Whoever takes the justice portfolio in the next government is willing to explore a ‘no body no parole’ law. It comes after former Justice Minister Kiri Allan sought information on the prospect before she resigned.
Both Ginny Andersen and Paul Goldsmith are open to a ‘no body no parole’ law.
The law would mean offenders who refuse to disclose the location of their victim's body may be denied parole. READ MORE: * The ins and outs of life without parole * Podcast claims new sighting in case of murdered Swedes
Such laws have been implemented in nearly all Australian states, the majority triggered by a specific case.
Most recently New South Wales passed "Lyn’s law" after Sydney teacher Chris Dawson was convicted of murdering his wife Lynette more than 40 years ago.
The October law changes were described by NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet as putting the rights and needs of victims' families front and centre.
Former Justice Minister Kiri Allan sought advice on the implications of law following a letter late last year from a member of the public.
Advice from justice officials was mixed, but feedback leaned towards the rejection of such a policy.
“There is limited evidence to suggest the law would be effective. Existing legislative mechanisms allow the Courts and the Parole Board to take into account the specific circumstances of ‘no body’ cases and equivalent laws overseas do not appear to have led to the recovery of remains,” officials said.
They also noted it was very uncommon for someone to be convicted of murder in New Zealand where the victim’s body had not been located.
“Based on our preliminary research, there have been roughly five cases which meet this description over a considerable time period.”
Comparatively, in NSW there are six people in prison affected by this law.
“They would be a tool in a toolkit that's worth having.” - Dr Arlie Loughnan, University of Sydney Law School
The low numbers also make it hard for legal experts to draw conclusions about whether they are effective at incentivising killers to give up the location of their victims or not.
But Dr Arlie Loughnan, a Professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Law Theory at the University of Sydney Law School, said the number of people affected should not be the deciding factor.
“The grieving family … if there are no levers to encourage the person to actually say where the body is, even after conviction, that must seem quite unpalatable I would imagine.”
She said the biggest risk with no body laws were that the victim’s family got their hopes too high.
“I'm not aware of them being explicitly the catalyst for a convicted offender to say where the body is located. But then at the same time, that might be the sort of thing that's not public information.
“So I'm not confident to say that they don't work but at the same time, I am confident to say they are not the panacea they might be assumed to be.
“They would be a tool in a toolkit that's worth having.”
No body laws tend to be triggered by a specific case – the Dawson murder in NSW, Peter Falconio in Northern Territory, Elizabeth Kippin in Queensland and Haley Dodd in Western Australia.
Debate also sparked up late last year when Tasmania's parole board decided convicted killer Sue Neill-Fraser was a suitable candidate for early release.
The 68-year-old was convicted of murdering her partner, Bob Chappell, whose body has never been found.
In 2020 former National Party MP Tim Macindoe lodged a members bill to introduce a no body law, but it was never picked.
At the time, NZ First described it as “pointless dog-whistling".
One of the main criticisms with no body law is the conundrum for people wrongly convicted.
Advice from officials to Allan was that those wrongfully convicted would face “the innocent prisoner’s dilemma”.
“This means that if they maintain their innocence and refuse to admit responsibility or express remorse, they may be denied parole. However, if they do accept responsibility for a crime they did not commit, they may limit options in the future of having their conviction overturned.”
Officials also pointed out other drawbacks.
“For example, where natural events have disrupted the disposal site and the remains have either moved, been destroyed or otherwise been seriously impacted by the passage of time. [Also] an individual under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offending may struggle to locate their victims’ remains.”
There was also the risk that false information may be given.
“This may cause police to waste resources carrying out unsuccessful searches for victims’ remains, which further raises the risk of re-traumatising victims’ families.”
Ginny Andersen said though it was not something she was planning to pursue before the election, she would not rule out further work should Labour be in the next government.
National justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith said his party was open to the idea and would “look into it if we are fortunate to form a government in October”.
