The Tribune

ERIC Stubbs appears to be the man the system forgot.

In 1984, Mr Stubbs was convicted of rape and housebreaking. He was sentenced to seven years in jail. And that should have been that, if the system had worked. He would have been out in probably less than seven years unless he served his maximum sentence.

Except he spent 36 years in detention instead, in Sandilands Rehabilitation Centre.

How did this happen? Well, in 1985, he appealed the verdict and the Court of Appeal changed the verdict. He was still ruled to be guilty – but mentally ill. Instead of the seven years in prison, he was ordered to be kept at Sandilands until he received an order of discharge from the Governor General.

Since then, Governors General have come and gone, but Mr Stubbs remained locked away from the world.

Finally, the Privy Council ruled that the Supreme Court had to decide whether Mr Stubbs should be released or not – and yesterday the Supreme Court gave that order.

Mr Stubbs was locked away despite evidence from eminent psychologist Dr Michael Neville that he should not be sent to Sandilands.

At his appeal, his current lawyer, Sonia Timothy, said he wasn’t even represented.

Mr Stubbs was found to be guilty twice, in his original case and in his appeal, so there might be little sympathy from many for him.

However, originally the justice system felt a sentence of seven years was appropriate – not being locked up for 36 years.

And if Sandilands is to live up to the word rehabilitation in its name, it needs to be more than somewhere where people get locked up forever.

More than that, how many others have been lost in the system in the same way as Mr Stubbs?

Injustice does not serve in the name of justice. This is a case that exposes the flaws in our system.

In all those years Mr Stubbs was detained, how many times did his case ever reach the desk of the Governor General to even be considered for release? How was the Governor General ever supposed to know he was locked away in such a fashion?

There should be lessons to learn from how this case was handled, of course, but the crucial question is who else has been treated in this way? Who else has been left abandoned by a system that does nothing to rehabilitate?

It’s an unsettling story indeed – but one our system needs to consider carefully.

Prison Commissioner

National Security Minister Wayne Munroe drew flak last year when he sent Prison Commissioner Charles Murphy on leave.

One of the concerns at the time was that prior to being elected Mr Munroe represented two deputy commissioners who asked the Supreme Court to quash Mr Murphy’s appointment.

Now he is asking Cabinet to appoint an independent committee to investigate Mr Murphy’s tenure.

An independent committee is the right way to go. Even if operating with the best of intentions, Mr Munroe’s involvement muddied the waters. Instead of the focus being on reasons why Mr Murphy might need to be investigated and removed if necessary, the spotlight fell on the person doing the removing.

However, Mr Munroe went on yesterday to add further commentary, saying that “there was a continuing issue of correction officers he just sent home without proper process and they just keep coming and, of course, if they weren’t properly dismissed and they couldn’t be dismissed, then we owe them money”.

Mr Munroe, if you want the committee to be independent, don’t try to sway its members with extra commentary. Let them investigate, and if anything was done incorrectly, follow the guidance of the committee.

For his part, Mr Murphy is already taking legal action in the court, with his lawyer having accused Mr Munroe of bias in his handling of Mr Murphy.

What matters of course is finding out if there have been problems. This column had its own questions to raise with the commissioner who felt he was right to tell a journalist from this paper that she ought not to take up questions over whether coronavirus was in the prison or who dismissed concerns raised about conditions inside the prison.

So let the committee investigate. Let them find out what was done right– and what was done wrong. And then act accordingly. Anything else is just going to get in the way.