Update on “Waterkloof Two” re-arrested parolees; progress on implementation of medical parole provisions of Correctional Matters Amendment Act

Meeting report

Update on “Waterkloof Two” re-arrested parolees
Mr James Smalberger, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Incarcerations and Corrections, said that the “Waterkloof Four” had been released on 11 February 2014. They had served a portion of their sentence, and were released on parole. The parole period was set for five and a half years. On 15 and 16 February, the Department was informed of material and videos depicting an event which had occured while inmates Du Preez and Bekker were in the correctional centre. On the Sunday following, they were re-arrested and appeared before a supervisory committee the next day. It was decided to keep them in custody for another 14 days. The two appeared before the parole board on 21 February, and on 28 February it was decided to revoke parole for 12 months, at which time they would become eligible for parole again. At a previous meeting, the Portfolio Committee had asked why the parole board was reviewing its own decision, and why it had not been taken to the Parole Review Board. It had to be borne in mind that the events that occurred in the facility before the release on parole, were not known to the parole board at the time of the release. The parole board was not reviewing a decision -- it was responding to a new set of facts. At the time of release, the facts before the parole board were satisfactory at face value. Affidavits had been taken during the investigation into possible collusion of staff to supply the two with contraband while in the facility.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that the Portfolio Committee would continue to monitor the situation. Justice delayed was justice denied. The Committee was interested in the investigation into staff collusion. It wanted a written report, which had to include information on complicit officials.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) agreed that there had to be a written report about the investigation. She asked about the length of the initial sentence. She assumed that they had served half their sentence. The other half had to be added back to their sentence. The Committee still awaited a thorough answer about what was said in the parole board report when the two were released.

Mr Smalberger replied that words could give the wrong impression. When parole was revoked, it meant that the remainder of the sentence still had to be served. The parole board would consider the matter again in 12 months time. In the meantime, the two had to attend programmes that could make them eligible for parole again. The maximum time that eligibility for parole could be pushed forward was 24 months.

Mr Ngwenya remarked that only officials could smuggle in Johnny Walker whiskey and cellphones. The Committee had to know what happened.

Progress report on the implementation of the medical parole provision of the Correctional Matters Amendment Act [Act 5-2011]
Mr Smalberger said that currently any offender or a family member could apply for medical parole. Health would be looked at, and the case management council would prepare a profile report. If someone qualified, forms were completed and sent to the Medical Parole Advisory Board (MPAB). The MPAB chairperson came to the national office every week and scrutinised applications. The offender profile was presented to a medical doctor member of the MPAB. The MPAB met on a monthly basis. The case management council looked at support systems for taking care of the parolee. The re-offending risk had to be low.  Sentencing remarks were looked at.  The MPAB looked at treating doctor recommendations. The MPAB decision went to the Regional Commissioner, and was submitted to the delegated authority.

There was a perception that consideration by the MPAB automatically implied release, but that was not so. The MPAB considered only the medical aspect. The case management council had to look at the crime for which the offender had been sentenced, and whether that would present an obstacle to that person being accepted back by the family, for instance.  He cited the example of a man who had killed two people with a butcher’s knife while in a wheelchair. He had been sentenced to life imprisonment.  After two or three years of the sentence, the medical parole process had started. His wife said that she did not want to see him. He could not be released, although he qualified in terms of medical criteria. Another man had raped his own daughter between the ages of eight and ten years. His wife was an alcoholic. The daughter told the mother, who told her to keep quiet. Eventually it was found out at school. His wife was still addicted to alcohol, and the daughter was a teenager. It was a rural family, who did not want him back. He was doing a life sentence, as the judge had given the minimum sentence for rape. Such a person could not be dumped anywhere. The MPAB had accepted the application. If the man died in prison, the Department had reasons why he was still inside.

There were situations where a family agreed to take the person back if they were given a grant. There were off-the-record agreements. The State helped with funeral costs. It was sometimes asked why people had not been released, but the reality could be cruel. There had been 276 applications over the preceding 13 to 14 months. The MPAB had looked at 236, while 40 were not considered because the treating doctor would not recommend.  If there was doubt, the case was assigned to a medical doctor member of the MPAB.  136 cases were not recommended, and in 23 cases, applicants had died.  66 had been recommended, but not all were released. There were earlier challenges that no longer existed.  A process and a body were in place. It was an equitable system. All applicants underwent the same testing. It was not a free for all. There were eleven medical doctors who could review. If there was a positive recommendation, every effort was made to speed up the process.

Discussion
The Chairperson referred to page 9 of the briefing.  Of those assessed, 50%were not recommended for medical parole.  What kind of message did this send?  He asked if some applicants were taking chances, and if there was a way of knowing that.

The Chairperson noted that 23 deaths had occurred among medical parole applicants in 20 months. Two might have been unavoidable, but the question was if more could have been done for the other 21, and whether the Department was really geared up to deal with the situation. Something had to be done differently, to prevent people from dying while their application was under review.

Ms Maria Mabena, Deputy Commissioner: Health Care, agreed that some deaths might have been prevented. But illnesses like chronic HIV/TB conditions could cause rapid system failure and death within a week. There had to be an examination by a specialist. There were delays while nurses waited for specialist reports from public health.

Ms Ngwenya referred to the challenges outlined on page 12. She asked about the budget for health professionals. The recruitment of professionals had to be taken seriously.

Ms Mabena replied that there were nurses who could challenge specialist reports. There was a high turnover of nurses. The terminally ill were sent to hospitals, where they were stabilised and then sent back. The family would apply for a grant to give to a hospice. Nurses faced overcrowding.

Ms Ngwenya advised that inmates whose families would not accept them, should be kept in halfway houses. Victim support groups had to be strengthened, in cases where the inmate was not accepted back by his familly.

Mr Smalberger replied that medical parolees needed medical care, which halfway houses could not provide. Most of the people there were working. The DCS policy was to keep unwanted medical parolees at a hospital close to home.  If a person had committed a serious crime in a household, one could not expect the people living there to take him back.

The Chairperson welcomed guests from the Islamic Republic of Iran, who were in attendance.

Mr L Max (DA) remarked that the system looked good, but it had to be ensured that laws were applicable to all involved in the process. There was a public perception that laws were only for certain people. There were delays when doctors were assessing certain people, and a speedy reaction for others.  He cited the example of Clive Derby-Lewis, who was nearly dead. His appeal to the High Court had been rejected. He asked if some categories of crime made people not eligible for medical parole.  Was it possible that if the victim was a particular person, the offender was doomed to die in prison?

Mr Smalberger replied that Mr Derby-Lewis had been considered for medical parole in 2013 by the Medical Parole Advisory Board. He did not qualify for medical parole, and the process was ended. There were no exclusions. The MPAB dealt with an application, irrespective of the crime committted. The new medical parole system was two years old, but it referred to cases of three to five years before. The system could be accountable through consensus decisions reached in the MPAB.

The Chairperson asked if it definitely meant that everybody was eligible for medical parole.

Mr Smalberger replied that ayone could apply. The MPAB Chairperson had addressed sectional doctors. It was essential that forms be completed. There was a section on consent to disclose essential information to another doctor that had to be filled in, to make the process run smoothly.

Ms Mabena added that the process could be set in motion by applying for medical parole. Heads of centres orientated people on the conditions. Delays were caused by a reluctance on the part of medical doctors to commit themselves about whether they recommended an application or not. They failed to complete the section of the form that asked for recommendation or not. The board needed a recommendation to review the application.

Mr Max asked about delegation of authority (page 8). He asked if the medical board recommended first, and then the parole board.

Mr Smalberger replied that the Medical Parole Advisory Board met on a monthly basis. The Chairperson evaluated on a weekly basis, to allocate.

Mr J Selfe (DA) referred to the list of medical conditions on pages 5 and 6. He asked about the phrase “despite optimal treatment,” and whether inmates did indeed get optimal treatment. Inmates were often not properly screened for TB, which made the facilities incubators.

Ms Mabena replied that there was optimal treatment in terms of listed conditions. People were referred to TB hospitals.

Mr Selfe remarked that there were diseases listed that were unintelligible. It had to be stated in a way that Parliament could understand. Categories had to be known. When a court handed down a life sentence, it was not desirable that there be a condition which would soon become a reason for medical parole, like a head clot.

Mr Smalberger replied that the Department acted in accordance with approved regulations. The medical aspect was separate. The possibility of re-offending was the first hurdle. If the risk was high, the delegated authority would not look further.

Ms Mabena agreed that a better understanding of the illnesses that qualified for medical parole, could cause fewer people to apply. The Minister had appointed a team of doctors to come up with medical conditions that were irreversible. Some were not prevalent in centres.

Mr M Cele (ANC) asked who did the identification of persons eligible for medical parole. Was there enough staff for that?

The Chairperson asked if the DCS had a workable system of screening on admission. He asked if all 65 000 inmates currently in centres had been screened on admission.

Ms Mabena said that policy required screening on admittance for urgent conditions. There was inadequate capacity. At the Johannesburg remand centre, one nurse had to screen 500 people for TB. The Minister of Health had asked for TB/HIV screening on admission, every six months after that, and on release. Health care professionals were part of a R207m global fund. There had to be service providers to assist the Department.  Gene-expert machines had been procured from the Department of Health, and the state of screening had improved.  Illness was identified through diagnosis. The DCS had to provide primary care, and the Department of Health had to do the rest.  

The Chairperson asked if the 66 approved medical parolees had become ill after they were incarcerated. Treatment at reception could avoid later illness. The question was whether it was practical. The Department had to be honest with South Africa. It might be better to say that an ideal system would be possible only within three to five years. The DCS was saying that there was optimal treatment, but the public was saying something else.

Mr Smalberger replied that some prisoners were lifers who had been shot and paralysed during arrest. They were wheelchair-bound in prison. It was hard to prevent other effects.

The Chairperson remarked that he was concerned that the poorer one was, the more unfair the system would be. Doctors were reluctant to sign people off. The rich had access to private doctors. The families of poor people did not want them back, because they were a financial burden. It seemed that if one had money, one had a better chance in the process.

Mr Smalberger replied that money could have an impact. But the end stage was the most critical. There were efforts to get away from reliance on private practitioners to initiate the process. But even the poor could start the process. Nurses had to start the process. Medical staff had to be motivated to take the lead. The poorest of the poor were most affected at the release stage, when the family was too poor to provide support. The DCS had to accept people who came in on a stretcher. The policy was better than it was two years before. When people had committed a serious crime, the Act could not be ignored. It had to be established whether the medical parolee was welcome or not. If someone died in custody, the DCS had to be able to explain.

The Chairperson thanked the Department for their availability and cooperation over the five year term.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.