So alarmingly straightforward was escaped murderer Phillip Smith's flight to South America that it is imperative lessons are learned. Some of the failings that have been exposed, such as his ability to gain a valid passport in his birth name, should be able to be remedied relatively easily. Already, there is the sound of stable doors being bolted. But the solutions to others are rather more complex. In particular, temporary releases from prison towards the end of inmates' sentences are now under the spotlight.
According to Smith's father, John Traynor, it was "absolute stupidity" to allow him out of Waikato's Spring Hill Prison on a 72-hour break. That appeared to be confirmed when Smith, who had permission to stay at a house in Waterview, did not return to jail on Sunday but flew to Chile. Mr Traynor pointed out the Parole Board still had doubts about Smith and the risk he presented to public safety. "Why they did actually release him is beyond me," he said. "Obviously, he is a person who is going to be a menace to society whenever he is released."
In late March, the Parole Board did, indeed, identify the risk of reoffending as high. But it believed this was likely to be in the form of fraud. Smith, who was jailed for life with a minimum non-parole period of 13 years in 1996 for stabbing to death the father of a boy he molested, had committed multiple frauds in prison between 2006 and 2010. The Parole Board was right to the extent that Smith's flight did involve fraudulent activity. It was clearly wrong, however, in not considering he could organise his escape from this country while in prison, and use his 72-hour release to achieve it.
Temporary releases are seen as an important means of helping inmates settle back into the community. In the vast majority of cases, they complete these absences without any problems. In all cases, they should take place only if there is no risk to the public or the threat of a crime being committed. A prisoner's behaviour on these releases is also an obvious indicator of whether they should continue. Smith had behaved well after being approved for temporary release six times for up to 12 hours. This had led to these absences being increased recently to 24-hour and eventually 72-hour periods.
In several comparable jurisdictions, he would very likely not have received this benefit. Britain, in general, does not consider temporary releases suitable for inmates serving something as serious as a life sentence. And in Canada the Harper Government is planning to place more restrictions on them. Both countries consider the risk too great, even though a Correctional Service of Canada briefing document found that inmates who have temporary releases are less likely to be re-admitted following their releases. In effect, therefore, they enhance public safety, rather than imperilling it.
