Murderers in Victoria could be restricted from applying for parole for several years under a proposal being considered by the state government to keep the serial killer Paul Denyer behind bars.
The premier, Daniel Andrews, on Tuesday apologised to the families of Denyer’s victims, who he admitted had not been adequately supported during the killer’s recent failed bid for parole.
“I don’t want to see a situation where families who have been through unimaginable tragedy, where there’s really very little prospect of any prospects that the person is going to get out, laying awake at night thinking that that person is going to be free,” he told reporters.
“The system has had 30 years to get ready for this day. Sadly, I don’t think those families have been as well supported as they should have been. I’ll take responsibility for that and we’re going to make sure that that doesn’t happen again.”
He said the changes under consideration would be similar to those passed in Western Australia in 2018, which gave the state’s attorney general the power to suspend parole applications by serial killers for up to six years at a time.
“If you apply for parole and you are knocked back, an amount of time will have to pass before you’re able to reapply – that will either be five years or perhaps longer,” Andrews said.
He said there could be further limits applied to serial killers who have not engaged in rehabilitation programs while in prison.
“If you’re not willing to be involved in those rehabilitation programs, then you might get one crack at parole and that’s it – you don’t get any more,” Andrews said.
The attorney general, Jaclyn Symes, said the proposals followed a meeting with the loved ones of Denyer’s victims.
“They are so tired. I don’t want to politicise their pain … it’s fair to say they welcomed my suggestions and they want to be involved in how we progress this legislation,” she said.
Denyer, now 51, was sentenced to three life sentences in 1993 after pleading guilty to the murders of Natalie Russell, 17, Elizabeth Stevens, 18, and Deborah Fream, 22.
After an appeal, Denyer was granted a 30-year-sentence without parole, which made him eligible to apply for parole this year. His bid was refused by the adult parole board in May.
There were fears among family and friends of Denyer’s victims that he would continue to apply for parole. In April, he wrote to the Liberal Democrat MP David Limbrick, who was Russell’s partner at the time she was murdered, saying he had been rehabilitated during his 30 years in jail and was not a danger to society.
Limbrick said Denyer “cannot be rehabilitated” and was open to working with the government to keep him behind bars.
“We need confidence that he can never harm another woman – that’s been our goal all along. How the government wants to do that, that’s up to them to figure out,” he told Guardian Australia.
“The fact that we’re sort of rushing at the last minute to come up with some sort of solution is pretty disappointing.”
A Coalition bill to restrict any future parole applications by Denyer unless he was at risk of death will be debated in the upper house on Wednesday but is likely to fail .
The opposition’s corrections spokesperson, Brad Battin, said the government was continuing to ignore Denyer’s victim’s families pleas to ensure he never apply for parole again.
However, Andrews said they would not create a single law dealing specifically with Denyer’s case.
“If we keep trying to keep individuals behind bars with one-person laws, we are drumming up business for the high court and we will finish up potentially with a ruling that no one wants,” he said.
The Liberty Victoria spokesperson, Michael Stanton, said he welcomed the government’s decision not to legislate in respect of individual prisoners but was concerned the proposed changes could have wider ramifications.
“We understand that a prisoner being potentially granted parole will have a significant impact on victims and/or their family members and friends. However, these kinds of proposed reforms are highly susceptible to penal populism and are likely to operate unfairly,” he said.
“We should allow the decision to be made by the appropriate independent authority with all relevant information. These are difficult issues, but we must guard against the danger of legislative overreach and politicised decision-making.”
