Correctional Matters Amendment Bill [B41-2010]: public hearings & parliamentary researcher analysis

Meeting Summary

The Parliamentary Research Unit presented a brief analysis of the Bill in its current form noting that the Bill sought to improve three key areas of corrections: medical parole, the management of remand detention and the parole system in general.

Submissions made on the amendments relating to medical parole which was currently regulated by Section 79 of the principal Act ( Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998) were largely positive as the limitations of the previous provisions which had restricted medical parole to sentenced offenders in the final phase of a terminal illness, had been addressed. There was extensive debate on the interpretations of the amendment which extended the provision of medical parole to offenders who were rendered physically incapacitated as a result of injury, disease or illness so as to severely limit daily activity or inmate self-care. The exclusion of "mental incapacity" was questioned and the controversial issue of the incarceration of mentally ill inmates was looked at. The implications of the amendments stipulating that the risk of re-offending had to be low and that there had to be appropriate arrangements for the supervision, care and treatment of medical parolees within the community were addressed in many submissions. The establishment of medical advisory boards in each province, medical parole where incapacity was via self-induced injury and whether section 79(2)-(8) should be dealt with in the regulations, elicited strong debate.

In relation to remand detainees, the presenters welcomed the fact that the Bill sought to replace Chapter V of the principal Act in line with the recognition that remand detention was distinct from correctional detention. The Bill envisaged the creation of a new branch within the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) with the establishment of remand detention centres. Submissions noted that there was still not sufficient clarity on the Department's plans to operationalise these provisions.

There was strong debate on a number of controversial amendments. These included the definition of remand detainees, the wearing of a prescribed uniform by remand detainees, the regulation of the maximum period for which remand detainees could be held in remand facilities, the surrender of remand detainees into the custody of police for further investigations, the detention of remand detainees in police cells in districts where there were no correctional facilities or remand detention centres and the regulation of access to information about remand detainees via the Promotion of Access to Information Act. The cost implications of a new regime for remand detainees which would require the construction of new remand facilities and additional staff and the cost of the provision of uniforms was a major concern in all the submissions.

In conclusion, the Chairperson censured the DCS and the National Prosecuting Authority for the lack of synergy in co-authoring the Bill.