❓ A parliamentary question regarding the views of prison officers on a prisoner's progression to home leave, and the process by which the Attorney General became aware of these views. The Attorney General's response details the process and confirms unanimous support.
AnsweredQoN 605Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
On ABC Radio 720 on Wednesday, 26 September the Attorney General mentioned that among the views he relied upon when allowing the prisoner being discussed to proceed to home leave were those of the prison officers responsible for the prisoner. (1) How many prison officers expressed the view? (2) To whom did they express the view? (3) What were the views expressed, and did they vary from prison officer to prison officer? (4) Were any prison officers against the prisoner’s proceeding further in a release program? (5) How did the Attorney General become aware of the views? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Four prison officers were directly involved with the unit conference. The views of the officers involved were expressed at the unit conference. The views of the prisoner’s unit officer and industrial officer were also sought as part of the usual process. (2) The view of the unit conference was relayed to the director, sentence management in the form of a report and recommendation decision slip, which was then compiled with the community corrections officer’s report and forwarded to the Parole Board for review. The board’s recommendation was then passed to the Minister for Justice to request the Governor’s approval to proceed with the program. (3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(1) How many prison officers expressed the view? (2) To whom did they express the view? (3) What were the views expressed, and did they vary from prison officer to prison officer? (4) Were any prison officers against the prisoner’s proceeding further in a release program? (5) How did the Attorney General become aware of the views? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Four prison officers were directly involved with the unit conference. The views of the officers involved were expressed at the unit conference. The views of the prisoner’s unit officer and industrial officer were also sought as part of the usual process. (2) The view of the unit conference was relayed to the director, sentence management in the form of a report and recommendation decision slip, which was then compiled with the community corrections officer’s report and forwarded to the Parole Board for review. The board’s recommendation was then passed to the Minister for Justice to request the Governor’s approval to proceed with the program. (3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(2) To whom did they express the view? (3) What were the views expressed, and did they vary from prison officer to prison officer? (4) Were any prison officers against the prisoner’s proceeding further in a release program? (5) How did the Attorney General become aware of the views? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Four prison officers were directly involved with the unit conference. The views of the officers involved were expressed at the unit conference. The views of the prisoner’s unit officer and industrial officer were also sought as part of the usual process. (2) The view of the unit conference was relayed to the director, sentence management in the form of a report and recommendation decision slip, which was then compiled with the community corrections officer’s report and forwarded to the Parole Board for review. The board’s recommendation was then passed to the Minister for Justice to request the Governor’s approval to proceed with the program. (3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(3) What were the views expressed, and did they vary from prison officer to prison officer? (4) Were any prison officers against the prisoner’s proceeding further in a release program? (5) How did the Attorney General become aware of the views? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Four prison officers were directly involved with the unit conference. The views of the officers involved were expressed at the unit conference. The views of the prisoner’s unit officer and industrial officer were also sought as part of the usual process. (2) The view of the unit conference was relayed to the director, sentence management in the form of a report and recommendation decision slip, which was then compiled with the community corrections officer’s report and forwarded to the Parole Board for review. The board’s recommendation was then passed to the Minister for Justice to request the Governor’s approval to proceed with the program. (3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(4) Were any prison officers against the prisoner’s proceeding further in a release program? (5) How did the Attorney General become aware of the views? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Four prison officers were directly involved with the unit conference. The views of the officers involved were expressed at the unit conference. The views of the prisoner’s unit officer and industrial officer were also sought as part of the usual process. (2) The view of the unit conference was relayed to the director, sentence management in the form of a report and recommendation decision slip, which was then compiled with the community corrections officer’s report and forwarded to the Parole Board for review. The board’s recommendation was then passed to the Minister for Justice to request the Governor’s approval to proceed with the program. (3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(5) How did the Attorney General become aware of the views? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Four prison officers were directly involved with the unit conference. The views of the officers involved were expressed at the unit conference. The views of the prisoner’s unit officer and industrial officer were also sought as part of the usual process. (2) The view of the unit conference was relayed to the director, sentence management in the form of a report and recommendation decision slip, which was then compiled with the community corrections officer’s report and forwarded to the Parole Board for review. The board’s recommendation was then passed to the Minister for Justice to request the Governor’s approval to proceed with the program. (3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Four prison officers were directly involved with the unit conference. The views of the officers involved were expressed at the unit conference. The views of the prisoner’s unit officer and industrial officer were also sought as part of the usual process. (2) The view of the unit conference was relayed to the director, sentence management in the form of a report and recommendation decision slip, which was then compiled with the community corrections officer’s report and forwarded to the Parole Board for review. The board’s recommendation was then passed to the Minister for Justice to request the Governor’s approval to proceed with the program. (3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Four prison officers were directly involved with the unit conference. The views of the officers involved were expressed at the unit conference. The views of the prisoner’s unit officer and industrial officer were also sought as part of the usual process. (2) The view of the unit conference was relayed to the director, sentence management in the form of a report and recommendation decision slip, which was then compiled with the community corrections officer’s report and forwarded to the Parole Board for review. The board’s recommendation was then passed to the Minister for Justice to request the Governor’s approval to proceed with the program. (3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(1) Four prison officers were directly involved with the unit conference. The views of the officers involved were expressed at the unit conference. The views of the prisoner’s unit officer and industrial officer were also sought as part of the usual process. (2) The view of the unit conference was relayed to the director, sentence management in the form of a report and recommendation decision slip, which was then compiled with the community corrections officer’s report and forwarded to the Parole Board for review. The board’s recommendation was then passed to the Minister for Justice to request the Governor’s approval to proceed with the program. (3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(2) The view of the unit conference was relayed to the director, sentence management in the form of a report and recommendation decision slip, which was then compiled with the community corrections officer’s report and forwarded to the Parole Board for review. The board’s recommendation was then passed to the Minister for Justice to request the Governor’s approval to proceed with the program. (3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(1) How many prison officers expressed the view? (2) To whom did they express the view? (3) What were the views expressed, and did they vary from prison officer to prison officer? (4) Were any prison officers against the prisoner’s proceeding further in a release program? (5) How did the Attorney General become aware of the views? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Four prison officers were directly involved with the unit conference. The views of the officers involved were expressed at the unit conference. The views of the prisoner’s unit officer and industrial officer were also sought as part of the usual process. (2) The view of the unit conference was relayed to the director, sentence management in the form of a report and recommendation decision slip, which was then compiled with the community corrections officer’s report and forwarded to the Parole Board for review. The board’s recommendation was then passed to the Minister for Justice to request the Governor’s approval to proceed with the program. (3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(2) To whom did they express the view? (3) What were the views expressed, and did they vary from prison officer to prison officer? (4) Were any prison officers against the prisoner’s proceeding further in a release program? (5) How did the Attorney General become aware of the views? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Four prison officers were directly involved with the unit conference. The views of the officers involved were expressed at the unit conference. The views of the prisoner’s unit officer and industrial officer were also sought as part of the usual process. (2) The view of the unit conference was relayed to the director, sentence management in the form of a report and recommendation decision slip, which was then compiled with the community corrections officer’s report and forwarded to the Parole Board for review. The board’s recommendation was then passed to the Minister for Justice to request the Governor’s approval to proceed with the program. (3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(3) What were the views expressed, and did they vary from prison officer to prison officer? (4) Were any prison officers against the prisoner’s proceeding further in a release program? (5) How did the Attorney General become aware of the views? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Four prison officers were directly involved with the unit conference. The views of the officers involved were expressed at the unit conference. The views of the prisoner’s unit officer and industrial officer were also sought as part of the usual process. (2) The view of the unit conference was relayed to the director, sentence management in the form of a report and recommendation decision slip, which was then compiled with the community corrections officer’s report and forwarded to the Parole Board for review. The board’s recommendation was then passed to the Minister for Justice to request the Governor’s approval to proceed with the program. (3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(4) Were any prison officers against the prisoner’s proceeding further in a release program? (5) How did the Attorney General become aware of the views? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Four prison officers were directly involved with the unit conference. The views of the officers involved were expressed at the unit conference. The views of the prisoner’s unit officer and industrial officer were also sought as part of the usual process. (2) The view of the unit conference was relayed to the director, sentence management in the form of a report and recommendation decision slip, which was then compiled with the community corrections officer’s report and forwarded to the Parole Board for review. The board’s recommendation was then passed to the Minister for Justice to request the Governor’s approval to proceed with the program. (3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(5) How did the Attorney General become aware of the views? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Four prison officers were directly involved with the unit conference. The views of the officers involved were expressed at the unit conference. The views of the prisoner’s unit officer and industrial officer were also sought as part of the usual process. (2) The view of the unit conference was relayed to the director, sentence management in the form of a report and recommendation decision slip, which was then compiled with the community corrections officer’s report and forwarded to the Parole Board for review. The board’s recommendation was then passed to the Minister for Justice to request the Governor’s approval to proceed with the program. (3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Four prison officers were directly involved with the unit conference. The views of the officers involved were expressed at the unit conference. The views of the prisoner’s unit officer and industrial officer were also sought as part of the usual process. (2) The view of the unit conference was relayed to the director, sentence management in the form of a report and recommendation decision slip, which was then compiled with the community corrections officer’s report and forwarded to the Parole Board for review. The board’s recommendation was then passed to the Minister for Justice to request the Governor’s approval to proceed with the program. (3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Four prison officers were directly involved with the unit conference. The views of the officers involved were expressed at the unit conference. The views of the prisoner’s unit officer and industrial officer were also sought as part of the usual process. (2) The view of the unit conference was relayed to the director, sentence management in the form of a report and recommendation decision slip, which was then compiled with the community corrections officer’s report and forwarded to the Parole Board for review. The board’s recommendation was then passed to the Minister for Justice to request the Governor’s approval to proceed with the program. (3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(1) Four prison officers were directly involved with the unit conference. The views of the officers involved were expressed at the unit conference. The views of the prisoner’s unit officer and industrial officer were also sought as part of the usual process. (2) The view of the unit conference was relayed to the director, sentence management in the form of a report and recommendation decision slip, which was then compiled with the community corrections officer’s report and forwarded to the Parole Board for review. The board’s recommendation was then passed to the Minister for Justice to request the Governor’s approval to proceed with the program. (3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(2) The view of the unit conference was relayed to the director, sentence management in the form of a report and recommendation decision slip, which was then compiled with the community corrections officer’s report and forwarded to the Parole Board for review. The board’s recommendation was then passed to the Minister for Justice to request the Governor’s approval to proceed with the program. (3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(3) The view expressed by the unit conference was that the prisoner should progress to stage 2 of the approved pre-release program. This view was unanimous. (4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(4) The minutes of the case conference do not note any negative views held by officers concerning the prisoner proceeding to the second stage of the pre-release program. (5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
(5) During the normal course of the administrative process. No doubt when Hon Peter Foss recommended to the Governor that approval be given to proceed with the pre-release program in 1997, he relied on the views of the same people and the same process.
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.