❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice inquires about changes to parole and prerelease programs between 1997 and 2001, specifically regarding a prisoner's progression through the program and any procedural changes since a change in government. The response details administrative and documentation changes, clarifies the timeline for the prisoner's program stages, and confirms participation in off-prison programs.
AnsweredQoN 622Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
PAROLE AND PRERELEASE PROGRAMS, CHANGES
(1) Between 1997 and 2001, did any change occur in the processes for the submission to the Attorney General or the Minister for Justice regarding the Governor’s approval for prerelease programs or parole? (2) In the same period, did any changes occur in the documentation presented to the Attorney General or Minister for Justice on such occasions? (3) If so, what were the changes in each case? (4) With regard to the answer to question without notice 405, when did the prerelease program referred to contemplate that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2? (5) For what reason did the prisoner not proceed to stage 2 in accordance with the program? (6) What, if anything, occurred in 2001 that was different from the situation between 1997 and 2001? (7) Did the prisoner actually participate in off-prison section 94 programs in any of the years - (a) 1997; (b) 1998; (c) 1999; (d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year? (8) Has any change in procedures or documentation occurred since the change of Government? If so, what? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS
(1) Between 1997 and 2001, did any change occur in the processes for the submission to the Attorney General or the Minister for Justice regarding the Governor’s approval for prerelease programs or parole? (2) In the same period, did any changes occur in the documentation presented to the Attorney General or Minister for Justice on such occasions? (3) If so, what were the changes in each case? (4) With regard to the answer to question without notice 405, when did the prerelease program referred to contemplate that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2? (5) For what reason did the prisoner not proceed to stage 2 in accordance with the program? (6) What, if anything, occurred in 2001 that was different from the situation between 1997 and 2001? (7) Did the prisoner actually participate in off-prison section 94 programs in any of the years - (a) 1997; (b) 1998; (c) 1999; (d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year? (8) Has any change in procedures or documentation occurred since the change of Government? If so, what? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS
AnswerView source ↗
(1) Yes, there were changes in the administration of the process. (2) Yes, there were changes in the way the documentation was formatted for presentation. (3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(2) In the same period, did any changes occur in the documentation presented to the Attorney General or Minister for Justice on such occasions? (3) If so, what were the changes in each case? (4) With regard to the answer to question without notice 405, when did the prerelease program referred to contemplate that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2? (5) For what reason did the prisoner not proceed to stage 2 in accordance with the program? (6) What, if anything, occurred in 2001 that was different from the situation between 1997 and 2001? (7) Did the prisoner actually participate in off-prison section 94 programs in any of the years - (a) 1997; (b) 1998; (c) 1999; (d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year? (8) Has any change in procedures or documentation occurred since the change of Government? If so, what? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: (1) Yes, there were changes in the administration of the process. (2) Yes, there were changes in the way the documentation was formatted for presentation. (3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(3) If so, what were the changes in each case? (4) With regard to the answer to question without notice 405, when did the prerelease program referred to contemplate that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2? (5) For what reason did the prisoner not proceed to stage 2 in accordance with the program? (6) What, if anything, occurred in 2001 that was different from the situation between 1997 and 2001? (7) Did the prisoner actually participate in off-prison section 94 programs in any of the years - (a) 1997; (b) 1998; (c) 1999; (d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year? (8) Has any change in procedures or documentation occurred since the change of Government? If so, what? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: (1) Yes, there were changes in the administration of the process. (2) Yes, there were changes in the way the documentation was formatted for presentation. (3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(4) With regard to the answer to question without notice 405, when did the prerelease program referred to contemplate that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2? (5) For what reason did the prisoner not proceed to stage 2 in accordance with the program? (6) What, if anything, occurred in 2001 that was different from the situation between 1997 and 2001? (7) Did the prisoner actually participate in off-prison section 94 programs in any of the years - (a) 1997; (b) 1998; (c) 1999; (d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year? (8) Has any change in procedures or documentation occurred since the change of Government? If so, what? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: (1) Yes, there were changes in the administration of the process. (2) Yes, there were changes in the way the documentation was formatted for presentation. (3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(5) For what reason did the prisoner not proceed to stage 2 in accordance with the program? (6) What, if anything, occurred in 2001 that was different from the situation between 1997 and 2001? (7) Did the prisoner actually participate in off-prison section 94 programs in any of the years - (a) 1997; (b) 1998; (c) 1999; (d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year? (8) Has any change in procedures or documentation occurred since the change of Government? If so, what? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: (1) Yes, there were changes in the administration of the process. (2) Yes, there were changes in the way the documentation was formatted for presentation. (3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(6) What, if anything, occurred in 2001 that was different from the situation between 1997 and 2001? (7) Did the prisoner actually participate in off-prison section 94 programs in any of the years - (a) 1997; (b) 1998; (c) 1999; (d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year? (8) Has any change in procedures or documentation occurred since the change of Government? If so, what? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: (1) Yes, there were changes in the administration of the process. (2) Yes, there were changes in the way the documentation was formatted for presentation. (3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(7) Did the prisoner actually participate in off-prison section 94 programs in any of the years - (a) 1997; (b) 1998; (c) 1999; (d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year? (8) Has any change in procedures or documentation occurred since the change of Government? If so, what? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: (1) Yes, there were changes in the administration of the process. (2) Yes, there were changes in the way the documentation was formatted for presentation. (3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(b) 1998; (c) 1999; (d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year?
(c) 1999; (d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year?
(d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year?
(e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year?
If so, on how many occasions in each year?
Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: (1) Yes, there were changes in the administration of the process. (2) Yes, there were changes in the way the documentation was formatted for presentation. (3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(1) Yes, there were changes in the administration of the process. (2) Yes, there were changes in the way the documentation was formatted for presentation. (3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(2) Yes, there were changes in the way the documentation was formatted for presentation. (3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(2) In the same period, did any changes occur in the documentation presented to the Attorney General or Minister for Justice on such occasions? (3) If so, what were the changes in each case? (4) With regard to the answer to question without notice 405, when did the prerelease program referred to contemplate that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2? (5) For what reason did the prisoner not proceed to stage 2 in accordance with the program? (6) What, if anything, occurred in 2001 that was different from the situation between 1997 and 2001? (7) Did the prisoner actually participate in off-prison section 94 programs in any of the years - (a) 1997; (b) 1998; (c) 1999; (d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year? (8) Has any change in procedures or documentation occurred since the change of Government? If so, what? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: (1) Yes, there were changes in the administration of the process. (2) Yes, there were changes in the way the documentation was formatted for presentation. (3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(3) If so, what were the changes in each case? (4) With regard to the answer to question without notice 405, when did the prerelease program referred to contemplate that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2? (5) For what reason did the prisoner not proceed to stage 2 in accordance with the program? (6) What, if anything, occurred in 2001 that was different from the situation between 1997 and 2001? (7) Did the prisoner actually participate in off-prison section 94 programs in any of the years - (a) 1997; (b) 1998; (c) 1999; (d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year? (8) Has any change in procedures or documentation occurred since the change of Government? If so, what? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: (1) Yes, there were changes in the administration of the process. (2) Yes, there were changes in the way the documentation was formatted for presentation. (3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(4) With regard to the answer to question without notice 405, when did the prerelease program referred to contemplate that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2? (5) For what reason did the prisoner not proceed to stage 2 in accordance with the program? (6) What, if anything, occurred in 2001 that was different from the situation between 1997 and 2001? (7) Did the prisoner actually participate in off-prison section 94 programs in any of the years - (a) 1997; (b) 1998; (c) 1999; (d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year? (8) Has any change in procedures or documentation occurred since the change of Government? If so, what? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: (1) Yes, there were changes in the administration of the process. (2) Yes, there were changes in the way the documentation was formatted for presentation. (3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(5) For what reason did the prisoner not proceed to stage 2 in accordance with the program? (6) What, if anything, occurred in 2001 that was different from the situation between 1997 and 2001? (7) Did the prisoner actually participate in off-prison section 94 programs in any of the years - (a) 1997; (b) 1998; (c) 1999; (d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year? (8) Has any change in procedures or documentation occurred since the change of Government? If so, what? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: (1) Yes, there were changes in the administration of the process. (2) Yes, there were changes in the way the documentation was formatted for presentation. (3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(6) What, if anything, occurred in 2001 that was different from the situation between 1997 and 2001? (7) Did the prisoner actually participate in off-prison section 94 programs in any of the years - (a) 1997; (b) 1998; (c) 1999; (d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year? (8) Has any change in procedures or documentation occurred since the change of Government? If so, what? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: (1) Yes, there were changes in the administration of the process. (2) Yes, there were changes in the way the documentation was formatted for presentation. (3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(7) Did the prisoner actually participate in off-prison section 94 programs in any of the years - (a) 1997; (b) 1998; (c) 1999; (d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year? (8) Has any change in procedures or documentation occurred since the change of Government? If so, what? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: (1) Yes, there were changes in the administration of the process. (2) Yes, there were changes in the way the documentation was formatted for presentation. (3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(b) 1998; (c) 1999; (d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year?
(c) 1999; (d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year?
(d) 2000; and (e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year?
(e) 2001? If so, on how many occasions in each year?
If so, on how many occasions in each year?
Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: (1) Yes, there were changes in the administration of the process. (2) Yes, there were changes in the way the documentation was formatted for presentation. (3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(1) Yes, there were changes in the administration of the process. (2) Yes, there were changes in the way the documentation was formatted for presentation. (3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(2) Yes, there were changes in the way the documentation was formatted for presentation. (3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(3) Previously the Parole Board would report to the Attorney General recommending prisoner participation in a prerelease program, the terms of which were set out in the report together with the necessary leave of absence and Executive Council minutes in draft form. The former Attorney General required the board to present details of a prisoner being recommended for inclusion in a prerelease program. He would then decide whether a prerelease program should be formatted and presented to the Governor in Executive Council. Previously the Parole Board would provide its report and any previous Parole Board reports on the prisoner to the Attorney General together with its recommendation. The former Attorney General required documentation on the prisoner as contained in the Department of Justice file as well as Parole Board reports. Comprehensive files on the prisoner were presented to the Attorney General, together with Parole Board recommendations, for his approval or otherwise. (4) The Parole Board decision of 25 July 1997 notes Executive Council approval for stage one of the prerelease program to commence. Stage 1 of the program was amended from three months to six months by a ministerial decision. Therefore, it was initially contemplated that the prisoner would proceed to stage 2 after review, in approximately late January 1998. (5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(5) The prisoner did not proceed to stage 2 because approval to proceed continued to be under the consideration of the previous Attorney General. (6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(6) The Parole Board reconsidered this case and recommended to the Attorney General that the prisoner proceed to stage 2. (7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
(7) Yes. Section 94 outings 1997, 10 officer escorted duties; section 94 outings 1998, six driver training officer escorted duties; and section 94 outings for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. (8) Yes. The process has been simplified. The Parole Board recommends inclusion in the prerelease program to the Attorney General.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.