Snowtown Parole: A twist at the final hour

Speaker 1 In Canada, you see his work everywhere.

Speaker 2 An original by Novell Morrison. Priceless.

Speaker 3 But. It became clear that there were more and more fakes.

Speaker 2 A story that impacts Indigenous artists around the world.

Speaker 1 How has nobody ever looked into this?

Speaker 2 Forgeries, fakes, and fortunes to be made. An art fraud of epic proportions.
I either have to let this go or try to find out what the truth is.

Speaker 2 Binge the full series now on the ABC Listen app or weekly, wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 3 ABC Listen. Podcasts, radio, news, music and more.

Speaker 1 We were expecting serial killer James Vasakis to be on parole right now, but we have just learned there's been a holdup at the final hour. I'm Stephen Stockwell.

Speaker 1 Welcome to the case of Snowtown Parole.

Speaker 4 The bodies in the barrels are now the bodies in the backyard.

Speaker 3 11 people killed by the so-called Snowtown murderers.

Speaker 4 James Vasakis was involved in four murders between August 1998 and May 1999, serving life with a minimum of 26 years.

Speaker 3 The youngest of the four men jailed over the murders has applied for parole.

Speaker 2 Victim's families say he should never be released. I'm astonished that we've even considered parole.

Speaker 1 Serial killer James Vasakis is currently in parole purgatory.

Speaker 1 We had been expecting his parole to start on Monday at the end of a 60-day review period, but at the final moment, a review of that decision was lodged by the South Australian Attorney General.

Speaker 1 To break this down, we are joined by senior ABC reporter James Wakeland.

Speaker 1 James, this is pretty big news.

Speaker 2 It is big news, Stocky. I mean, it's not something that happens every day where the Attorney General actually asks for a review.
So yeah, certainly pretty interesting stuff.

Speaker 1 Yeah, we've also got Rebecca Bryce here as well from the Adelaide Newsroom.

Speaker 1 Bec were you surprised by this decision and this move?

Speaker 3 I wasn't entirely surprised. It does feel a little political to me.

Speaker 3 I mean we're five months out from an election here in SA so it wouldn't be a great look for the government to have a freshly paroled serial killer in the community going into that election.

Speaker 1 Yeah no keen to talk a bit more about some of the decisions around that and kind of what's motivated this, how it's unfolded. There really is a lot to unpack in this episode.

Speaker 1 I mean I won't lie I wasn't expecting this at all. I thought that James Wissakis would be released into the pre-release centre this week following some sort of procedural steps.

Speaker 1 So, yeah, really keen to get a bit more from both of you here.

Speaker 1 Firstly, what does this decision mean for James Wissakis?

Speaker 2 Well, effectively, he stays in prison.

Speaker 2 He's in low security at the moment, and that's where he'll stay until this whole review situation gets determined.

Speaker 3 And Corrections can still manage his day-to-day life in low security, so they can,

Speaker 3 I guess, manage the activities that he can do and whether there's anything that he can do externally.

Speaker 3 When you're in a low security setting, sometimes you have that capacity to leave jail and do volunteer work and things like that.

Speaker 3 Interestingly, looking at the legislation, it seems as though he would have actually had to have been served the notice of this review personally, so they would have had to actually take it to him in writing to let him know that he's not getting out straight away.

Speaker 1 Wow. The drama of this is actually something that has surprised me, as well as the decision itself and the review itself.
I mean, this has all happened incredibly late in the process.

Speaker 1 So, there was a 60-day review period where, as we mentioned in our episode on Tuesday, the South Australian Attorney General, the South Australian Police Commissioner, and the South Australian Victims' Rights Commissioner could have requested a review of the parole decision.

Speaker 1 And, yeah, we found out from Parole Administrative Review Commissioner Michael David KC that the review for this came in on the last day, final moments of this, thanks to the great work of our executive producer Claire Rawlinson, who was trying to chase up the details of this as we were publishing our episode on Tuesday.

Speaker 1 And then, you know, obviously found out about this a little bit later.

Speaker 1 I mean, James Beck, how unusual is something like this?

Speaker 2 It is quite unusual. And Stocky, to be honest, I probably led you to the conclusion that there wasn't going to be a review.

Speaker 2 I was in that camp myself so you know made the wrong call there and I thought the Attorney General from some of the comments he'd said earlier had perhaps started leaning towards maybe there wouldn't be one.

Speaker 2 He talked about how serious the offending that Flasakis had committed was, but at the same time saying that Vlasakis was a really, really important prosecution witness and it was important to make sure that those prosecution witnesses would come forward into the future.

Speaker 2 So I thought from those comments, perhaps he was leaning against going for the review, but here we are.

Speaker 1 They're doing it. Yeah, absolutely.

Speaker 1 If you're just coming to the case of Snowtown parole, I recommend jumping back into the previous episodes that we've made on this topic on the parole of James Wasakis or the parole process of James Wasakis.

Speaker 1 We talk about, you know, the original Snowtown murders, what happened in that, and, you know, James Wissakis' cooperation with police and investigators during during that process that has probably contributed to him being in this position where he's eventually able to apply for parole and potentially be paroled depending on how this review goes out.

Speaker 1 So I'll pop the notes to those episodes in the episode description so you can jump in and have a listen to them.

Speaker 1 I mean this is only the third time since Michael David Casey has been the parole administrative review commissioner that there has been an appeal of a parole board decision.

Speaker 1 And in all of those, well both of those cases, both the other cases, they all came in in the the 11th hour, on the final day of that 60-day period.

Speaker 1 Those two other cases were Scott Hart and Jonathan Bakewell, both of them convicted murderers. But in the end, the decision of the parole board was upheld.
And so

Speaker 1 those two men were paroled.

Speaker 3 And I think one of the reasons why these reviews do seem to be pretty rare is because they appear to only apply for people who are serving either life sentences for murder or for soliciting or conspiring to commit murder or people who assist a murderer.

Speaker 3 So we don't see a huge number of cases like that in South Australia.

Speaker 1 Yeah, it's really interesting, the whole kind of review process here. So I'm glad we've got both of you to help explain it to us.

Speaker 1 In the case of James Lusakis, in the review that we've just seen put in, what do we know about the grounds of that review at this stage?

Speaker 2 Stocky,

Speaker 2 good time to ask. The Attorney General has just put out a release, like in the last 20 minutes or so.
So hot off the press, press. We have the statement here from Attorney General Kayan Maher.

Speaker 2 In all the circumstances the parole board has erred in granting the prisoner's release on parole as it has failed to give proper weight to the safety of the community, the likelihood of the prisoner complying with the conditions of parole and the circumstances and gravity of the offence.

Speaker 2 And there is another one here about any, and it talks about any reports tended to the board under section 67.4 67.4 of the Act. Now, I'm not familiar with what Section 67.4 of the Act does.

Speaker 2 I'm not sure if you are, Stocky, but that is one thing that we'll be hopefully learning about when we

Speaker 2 are allowed into the hearing.

Speaker 2 And then hopefully once we're allowed into the hearing, we're allowed to report on it. as well.
But that's all yet to unfold.

Speaker 3 Interestingly, in relation to this statement, the Attorney General actually had to seek approval from the Parole Review Commissioner, Michael David Casey, to actually make the statement because the legislation prevents him or anyone from speaking unless Michael David Casey or a court allows it.

Speaker 2 And that was what was great about Claire's get on, this particular story, is the fact that all the calls that were being made to the appropriate people, the Attorney General,

Speaker 2 the Commissioner of Victims' Rights,

Speaker 2 Police Commissioner, they're the only three people that can put in for these reviews and everyone was just getting stonewalled saying, we can't comment, we can't comment.

Speaker 2 And then Claire went to the right person, the only person who could talk and got the scoop.

Speaker 1 Yeah, plenty of conversations being had across the KSOV desks over the last couple of days as we've had more information about this, making sure that the Adelaide newsrooms across it so we can start getting this information out there.

Speaker 1 Do we know how Frances Nelson, KC, the head of the parole board, feels about the review? Have we had any reaction or words from her?

Speaker 2 I think Frances, again,

Speaker 2 because of the secrecy, has not made any public comments on this whatsoever. And she is not someone who's afraid of making public comments.

Speaker 2 But on this occasion, she has decided that the law is the law, and she has, yes, stayed very quiet.

Speaker 1 Yeah, and there's something that I do want to touch on a little bit here. We keep talking about Francis Nelson, KC, also Michael David, KC, who

Speaker 1 is the Parole Administrative Review Commissioner in this instance.

Speaker 1 And that KC is a suffix that means King's Counsel. It's something that's given to barristers.
Are these people that in past lives have been barristers and kind of deeply involved in the legal system?

Speaker 3 I think we'd say they still are.

Speaker 3 Michael David Casey

Speaker 3 was an eminent barrister. He was also a Supreme Court judge here, district court judge first, and then a Supreme Court judge here in South Australia.

Speaker 3 And he's worked on some really high profile cases as a barrister, including a significant war crimes trial.

Speaker 3 And also, I remember sitting in his court in Mount Gambier in the state southeast in this tiny little courtroom for a very prominent murder trial.

Speaker 3 A woman by the name of Glennis Haywood, who was trying to escape horrendous domestic violence, was on the run from her husband and unfortunately was betrayed by her youngest son, who handed her over to her husband and was brutally killed by him and his farm worker.

Speaker 1 Yeah. Yeah, yeah.
And Frances Nelson KC, I think, has quite a, you know, I vaguely recall her having quite an auspicious legal career as well, prior to being the head of the parole board, right?

Speaker 2 She still does. She's still, she's not just the parole board chair, it's not her only job.
She's actually a really busy mediator within the court system still. So yeah, she's still a working KC.

Speaker 1 Yeah, here I am selling out these people like they've retired into these like highly powered judicial positions.

Speaker 1 And no, they're obviously still working and still very much deserve the title of King's Council that they hold.

Speaker 1 I mean, one of the things that has been, you know, we've talked a lot about here is the kind of opaqueness of this process.

Speaker 1 Bec, what can you tell us about how Michael David's kind of role has come about, this review commissioner for parole boards?

Speaker 3 Well, interestingly, the genesis of it, of the current process for reviews of parole, appears to have come from a politicisation of the parole process by a former government.

Speaker 3 So about 15 years ago, the Labor government campaigning on law and order,

Speaker 3 Premier Mike Rann was regularly vowing never to release certain murderers under his watch.

Speaker 3 And

Speaker 3 in doing so, they decided to create a power for the government to veto parole decisions.

Speaker 3 So they legislated to enable the government to say if a person has been recommended for parole, a life prisoner has been recommended for parole, that they could veto it.

Speaker 3 It was very unpopular or very controversial, I should say, at the time, and not the least of which from Francis Nelson Casey, who criticised it as having a lack of transparency and quite rightly, I think, was concerned about the fact that without having to give any reasons to prisoners, how would they know what it was that they were doing wrong that was preventing them from getting parole?

Speaker 3 Not long after that,

Speaker 3 a few years later, another Labor government with a different premier moved to depoliticise the process and created this current system where we have the Attorney General, the Police Commissioner, the Victims' Rights Commissioner being given the opportunity to ask for a review.

Speaker 3 And that change to the legislation also created the position that Michael David Casey now holds.

Speaker 1 Yeah, right. Yeah, yeah.
I mean, it's been, you know, talking about the kind of lack of transparency that could be part of something like this.

Speaker 1 I think, you know, the trouble that we've had this week, you know, knowing that this review period was ending on Sunday, um you know we were sort of expecting we'd be able to kind of pretty confidently know before making our episode on tuesday and you know we we were really struggling to actually get the detail and we didn't have the full detail when we when we made that episode on tuesday in the end um only kind of learning that you know today and and yesterday the full you know full picture of what's going on um and through all of that i kind of had this suspicion and even kind of before then you know knowing about this review process i did have this sort of suspicion that it was you know a process that had been put in place by a a government to kind of like manage or challenge kind of politically unpopular bail decisions.

Speaker 1 You know, is there any evidence that that's what's happening in this case or am I just being kind of conspiratorial and a bit jaded?

Speaker 2 No, I think that's certainly some politics in play here, Stocky, for sure. I mean

Speaker 2 We're five months out from an election. I think Beck mentioned that earlier.
This is law and order always plays well in the electorate.

Speaker 2 So there would have been a lot of soul searching a lot of decisions you know chats behind closed doors um

Speaker 2 probably around the cabinet table even about how to play this and how to do this um and like i said the way the attorney general was talking initially was softer than what they've come out with now, I would argue.

Speaker 2 I'm not sure that they were, if this is something that's happened, a decision that's come basically within the last 60 days since the decision was made, because I really feel like they were leaning the other way.

Speaker 1 Yeah,

Speaker 1 I was expecting it to be, kind of thinking it would be a public perception thing and had been keeping a really close eye on news out of South Australia around this and seeing if there were a lot of stories around James Vorsakis's release coming up.

Speaker 1 And when I wasn't seeing that outside of the work that we've been doing here,

Speaker 1 I did start to think, oh, well, maybe this is just going to flow by and roll through. But yeah, obviously, in this situation, it hasn't.
The review has been announced.

Speaker 1 Vorsakis is still waiting on his parole.

Speaker 1 I mean I can't imagine what that would be like for him in that situation, kind of getting that paperwork and then also for the victims' families as well in this situation, not knowing kind of what's happening with this here, if he's going to be released on parole, if he's not.

Speaker 1 It's all just very unsure.

Speaker 1 I mean we do know that there is a hearing coming up to start progressing this review process.

Speaker 1 What happens from here?

Speaker 3 So as James mentioned, we have been told that the media will be able to attend that hearing, but we will have to seek approval to report it. So it's not guaranteed that we'll have any

Speaker 3 detail come out of that hearing.

Speaker 3 As I understand, there will be a full hearing which will happen soon after that initial directions hearing.

Speaker 3 Under the legislation, the Parole Board will have to provide written reasons for granting parole and they also have to provide any documents that might be relevant to the Commissioner's review.

Speaker 3 He also has to do it as quickly as possible, which I'm sure the government would prefer that he takes maybe five or six months.

Speaker 3 But it doesn't sound like that will happen.

Speaker 3 And he actually has some quite expansive powers, so he's not bound by the rules of evidence which apply in court about what information can and can't be given or presented in court by a witness.

Speaker 3 So he can inform himself as he sees fit, which is interesting.

Speaker 3 But he must act according to equity, good conscience, and the substantial merits of the case without regard to legal technicalities and forms, whatever that means.

Speaker 2 Right. And one thing that did interest me, Bryce, was this idea of whether or not the review would proceed.
Can it be just stopped at the direction's hearing? What is your understanding on that one?

Speaker 3 So he has to give due weight to the parole board's decision and not depart from it unless there are cogent reasons.

Speaker 3 So potentially it sounds as though that could be the case if in that direction's hearing he's satisfied that

Speaker 3 there are no cogent reasons to depart from that decision.

Speaker 3 And ultimately he can decide to approve the parole, he can reject the parole, he can make any variations to the conditions and he can actually then also send it back to the parole board for reassessment.

Speaker 3 So there's plenty of options.

Speaker 1 Yeah.

Speaker 1 I mean this is something that has only just happened. You know again we're talking in the last couple of days.
We've only just got the grounds for this as well you know, in the last hour or so.

Speaker 1 You know, have you got any feeling? It's only been such a short time, but any feeling on, you know, what the public or community reaction has been to the review or the appeal?

Speaker 2 There hasn't been a lot of time, like you say, for there to be public reaction.

Speaker 2 And the best person who can give public reaction, the Commissioner for Victims' Rights, is effectively gagged under the legislation. So it's been difficult to really get that.

Speaker 2 And there's not a lot of victims' families that actually speak. A lot of them have either died or have been so traumatised over such a long period they no longer want to talk about it publicly.

Speaker 3 A lot of the debate online seems to be favouring keep him in prison, which is perhaps not surprising in a case like this.

Speaker 3 But there are a few handful of people who were saying, look, he's done his time, he helped out. let him out.
So it's a little bit split.

Speaker 2 People do raise it with me, as you can imagine, because we've been covering this for a long time people do raise it publicly and

Speaker 2 i think there is some sympathy um that perhaps because of the fact that he did help convict the more serious offenders i mean i know he was found guilty of or he pleaded guilty to four murders so it's not like he's a minor offender yeah but he's certainly helped convict the the major offenders involved in the in the snowtown murders so there is some sympathy that he should be able to then um live somewhat of a more normal life now that he's into his 40s.

Speaker 1 Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1 If you're kind of wondering which way you fall on this, jump back and listen to our other episodes.

Speaker 1 We kind of paint the picture of the murders that the James Visakis took part in and then also how he ended up involved with the other, the kind of the key players or the bigger players in that, John Bunting and Robert Wagner.

Speaker 1 So yeah, have a listen to some of them if you want to kind of learn a bit more about it.

Speaker 1 I mean, as we get to the end of this episode, you know, looking at the potential role that the public has had in influencing this decision, I mean, is that the role for the public to kind of weigh in and influence the decisions that are made by these judicial bodies?

Speaker 2 Well, I guess they're entitled to an opinion,

Speaker 2 not just the general public who have to then live with these people when they're out in the community,

Speaker 2 but also, of course, the victims' families. They're all entitled to an opinion, and I think there is an argument that some of that weight should be included,

Speaker 2 but whether or not the law sees it that way is another matter.

Speaker 1 Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1 We are getting a lot of questions sent into the KSOV inbox, the case of at ABC.net.au. And there is one, James Beck, I'd love to quickly put to you.
It is from, in fact, Beck. Probably not you, Beck.

Speaker 1 You know the answer to this one. You'll answer.
Dorothy Dixer. You'll answer it for Beck.
Beck writes, Hi, Stocky, James, and Beck. Congrats on another great installment of the KSOV.

Speaker 1 It's great to learn about so many different aspects of the criminal justice system in such an engaging way. My question relates to the Snowtown Parole.

Speaker 1 Wondering what the factors the parole board is deciding or considering when approving or denying parole.

Speaker 1 Is it an option to keep someone serving a life sentence incarcerated until they die, even with a parole period set? And also, how much relevance should be placed on a crown witness factor?

Speaker 1 I imagine the state must be motivated to, in inverted commas, make good on its promises to crown witnesses.

Speaker 2 There's a lot of things to consider. When a person is sentenced and their parole is set, part of setting a parole is to give them some hope of being able to get out and live a normal life.

Speaker 2 So that's something that is considered by the parole board, but then they also need to show that they have been rehabilitated in prison and that they're not going to be a risk to the community.

Speaker 2 And they're the kind of key things that the parole board will consider. Anything else, Beg?

Speaker 3 I think in the case of Lasakis as well, the assistance that he provided the case is pretty crucial to the fact that he was given a parole period at all, given that the other two murderers, Bunting and Wagner,

Speaker 3 have no prospect of ever being released.

Speaker 3 And I think that speaks a lot to his evidence, the evidence that he provided on a whole bunch of killings that he didn't take part in and wasn't present for and was only told about.

Speaker 3 So

Speaker 3 I think without that evidence, it would have been very, very difficult for these murders to have been proven.

Speaker 3 And definitely, we wouldn't have had the full story of what actually happened to these people.

Speaker 2 I think it was stated in the sentencing remarks that he probably would have been looking more like at a 40-year non-parole period as opposed to the 26-year non-parole period

Speaker 2 if he hadn't have given that evidence too, which is interesting. Yeah,

Speaker 1 it's a really interesting case with so many interesting details, which is why we've taken a chance to look at it with the case of Snowtown Parole. We'll keep you posted on the developments as well.

Speaker 1 You know, there's lots of questions that have come in that we're still keen to get to. You can email us the ksov at abc.net.au.
And so we want to answer some of them.

Speaker 1 So we'll bring Beck and James back for that one in the next week or two, along with any updates on the appeal against Vlasarkas's parole. We are watching it very closely.

Speaker 1 We've got the contact, thanks to the KSOV's EP, Claire Rawlinson, a direct line to Michael David KC, the Parole Administrative Review Commissioner.

Speaker 1 So yeah, we'll keep you up to date with everything going on there.

Speaker 1 In the meantime, we're going to be bringing you the case of the Easy Street murders. That's going to be coming up from next week, from next Tuesday.
That's a 50-year-old cold case that has warmed up.

Speaker 1 And we'll be joined by ABC Melbourne reporter Alexandra Alvaro for that one and have a short introduction episode dropping into your feed tomorrow.

Speaker 1 So you can check that out, get a bit of background, and then, yeah, we'll start that from next week. But thank you so much for all of your work work in this series.

Speaker 1 James, from the bank vault in 1999 to the review of Versakis' parole, your insight has been invaluable.

Speaker 2 Oh, a pleasure, Stocky.

Speaker 2 It's been a real trip back down memory lane.

Speaker 1 And Bec, it has been so wonderful having you join us for the episodes we've been making this week as well.

Speaker 1 You have such a wonderful understanding of the processes and the machinations behind all of these decisions. So thank you so much for your insight.

Speaker 3 Thanks for having me, Stocky. I'm looking forward to hearing the next case.

Speaker 1 Yeah, well, I'll be back in your feed tomorrow to introduce the case of the Easy Street murders. We'll start that next Tuesday, so make sure you grab the ABC the Snap.

Speaker 1 And if you're looking for something to listen to on the weekend, we did have an email to the CaseOp Inbox saying, are there any other great ABC podcasts that I should be checking out?

Speaker 1 I would recommend diving into the re-release of Unravel's first season, Blood on the Tracks. I had a really great chat with Alan Clark about this.
That was in your feed yesterday that's popped up.

Speaker 1 So jump back, have a listen to that and one of the episodes to get a feel for what that is. And some of the new detail that the inquest has uncovered is quite incredible.
So, jump on that.

Speaker 1 Obviously, if you're not an ABC listen person, that is fine. You know, it's sort of looked down upon, but it's okay.
I understand it's not available overseas.

Speaker 1 If you're using a different podcast app, please give us a rating or a review if you're so inclined. Maybe Unravel 2 if you enjoy that.

Speaker 1 It makes it so much easier for people to find those episodes and those podcasts.

Speaker 1 The case of Snowtown Parole is produced by ABC Audio Studios and ABC News.

Speaker 1 It's reported by ABC senior reporter James Wakelin and all-around ABC legend Rebecca Bryce, and presented by me, Stephen Stockwell. Our executive producer is Claire Rawlinson.

Speaker 1 Thank you to senior lawyer Jasmine Sims and to Anne Flavin for her advice for this episode. Thank you as well to the Adelaide Newsroom and Audio Studios manager, Eric George.

Speaker 1 This episode was produced on the land of the Kaurna, Wurundjeri, and Muwanina people.

Speaker 5 Hi, I'm Sam Hawley, host of ABC News Daily. It's a podcast explaining one big news story affecting your world in just 15 minutes.

Speaker 5 From ABC investigations to politics, the cost of living, to major global events. Expert guests and journalists join me to explain why the world works the way it does.

Speaker 5 Follow the ABC News Daily podcast on the ABC ListenApp.