Networked Knowledge Media Briefing

Networked Knowledge Derek Bromley Homepage: http://netk.net.au/BromleyHome.asp

Robyn Milera.

13th June 2013

At present Derek Bromley is housed at the having been transferred there from Port Augusta prison late in 2012. The situation has many benefits. However, in the present circumstances as a whole, it is inadequate in terms of real preparation for release. A placement at the Adelaide Pre-Release Centre (APC) is urgently overdue.

Derek was eligible for release on parole on 12 December 2006. He submitted an application for parole on 16th July 2007. As a part of the annual review process in October of that year, Derek was interviewed by the Parole Board and it was recommended that Bromley be considered at the earliest opportunity for transfer to the Adelaide Pre-Release Centre.

Derek was subsequently transferred from Pt Augusta to the APC on 6 November 2007. The board communicated concern to the manager of the Prisoner Assessment Unit (PAU) that Derek was still not getting the re-socialisation he vitally needed in order to gain work and opportunities to develop personal and community links for any future release.

He was required to complete an extensive range of programs and courses implemented by the department to help prisoners to address and overcome offending behaviours. For a period of time, as one who maintained his innocence, Derek refused to participate. According to advice from the former CEO of the Department of Corrections to Derek’s counsel,1 Derek was only hindered at that time in his endeavours to achieve release on parole, because of the uncompleted courses. Clearly, it was a requirement that a prisoner demonstrate remorse or admission of the type of crime addressed in these courses before they are considered candidates for release.

Eventually, Derek decided to participate without compromising his claim of innocence. He completed every program required. He received excellent reports as to his accomplishments, participation and leadership. Years have passed. To this point it has made NO difference to his progress whatsoever.

On 4 November 2008, Derek was transferred OUT of the APC on the basis that he may have committed an offence. He was cleared of any wrong doing. All charges were dropped as the result of a confession by the actual offender. Institutional reports concerning him continued to be positive. Despite this he was removed from the APC, and the Manager of the PAU, without providing reasons, disapproved of Derek’s return to the APC and advised that the Director wouldn’t vary his decision. Reasons were not provided.

He was sent back to Port Augusta Prison in June 2009. This meant that his previously approved re- socialisation efforts were discontinued. He went from positive preparation for release, having done everything else that was required of him, to six months incarceration in the and

1 Letter from Peter Severin, CEO of Department for Correctional Services. then return to Port Augusta Prison with no communication as to reasons. This was cruel punishment and without justification. During at least some of this his period back in Port Augusta, there was no apparent case management plan in place for Derek. He did have time in the Mulga cottages at PAP but this afforded him no re-socialisation of the kind that would satisfy the requirements of the Parole Board. He followed every process open to him at that facility but there were no further reintegration programs available that could satisfy the requirements of the Parole Board.

On 14 July 2009, the Parole Board refused Derek’s application for release on Parole yet again, still waiting for him to receive appropriate, sustained and effective re-socialisation.

In May of 2012 he applied again for release on Parole. Again he was refused because the DCS had not provided the kind of re-socialisation opportunities that had been consistently recommended and requested. Once again there was nothing he could do to improve his position. He was never informed of anything that he might do to positively affect it. He was never informed of issues that he should correct. He has been obstructed despite his best efforts and his own insistence that he needs, ‘to be taken away from the prison mentality because it’s completely different to the mentality of society and I need to get used to society again...I need to be put back into society gradually.’ Every refusal of parole meant another entire year of incarceration before he could apply again, and if the DCS provided no progressive, adequate reintegration in the mean time, it unavoidably meant another year and another year. Derek had no power to substantively improve his prospects of recommendation.

Appeals of loved ones to various government Ministers and departmental officials have been met with dismissive, illogical responses which failed to address reasonable concerns. Usually the parole board’s refusal to recommend parole is cited in letters as the problem. But the real stalemate has been the obstructive management of the re-socialisation process – this was not Derek’s fault.

The former Minister of Correctional Services, Jennifer Rankine, indicated in a letter to me that the Department does not require a confession of guilt.2 However, Derek’s co-accused was released on parole years ago. The then Minister went on the say that adequate re-socialisation and release was possible from Correctional facilities other than the Adelaide Pre-Release Centre. This was clearly not the reality, at least in Derek’s case.

As already mentioned, Mr Bromley was transferred to Cadell Training Centre late in 2012.

Since at Cadell Mr Bromley has been encouraged twice to apply for inclusion in off Centre activities. He applied as invited. On the morning of 7 February he was notified that his application had been refused and that he would not be able to apply again until three full months had passed. He was duly invited to apply again recently and immediately denied.

The Statutes Amendment (Appeals) Bill was passed by the lower house on the same day.

He has recently applied again for parole despite the fact that he has very little expectation that this government has any intention of assisting him. He still has not received any sustained off centre experience and we only hope that the Board will finally recommend him and he can make progress.

2 Letter from Hon. Jennifer Rankine, dated 20/12/11. Similar responses have been received from the preceding Minister for Correctional Services and Attorneys-General. Even if they do recommend him, however, the decision effectively lies with the Executive Council. It is a discretionary matter. The process does not have to involve consideration of the parole board’s advice, is not open to review and there is no requirement to provide reasons in the case of refusal.

Our hope, it goes without saying, is that the court will set Derek free this year. But we still believe that it is wrong for him to have to face release without the kind of re-socialisation he himself would like to benefit from. The latest refusal of application for off centre work has raised in our minds the question as to reasons. Is it a continuation of punishment?

He needs assistance to prepare, regardless of whether release comes via the parole process or through a successful appeal. It is completely unreasonable to have Derek or any other long term prisoner abandoned to the highest imaginable stress upon a sudden release when appropriate assistance has been unavailable. He could have been working honestly at a job, learning skills and preparing to live an independent and connected life in the mainstream.

There may be no legislated obligation for the government to assist but in the interest of reasonableness, decency and basic human rights I believe that there is a compelling obligation to assist Mr Bromley.

The issue of re-socialisation/rehabilitation, I think is ignored in legislation. It takes only a relatively short prison sentence for people to become institutionalised and potentially face overwhelming challenges upon release.

Mr Bromley’s application for funding for appeal was lodged immediately when the new law came into operation, on the 6th of May 2013. That is nearly six weeks ago.

He has called at least 4 times to make enquiries about its progress, each time instructed to call again on a given a day. On the last call, as of today, 13th of June, he was told that the person in whose hands it presently rests is busy and will get around to it when he can. Obviously, we know there is a process and that Derek’s matter is not the only business for the LSC to consider. But 29 years of patience and suffering warrants going to the head of the queue, surely, especially in light of the fact that the SA Government has just passed drought breaking new legislation. One would have thought that it was a matter of highest priority. The other states and the Attorneys-General are observing how SA will back up its word. Is it all going to be form and no substance? Politicking with no reasonable good will and commitment to the basic human right to liberty and access to the justice system?

This government has maintained a policy that amounts to pack ‘em, rack ‘em and stack ‘em when it comes to so called correctional services and the decisions about the management, re-socialisation and parole of prisoners is ultimately a secret and, on my observation an arrogant, stagnating business. It is true, as I have heard the premier say, that the public does not want dangerous criminals on the street. I do not want that. But I have faith in the public that they would be equally horrified to think that a person who is innocent remains in jail with no actual access to the courts. Or that a person who has served his or her time set by the court at sentencing, remains in jail and is deliberately and consistently obstructed from the available means of re-socialisation having done everything in his or her power to self-help. Why is it that Mr Bromley has seen people come and go over the 29 years of his imprisonment? Some of those he has watched come and go, were convicted of very serious crimes which they admitted to and were serving long sentences. Yet they have progressed through the system and he remains in a position of inexplicable stalemate.

Perhaps the answer lies partly in the fact that he has not been one, by nature, to ignore injustices when he has seen them occurring over the years. As a young man, angry as young men can be, he had more than the average person to be agitated about, even before the prison system became his keeper. The nature of his protests in the early years, provoked violent and threatening responses from the establishment. Of course when violence happens in prisons the causes and consequences are never fairly presented to the public in their true colours. The wounds and broken bones of some, have had to heal quietly behind bars. He immerged from conflicts tarred with a certain brush. But on more than one occasion Mr Bromley’s right to agitate has been affirmed by the Court and his injury acknowledged by way of declarations and awards of compensation.

He has never been afraid or unsure about speaking up on issues relating to treatment of prisoners and in particular, his Aboriginal brothers. He played an active role in forming the Sansbury association of prisoners who assisted the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. The association’s input was instrumental in the formation of key recommendations arising from the Commission.

We are of the belief that the Penal System maintained by our governments holds particular scorn for those who maintain their innocence as it seems they are required to do it longer and tougher than many others. If you think maintaining your innocence is a ploy to get sympathy and early release, Derek is living proof that you are wrong. It’s about time the government of this State behaved justly and fairly as it is legally within its power to do, without sacrificing one iota of public money, safety or parliamentary face.

If this is not a matter of entrenched prejudice on more than one level, I am not capable of identifying the true explanation.

Robyn Milera