KEY POINTS:
A man is dead, several other people are lucky to be alive, a plainly maniacal killer, Graham Burton, is back in prison and the public is still wondering how a Parole Board could have let him out. An explanation is available at last in the report of an
independent review of the board's decision. While the reviewers, the Chief District Court Judge and a Australian professor of forensic psychology, find the decision "reasonable", the facts they present point the other way.
Was it reasonable to release a man whose re-offending risk was still assessed as high? Was it reasonable to exclude prison intelligence that he assaulted three fellow inmates during February and March last year, resulting in his transfer to another unit? Those incidents could not be "proven" because prison is not amenable to inmates who tell tales.
In April, Burton and another prisoner were said to be soliciting others to do "hits" on two staff members. By then, Burton had been told by the board he would be released pending a psychological report. That assurance was "somewhat premature", in the reviewers' words. The psychological report was made in April. It brought the unproven allegations to the board's attention but nevertheless supported his release, which was confirmed in June. Burton was set free in July. Within six months, the "reasonable decision" proved to be a tragic mistake.
The board operates under the Parole Act 2002, which states: "The paramount consideration in every case is the safety of the community." Other principles it must observe include the stricture that prisoners eligible for parole must be detained no longer than is consistent with the community's safety. Burton had served 14 years for murder. He applied for, and was denied, parole in 2003, 2004 and 2005. At the second application, the board began repeatedly to ask that he be given trial leaves, unaware that his prison security classification precluded them. That is a communication deficiency the Department of Corrections now promises to correct.
By last year, the board did have reasons to hope Burton had reformed. He had taken a violence prevention programme, had behaved well on escorted excursions outside and had not been in trouble with staff or fellow prisoners for three years - if you ignored the unconfirmed incidents mentioned.
The psychological report assessed his re-offending risk to be lower than four years earlier (when he had been found to have "pro-violence beliefs", distorted views of his offending and of the world, poor emotional control, criminal associates and lack empathy and remorse, and used substances). But his risk was still measured "in the high range" and the psychologist added it was hard to reliably measure changes of attitude under jail conditions.
The board also received a psychiatric report commissioned by Burton's lawyer which argued that his attitude had improved but warned this might not continue if his hope of parole was again disappointed. All the board's advisers hedged their bets with provisos that his parole had to be subject to strict conditions and closely supervised. The breaches of those conditions, set out in the Corrections Department review released yesterday, permitted Burton's deadly rampage but primary blame rests with those who released him.
The review concludes the board formed a premature expectation that Burton would be released and ought to have inquired more closely into the report of assaults. But the reviewers could have been more blunt; the board was too willing to give Burton a chance and not attentive enough to its statutory priority, public safety.