Earlier Parole Possible

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32032, 5 July 1969, Page 7

Earlier Parole Possible

Indications that longterm prisoners in New Zealand wall become eligible for earlier release on parole are contained in the report of the Prisons Parole Board tabled in Parliament recently.

The board until last year had a statutory obligation to review the cases of prisoners serving life sentences or indefinite sentences. But, under the Criminal Justice Amendment Act, 1967, the board's jurisdiction was widened to include reviewing the cases of prisoners serving a sentence of six years gaol or more.

However, the board is not obliged to review the cases of these prisoners until they have served 31 years. This is in contrast to the new British parole system, introduced by legislation a year ago, in which prisoners become eligible for parole after serving 12 months or one-third of their sentences, whichever is the longer period. If this system prevailed in New Zealand, a prisoner serving six years could have his case reviewed and might be released on parole after two years. In New Zealahd, a prisoner is entitled to three months a year remission of sentence for good behaviour, and can be awarded a further twelfth remission of sentence if his

progress in prison warrants it—without his case being reviewed by the board. Thus, a prisoner serving six years, could have onethird of his sentence remitted—he could be released through good behaviour in four years. As the board is not obliged to consider his case until he has served 31 years (or as soon afterwards as is practicable), he would only gain an extra six months remission by being released on parole. A prisoner could decline parole, serve the additional six months and have his sentence completed rather than become a “ticket of leave man” under parole, liable to be recalled to finish his sentence if he goes wrong. Anomaly A prisoner in New Zealand serving a five-year term can obtain a remission of 1 year 8 months for good behaviour, and serve only 3 years 4 months. But the board has no statutory obligation to review his case at all, because he has been sentenced to less than six years. This seems anomalous when the board can review the sentence of a prisoner serving six years after he has served 3i years. The chairman of the Prisons Parole Board (Mr Justice Henry) in the board’s latest report says: “Judging by the type of inmate seen in 1968, the board believes that the value of a review relatively early in their sentences of those inmates serving more lengthy finite terms has already been established. “Indeed, it may well be that the minimum term conferring eligibility for review :and the time of first review could be substantially reduced.”

Although the board has no statutory obligation to review the cases of prisoners serving less than six years, it has the power to consider such cases “if a member brings the matter before the board.” Commenting on this, Mr Justice Henry says: “Whilst the Secretary of Justice and his department, no doubt, bring all the known deserving cases before the board, if members are not otherwise advised, it is thought that an extended right of review and an earlier review might be preferable.”

[The Secretary of Justice (Dr J. L. Robson) is a member of the Prisons Parole Board.]

Fewer Cases

Because of the abolition of sentences for declared habitual criminals and reformative detention (1954), the removal of Borstal trainees to a special parole board (1961), the abolition of corrective training (1963), and the limiting of the sentence of preventive detention (three to 14 years’ gaol) to persistent sex offenders, the Prisons Parole Board has been dealing with fewer and fewer prisoners. In 1961, the board considered the cases of 1158 prisoners. In 1967, the total was 65. Last year, the total was 130.

Of 71 prisoners (including 19 life prisoners, 47 detainees, two habitual criminals, 20 serving six years and more, and three special cases), whose cases were reviewed last year, 17 were recommended for release on parole. Just over 18 per cent of those whose cases were reviewed were granted parole. Many New Zealand prison officers would welcome both a reduction in the minimum time on which parole review could be undertaken, and also an extension of the jurisdiction of the board to prisoners serving less than six years—possibly to include prisoners serving three years. “The great danger of prisoners serving long-term sentences is their becoming ‘dead’ while in the institution. They tend to lose interest in everything and become automats. Their eventual release seems an awfully small light at the end of a very long tunnel,” said the Superintendent of the Christchurch Prison (Mr M. C. Carew) recently.

An Inducement

“The possibility of parole is an inducement to them to stay awake—a carrot to dangle before them so they retain hope and interest in life. An early review is a good thing; a review for those serving three years or more would also be an asset, an inducement.” Dr Robson in his 1967 Justice Department report to Parliament said there were no Immediate plans to copy the new English legislation (power to grant parole to prisoners after serving 12 months, or one-third of their terms), but the department would be studying the working of the English legislation carefully. “If it proves successful in practice, it could open the way to developing our own

scheme to allow for much earlier review of cases.”

The 1968 report of the Parole Board, released in Britain last month, stated that 9875 cases had been considered, and 1157 recommended for parole.

The board’s chairman (Lord Hunt) in a press statement said the number of prisoners recommended as fit for parole had increased from 8 per cent from the beginning of the scheme to 17 per cent at the end of May (a period of 17 months). Of 111 life' prisoners, 35 had been released on parole and 10 released.

The board’s policy at first had been one of caution, but it had since adopted one of care. The scheme was successful, although mistakes had been made. The fact that parole was available to the great majority of prisoners lessened the souring effect on prisoners not eligible for parole under the former legislation.