InBrief

The following is a letter to the editor of the Daily Telegraph from Senior Vice-President Tom Bathurst QC concerning media coverage of the recent decision to grant parole to Phillip Choon Tee Lim. Published 30 October 2009. _The Senior Vice-President also wrote _an unpublished letter to the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald on the same issue. That letter is also set out below.

Letter to the Daily Telegraph

The current public debate concerning the State Parole Authority's initial decision to release Phillip Choon Tee Lim presents the disturbing spectacle of the Government, Opposition and elements of the media seeking to find ways to overturn its decision in response to perceptions of public outrage, without regard to the rule of law.

The murder of Dr Victor Chang was a tragedy; the perpetrators were rightly convicted and imprisoned.

But criticism, express or implied, of the Parole Authority's decision to grant parole in an individual case undermines our system of justice. A democratic society governed by the rule of law demands that the sentencing role of the courts and the parole function of the Authority be respected, and not be subjected to needless and uninformed attack.

The Parole Authority has a job to do, that is to assess prisoners' eligibility for parole according to certain defined criteria. In this case it appears that that is exactly what the Authority has done.

Calling for popular votes on the subject in an individual case (as The Daily Telegraph has done) is irresponsible.

TOM BATHURST QC Senior Vice-President

Letter to the Sydney Morning Herald (Unpublished)

The current public debate concerning the State Parole Authority 's initial decision to release Phillip Choon Tee Lim presents the disturbing spectacle of the Government, Opposition and elements of the media seeking to find ways to overturn its decision in response to perceptions of public outrage, without regard to the rule of law.

The murder of Dr Victor Chang was a tragedy; the perpetrators were rightly convicted and imprisoned.

But criticism, express or implied, of the Parole Authority's decision to grant parole in an individual case undermines our system of justice. A democratic society governed by the rule of law demands that the sentencing role of the courts and the parole function of the Authority be respected, and not be subjected to needless and uninformed attack.

The Parole Authority has a job to do, that is to assess prisoners' eligibility for parole according to certain defined criteria. In this case it appears that that is exactly what the Authority has done.

The Herald is to be congratulated for yesterday's editorial 'Not A Matter of opinion', which rightly states that 'political self-interest must not be allowed to put at risk due process'.

TOM BATHURST QC Senior Vice-President

30 October 2009

�