Give victims a voice because they are often forgotten when it comes to considering parole to offenders. There is a moral and legal responsibility to ensure victims are aware of their rights and parole boards must respect these rights.

This is the plea of attorney Tania Koen during the National Review summit held at the Kgosi Mampuru Correctional facility in Pretoria, during which the parole system in the country came under scrutiny.

Koen is well known for representing the victims in many of the country’s high profile cases, which include June and Barry Steenkamp; Alison Botha, the late Olivia Jasriel who was groomed and raped as a child by world renowned tennis player Bob Hewitt.

She is also representing Rob and Sharon Matthews, parents of the murdered Leigh Matthews in the parole bid by killer Donovan Moodley.

In addressing the shortcomings of the parole system, Koen said proper training is required for members of the parole boards, or alternatively at least the chairperson must be a retired judge/attorney or someone with a legal background.

Victims often have no knowledge of the law and they expect that the offender will serve their full sentence.

“For many, a guilty conviction and a life sentence imposed means they can now breathe a sigh of relief as ‘justice has been done’ and they can now get some form of closure”. 

That is until they find out the offender is eligible to be considered for placement on parole after serving their minimum period, Koen said.

According to her, navigating the parole process has been compared to a maze, as it is a lonely journey where obtaining information is challenging.

She referred to the matter of Alison Botha, who was left for dead after her throat was slit by Frans du Toit and Theuns Kruger, where her killers were released on parole without informing her. Their parole has meanwhile been revoked by Minister Pieter Groenewald. Koen said the same happened in the case of Hewitt, where his victims only afterwards received her news.

Koen said it seems to be an incorrect belief by parole boards that they do not require the victim’s input at every hearing. 

She further highlighted that the view of some parole boards is that because offenders have been in jail for a long time, they were automatically entitled to parole.

“The conclusive consideration for release on parole must be determined by the risk the offender poses to society, as identified by experts, and the extent to which the offender has become rehabilitated,” she said.

When it comes to a parole hearing, the process is often shrouded in secrecy and is in fact “confidential,” Koen said. Victims may request information such as programmes the offender has undergone in prison to rehabilitate, but most offenders deny victims such access. As a result the victim goes to a parole hearing  “blind” and must speculate about the rehabilitation of the offender.

 In referring to the recent Moodley parole hearing, Koen said it was only because he challenged the previous refusal of parole in court, that they had insight into the report that formed part of his parole hearing, as he too, refused that the Matthews couple get access to it.

Koen meanwhile said victims must be told of their rights, such as that they can attend every parole hearing of the offender and give their input. Community safety must be the most important consideration in every conditional release and parole boards need to be reminded of that.

“By simply complying with legislation, parole policies and directives, the parole process in the country will ensure that victims feel acknowledged and heard,” she said.

zelda.venter@inl.co.za

Source link