Jorgensen’s loss of parole ‘injustice’

Press, 9 October 1982, Page 1

Jorgensen’s loss of parole ‘injustice’

Mr David Fitzgibbon, counsel for Ronald Jorgensen, said yesterday that it would be an “injustice” if Jorgensen's parole was not renewed after his acquittal this week on a charge of assault.

The Minister of Justice, Mr McLay, revoked Jorgensen's parole within hours of his arrest on the assault charge in May. He said yesterday that he would not reconsider the matter until the Parole Board made a recommendation to him. The next regular Parole Board meeting is not until March, although it can hold special meetings before then. Mr Fitzgibbon said he had drafted a letter to the Minister yesterday asking him to review his decision on parole immediately. He believed that Jorgensen’s situation where he had been acquitted of the charge that had caused his recall to prison, was unique.

In law, Jorgensen’s acquittal does not necessarily have a bearing on the matter. The Minister may recall any life prisoner to’ jail for any breach of discipline, whether the prisoner is charged in court or not. In the last 23 years Jorgensen has spent barely two

at liberty. In 1959 he was jailed for seven years on receiving and other charges. He was out for only a few months when he was arrested in 1963 for his part in the Bassett Road machinegun murders which earned him a life sentence.

He was freed on parole from that sentence in 1974 but was recalled in 1976 after being convicted on three charges of selling cannabis to an undercover policeman and one of possessing it for supply. He was freed in May this year but was under arrest again a month later on the assault charge and recalled once more to serve his life sentence.

Mr McLay said yesterday that Jorgensen's acquittal did not change the position regarding his recall to prison to serve his life sentence. “He will continue to serve that life sentence unless and until the Parole Board recommends his release and I agree to take that recommendation to the Cabinet,", he said.

“It must be emphasised that Jorgensen was recalled to prison not simply because he had been charged with assault but because as a life parolee, less than a month out of prison, he had got

himself into a totally unacceptable situation where a combination of alcohol and argument led to an altercation.”

Mr McLay said that when Jorgensen was released, he had made it clear that any breach of the very strict terms of his parole would almost certainly lead to his recall.

"Any life parolee must be particularly careful to avoid situations or behaviour which might call to question his suitability for parole. “Jorgensen knew that the situation in which he found himself would, if it became known to the authorities, be entirely unacceptable. It became known, as a consequence of the assault charge.”

Mr McLay said his comments should not be taken as an indication of any future decision in Jorgensen's cse. It was intended as an explanation of the decision to recall him to prison. This decision could not be explained at the time of the recall because it could have prejudiced his trial. Jorgensen’s lawyer, Mr Peter Williams, of Auckland, indicated on Thursday evening that an application to the Minister to review Jorgensen's recall would be made.