The case of Daniel Heiss presents a great difficulty for not only ACT authorities but the prison system Australia-wide. Heiss was sentenced to life imprisonment 10 years ago in the Northern Territory. He was found guilty of a particularly gruesome murder in the Northern Territory and is serving his sentence in Alice Springs. The bulk of his family, however, live in the ACT.
If rehabilitation is to have any place in the criminal justice system, it would be better if criminals were jailed at a place reasonably close to their families. Even in the case of the most heinous offences, the system should not give up on criminals but aim for their rehabilitation one day. The question is – how is that day determined.
The Northern Territory has a minimum term of 20 years for those sentenced to life imprisonment. It is not a minimum mandatory sentence – it is a period sent from those who have already been sentenced. In an ideal world, it would be better if each case could be reviewed regularly, rather than have blanket minimums. It may be that one person can reform more quickly than others and be returned to society to perform a useful role more quickly than others. However, the elected parliament of the Northern Territory has set its minimum for people sentenced to life – for the worst sort of crimes. Heiss’s crime fits that category.
Heiss has applied to be transferred to the ACT under an Australia-wide prisoner-swap system which the ACT has signed up to. The aim of the scheme is rehabilitation and to prevent punishment of relatives who would otherwise have to spend large amounts of time and money to visit their loved one.
The difficulty for the ACT is that it has no jail. Its prisoners go to NSW. So the ACT would have to pay for the upkeep of any prisoner transferred under the scheme. According to Chief Justice Miles, these considerations are irrelevant. He seems right there. But there are other considerations before the ACT Attorney-General permits Heiss to transfer to the ACT.
Under ACT law, Heiss might be eligible for parole almost immediately. If he is paroled it would defeat the intention of the legislature of the Northern Territory, the place where he committed the crime and was sentenced. While on parole, there might even be nothing to stop him visiting the Northern Territory.
It is fine to have a scheme to transfer prisoners so they can be closer to relatives for support and rehabilitation. But that scheme should not be used as a backdoor method to defeat the legislative intent of another jurisdiction. In this federation each state and territory should respect the laws of the other states and territories. The scheme should be revisited to ensure the sending jurisdiction agrees and that it does not become a backdoor method for getting early parole.