Parole Policy and Access of Prisoners to Judicial Inspectorate

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
30 April 2002
PAROLE POLICY AND ACCESS OF PRISONERS TO JUDICIAL INSPECTORATE: BRIEFING

Parole Policy and Access of Prisoners to Judicial Inspectorate

SUMMARY
Members were unhappy that only four of the nine Provincial Commissioners were present at the meeting. The National Commissioner apologised for this but explained that he had taken the decision to bring only the four present because of financial considerations and the fact that the National Commissioner was equipped to answer questions on behalf of the Provincial Commissioners.

Members expressed concern about the delay in implementing the legislation dealing with the Parole Boards. The Department explained that they were moving as fast as they could but could not afford to be reckless in implementing the new Act, as this could result in disciplinary action being taken against Department officials.

MINUTES
The Chair explained that the purpose of the briefing was to address the elimination of overcrowding in prisons. The focus would be on (i) how to deal with the problem, (ii) how to apply the laws that have been passed recently (iii) determining the effectiveness of these laws.

It is important that the Committee gets the opportunity to follow up on the laws it passes and determines their usefulness in dealing with matters in order for prisons to be transformed.

Address by the National Commissioner
The National Commissioner, Mr L Mti mentioned the fact that the members of the Department were wearing uniforms. He pointed out that it was not the intention of the Department to undermine the decision taken by the Committee on the issue previously. Instead the Department merely used the uniforms to establish uniformity and a corporate identity.

He referred to the Chair's statement that the brief would focus on overcrowding. The Department's Executive Management had in fact decided to revisit this issue just the previous day. This issue had however not been the brief from the Committee. The Department had instead been instructed to deal with the implementation of the parole system and the inconsistencies regarding the laws dealing with this issue. The Department needed clearer instructions as to the issues with which they had to deal.

With regard to the Committee's request that all nine Provincial Commissioners be present at the meeting he stated that there were two reasons for his failure to comply with this request, viz. (i) financial considerations and (ii) all questions and issues raised could be dealt with adequately by those present. The Provincial Commissioners present were from Gauteng, KZN, Western Cape and Eastern Cape.

The use of Afrikaans as a medium of instruction in colleges still remains an issue of concern to the Department. The intervention of certain members of Parliament has made the work of the Department very difficult in this regard.

Presentation by the Deputy Director General of Functional Services
The Deputy Director General of Functional Services, Ms J Schreiner read the document and pointed out the following facts:

Parole
-The definition of 'parole' is the conditional release of an offender after serving a portion of his sentence. The offender would be under the continued custody of the state under conditions that permit his incarceration in the community.
-The Department focuses on the enhancement of the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders as law-abiding citizens.
-The Department is committed to Restorative Justice.

Implementation of the New Act
-Sections of the New Act on Parole Boards can only be implemented when
· Internal policy process is complete
· B Order as operational policy is updated and finalised
· The appointment process is finalised
· Conditions of service and contracts for appointment are finalised
· Appointments have been made
· Training of members of Parole Boards has taken place
· Logistical arrangements are in place
-The New Parole Boards will have to act in accordance with the transitional provisions of the new Act.

-The key challenge in establishing Boards is the finalisation of the following issues:
· How community representation on Parole Boards will be obtained
· Conditions of service and contract period of the community representatives
· Criteria for the appointment of the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board

-A new B Order on Parole Boards (covering the functions of the Board, work procedures, etc) has been drafted.
-B Order implementation goes hand in hand with the implementation of relevant sections of the Act. The new Boards will be put in place in December 2002.
-There could be a need for regulations on the implementation of the Act.
-There has been a proposal that the need for draft regulations should be determined in consultation with the Department of Justice.

Prisoners' Access to the Judicial Inspectorate
The office of the Judicial Inspectorate was established in terms of S85 of Act 111 of 1998. It is an independent body that facilitates the inspection of prisoners in prisons and of conditions and any corrupt or dishonest practices in prisons.

Prisoners are ensured access to the Inspecting Judge by his appointment of Independent Prison Visitors (IPV's) at every prison. Overall the system has been successful at helping to upgrade the quality of delivery. There are however still pockets of resistance from certain elements of Prison Managements. There has been concern over IPV requests for copies of confidential documents. The reason is that once the document has been handed over the Department has no control over the way it is used.

The Department welcomes visits by the Judicial Inspectorate, as they serve as an effective management tool and contribute toward the humane detention of prisoners.

Discussion
The Chair referred to the implementation of the Act and the fact that the parole process would continue as is until December. He argued that this was a very long period of time. On the other hand, the laws affecting awaiting trial prisoners had already been implemented. All the amendments that have yet to be implemented address overcrowding and therefore have to be implemented as soon as possible.

Mr Mti pointed out that the Department shared the impatience of members. They were however doing their best to ensure speedy implementation. It was not that easy as the Department could not allow implementation to take place in a reckless manner. Steps had to be taken in the correct manner or officials could face disciplinary action. Members also had to bear in mind that not all officials share the level of education that members enjoy.

Ms B Dlamini (ANC) referred to the Committee's request for the presence of all the Commissioners at the meeting. A reason for the request was that different Commissioners had different responses. However, as there would probably not have been time to deal with all nine provinces at that meeting she suggested that those who were absent should be present at a subsequent meeting.

Mr Maziya explained that the Committee had requested the presence of all nine Commissioners, as certain prisons' officials were often unaware of decisions that they should have been implementing. He asked if the communication between National and Provincial Commissioners was not smooth enough. The presence of all Commissioners would ensure that all concerned enjoy the same level of understanding.

Mr Mti apologised for any ill feelings he might have caused by his decision to bring only four Provincial Commissioners to the meeting. However the responses and input by the Department would have been the same had the other Commissioners been present. In addition there were no clear guidelines yet therefore their presence was not really essential at this stage. Also, the Department was not decentralised and the National Commissioner therefore had the responsibility to answer on their behalf. If anything could not be answered adequately at that meeting the National Commissioner would provide the response by the following day.

Ms Dlamini referred to Afrikaans as a medium of instruction. She believed that the Minister should be present for the discussion so that he could explain the reason for his decision.

Mr Mti explained that he had not really intended this issue to be discussed at that meeting but had merely mentioned it. The Minister was not even involved in this issue. In fact the Minister actually supported the use of English as the medium of instruction.

Mr Maziya (ANC) referred to the training programmes for members of the Parole Boards and asked what time frames the Department were looking at as far as its implementation was concerned. He expressed concern that offenders' right to parole would be prejudiced by the delay.

Mr Mti replied that offenders' rights would not be violated, as the old system would remain in use until clear guidelines on the implementation of the new system were developed.

Mr Maziya stated that parole boards were not a new phenomenon. Thus policy development would be based on documents that already were in use. There should not be much delay, as the process did not have to start from scratch.

Mr Mti replied that the reason for the amendments was that the old parole boards were not working. New training and a whole new system would not have been necessary had the old system been working.

Ms J Sosibo (ANC) wanted a breakdown of the number of Independent Prison Visitors (IPV's) per province.

The Western Cape Provincial Commissioner stated that the number of IPV's per province was as follows: Western Cape- 30, Free State- 28, Gauteng-40, KZN-28, Limpopo - 4, Mpumalanga- 17, North West-19, Northern Cape- 12, Eastern Cape-0.

Ms E Ngaleka (ANC) complained that only one member of the parole board in Upington was not a member of the Department. She asked if the Chair and Vice Chair would also have to be from the Department.

Mr Mti replied that the old Act is still in effect at present, which is why the Board members are still Department officials. Ms Schreiner added that the positions of Chair and Vice Chair would not necessarily be filled by Department officials, but by persons with extensive involvement and experience in this area. This would ensure continuity.

Ms Sosibo referred to the fact that the delay could be attributed to the lack of guidelines. She asked what progress had been made in developing these guidelines.

Ms Schreiner pointed out that lack of guidelines was not the only cause of the delay, as one cannot ignore the logistical requirements. The Provincial Commissioner of KZN added that the Act was only being implemented now as it had only been signed in December. Training was in accordance with a new system as things were being done differently to how they had been done in the past.

Mr S Swart (ACDP) referred to IPV's and recommended the use of community police forums. Secondly, members had received reports that S63 of the Criminal Procedure Act was being implemented in Pollsmoor. He asked how the process of rolling out was progressing in other provinces.

Mr Mti said that Judge Fagan headed this pilot project at Pollsmoor. Implementation would now take place at Johannesburg, Eastern Cape and KZN prisons.

Ms Dlamini said that the Committee needs a report on the implementation of S63 so that it can be raised with the Department of Justice.

Mr Mti replied that S63 was the initiative of the Judicial Inspectorate. Judge Fagan had committed to rolling out. He agreed that there has to be interaction with the Department of Justice, as not all magistrates wanted to take this process forward.

Ms Ngaleka asked how often IPV's visit prisons.

The Eastern Cape Provincial Commissioner said that it was not always possible to determine this, as visits often tood place without the knowledge of the Department.

Ms Dlamini argued that this was unacceptable, as the Department needs to know who had access to prisons. Even though the IPV's are independent there is still a relationship between them and the Department.

The National Commissioner replied that the IPV's are by law not required to inform the Department of their visits. The point of the visits is to 'catch them by surprise'. It is however possible that in KZN IPV's visit prisons thrice a week. In addition the IPV's are paid per visit and therefore visit prisons as often as they could. The Judicial Inspectorate could deal with this issue more effectively.

Ms Dlamini asked what the target date was for the implementation of the Act dealing with parole.

Mr Mti replied that a workshop would be held the following week where this question would be dealt with. There needs to be further consultation with the Portfolio and Select Committees.

Ms Dlamini stated that there should be clarity on the selection process of community representatives to the Parole Boards in order for the process not to be manipulated.

Mr Mti reiterated the need for guidelines, especially on the issue of what constitute a community representative, e.g. Pollsmoor is situated in Tokai, yet most of its inmates come from Mitchell's Plain and Gugulethu. Thus, would a member of the Tokai community also constitute a community representative?

Mr L Diale (ANC) suggested that one should look at structures on the ground in determining what a 'community representative' was.

The Chair suggested that an awareness campaign should be conducted among these community structures. It was often helpful to look at the way other countries dealt with similar problems. In New Zealand only 6000 inmates were being held in prisons. The remaining 20 000 had been released into their communities. Keeping minor offenders in prisons lead to the problem of recidivism. Thus only serious offenders and habitual criminals should be kept in prisons. Minor and serious offenders should be separated, as minor offenders who end up in prisons tend to graduate in crime.

The meeting was adjourned.