Medical Parole: Minister and Department of Correctional Services’ report

Meeting report

Medical Parole: Department of Correctional Services (DCS) Presentation
The Chairperson welcomed the Minister of Correctional Services, Hon Ngconde Balfour.

He explained that each region across the country was represented by five members of the Parole Board but the Minister and the Department, represented by its Chief and Deputy Chief Commissioners, would make the presentation. He noted that the Committee had been very concerned about the number of natural deaths in prison, and the reasons for such deaths. The Annual Report of the Inspecting Judge of Prisons, Judge Siroj Desai, had given the statistics, which the Chairperson regarded as “alarming”. The Committee had previously requested the Department  to address the causes of death, and to give the Committee a list of family members of those prisoners who were terminally ill. He also felt that Members of Parliament, as public representatives, needed to be fully informed if there were weaknesses in the system, in order to be able to correct the situation and to account to the electorate.

Hon Ngconde Balfour, Minister of Correctional Services, tendered the apology of Judge Desai, who was engaged in Court. He noted that he and the Departmental staff would inform the Committee on the parole procedure. He noted that the term “parole” included medical parole. He noted that there had been a slight decline in the number of deaths in prison from the previous year to the current year. The Minister cautioned that the court’s authority could not be undermined and wherever possible sentences had to be served out. This must be viewed in conjunction with the statistics on crime. The Minister gave a number of examples where parole had been granted but the parolees were then found to have committed another crime, thereby posing a danger to communities. In another example the parolee was alleged to have committed a crime, but the circumstances showed that this was unlikely. In both cases the Department and Ministry were cast in a bad light and often had to fend off bad publicity. These dynamics meant that the Department must be attentive in addressing several aspects around the granting of parole.

The Minister mentioned that it was clear from the statistics that there was a wide range of illnesses that those who died in prison suffered from. He specifically addressed the media, noting that he would not be discussing any particular prisoner; firstly  because it would be unethical and secondly because this would severely damage the doctor-patient confidentiality relationship. He said that he would not respond if he were to be asked about a particular prisoner. He noted for the record that it was considered quite usual that the Shaik family would visit their brother. Such visits were not to be discussed today. This matter would be dealt with at another time.

Mr Bloem thanked the Minister for his introduction.

Comm  Vernon Petersen, Chief Commissioner, Correctional Services, commenced by stating that the White Paper and the practice that the Parole Board consult with communities was fairly new. There was a reliance on community members to assist management. This was not functioning as effectively as it should, but there were indications that it was working to a degree. There was a need to pinpoint where the system was vulnerable and to remove that vulnerable part. Furthermore, he stated that a close focus on case management, as it linked to the Parole Board was needed. An understanding of whether there was an increasing trend would contribute significantly to management decisions.

Comm Teboho Motseki, Chief Deputy Commissioner, Correctional Services said that the matter of medical parole was complex. There was often not enough time to locate or consult family members of prisoners who were terminally ill. He stated that the sick were provided with medical care while the terms of the court sentence were being fulfilled. In other words the Department fully carried out its responsibility and role, as stipulated by the Correctional Services Act and the Constitution.

However, in the case where parole was sought on medical grounds, the medical practitioner often found it difficult to declare that the patient was terminally ill and in the final phase of life. This diagnosis was vital in determining whether such parole would be granted. This was one element of the management decision. A second element would be trying to ensure a dignified death, in the family or home environment. A prisoner would only be released on medical parole if the family was willing to accept the responsibility. This was complicated by the length of time it sometimes took to locate the family, since addresses may have changed. This process would be reviewed so as to shorten the time.

Comm Motseki then expanded on the process of providing a certificate by a medical practitioner and said that it was difficult not only to declare that the patient was in the final phase of life, but the frequency of visits by the medical practitioner varied between provinces. This was due to service level agreements. In Gauteng and the Western Cape a prisoner could be visited daily by a medical practitioner, but in other provinces the visit could be anything between once a week up to once a month. Therefore, despite being in a critical or acute phase of health, the additional administrative burden could be another complicating factor for such a prisoner. The medical report, upon reaching the Case Management Committee (CMC) would then be incomplete due to these problems, and could be complicated further by problems around the willingness of the family to receive their prisoner-relative back in their home and community. Comm Motseki recounted two issues as illustrative of these problems.

Comm Motseki thirdly raised the issue of public safety. In the case where the parolee recuperated sufficiently or had good palliative care, it became possible for the parolee to commit another crime or be involved in criminal or undesired activity. This posed a serious threat to the community, and was complicated by the fact that a parolee could not be taken back to prison. The parolee’s exposure to the community thus created a situation which,  in an extreme scenario, became life-threatening.

Comm Motseki then referred to the statistics for prisoners released on medical parole, saying that for the 2006 /2007 year there had been a total of 81 released, and in the 2007/ 2008 year it had been 50.

The Commissioner stated that the Department was eager to hear the views of the Committee, especially with regard to speeding up the process of locating the family, and to review the service level agreements in those provinces where it was found lacking.

Discussion
The Chairperson commented that prisoners could hire experienced lawyers who might be able to identify a gap, and in so doing open up a floodgate for parole-seekers to gain access to parole on medical grounds.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked about challenges faced by the Department. She asked at which stage a prisoner would be diagnosed for HIV.

Comm Petersen replied that HIV testing was voluntary.

The Minister added that in the case of the Waterkloof 4, the three who had reported for their prison sentence had been screened on the day they reported, and the Department knew the outcome of the screening at the end of that same day.

Ms Ngwenya asked how the Department would mobilise the family and community to ensure aftercare for a parolee.

The Minister responded that the regulations were in place with regard to reporting within magisterial districts. The monitoring process was done in this way. He did concede, however, that once the parolee was out of sight the monitoring could not take place. In a case where the parolee was able to work, even in another magisterial district or province, an application could be made to that effect and a transfer of the monitoring and correctional supervision would be done accordingly.

Comm Motseki added that counselling was part of the process, as well as the report of the social worker to the CMC.

Ms Ngwenya was concerned about the difficulty in locating family and relatives. She asked whether those addresses could be made available to Members in their constituencies, so that they could try to help. She said she was willing, in her constituency in Gauteng, to visit those families if it was difficult for the DCS to consult them, and try to find out whether they would accept the responsibility to care for their terminally-ill relative on parole.

Comm Petersen replied that the constituency office played a positive role in helping to persuade families to care for their relatives on medical parole. Their reluctance often stemmed from anticipating an added burden to their already extremely impoverished conditions. He mentioned that there was a way for the Department to do something direct and immediate to assist the current situation, and it may even consider accessing stipend-workers to do the consultation with families. Alternative places of care or halfway houses with non governmental organizations (NGOs) and community workers could be considered as well.

Mr M Cele (ANC) questioned whether the medical practitioner could be bribed to issue a medical certificate that would support a prisoner being granted medical parole. He wanted to know how the Department would cope with such a situation.

The Minister replied that each case would be carefully scrutinized, as it was of the utmost importance that the Court’s sentence be carried out as far as possible. This could not be overlooked, even if there was a sense of compassion for such a prisoner. The Department ensured that a second opinion by a different medical practitioner was sought, so that the diagnosis could be confirmed. He also cited a case that illustrated that manipulation of the Department’s system was possible. He appealed to Members to bring information of this kind to the attention of the Department so that it could be rooted out.

Ms Ngwenya commented that it seemed that communities were not being consulted and informed properly.

Mr Cele asked how often the CMC received reports.

The Minister responded that Parole Boards were given the responsibility to get the views of the community and therefore those reports would get through to the CMC. However, it was impossible to prescribe to the Parole Boards how many reports they could produce per day or per week. The emphasis must rather be on the task of linking up with the community.

Mr Cele asked what measures were in place when considering sexual offenders for medical parole.

Mr Bloem asked whether any statistics were available on the number of sexual offenders.

Comm Petersen announced that at the forthcoming international conference, scheduled in two weeks’ time, there would be the opportunity to use experts for training. The Department did not have the statistics, but it was a well-known fact that the success rate with sexual offenders was low. Lately, a register for sexual offenders had been initiated.

The Minister agreed that this was indeed a challenge. Sexual offenders were dangerous criminals. There were instances where there was disagreement amongst the members of the Board, but in certain of such cases the Board had resolved to turn down the parole application.

Mr Motseki said that the Department of Correctional Services would continue communicating with the Department of Health and private practitioners in drawing up these statistics.

The Minister reiterated that a balance had to be sought and maintained between doing the work of granting parole efficiently, while ensuring humane treatment for parole-seekers.

The Chairperson summarised that the Parole Board should not be pushed to produce a certain number of reports simply for the sake of numbers, but should rather be allowed to do a thorough job. In the new financial year, more funds would be allocated to equipping the Department for this task. He stated that Members needed to take all the reports seriously when considering spending, which as currently R24 million. The Committee members would follow up this matter.

The meeting adjourned.