Convicted murderer Keli Lane has been denied parole after serving more than 13 years in prison in a test of the so-called “no body, no parole” laws introduced in 2022.
Lane was convicted in 2010 of murdering her newborn daughter Tegan in September 1996. She was sentenced to a maximum of 18 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 13 years and five months which expires on 12 May 2024. Baby Tegan’s body has never been found.
Lane appeared before the NSW State Parole Authority in a meeting on 22 March for consideration of her parole. In determining whether or not to grant her request, the parole authority had to consider the requirements of the ‘no body, no parole’ legislation.
What is the legislation and what does it say?
The “no body, no parole” laws came into effect in NSW in October 2022 and were introduced by then NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet following the high profile murder trial of Chris Dawson. The former Sydney teacher was found guilty in 2022 of murdering his wife Lynette who disappeared from their northern beaches home in 1982.
The relevant legislation is section 135A of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act.
It provides that “the Parole Authority must not make a parole order directing the release of an offender to which this section applies unless it is satisfied the offender has cooperated satisfactorily in police investigations or other actions to identify the victim’s location.”
The section applies to an offender who is serving a term of imprisonment for a homicide offence, and:
(a) the body or remains of the victim of the offence have not been located, or
(b) because of an act or omission of the offender or another person, part of the body or remains of the victim has not been located.
In making its decision, the parole authority must have regard to a written report from the Commissioner of Police. The report states whether the offender has cooperated, including an evaluation of the nature and extent of any cooperation, and the truthfulness, completeness and reliability of any information or evidence provided by the offender in relation to the victim’s location.
The Act defines “victim’s location” as –
(a) the location, or the last known location, of every part of the body or remains of the victim of the homicide offence, and
(b) the place where every part of the body or remains of the victim may be found.
Hence, it is not sufficient for an offender to provide information in relation to the whereabouts or location of some parts of a victim’s body or remains. They must reveal where the whole body is located, otherwise the section will not apply.
In refusing Lane’s parole application, the parole authority said in a statement, “The authority is not satisfied that the offender has cooperated satisfactorily in police investigations, or other actions, to identify the location of Tegan.”
Lane claimed that she gave Tegan to her biological father, a man named either Andrew Morris or Norris, shortly after her birth. However, the police failed to find anyone by that name. Lane has always maintained her innocence.
The “no body, no parole” laws have been criticised by some within the legal fraternity, including members of the judiciary. Retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Whealy KC, who presided over Lane’s jury trial, has himself expressed doubts about the way the trial was run. He told ABC News that while he accepted the jury’s verdict, “I did have some misgivings about some aspects of the way the trial was conducted,” adding “it was a purely circumstantial case.”
