❓ Ms Mettam questions the Attorney General regarding the early release and reoffending of Luke Noormets, criticising the government's response and the decision-making process of the Prisoners Review Board. The Attorney General defends the board's decision while acknowledging information gaps and promising internal review.
AnsweredQoN 633Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD —
EARLY PAROLE — LUKE NOORMETS
633. Ms L. METTAM to the Attorney General:
I have a supplementary question. Why
has it taken another example of a violent offender being released early and reoffending for this government to act, and when
will we find out the outcome of the review into the reckless decision ,
which has ended in tragedy?
EARLY PAROLE — LUKE NOORMETS
633. Ms L. METTAM to the Attorney General:
I have a supplementary question. Why
has it taken another example of a violent offender being released early and reoffending for this government to act, and when
will we find out the outcome of the review into the reckless decision ,
which has ended in tragedy?
AnswerView source ↗
Firstly,
it is not a reckless decision. It was a decision made on the evidence before
the board at the time. Unfortunately, not all the information that had
been gathered by the police some years before was placed before the board
because it was not part of a conviction. Optimally, it should have been before
the board so that it had a greater view of the person's background, but
it was not. An inquiry is not being commissioned, as such. I, as the Attorney
General with the Prisoners Review Board fitting within the basket of portfolio
responsibilities that I have, albeit that it is a completely independent body, will be making the appropriate inquiries
about what we can do to improve the system so more of this information
is put before the board at the time. It has to be put before the board and it
should have had the information before it that was on the police computer.
it is not a reckless decision. It was a decision made on the evidence before
the board at the time. Unfortunately, not all the information that had
been gathered by the police some years before was placed before the board
because it was not part of a conviction. Optimally, it should have been before
the board so that it had a greater view of the person's background, but
it was not. An inquiry is not being commissioned, as such. I, as the Attorney
General with the Prisoners Review Board fitting within the basket of portfolio
responsibilities that I have, albeit that it is a completely independent body, will be making the appropriate inquiries
about what we can do to improve the system so more of this information
is put before the board at the time. It has to be put before the board and it
should have had the information before it that was on the police computer.
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.