In respect of Mr De Kock, you will recall that in July 2014 I declined to place him on parole
as at the time the victims or their families had been consulted, as required by law. I had
directed that a further profile be resubmitted not later than 12 months in order to afford
victims, the offender and other relevant structures time to participate in and finalise all
outstanding processes.
I have now reconsidered the matter and noted the various positive reports compiled by
the relevant professionals and bodies. I have noted the progress he is reported to have
made to improve his skills while in custody as well as the assistance Mr De Kock is said
to have provided and continues to provide to the Missing Persons Task Team of the
National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). I am also satisfied that comprehensive consultation
with affected families has been done. My decision is therefore informed by all these
important factors.
However, I need to remind all of us that parole does not reduce the sentence imposed by
the court. Offenders who are placed on parole are expected to comply with set conditions
and failure to comply with these may result in the offender, depending on the frequency
and seriousness of the violations, having his/her parole revoked to serve the remainder
of the sentence in a correctional facility.
Also in the interests of nation building and reconciliation, I have decided to place Mr De
Kock on parole. He has requested that the actual date and conditions of his release
should not be made public. I have acceded to his request and plead with members of the
media to respect that.
I have now considered the offenders application. In making my decision, I took into
account the applicable legislation, recommendations made by the Board as well as the
submission made by Mrs Hani and the SACP.
Our country is a constitutional democracy which is governed by the rule of law. Therefore,
in reaching my decision, I have taken into account the relevant laws and prescripts that
regulate the medical parole process, in particular, the provisions of the Correctional
Services Act 111 of 1998 and the Regulations promulgated thereunder. This legislative
framework guides the Medical Parole Advisory Board and me in considering an offenders
application.
Section 79(1) of the Act provides that a sentenced offender may be considered for
placement on medical parole by, among others, the Minister, if:
(a) such offender is suffering from a terminal disease or condition or if such
offender is rendered physically incapacitated as a result of injury, disease or
illness so as to severely limit daily activity or inmate self-care;
(b) the risk of reoffending is low; and
(c) there are appropriate arrangements for the inmates supervision, care and
treatment within the community to which the inmate is to be released.
Regulation 29A of the Correctional Services Regulations GNR 323 of 25 April 2012
published in Government Gazette 35277 of the same date, provides for medical
conditions for which an offender can be considered for placement on medical parole. Subregulation 5 provides as follows:
In the assessment by the Medical Parole Advisory Board, the Board must consider
whether the offender is suffering from:
(b) non-infectious conditions
(i) malignant cancer stage IV with metastasis being inoperable or with both
radiotherapy and chemotherapy failure;
In its recommendation, the Board states that Mr Derby-Lewis is suffering from stage lll b
cancer of the lung and this serves largely as a basis upon which it recommends his
placement on medical parole. This finding and recommendation appear to be oblivious of
the fact that in terms of the Act, read with the relevant regulations, it is an inmate with
malignant cancer stage lV with metastasis being inoperable or with both radiotherapy and
chemotherapy failure that qualifies for placement on medical parole. The rationale of the
Boards conclusion in this regard is on the face of it difficult for me to comprehend.
There is nothing to suggest that Mr Derby-Lewis condition is such that he is rendered
physically incapacitated as a result of injury, disease or illness so as to severely limit daily
activity or self-care as provided for in the Act.
Upon further perusal of the medical reports, I established that the name on the
Pathologists report is not that of offender Clive Derby Lewis. In an affidavit he submitted
to the Board he states that he used a different name for security reasons. It also appears
from his affidavit that, coincidentally another patient, bearing the name used by the
offender was admitted at the same hospital during his admission for treatment for a similar
medical condition. This prompted him to revert to an earlier pseudo name that he had
used when he was first admitted. It must be stated that there are no supporting documents
attached from the Department in support of these name changes. This raises uncertainty
on the identity of the patient whose samples informed the recommendations of the Board.
I am also not satisfied that requirements of Section 79(1)(b) have been complied with as
there is no indication on the profile as to whether the offender has shown remorse for the
crimes committed.
In the circumstances, The Boards recommendation to place the offender on medical
parole is not approved. This decision will be communicated to his legal representative as
required by the court order.
I Thank You.
Disclaimer: This email and files transmitted with it contain confidential and privileged information and is intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please: - do not read, disseminate,
distribute, copy or take action in reliance on this email and - delete it immediately and arrange for the deletion thereof on your
server, and - notify the administrator of the Department of Communications (DOC) at postmaster@doc.gov.za immediately. Any
unauthorised use, duplication or interception of this e-mail or any files transmitted with it is expressly and strictly prohibited. No
representation, guarantee or undertaking (expressed or implied) is made or given as to the confidentiality or security of the email
system or to the accuracy of the information in this email and any files transmitted with it is virus-free. No responsibility or liability is
accepted for the proper, complete transmission of the information contained in this email or any files transmitted with it or any delay
in its receipt; or arising from or as a result of the use of or reliance on the content of this email or any files transmitted with it. Any
views expressed in this email or any files transmitted with it are not necessarily the views of the DOC. Queries regarding this email
or any files transmitted with it should be directed to postmaster@doc.gov.za. This disclaimer forms part of the content of this e-mail
for purposes of section 11 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act, 2002 (Act No. 25 of 2002)