In NSW, the State Parole Authority (‘SPA’) is the statutory body entrusted with making parole decisions including decisions as to whether to grant parole to an offender and setting parole conditions on release.
The term parole refers to the release of a prisoner under supervision, prior to the expiry of a sentence of imprisonment.
The rationale behind the granting of parole before the end of a total sentence is that it provides a safer pathway for the re-integration of an offender into the community, when compared to simply releasing the offender at the end of their sentence, with no period of supervision in the community.
When considering the efficacy and appropriateness of recently introduced ‘no body no parole laws’ it is important not to lose sight of this rationale and consider the impact, intended or otherwise, the law may have on community safety. Similarly, we should not gloss over the fact that the law will deny serious offenders the opportunity to reintegrate into the community under supervision.
When a serious offender is eligible for parole, the victims or victims’ family already have the capacity to make submissions to the SPA about the appropriateness of parole. It is already entirely open for these submissions to include the views of the family that an offender, convicted of murder, has not assisted in locating the victim’s body.
Relevantly to many offenders shortly eligible for parole, including Keli Lane, the state of the law is now such that it compels the SPA to deny an offenders release on parole until such time as they ‘cooperate’ with police’ to help police locate the location of the victim’s remains.
It places paramount importance on the location of the body – at the expense of all other parole considerations such as whether the grant of the parole would be a safer release pathway for the community at large.
The policy is based on an assumption that convicted offenders know the location of a body or that the remains are still locatable – an assumption which, as a matter of logic, cannot always be sound. For those in custody wrongfully convicted, cooperation is of course impossible. It is a law which deliberately tramples across the rights of any offender who maintains their innocence.
It is also law which takes power out of the statutory body entrusted to make parole decisions and places that power into the hands of police and victims who do not share the same benefit of distance and impartiality from the facts of the case.
Perhaps most concerningly, the law attempts to erode a citizen’s right to silence. Despite a sentencing judge having already punished the offender for their crime and setting a non-parole period having heard evidence from both sides, the ‘no body no parole’ attempts to leverage the offenders ongoing desire to be free to extract an 11th hour confession or cooperation. The ‘nature and extent’ of any cooperation provided as then quantified in a report prepared by police and submitted to the SPA.
Ultimately these laws, perhaps with noble intentions, seek to empower, vindicate and galvanise the feelings of injustice which naturally resonate from the loved ones to a murder victim, often decades after their death. It is however unfortunate but true that the ‘no body no parole’ laws place the emotional need and desire for answers above all other rational consideration as to what may be the most appropriate means of dealing with a sentenced offender after serving a long sentence of imprisonment.
Should you or someone you know be charged with an offence, it is essential you receive legal advice from an experienced criminal defence lawyer at any early stage. To discuss your options, call Hugo Law Group in Sydney, NSW (02 9696 1361), Canberra (02 5104 9640), Perth (08 6255 6909) or Northern NSW (02 5552 1902) to make an appointment to speak to one of our lawyers.
