N Balfour: Launch of the Parole Review Board

4 May 2006

Commissioner, Linda Mti and Senior Management of DCS
Members of the Parole Review Board to be launched today
Members of the National Council on Correctional Services
Staff of the Department of Correctional Services
Ladies and gentlemen

We have converged here today to launch the Parole Review Board (PRB), a body
that has been tasked to review parole decisions and also receive and deliberate
on complaints received from the public or offenders regarding issues related to
parole.

This is a watershed in the history of correctional services as we celebrate
the birth of yet another institutional entity that will create a platform and
provide a voice for the resolution of parole matters, which, effectively
speaking, require thorough and comprehensive scrutiny before decisive action is
taken, whether or not, to review parole decisions.

The dawn of the Parole Review Board signals a clear strategic intent on our
part to consider or review parole decisions in a much more holistic manner,
taking into account issues of fairness and objectivity as expected by the
public. This is done to ensure that so that there is a recourse and alternative
structure of appeal where rehabilitated offenders or members of the public
representing offender interests, can make representations on their parole.

The establishment of the PRB does not in any way replace the existence of
the correctional supervision and Parole Boards who play a pivotal role in
deciding on parole matters. This is their sole responsibility and the PRB in
this regard, has a duty to ensure that such responsibility is discharged in a
more effective and scrutinised manner, thus, closing any gaps and loopholes in
the parole decision process.

The formation of this structure is not expected to be a smooth sailing as it
poses some logistical demands. The primary demand in this regard, is the legal
capacity of the PRB so as to ensure that it is able to effectively and
efficiently dispose of legal issues pertaining to parole matters and other
relevant imperatives. The challenge here is to avoid creating a “monster” with
no “teeth to bite” the capacity to deliver. Another challenge that creation of
PRB poses on the part of the department and Correctional Supervision and Parole
Boards (CSPBs) is the scrutinisation of parole issues before they are
channelled to the PRB and this therefore requires us tand to thoroughly conduct
our own “homework” by strengthening our capacity in this regard before
referring matters to the structure. This will ensure that the PRB does not
become a mere dumping ground for the review of parole decisions, as a result of
our own weaknesses in terms of the parole decisions that we take.

The PRB has a critical role to ensure that it is able to oversee the
numerous parole matters that are dealt with by the 52 parole boards in the
country that are serving our 48 management areas, and tasked with a huge
responsibility to handle parole applications from 240 correctional centres. The
strengthening of the PRB’s capacity becomes a very crucial matter that has to
be prioritised henceforth.

The work of the PRB will be in vain if the offender profiling and
interventions with regard to assessment and development of comprehensive
rehabilitation programme for offenders does not effectively create conducive
conditions for their rehabilitation, parole and social integration. The
involvement of our communities in this regard, as outlined in the White Paper
on Corrections, is also very pivotal in ensuring that we break the cycle of
crime.

The PRB will definitely have to consider various issues in its review of
parole decisions, including existing programmes for offender rehabilitation
based on the risk profile management outputs, sentence planning, and needs
based interventions and professional treatment, where necessary. If these
interventions have not been comprehensively introduced throughout our
correctional centres, it is high time that these are rolled out so that we
avoid being publicly challenged for failing to provide these programmes to
inmates, when parole decisions and reviews are to be taken.

The let me take this opportunity to introduce to you the new Deputy Minister
of Correctional Services, Ms Loretta Jacobs, who you will recall has previously
been a member of Parliament and chairperson of the Select Committee on Social
Development in the National Council of Provinces. She brings to this Department
a wealth of knowledge which will be of crucial importance in advancing the
agenda of DCS in terms of introducing a transformed and efficient Corrections
system.

This meeting takes place at a time when we are confronted by a number of
challenges, such as the question of minimum sentencing of offenders,
overcrowding in correctional centres and holding of juveniles and children in
correctional centres. It is also with regret to mention the fact that just on
Tuesday a juvenile offender died at the Pollsmoor correctional centre under
very sad circumstances.

It is a well-known fact that the transformation of the department cannot be
complete without a well-structured relationship between us and other partners
in the Criminal Justice System, so that there is synergy and congruence in
terms of ensuring the safety and security of the South African citizenry.

We are however mindful of the dynamic environment within which we are
operating, which, sometimes demands that we operate in silos and at times in
unison.

The major emphasis however is the unison approach that we need to cement in
tackling the above challenges that I have alluded to. Very soon we will be
launching the Parole Review Board which will review decisions regarding the
parole of sentenced inmates. It is imperative therefore at this stage, whilst
the PRB is still in its infancy, to determine and chart forward the relations
between the NCCS and the PRB, so that we do not await institutional problems to
arise before we begin to make interventions.

The question of overcrowding in correctional centres needs to be attended to
with some sense of urgency and determination as it somehow contradicts our
commitment to holding inmates in safe and secure environment guided by human
rights imperatives. It is for this reason I believe that it is about time that
we review Section 73 and 78 of the Correctional Services Act, with regard to
parole of sentenced offenders, as a measure towards the reduction of
overcrowding in correctional centres.

Comments have been made in the media about how minimum sentencing has
largely contributed to overcrowding in correctional centres. I am not the
perfect judge on this matter and nor do I want to reiterate at this stage what
is public knowledge regarding the impact that minimum sentencing has had in
severely punishing those that have found themselves on the wrong side of the
law. Whether or not we need to weigh how this has been a deterrent to crime or
contributor to overcrowding is a matter that we have to seriously engage
with.

The expeditious manner, in which we have to relocate children from our
correctional centres to centres that are meant to cater for the needs of such
offenders, cannot be over emphasised. We cannot continue, through our actions,
to negate the very same principles we commit ourselves to and the legislations
that we pass on the rights of children. We have to move with more vigour in
ensuring that the synergy that I have alluded to previously between ourselves
and other partners in the CJS, yields its fruit in ensuring that children and
juveniles are removed from correctional centres that are meant for sentenced
adults and those awaiting trial.

In conclusion, we have a challenge ahead of us of seeing to it that the Bill
of Rights as enshrined in our supreme law the Constitution is adhered to within
the corrections system. The question in this regard relates to how we want to
accommodate those within the correctional centres that are suffering from
deadly sicknesses that may claim their lives sooner than later. Do we want our
centres to become death chambers for such offenders thereby contributing to the
statistics of deaths in our prisons or do not we want to show some compassion
by releasing under certain conditions those that are already on their “death
beds” so that they could depart in a dignified manner? These are matters we
need to wrestle with in one way or the other.

I trust that in your engagement, together with the Deputy Minister you will
vigorously pursue these matters. In her address, I also hope the Deputy
Minister will further elaborate and expatiate on the challenges we are facing
with regard to these critical issues. These are indeed matters that will form
part of her delegated functions.

Thank you

The implementation of the new Correctional Services Act, Act 111 of 1998
during 2004 has brought a new dimension to the release policy of the
Department. The most significant changes regarding the release of offenders on
Correctional Supervision or Parole is increasing the role of the community in
decision-making and opportunities granted to victims of crime to express their
views for consideration before any decision is made.

Correctional supervision and parole boards (CSPBs)

There are currently 52 of these CSPBs all over the Country targeted with the
responsibility to decide on the placement of offenders before the expiration of
their sentences on either correctional supervision or parole.

These Boards are chaired by persons appointed from the Community where the
Board have sitting. In order to extend a hand to the JCP Cluster members of the
Department of Justice as well as the South African Police Service (SAPS) also
have sitting on the Board while two additional members of the Community also
serve on the Board. Last mentioned is in line with the objectives of the White
Paper on Corrections to make the community partners in Correctional matters.
The Vice-Chairperson of the CSPB is currently members of my department but
processes are on the way to replace these officials with members from the
Community.

Also significant to this new concept of parole placement is that the victim
now also has a say in the placement of the offender. Section 299(A) of the
Criminal Procedure Act make provision that the victim may request the
Chairperson of the Parole Board either to be present during the parole hearing
of the offender or to make a representation to the Parole Board when an
offenders is considered for placement on parole. When such a request is
received from the victim the CSPB must keep the victim informed of the
whereabouts of the offender as well as the date and place when such a parole
hearing will take place.

Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board (Review Board)

Although the Act makes provision that the decision of the Parole Board is
final the legislator has deemed it necessary to introduce a Correctional
Supervision and Parole Review Board (Review Board) with the power to review
decisions of the Parole Board. Either myself or the Commissioner can refer
cases to Review Board should reasons exist that the Parole Board might have
failed in their decisions. The Review Board have the authority either to
confirm the decision of the Board or substitute a new decision which decision
must be made known to the Board and also to other Parole Boards. The Review
Board will therefore, through the rule of law give guidance to Parole Board
which will leads to a more effective Parole Policy.

The Review Board will consist of members of the National Council on
Correctional Services and will be chaired by a Judge of the Supreme Court.
Other members that will serve on the Board are a member of the National
Prosecuting Authority, two members of the Community and a member of DCS.

The Review Board will resume on a regular basis depending on the number of
cases refer to them. It is expected that the establishment of the Review Board
will reduced the number of litigations against my department by offenders not
satisfied with decisions taken by the Board. Although offenders do not have the
right to take a decision of Parole Board on Review themselves, cases will be
identified by the Area Commissioners by any means e.g. complaints and requests,
representations by family, friends or legal representatives, the Parole Board,
the Case Management Committee, Head of the Centre etc. It means that if an
offender is not satisfied with the decision of the Parole Board, his/her case
may be referred to be considered for possible review.

Issued by: Department of Correctional Service
4 May 2006