Brenda Wardle is one of more than 100 prisoners who have cases before Gauteng courts this month arguing that they should be released on parole.
She presents the fact that she now has a law degree, enabling her to represent herself in the court proceedings, as her first exhibit.
At the root of the dispute between prisoners and their captors are interpretations of the Correctional Services Act, particularly around when a prisoner is rehabilitated (or sick) enough to qualify for release on parole.
Wardle (42) is at odds with the Department of Correctional Services about whether, according to the Act, an offender may be released after serving a third of her sentence or, as the department maintains, at least half her sentence before becoming eligible for early release.
Convicted almost three years ago on 97 counts of fraud, and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment, Wardle says in court papers before the Johannesburg High Court that the correct interpretation is that a prisoner becomes eligible for release after serving a third of her sentence; and that she provides evidence of tangible rehabilitation; and that hers is a strong case for parole.
The provincial commissioner of correctional services and the chairperson of the parole board are the first and second respondents to Wardle’s application, in a case to be heard next week.
According to her court papers, Wardle arrived in jail with five credits towards an LLB degree. Within two years, she had completed 35 study units — eight of them with distinction — and was awarded her degree.
She first took the Correctional Services Department to court in July, and the court ordered that parole board members give her a proper hearing. That hearing was last month, but her court application says the parole board did not give her a proper hearing and merely went through the motions to satisfy the court order.
In their responding affidavit, correctional services and the parole board argue that Wardle is not automatically entitled to early release despite her attempts to rehabilitate herself.
It quotes the report of the chairperson of the parole board as saying: ”My concern is that a determination of her level of rehabilitation is difficult, specifically when one reads the report from the social worker. In fact, the social worker mentioned that the inmate [Wardle] is not tolerant of those who do not speedily get her point of view.
”The social worker stated further that the inmate was included in social work programmes, but she did not complete the scheduled therapeutic sessions. I believe that no substantial evidence prevails to make a clear deduction that she is in fact rehabilitated to such an extent that she will not commit further crime.”
In her rebuttal, Wardle says the programmes referred to were HIV/Aids peer counselling courses that clashed with her university examinations.
Correctional services also says there is no proof that she has repaid her fraud victims or that she has asked for forgiveness from them.
”Except for pleading guilty, I could not trace evidence of her remorse over the crimes she has committed,” reads the chairperson of the parole board’s report.
The department also argues that she has served too little time behind bars and, if she is released early, this could send out a message that crime pays.
”At this stage the offender has only completed approximately two years and nine months of her sentence of eight years. Section 65 (4) of the Correctional Service Act of 1959 [provides] that an offender be considered for possible placement on parole provided she/he has served at least half of his/her sentence: provided that the date of consideration may be brought forward with the number of credits earned.
”The inmate may therefore have a legitimate expectation to be placed on parole. She may, however, not have a legitimate expectation to be placed [released] on parole after reaching this minimum period of her sentence.”
Wardle, a mother of four, accuses correctional services of being arbitrary in its application of rules relating to parole.
She argues that the likes of anti-apartheid cleric Alan Boesak, stockbroker Greg Blank and poet Mzwakhe Mbuli were all released before serving half their sentences.
”Determination of my level of rehabilitation was difficult for [the provincial commissioner] as he clearly had no intention to establish this. The test of a truly rehabilitated offender is effectively measured outside the confines of the prison walls rather than within. Even then, I have not broken a single rule inside prison …
”The department continues to hold me and others who qualify for release on parole illegally, satisfying some sadistic notion that sees them grinning from ear to ear as they see talented persons who pose no risk wallowing in jail aimlessly.”