Mark Scott Crossley Release on Parole, Groote Schuur Incident & Lacote Escape from Johannesburg Maximum Prison: Minister’s & Department’s reports

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed the Minister of Correctional Services, the Hon Ngconde Balfour, and the Regional Commissioners from Department of Correctional Services (DCS).

Minister Balfour urged Members of the Committee to see the beautiful bronze statue of Madiba at the gates of Drakenstein Correctional Services Facility. The statue was symbolic of the gateway to democracy, because it was where Madiba walked out of the gates of prison to become an icon of the world. He did, however, note that the Department already foresaw that tour groups would wish to be photographed next to it, and that was not appropriate as the prison was not a tourist destination and this was likely to compromise its security. He had suggested to the Regional Commissioner of the Western Cape that this must be discussed with a tourist group to deal with that.

Mark Scott Crossley Release on Parole
Minister Balfour noted that the Business Day portrayed a cartoon saying that the release on parole of Mark Scott Crossley was the speediest release ever seen, and many people had called to ask how this had happened. The Minister had then spoken on Morning Live to put the record straight.

He noted that during the previous week the Committee had discussed medical and other parole, and the Committee had urged that all those eligible for release on parole should be released. Now that this had been done objections were raised. The Minister said that Mr Scott Crossley’s case had been properly dealt with.  He believed the parole system worked. The primary purpose for Correctional Services was to enforce the sentencing of the Courts, and not undermine their processes. In this case the first ruling of the lower Court was that Mr Scott Crossley was given a life sentence. He had appealed, and the Appeal Court had reversed the conviction to being an accessory after the fact to murder, and then reduced the sentence to five years. The Appeal Court had found that the deceased was already dead at the time that he was thrown into the lion’s den. He was sentenced under Section 276(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. This meant that he would be able to serve the minimum sentence before being eligible for parole. He should have qualified for parole by March 2008,  but because he had assaulted another offender he was then fined a further R4000 and an internal disciplinary hearing resolved that he should be incarcerated for a further four months becoming eligible. He then appeared before the parole board. The parole board had done its work properly, and the fact was that, no matter how emotive the issue, no person eligible for parole could be prejudiced. He was happy that the system of parole was working.

The Minister outlined that the following conditions applied to Mr Scott Crossley in terms of the parole:
1) There would be a physical visit at home at least three times per month;
2) If he worked, he must be visited at work at least once a month
3) Mr Scott Crossley was compelled to pay a visit to Correctional offices or any other place as agreed upon for the purpose of consultation, at least once a month;
4) Correctional Services were authorised to subject him to further conditions.

The Minister appealed that when such issues happened, the Department and Ministry must be given the opportunity to explain the facts and circumstances. In reaching its decision the Boards must look at the sentence, the conditions, and the system of parole and ensure there was no preferential treatment. He assured the Committee that Mr Scott Crossley did not receive any preferential treatment.

The Chairperson repeated what he had said before. The Committee was visiting prisons and the relevant authorities had said that Mr Scott Crossley must be released. However, although he did not wish to interfere in the Parole Board’s decisions, he felt constrained to point out that there were people sitting in prison that should have been released months ago. He had a list of people who were under the Minister’s attention; those people had very lengthy sentences but the courts decided that they must be released. He was particularly concerned about one offender sentenced for murder, where the Minister had turned down the application for parole, but the final decision was that he be released immediately. He was not sure that there was indeed fairness prevailing, and if this was the case, then the Committee must speak out.

Minister Balfour responded that he was taking the matter of the Deon Brand case further, and the other three were being taken to the Constitutional Court because the judiciary could not get involved in executive matters. Deon Brand had served eighteen years out of a life sentence. The legislation was amended last year so that a life-sentence offender must serve at least twenty years before being eligible for parole. Mr Brand had lied to the Court, where the matter was referred after the request for parole had been refused. The Minister had subsequently taken the matter on appeal, as he believed that a further two years had to be served by Mr Brand before becoming eligible. It was unfortunate that the perception was being created that white people were being turned free on parole. 
|
He noted that one of Mr Scott-Crossley’s co-accused, who had been found guilty of the murder, was still serving his sentence, although the cases were tried together. There was a different verdict and a different sentence and it could not be claimed that the co-accused should be released, because each case was dealt with on its merits. He agreed with the Chairperson that the Committee had every right to speak on issues that troubled it, but noted that it must keep within the boundaries and the frame of the law.

The Chairperson responded that the public was shocked by the inhumane manner in which the deceased had been treated, and the general feeling remained that it was a very short time before his release on parole.

Groote Schuur Incident
Mr S Mahote (ANC) noted that there were no officials from Pollsmoor present. At the last presentation the Committee had asked for an explanation from Pollsmoor management.

Ms S Seaton (IFP) was concerned that the presentation document was the same as presented at a previous meeting, with nothing new. The Committee needed answers to the questions posed at that meeting.

Ms S Rajbally (MF) supported Ms Seaton, saying that the Committee needed a full report back on outstanding matters, and pointing out that serious crimes had been committed.

Ms L Chikunga (ANC) also agreed that the Committee had requested Pollsmoor management to report, and if they had not in attendance there was no need for the Committee to discuss the matter further.

The Chairperson reminded Commissioner James Smallberger that that was the Committee’s decision. The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) had now attended for the third time without the management of Pollsmoor, so it was seemingly not taking the Portfolio Committee seriously. The Committee would therefore not be discussing the report and would give DCS time to get Pollsmoor management and the people who were involved, to report. He would not allow Comm Smallberger to respond.

Comm James Smallberger, Regional Commissioner, Western Cape, asked for guidance. He was not aware that Pollsmoor management was required to be present as he recalled that discussions would be deferred to another closed session. He noted that responses to comments and questions raised last time were available, but he could not explain why these had not been sent. He would give feedback on this to the National Commissioner.

Ms Seaton said if there were written responses, the Committee should have received them, but had not.

The Chairperson referred to the Minutes of 13 May, which stated that the officials involved must be present at its next meeting.

Lacote Escape from Johannesburg Maximum Prison
Commissioner Millicent Malebye, Deputy Commissioner, Legal and Special Operations, DCS,  reported that in respect of the escape of Mr Lacote from the Johannesburg Maximum Security facility, there was an internal disciplinary hearing to be held against eleven members, in relation to their alleged defalcations, failure to comply, negligence and other matters. They had not been notified of the outcome so the investigation was still regarded as pending. The Department of Correctional Services was working closely with South African Police Service (SAPS) but there was no breakthrough yet, and Mr Lacote, the escapee, had not been arrested. The disciplinary hearings would be started as soon as the eleven colleagues had been formally charged.

Mr J Selfe (DA) said the briefing would be enriched by the presence of the people involved in the incident, in the same way as the Pollsmoor incident. He noted that between the date of the escape and the realisation that Mr Lacote was missing, during 8 to 10 April 2008, the release document SAP127 and the identifying information of the SAPS officials and of the inmate were removed from the files of DCS, which seemed to imply collusion. However, he noted that collusion had not been mentioned as one of the charges to be laid. He asked why this was so. 

Comm Malebye responded that indeed the documents had been stolen, which pointed to member involvement. However the DCS had not been able to establish who of the members that were at reception could have taken those documents, so were not able to charge for theft or collusion, although charges of negligence were to be laid. More than one person had access to the documents.

Ms Rajbally was concerned with the utilisation of inexperienced officials in such an important department.

Comm Malebye pointed out that there was lack of supervision. On that day one of the officials was not experienced, but worked as part of a team, not alone. If there was sufficient monitoring by management this could have been avoided.

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Selfe’s proposal to treat this issue the same as the Groote Schuur one and agreed that the officials who were involved must also come to the meeting.

Mr H Cupido (ACDP) stated that the challenges DCS faced on a daily basis were not something new. Not only should this Department have experienced staff on duty, but the whole system should be set up to prevent inmates escaping from correctional centres. Lack of supervision and management was a very lame excuse. There was a need for integrity of the officials and of the Department. The DCS was supposed to support the Courts and the justice system by keeping people in accordance with the sentences, and he found these excuses unacceptable.

Mr Mahote appreciated the Commissioner’s honesty in her input, but noted the Committee could go no further on this issue until the people that were involved could answer. He asked how far the Department was with the vetting of officials.

Rev L Tolo (ANC) supported Mr Mahote. He specifically asked whether officials on duty had taken down the details of the “police” who took Mr Lacote away.

Ms Chikunga asked whether it was a coincidence that there was an inexperienced official and lack of supervision and management on the day that Mr Lacote escaped, or if this was normal practice. She asked if the managers were included amongst the people who were being charged.

Comm Malebye responded that it was not a once-off; it was established that the member attending to those people who were posing as police officials had been working at Johannesburg for less than a month, with other officials. She confirmed that managers had been charged for what they had done or failed to do in connection with this incident. She pointed out that the two “police officers” had identified themselves with what appeared to be genuine and valid Police ID cards, and photocopies were made and filed. However, these were included in the missing documents.

The Chairperson explained why the Committee took such issues so seriously. As a first principle, nobody being kept in prison should be permitted to escape. He was concerned about a further incident reported the previous day, where a person already sentenced to two life sentences had escaped. Mr Lacote was still at large, and nobody seemed to know where he was or what he was doing. The missing file appeared to point clearly to an inside job.

The Chairperson stressed that all those officials involved in the Lacote incident, as well as the Groote Schuur incident, must appear before the Committee. He pointed out that junior staff should not always be punished when managers were not doing their work. For this reason he requested that both Commissioners would be required to return, on a date to be arranged, with all those involved.

Comm Malebye asked for clarity whether the Committee wished to interview the Head of the institution.

Ms Chikunga responded that both the Head of the Centre and Section Head should make themselves available.

Comm Malebye said if they were still subject to internal disciplinary hearing there could be legal implications of their appearance.

The Chairperson said the Committee was not going to accept any excuses, as the issues must be finalised even if the investigations were discussed in closed meeting. He pointed out that escaped prisoners posed a danger to society. Mr Lacote in particular was alleged to be a ringleader of fraud and white-collar crimes.

Mr Selfe suggested it would be helpful if whoever was in charge of the SAPS investigation was also present.

The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretary to get the name of the person investigating the criminal case, and also request his or her presence.

Mr Smallberger believed that the same principle would apply to the issue of the criminal investigation.
He would provide the Committee with the information.

These investigations would be held over until 16 September.

Visit to Barberton Prison
The Chairperson noted that he could apply for special permission to undertake the visit to Barberton prison. It was agreed that the following Tuesday would be the date of the visit. 

Middeldrift Prison
Ms Seaton had raised an issue that apparently a hand grenade and ammunition were found in the premises next to the Middeldrift prison last week, and enquired how this had occurred. 

Ms Chikunga believed that the inmates being permitted to use telephone booths was giving them access to the outside world without any supervision, so that they could plan how and when to bring such items in to the prisons. She proposed that by a set date there should be no more telephone booths that could be easily accessed by inmates. She pointed out that many also had cell phones and were able to plan that way. The Committee had discussed these issues numerous times but were not seeing substantial changes. She proposed that inmates should not have uncontrolled access to telephone booths, cell phones, and television, and that the Committee should actually check if that was happening, and, if not, recommend that management in the institution be severely sanctioned, such as demoted, for failing to do his work. She said that it was time this Committee was taken seriously.

The Chairperson raised the point that prisoners must work.

The Chairperson proposed that when the Committee visited Middeldrift he would ask the Commissioner to investigate, and he asked that the National Commissioner be present.

Mr Mahote had noticed there was a lot of development in this area, and properties were situated very close to the prison. He proposed that in the long term that prison should be closed, or maybe used for a training centre, but definitely not used as a maximum prison.

Rev Tolo said the Committee had the power to try to give direction to the Department. He noted that the message being indirectly put about was that if a person wanted a good education and good privileges, he must be imprisoned. He emphasised that the privileges were over-generous. 

Mr Mahote said the issue of privileges and rights had been discussed, and decisions were taken at a previous meeting. There was even a suggestion to end those privileges. The non-governmental organisations (NGOs) had much to say on the issue. He believed that there was a need also for this Committee to sit with the Portfolio Committee on Justice. He felt that the judicial officers were too lax, and the Portfolio Committee was getting the blame.

Ms Rajbally agreed the Committee should exercise its authority.

Ms Chikunga supported the visit to Middeldrift, but noted that she would only be able to make it on Wednesday. Members agreed that the visit should take place on Wednesday.

She suggested that as the Committee had little time left there should be a commencement of the evaluation of its work, so that the next Committee appointed would be able to know what they had done.

Mr Bloem agreed with that suggestion.

The meeting was adjourned.