Review of the Parole Board.

Review of the Parole Board Queensland

GPO Box 1054

Brisbane QLD 4001

pbqreview@pbqreview.qld.gov.au

Dear Mr Hastie

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission in relation to this review of the Parole Board.

What follows is no criticism of the Commissioner, whose qualifications to carry out this inquiry are not disputed. It is a criticism of those who set up this inquiry.

The first point is the incredibly short time period for this inquiry. The Commissioner is given 70 days to produce a report on what is an extremely important and complicated area of the criminal justice system. 70 days is totally inadequate.

Our second criticism is that the terms of reference are inadequate and skewed in one particular direction. The focus of the review seems to be the rights of victims.

This Vouncil accepts that victims do have rights in the criminal justice system[1]. However, those rights need to be considered in the context of the purpose of the parole system

The accepted purposes of parole were well articulated by Sofronoff QC in his 2016 report[2] at paragraphs 127 and 128.

127. Firstly, parole is a system of administering sentences in a way that reduces reoffending by:

1. providing an incentive for prisoners to participate in programs in custody 

2. supporting an offender's reintegration into the community

3. managing serious offenders more intensely. 

128. Secondly, parole reduces the social and financial costs of severe sentences in appropriate cases. The parole system allows expensive prison space to be allocated to the highest‐risk offenders. This is a practical matter that should not be overlooked in any consideration of the parole system. 

At paragraph 140 Mr Sofronoff QC found that, “On balance, the evidence suggests that parole has a beneficial impact on recidivism, at least in the short term. Although its effect upon recidivism may be modest the parole system is in the interest of the community and should be retained.”

In our submission no changes should be made to the rights of victims which undermine the rehabilitation of the prisoners. The only consequence of that would be to create more victims, which surely is not the intention of the review let alone the government.

We trust these comments are of assistance to you in your deliberations.

[1] In the criminal process the state, with all of its resources and powers, is attempting to deprive the accused/defendant, not the victim, of their liberty or property. As a consequence, the criminal process has established a principled asymmetry between the position of the State and the accused/defendant by the inclusion of rules such as placing the onus of proof on the Crown, establishing the standard of proof as being beyond reasonable doubt, providing the accused/defendant with a right to silence and, to the extent it remains, the rule against double jeopardy. Defendants are guaranteed these rights not because they are valued more than victims’ rights but because they are rights against the State. They serve as essential checks against government abuse of its power. By way of contrast, victims’ rights serve a completely different purpose. They are aimed at supporting victims in the legal process, promoting their recovery and providing them with compensation.

[2] Queensland Parole System Review November 2016