House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Correctional Services (Parole) Amendment Bill CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (PAROLE) AMENDMENT BILL Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading Mr HANNA House of Assembly Mitchell Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (10:58): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Correctional Services Act 1982. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading Mr HANNA House of Assembly Mitchell Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (10:58): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I was deeply troubled by the story of a constituent, a Mr Trevor Cheesman, who was the victim of a home invasion a few years ago when he innocently visited his son's home. On that occasion three assailants entered his son's residence and, upon being challenged by Mr Cheesman, attacked and severely injured him. Mr Cheesman's interaction with prosecution authorities and the court system has been deeply unsatisfactory. He attended the sentencing of the three offenders with his wife. He was aggrieved that one of the offenders, who was a juvenile at the time, was given a suspended sentence. He was also aggrieved that the two other offenders were given sentences of substantially less than five years, given the serious injuries he suffered and continues to suffer. At the time, he was informed of the head sentence that had been handed down in respect of the guilty parties. Like many people, he assumed that was the sentence that would be served by the offenders. Although he was told that there was a nonparole period of nine months, he assumed that they would only be let out at the minimum time if there were exemplary behaviour on the part of the offenders and that it would be in somewhat exceptional circumstances that a person would be let out at that bare minimum. He did not really think about it much at all because he was focusing on the head sentence. He was quite shocked when he learned subsequently that, in fact, for a sentence of less than five years, even in the case of such a violent crime, the nonparole period is, in effect, an automatic release date. It does not matter terribly much how the offenders behave in prison, it does not matter whether they receive any rehabilitation help, and it does not matter whether they appear to have been rehabilitated (nobody even checks that), they are released at the end of the nonparole period. In the case of sex offences, that is not so. There needs to be an evaluation of the offender before their release at the end of the nonparole period. The bill I bring to the House of Assembly today suggests that the same process should take place in respect of violent crime. The legislation I bring forward is very simple. It ensures that there must be consideration of whether it is suitable to release a person at the end of the nonparole period if it is an offence of personal violence, and I define those offences of personal violence. They are existing offences, such as home invasion, robbery or a conspiracy to do one of those things and, indeed, include an offence that is committed with violence or the threat of violence. I am paraphrasing, but members can look at the definition of 'offences of personal violence', which are described in the legislation, and decide for themselves whether they are sufficiently serious to warrant an evaluation of the offender at the end of the nonparole period, rather than have them released back into the community without any real assessment. The way things work at the moment is, in a sense, a failure in terms of the truth in sentencing principle, because most members of the community, if they hear, for example, that an offender has been sentenced to three years' imprisonment with a one-year nonparole period, assume that it is a three-year sentence of imprisonment. They assume that the offender is facing three years of imprisonment. They do not really expect that, without any real consideration, the offender will automatically be released after that one-year period. So, to ensure that there is more truth in sentencing, and to satisfy the wishes of the community for sentencing to be readily understandable and straightforward, I bring this proposition to the house. I need not explain the clauses of the bill more than I already have. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.F. Evans.