Submission on Parole Amendment Bill

Transcription

1 Law and Order Committee Parliament Buildings WELLINGTON 6160 Submission on Parole Amendment Bill January 2014 Judith Fyfe Sue Shone Barrister Barrister Level One Level One Economous House Economous House 4 Bond St 4 Bond Street Wellington 6011 Wellington Fyfe.doherty@xtra.co.nz sue.shone@clear.net.nz 1

2 1. Introduction 1.1. This submission has been prepared by a group of parole lawyers (PL) who regularly appear on behalf of clients before the New Zealand Parole Board (NZPB). It cannot and does not necessarily represent the views of all parole lawyers but the subject has been under discussion by members of the newly formed parole law committee. The paper was accurate at the time of its preparation The experience of PL members is wide, spans more than a decade and covers prisons in both North and South islands. Our clients come from all walks of life and range from those on relatively short sentences to those imprisoned for life We are familiar with the complex processes which precede NZPB hearings and have working knowledge of the education and criminogenic programmes offered by Corrections Department within and beyond prisons We respectfully submit that the proposals in the Bill will not only be counterproductive in terms of the purposes and principles of parole but that it may thwart the smooth operation of prison systems as well as discouraging prisoners from essential rehabilitation and reform. Further it may also be financially costly The submitters wish to appear before the committee to speak to our submission 2. Aims of Bill 2.1. The Parole Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Parole Act 2002 to improve the efficiency of the parole system by simplifying pre-hearing processes and clarifying issues around attendance at hearings. Specifically it aims to give greater flexibility in scheduling parole hearings by increasing the maximum interval between parole hearings, where a postponement order has not been made, from 12 months to 2 years 2.2. While the PL agrees any unnecessary delay, inefficiency and stress in parole processes should be reduced, it considers that the bill is unlikely to achieve its stated aims It is the PL s view that there is already considerable flexibility in current parole procedure and does not see the need for such a radical change 2.4. Further the Bill aims to reduce the stress for victims of crime, and yet for the majority of prisoners there are no identified victims of crime and this broad brush approach has limited applicability. While in no way is the suffering and stress of victims of crime to be underestimated, it is questionable whether changes in scheduling will alleviate their trauma The Bill also is said to provide...incentives for offenders to address their offending behaviour and seems to assume that prisoners have some 2

3 agency in gaining access to programmes, assessment treatment and programmes In reality participation in programmes is determined by many factors and the motivation of the prisoner may be irrelevant Availability of programmes varies from prison to prison and from year to year Eligibility criteria also vary and programmes are sometimes cancelled because of a shortage of providers, reduction in resources or budget constraints Some programmes are over-subscribed and prisoners who are early in their sentence may be put to the end of the waiting list and thus unavailable to commence aspects of their sentence plan There is an assumption that the parole process guides prison practices and is directly linked to programmes but this is not correct NZPB does not manage or enforce sentences or sentence planning Much can change within 12 months and thus the statutory provision for application for early hearing under s 26 is a useful incentive The existing section 27 Parole Act 2002 allows the Board to postpone hearings and meets the aims of the proposed amendment 3. Claimed benefits 3.1. Accessibility to parole is an important incentive for prisoners. This bill will erode carefully crafted parole traditions which provide some reassurance in their familiar operation within the prison community Increasing the time between hearings is a likely disincentive and since there is a fiscal cost to maintaining prisoners in prison, this is both questionable and unnecessary, especially where that person does not pose a threat to the community or to public safety. There are the obvious costs of accommodating offenders for longer periods of time in prisons, which will be particularly severe for older prisoners who may need special geriatric care. In the case of older prisoners, the financial cost is particularly difficult to justify given the widely observed phenomenon that likelihood of reoffending drops significantly as offenders age beyond A better situation is provided under current legislation where there is provision for the exercise of a waiver as well as provision for application for an early hearing A case by case basis situation cannot be met by a blanket policy such as the one advanced in the Bill 3.5. Section 27 Parole Act 2002 allows the Parole Board to postpone hearings for up to three years if they consider that the offender has little prospect of release If there is a low confidence in the parole system among the public and if it is based on a perception of failure, this may be in part a result of the nature of media coverage of crime. 3

4 3.7. Research shows that managed parole is 4 times more effective than the completion of sentences within prison (stated by Judge Sir David Carruthers in the introduction to his 10 year report on the NZPB) While early release is the objective of parole hearings they are in fact an on-going process where the prisoner is introduced to the principles and requirements of the Parole Act and the NZ Parole Board and progress can be made. Lawyers are closely involved with the process and assist with motivation and planning The annual hearing can be the only formal external support for prisoners who are having difficulties advancing reintegration or participation in a criminogenic programme. The Prison frequently delays advancing rehabilitation or reintegration waiting until after the parole hearing waiting to see what the NZPB recommends and supports Often the mere appearance before the Board motivates the prisoner to engage in rehabilitation and treatment. Each hearing is completely different and value of the annual hearing is that objectives can be set and met. 4. Consistency with BORA 4.1 Because the bill proposes increasing the interval between hearings it removes the entitlement to annual hearings. 4.2 This is contrary to s 22 the right to be free from arbitrary detention. The right of an annual review once the offender has completed the punitive phase of the sentence is fundamental. 5. Variability of NZPB Panels 5.1. It is understood that one NZPB panel does not bind any other. Variability and differences of approach and style are usual in the operation of parole. However infrequency of hearing may mean that these disparities will reinforce perceptions of unfairness Changes in the make-up of panels will matter more where there is a longer interval between hearings. 6. Effects on Maori Pacific and Ethnic prisoners 6.1 The Bill it is likely to disproportionately affect Māori communities as Māori are over-represented on a population basis in prisons. At the very least, this raises the concern that the Bill might decrease confidence in the parole system among Māori. Potential limited access to parole may well be detrimental to the rehabilitation and reintegration of the offender. 6.2 At the very least, parole will not be able to be used to acknowledge effort and improvement in terms of rehabilitation. 4

5 6.3 At the very worst, the excessive and arbitrary punishment will undo any benefit a prison may provide in terms of rehabilitation. This may increase reoffending when the offender eventually must re-integrate into the community. 7. Conclusion 7.1 We believe the proposals in the Bill are blunt instruments not likely to lead to increased efficiency in the parole system. 7.2 In terms of achieving the aims of reducing stress for victims and providing incentives for prisoners the Bill is a risky and flawed mechanism. 7.3 The annual review provided at present is a motivation to get ahead with programmes and co-operate within units. Thus even those who talk of doing their lag can be encouraged to change their minds and work for the goal of serving their sentence in the community. 7.4 The perception is that proposed amendment has a punitive function which is not the role of the Parole Board. 7.5 The annual review has a checks and balance function. The external view ensures that the Department is meeting its obligations and that justice is being served. 7.6 The number of prisoners seeking representation by lawyers at parole hearings will increase significantly. 5