National Council on Corrections: briefing

Mr D Bloem (ANC)

Documents handed out:
None.

SUMMARY
The National Council on Corrections briefed the Committee on its structure, mandate, function, budget and impact. Two of the Council’s major challenges were the release of life-sentence prisoners, and the new Parole Review Board.

Members made clear that the Committee needed to be an active participant in all debates concerning Corrections policy. Parole conditions for offenders who had been sentenced to life, especially warranted further debate. The NCCS’s failure to consult with the Committee on the appointment of key staff was a major concern. Despite the Council having been in operation since 1994, many of its activities appeared to still be in the planning stage. There was also a need for greater clarity regarding the budget available to the Council.

MINUTES

National Council on Corrections briefing
Judge Siraj Desai, NCC Chairperson, briefed the Committee on the structure, mandate, function, budget and impact of the NCC. The NCC had been constituted in 1994. Judge Desai had, for the past five years, effectively been the only Chairperson. In April 2005 a new council had been appointed. It consisted mostly of new members although some of the previous members had been included to share their experience and expertise on the functioning of the Council.

The Council had dealt effectively with challenges surrounding gender representivity. It was also fairly representative across all provinces as well as all the professions as required by the Correctional Services Act. The North West was the only province not represented on the Council. Its members came from the police service and the social welfare system. There was a penologist, as well as a psychologist. There were also representatives from the Human Rights Commission and Nicro, as well as from the research and business community.

Regardless of political changes, the NCC’ mandate and composition remained the same. This was particularly challenging since each Minister had his own style and though some engaged with the Council others did not. Previously the Minister could decide whether or not to consult with the Council. The current Correctional Services Act stated clearly that draft legislation and major proposed policy developments regarding Correctional Services had to be referred to the NCC for debate and advice. The Council's function was purely advisory and its decisions were not binding.

The Council met four times a year but was considering increasing the number of meetings to six. The first meeting of the year was usually held in Cape Town to give new members the opportunity to meet with the Minister and the President. All other meetings were held in Pretoria.

The impact of the NCC had mostly been felt by the individuals affected by the Council's decisions. For the last few years, there had been regular contact between members of the Council and the Minister to facilitate an exchange of ideas and to discuss the possible impact of their decisions.

The work of the NCC was largely voluntary. It functioned on a very small budget covering mainly travel expenses. In accordance with the Act, non-members were paid an allowance. At present no one had yet received this allowance since the formula for how payment would be calculated had not yet been finalised. At the moment only expenses were being covered.

One of the most challenging tasks the Council was faced with concerned the early release of offenders who had been sentenced to life in prison. Since these prisoners had committed serious crimes there was always the danger that they might re-offend. The Judge said that he was heartened that all decisions were well informed and made collectively. Fortunately few errors had been made in the past ten years.

He strongly denied that 'lifers' were being released after having served short sentences. Although the previous Council had not been representative, the present one had made its decisions based on the general sentiment in the country for the past decade. ‘Lifers' were only released after consultation with the Council. Of the last four applications, only one had been approved.

A specific procedure was being followed. The Council required full documentation on each 'lifer' that was being considered for release. It considered whether the offenders had served a sufficient period of their sentence, the seriousness of their crime, their conduct while in prison and lastly and most importantly, the likelihood of them re-offending. Any decision had to be unanimous.

Over-crowding could become an even greater problem considering that at present offenders needed to serve at least 75% of their sentence before being considered for parole.

The current parole system was fairly new and consisted of lay persons as well as experts. There was much confusion and unhappiness around the current parole policies. A cohesive, consistent approach was needed.

The parole review board that would consist of members of the public as well as experts would hopefully create a balance. It would form a forum in which the criteria for parole could be debated independent of the atmosphere of the correctional services.

The review board was still in its initial stages and the Council was working on the procedures under which it would function. Currently representations were made in writing. In future, matters could possibly be argued in front of the board. Hopefully policies would be developed in this regard.

According to the Act, the Minister or the Commissioner decided which cases the parole review board considered. The Council would, in due course, recommend that the Inspecting Judge should also give input, especially in those cases where prisoners felt that they had been unfairly disadvantaged by the parole process.

A second area of concern arose out of the amendment of the Act. It now required 'lifers' to apply for parole through the judge and the court that had sentenced them. This created some confusion since the Act also stated that those sentenced prior to 1994 could still appeal to the Council. Since 'lifers' could only apply for parole once they had served 25 years, the judge who had sentenced them very often no longer presided over that court. It was difficult to comprehend how a single person could make a decision that an entire Council experienced difficulty with. The Council recommended that the Act be amended but was fully aware that the actual decision remained a political one.

Discussion
The Chairperson noted that many issues had been tabled during the briefing. The issue of 'lifers' particularly deserved greater attention. The Committee would request a thorough briefing on the matter at a later date. He also requested that an updated version of the Act be forwarded to all Members.

Mr J Selfe (DA) said that he was delighted about the work that was being done on developing a coherent release policy since there appeared to be a degree of discretion that applied to the application for parole. There was also a lot of confusion since people did not understand the ground rules. As the Council was required to give policy advice, he was interested in knowing whether it had been consulted on the matter of the Special Remissions of sentence.

Judge Desai agreed that there was much confusion around the parole process and said that the Parole Review Board was an attempt at bringing coherence and consistency to the release process.

Given the on-going crisis within Correctional Services, the NCC had for a long time encouraged special remissions. The Special Remission proposal had been referred to the Council and had had its full support. He noted that the decision to implement such a process had taken political courage. The NCC was in regular contact with the Department of Correctional Services regarding monitoring of the process.

Ms S Chikunga (ANC) inquired about the impact of the release policy. She noted that it appeared as though there were many policies that were being attempted by the Council despite it having been operational since 1994. Had the NCC found its footing?