HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-04-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:32): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Correctional Services a question about dangerous offenders.

Leave granted.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government enacted dangerous offenders laws last year to allow the Attorney-General to directly apply to the Supreme Court to have the nonparole period removed for a prisoner classified as a dangerous offender. In July 2007, The Advertiser reported that sources had identified six offenders as people who would be dealt with under the laws and that 'Correctional Services Minister Carmel Zollo has been preparing a list of criminals she believes should never be released from prison'.

One of those listed in the article, Judith Lynette Dowell, has been released. In the Sunday Mail of 27 April 2008, a spokesman for the Attorney-General was quoted as saying: 'We never released a list and Judith Dowell would never have been on any such list.' A number of stakeholders—and, no doubt, a number of prisoners—assumed that the source of the list was a government source and that it was a government list. There are only two possibilities: first, either the government allowed Judith Lynette Dowell to be repeatedly and unfairly labelled as a dangerous offender last year and allowed other prisoners to be misled about their prospects for parole; or, secondly, the government has released a dangerous offender. My questions are:

1. Did the minister or any officer of her department advise any prisoners identified as dangerous offenders in The Advertiser of 27 July 2007 that they were not on a list to be regarded as a dangerous offender?

2. What work has the minister or the minister's department done to assess whether people should be identified as dangerous offenders under the dangerous offenders legislation?

3. Has the minister prepared or caused to be prepared documents or lists that identify any offenders as people who should be considered for action under the dangerous offenders legislation?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (14:33): By way of background, just to refresh the memory of those in the chamber, the Rann government's dangerous offenders laws allow for the Attorney-General to apply to the Supreme Court to have the nonparole period removed for any prisoner classified as a dangerous offender. The court can classify an offender as dangerous based on the nature of the original crime, the lack of contrition, behaviour and rehabilitation in gaol, willingness to cooperate with inquiries and the likelihood of committing a serious offence in the future.

I note that, when these laws were introduced, the shadow attorney-general from another place rejected them outright, putting her at odds with her colleagues once again. It seems that the opposition cannot readily agree on everything. In relation to the question just asked, I understand that the Sunday Mail carried a story on 27 April referring to a list of dangerous offenders that had been drawn up.

If my recollection serves me correctly, the list was compiled by The Advertiser, not by the government, in May last year. In the article by journalist Sean Fewster, it states, 'An Advertiser study has found six killers likely to be targeted before 2010.' The Advertiser would have compiled its list from publicly available sources, such as court documents and media reports, and such information is readily available.

It would be inappropriate and unlawful for a list to be compiled of people who will never be released from prison, so there is no list and there cannot be a list. Each case is assessed and determined on its own merits.

The government process is that the Department for Correctional Services provides information on prisoners convicted of murder, including conspiracy, as prisoners become eligible for parole. The Crown Solicitor's Office assesses the information on a case-by-case basis, and it prepares cases for possible submission to the Supreme Court by the Attorney-General. The Crown Solicitor's Office reviews the circumstances of offences and the behaviour of prisoners whilst they are in custody and gives advice to the Attorney-General about whether he should make an application to the court under this legislation.

In summary, when the dangerous offenders legislation was being debated in the other place, I understand The Advertiser created its own list of those it deemed to be dangerous offenders; it is certainly not an official list and, in truth, it has no relevance. The role of the Department for Correctional Services is to ensure that all relevant information on any prisoner is made available to the Crown Solicitor and the Attorney-General if and when requested.

There is no list of prisoners who have been identified as dangerous offenders because, in the absence of a court order, this would be unlawful. Identifying dangerous offenders is subject to a separate process, as I have just identified.

For the information of the chamber, Judith Dowell was taken into custody on 6 April 1990. On 1 August 1994, she was sentenced in the Supreme Court of South Australia to life imprisonment for the offence of murder, with a nonparole period of 25 years, which was later remitted to 16 years, five months and 19 days under the truth in sentencing legislation, and her earliest conditional parole date was 21 April 2006.

Throughout her imprisonment, Ms Dowell received highly favourable work and conduct reports. She completed offence focus programs, and she participated in educational programs whilst incarcerated, gaining certificates to aid in employment.

I should mention that Ms Dowell's co-offender was released on parole on 14 June 2007, having been set a nonparole period of 22 years, which was reduced to 14 years, three months and seven days. His parole supervision will expire on 13 June 2017.

Ms Dowell made an application to the Parole Board, a very open and transparent process, for conditional release, pursuant to section 67 of the Correctional Services Act 1982. The board gave full consideration to victims of crime and community safety when processing the application, and the board resolved to make a recommendation to me and to cabinet for Ms Dowell's conditional release, having regard to the criteria for release provided within the act. As is the normal practice, the application was then referred to His Excellency the Governor and Executive Council for a decision. On 4 December 2007, Ms Dowell was conditionally released on parole for a term of 10 years, under strict conditions.

Ms Dowell's parole order will expire on 3 December 2017. There was no need to advise the public (which is something I think we were accused of by the Hon. Steven Wade of the opposition) of Ms Dowell's release, consistent with the rehabilitative approach.

As I understand from the Sunday Mail, the Hon. Stephen Wade said, 'I have no reason to believe that Ms Judith Dowell is a threat to public safety.' If you actually believe that, why go ahead with this really ridiculous story and, in so doing, upset the process of this woman's rehabilitation? It potentially causes distress to victims of crime because, in all of this, they are the most important members of our community that we should be concerned about.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT