Correctional Matters Amendment Bill: Department of Correctional Services briefing

Meeting report

Correctional Matters Amendment Bill [B41B-2010]: Department of Correctional Services (DCS) briefing on Bill and policy overview
Dr Lirette Louw, Legal Advisor, Department of Correctional Services, noted that the Correctional Matters Amendment Bill (the Bill) sought to improve the administration of three areas handled by the Department of Correctional Services (DCS or the Department). Firstly, it sought to strengthen the parole system, secondly, to provide for a new medical parole system, and thirdly to provide for management of remand detainees.

She provided reasons why the current parole framework was not working (see attached presentation for full details), and said that it was undesirable to proceed with the previous plans to develop yet another system, by way of the Incarceration Framework, and this was now to be scrapped. Section 70 of the Correctional Services Act (the Act) presently limited the granting of medical parole to sentenced offenders who were in the final phase of a terminal disease. However, many medical practitioners were reluctant to recommend medical parole. DCS recorded a high number of deaths annually, and there was added pressure on financial and human resources to provide care for seriously ill inmates. Before an inmate could, in terms of the current provisions, be considered for medical parole, three factors had to be proved. Firstly, the inmate to be terminally ill or physically incapacitated due to injury or a disease, to an extent that he was unable to care for himself. Secondly, the risk of re-offending after release must be low. Thirdly, there had to be proper arrangements for supervision and treatment of the inmate after release.

Mr Loyiso Jafta, Representative: Task Team, Department of Correctional Services, then addressed the position around remand detainees. The existing policy framework was vague with many misalignments.  Areas requiring improvement were the admission and release of remand detainees, and this was vital for logistical and risk management reasons. The surrender of remand detainees (RDs) to the South African Police Service (SAPS) for further investigations also needed to be improved. A maximum period for remand detention also needed to be provided. In addition, RDs needed to be provided with awareness programmes and opportunities offered by the State, to reduce the risk of re-offending. There needed to be investment by the DCS into infrastructure for RDs, as well as training and development. In addition, the DCS needed to introduce effective management of areas where there was currently overlapping between national security and remand detention. Formal mechanisms were needed to close RD files, as well as development of protocols with all material stakeholders.

Clause by Clause analysis of the Bill
Ms Louw presented a clause-by-clause analysis of the Bill to the Committee.

Clause 1 amended the definition of “inmate” and inserted new definitions for “remand detainee”, “remand detention facility” and “remand detention official”. The terms “other body” and “specialist medical practitioner” were also inserted and defined.

Clause 2 related to an amendment of section 3(2) of the Act.

Clause 3 contained amendments to sections 5(1) and (2) of the Act.

Clause 4 contained amendments to section 10 of the Act, relating to clothing and bedding provision, and had deleted the former section 10(2).

Clause 5 contained an amendment to section 17, relating to access to legal advice, with changes in the terminology.

Clause 6 contained an amendment to section 38 of the Act.

Clause 7 contained amendments to sections 39(2)(a) and 39(3) of the Act.

Clause 7 amended section 42 of the Act.

Clause 9 replaced Chapter V of the Act. New sections 46, 47, 48, 49A, 49B, 49C, 49D, 49E, 49F and 49G were inserted.
 
Clause 10 dealt with amendments to section 54, dealing with day parole.

Clause 11 amended section 70 of the Act, relating to non-compliance with conditions for community corrections.

Clause 12 was amending section 73 of the Act, which dealt with the provision of the framework for parole calculations.

Clause 13 amended section 75 of the Act, which dealt with the  powers, functions and duties of the Correctional Services Parole Board (CSPB).

Clause 14 pertained to the new medical parole system. Section 79, in its current form, limited the granting of medical parole to sentenced offenders in the final phase of a terminal illness, but the new medical parole system outlined all the issues highlighted in previous presentations to the Committee, in line with the policy changes also previously explained.

Clause 15 amended section 90 of the Act, which related to the powers, functions and duties of the Inspecting Judge.

Clause 16 inserted a new Section 128A into the Act, addressing the issue of identity swapping amongst RDs.

Clause 17 contained amendments to section 134, introducing new issues pertaining to RDs and medical advisory boards.

Clause 18 provided for a new table of contents, in which all new sections were included.

Clauses 19 and 20 repealed all the provisions referring to the development of an incarceration framework.
 
Clause 21 set out the commencement date as well as the short title.

Discussion
Mr D Bloem (COPE, Free State) expressed concern on to the time frame for the remand sentence, and was concerned who would be providing training of staff for this.

Mr Bloem also was not happy that awaiting trial detainees, as well as those being held in police holding cells, had to wear the same uniforms as convicted inmates, since there should be a distinction between those already found guilty, and those who were presumed innocent until found guilty. However, he thought that providing special uniforms for those awaiting trial would be expensive and he was concerned that this was a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Ms Louw said that the new uniforms would never go to waste, and this was a good initiative. The uniforms would be made of extremely durable material that could last for years, and they would be washed and distributed to other RDs.

Mr D Bloem said that it was not realistic for this Committee to engage in any detailed discussion with the Department today, as the clause by clause document was lengthy and detailed, and Members needed sufficient time to study it carefully. He suggested that Members should be given time to do so, and that further engagement with the DCS should take place within a few days.

The Chairperson confirmed that the Committee and department should hold another meeting in a few days, and at that stage the Committee’s draft Report would also be considered.

The meeting was adjourned.