Editorial: Crime victims hit again by cruel system

Justice Minister Simon Power. Photo / Mark Mitchell

How hard it must be to recover from a criminal assault, rape or murder of a family member when the Prison Parole Board has to alert the victim every time the perpetrator is eligible for release.

In most cases this can happen when barely a third of the sentence has been served. The period probably has been just long enough for the victims to begin to recover the life they had before the vicious intrusion on it.

Then it intrudes again in the form of the Parole Board notice. Unless the victims are ready to forgive after so short a time - and who would be? - they will accept the invitation to make a submission to the board.

How difficult that must be, recalling trauma they would sooner forget and expressing the damage to their lives that they are trying to heal.

Worse, in very many cases the ordeal is unnecessary. Prisoners apply for parole as soon as the law allows it and continue to apply annually for years before they have much prospect of succeeding. Yet the Parole Board is obliged to notify the victim every time.

This senseless procedural cruelty was outlined to a conference of the Sensible Sentencing Trust this week by the Parole Board chairman, Judge David Carruthers, who suggested some sort of screening of parole applications to save the victims unnecessary distress.

Justice Minister Simon Power told the conference he was considering the suggestion. It should be one of his easier decisions.

The Council for Civil Liberties opposes screening on the grounds that the Parole Board would be prejudging cases before their hearing. Council spokesman Michael Bott said applications might seem hopeless on paper, "but with proper representation and presentation of the prisoner's view, the situation is radically different".

That objection could be met if, instead of screening applications, the board was able to offer victims a right of appeal against successful applications. That would seem even kinder to victims. They would be spared the need to make submissions in cases that passed a screening but failed after the hearing.

There is not much the victim can contribute to the substance of a hearing in any case. It is an assessment of the prisoner's behaviour behind bars, attitudes, efforts, possible support on the outside and likelihood of reoffending. The victim in most cases cannot know much about any of that.

Nor can the offender know much about the victim's recovery. There is no need for the victim's submission to be part of the hearing.

It can be considered once the prisoner has satisfied the grounds for release. The board then needs to hear whether the victim's rehabilitation is at a point that he or she can accept the release. Victims might reach that point a little sooner if they have not been obliged to make annual submissions to keep the wretch inside. Relieving them of that regular ordeal might be thereby in the interests of both sides.

Mr Power should act on Judge Carruthers' concern. The present procedure is doing untold harm. People who have suffered a dreadful personal intrusion have a right to put that intruder out of their minds and lives as quickly as possible. They also have a right to see justice done. They are being constantly and needlessly distressed.