves careful consideration. Where previous conduct includes threats, stalking, harassment or weapon possession, authorities must assess whether those behaviours indicate a risk to particular individuals after release.

That assessment can be difficult, but the consequences of getting it wrong can be catastrophic.

Questions about supervision and safeguards

The Probation Service is responsible for supervising many offenders released into the community, including people subject to licence conditions. Depending on the circumstances, those conditions can include reporting requirements, restrictions on contact, exclusion zones and electronic monitoring.

Such measures are intended to help manage risk and allow authorities to respond if an offender breaches the terms of release.

However, monitoring is not the same as preventing every offence. Electronic tags may help establish a person’s location or identify a breach of a defined restriction, but they cannot guarantee that a person will not commit violence. Their effectiveness also depends on the suitability of the conditions, the speed of responses to alerts and the resources available to supervising staff.

In Sabat’s case, the key questions concern what risk assessments were completed, what information was available to the relevant agencies and whether the release arrangements adequately accounted for his history of knife-related offending and harassment.

The Probation Service has been conducting an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the case. The findings will be important in determining whether procedures were followed and whether changes are needed.

It would be premature to assume that a particular official deliberately ignored a known danger without the evidence to establish that conclusion. Equally, the existence of an investigation should not prevent legitimate questions about whether the system provided sufficient protection.

The wider problem of violence against women

Ms Nurse’s murder has also highlighted the dangers faced by women experiencing threatening or abusive behaviour from former partners.

Domestic abuse does not always end when a relationship ends. Unwanted visits, harassment, threats and attempts to control a former partner can continue after separation. In some cases, such behaviour escalates into serious violence.

This is why risk assessments must take reports of harassment and threatening conduct seriously. Families, neighbours and victims themselves may notice warning signs, but they need confidence that concerns will be recorded, assessed and acted upon appropriately.

The justice system must also recognise that a victim’s safety can depend on decisions made across multiple agencies. Police, courts, prisons and probation services may each hold pieces of relevant information. If those details are not communicated effectively, the overall picture can be incomplete.

The Sabat case does not establish that every early release creates a danger to women. It does, however, demonstrate why the circumstances of individual offenders and the safety of identifiable potential victims must be central to release decisions.

What the government must answer

The government faces a difficult balance between maintaining a functioning prison system and protecting the public. Building additional prison capacity takes time and money, while keeping every eligible offender in custody for longer has consequences for prison numbers and public spending.

But those practical pressures cannot replace the need for credible safeguards.

Ministers must explain how the early-release scheme assesses offenders with histories of violence, how licence conditions are selected, how information is shared between agencies and how victims are informed about risks that affect them.

They must also provide transparent findings when investigations identify failures. If procedures were not followed, the public deserves to know what went wrong and what will change. If the rules were followed but proved inadequate, policymakers must consider whether the rules themselves require revision.

The government has said it is working to increase prison capacity and improve the monitoring of offenders released into the community. The effectiveness of those measures will depend on their implementation, not merely on the announcements made about them.

A tragedy that demands answers

Dickiesa Nurse’s murder is first and foremost a human tragedy. She was a mother, a family member and a person whose life cannot be reduced to an argument about prison policy.

Her death has nevertheless raised serious questions that the justice system must confront. When someone with a record of weapon-related offending and harassment is released from custody and kills a former partner shortly afterwards, the public is entitled to ask whether the risks were properly understood and managed.

The case should not be used to claim, without evidence, that every early-release decision is unsafe. Nor should concerns about overcrowding be treated as a sufficient answer to the questions raised by this murder.

The challenge for Labour is to demonstrate that its approach to prison capacity does not come at the expense of public protection. That requires clear accountability, properly resourced probation services, careful assessments of violent behaviour and meaningful support for victims.

For Ms Nurse’s loved ones, the consequences are permanent. For the government and the justice system, the responsibility now is to establish exactly what happened, learn from any failures and ensure that the safeguards intended to protect the public are strong enough to command confidence.