Prison to keep secret

THE state’s prison service will not have to reveal the crimes committed by prisoners it released by mistake between 2014 and 2016.

Ombudsman Richard Connick has ruled that releasing the information was not in the public interest — and could reveal the identity of the prisoners — 3½ years after the Mercury requested the information.

The Mercury argued that releasing prisoners by mistake could amount to a serious threat to public safety.

THE state’s prison service is under no obligation to reveal the crimes committed by prisoners it releases by mistake, if it reveals their identity, the Ombudsman has ruled.

Ombudsman Richard Connick made the decision three and a half years after the Mercury requested the information. The prison service released seven inmates by mistake between 2014 and 2016.

A Mercury reporter in 2016 attempted to find out more details about the prisoners, including their genders, ages, their mistaken and actual release dates, how the errors were made and what offences they were serving time for.

The Tasmania Prison Service refused to reveal the prisoners’ crimes, saying that information was “personal” and the prisoners had a right to privacy.

Then Justice Department Secretary Simon Overland rejected an internal appeal against that decision and the Mercury took the case to the Ombudsman. In that appeal, Mr Overland argued that there was no public interest in revealing what offences were committed by people his department released by mistake.

“While we acknowledge that there is often a prurient interest in factors which may potentially identify prisoners — including the offences for which they have been found guilty — it is our view that this does not equate to a genuine public interest in the release of the information,” he submitted.

The Mercury argued that releasing prisoners by mistake could amount to a serious threat to public safety and should be made public. But Mr Connick has now said the release was not in the public interest and was instead a matter of curiosity.

Mr Connick said it was irrelevant that public outcry if dangerous criminals were released by mistake might motivate the government to take steps to ensure it didn’t happen again. He ruled that if prisoners’ sentences had been published before, the information which might help identify them on their accidental release should be kept secret.

But if their sentences had not been made public, information on their crimes could be released.