Speaker 1: Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returned guilty
Speaker 1: verdicts against all three defendants.
Speaker 2: It was absolutely shambles, to tell you the truth, just
Speaker 2: absolutely really coamous.
Speaker 3: Blood on his clothing the day after the alleged attap on.
Speaker 4: A shallow mud bank and it fits through a river.
Speaker 2: Basically, I think most of the people are used to me,
Speaker 2: there are good people.
Speaker 4: I think a really important question we need to ask
Speaker 4: is how many Indigenous prisoners in Australia are innocent.
Speaker 1: This is Curtain, a podcast where we pulled back the
Speaker 1: blinds to shine a light on the darkest.
Speaker 3: Parts of our justice system and ask who are the victims.
Speaker 5: I'm Amy Maguire.
Speaker 4: And I'm Martin Hodgson, a senior advocate for the Foreign
Speaker 4: Prisoner Support Service. And a warning, this series contains the
Speaker 4: names of deceased peoples and has distressing content that might
Speaker 4: upset some listeners.
Speaker 1: So over the past couple of weeks we've been a
Speaker 1: bit quiet, but in this episode we're going to tell
Speaker 1: you the reason why, because coming that very shortly is
Speaker 1: potentially one of the biggest breakthroughs we've had in this case. Martin,
Speaker 1: can you tell us a little.
Speaker 5: Bit about what is currently happening in elasid to Kevin's case.
Speaker 2: Over the last few months, we've been working with the
Speaker 2: new Parole Board to try and ascertain exactly where Kevin
Speaker 2: stands in relation to his parole. As we've spoken about
Speaker 2: on this podcast before, Kevin's been in front of the
Speaker 2: parole board many times now. Obviously he's been denied parole
Speaker 2: each time. But as we've previously discussed on the podcast,
Speaker 2: that was under the old system, Queensland had not had
Speaker 2: an update to their parole system since nineteen thirty seven,
Speaker 2: that's before the Second World War, and it was under
Speaker 2: that system that it was proving impossible to get Kevin
Speaker 2: Henry released. And there is a very crucial reason to that,
Speaker 2: and that's because under the old parole system, as we've
Speaker 2: discussed previously, there was no what they call Denier's program.
Speaker 2: There was no ability for a prisoner to maintain their innocence.
Speaker 2: And Kevin Henry has maintained his innocence since nineteen ninety
Speaker 2: one and he's not going to change that stance because
Speaker 2: he did not commit this crime and the evidence shows that.
Speaker 2: But under the Queensland system that's actually been used against him.
Speaker 2: His unwillingness to admit to something he didn't do has
Speaker 2: meant the Parole Board has continued to reject his application.
Speaker 2: But under the new parole system that comes on the
Speaker 2: back of a review that was done into the entire
Speaker 2: Queensland Parole system, where there was ninety eight recommendations as
Speaker 2: to ways the parole system should be updated and improved,
Speaker 2: and many of those updates directly address issues dealing with
Speaker 2: aboriginal prisoners. This new system gives us a far better chance.
Speaker 2: But further than that, what it's meant is we now
Speaker 2: have a way forward for Kevin. It's not the same
Speaker 2: old case of putting in an application and knowing it's
Speaker 2: going to be rejected because the rules just aren't fair.
Speaker 2: Now we have a real chance of helping Kevin Henry
Speaker 2: walk free.
Speaker 5: My new past instances where Kevin's case has gone for
Speaker 5: the parole board, they haven't been I guess fully aware
Speaker 5: of Kevin's that Kevin has maintained and it is over
Speaker 5: the past twenty five or twenty six years. Is the
Speaker 5: new parole board aware of that and play any part
Speaker 5: in any decision that they're able to make in a
Speaker 5: legion to Kevin's parole.
Speaker 2: It's a difficult issue that the Parole Board are aware
Speaker 2: of the issues now and one thing I'll go through
Speaker 2: that might clarify why it's been so difficult is I'll
Speaker 2: just read some dates and this is just from the
Speaker 2: period where we've been investigating this case and working with Kevin.
Speaker 2: The Parole Board considered Kevin's application in February twenty and sixteen,
Speaker 2: June sixteen, twice, November twenty and sixteen, January twenty and seventeen,
Speaker 2: February two thy seventeen, and then May, June and July
Speaker 2: twenty and seventeen, and they reviewed his case a number
Speaker 2: of times in both the June and July. Now, one
Speaker 2: success we've had is on the tenth of August, the
Speaker 2: new Queensland Parole Board agreed to rescind all of those
Speaker 2: previous decisions, So that is to rescind those decisions that
Speaker 2: rejected parole for Kevin. And now what the board say
Speaker 2: is and I quote, the Board will consider your application afresh.
Speaker 2: So this has given us an opportunity to present to
Speaker 2: the new Parole Board the full suite of information surrounding
Speaker 2: Kevin's case. And it's been very frustrating for Kevin in
Speaker 2: the past, because every time he's been before the Parole Board,
Speaker 2: when information has gone to the Parole Board in the past,
Speaker 2: it seems like they have not at all been aware
Speaker 2: of his case, his personal circumstances, and his previous efforts,
Speaker 2: and the way he's tried to explain that he is
Speaker 2: willing to do programs. He's willing to do what needs
Speaker 2: to be done, but he's not going to admit to
Speaker 2: a crime he did not commit. Now, I do need
Speaker 2: to point out that the Parole Board state three things. Categorically,
Speaker 2: they cannot independently assess a person's guilt or innocence. They
Speaker 2: cannot determine whether a person is in fact guilty or innocent,
Speaker 2: and they can't overturn a judgment. These are all decisions
Speaker 2: for a court. But what they can do, and what
Speaker 2: we've trying to be and what we've tried to explain
Speaker 2: to them is given Kevin Henry is an innocent man,
Speaker 2: given that he's maintained his innocence for twenty six years,
Speaker 2: given that all the evidence shows that Kevin is innocent,
Speaker 2: We're not asking for the Parole Board to owe returned
Speaker 2: the decision of the court. What we are asking them
Speaker 2: is to consider these facts and that pressuring him and
Speaker 2: forcing him to admit to something he did not do
Speaker 2: doesn't help him, and it doesn't make the community any safer.
Speaker 2: And that's really what their guidelines are about. What's the
Speaker 2: best way to get someone like Kevin Henry back into
Speaker 2: the community and in a way the community is safe now.
Speaker 2: Of course, if someone's committed a crime, then the parole
Speaker 2: board need to be very concerned about whether that person
Speaker 2: has rehabilitated, whether they have owned up to what they've done,
Speaker 2: taken responsibility, and gone through all the programs that are
Speaker 2: deemed necessary for them to be safe to the community.
Speaker 2: But Kevin's case is obviously remarkably different. He can't sit
Speaker 2: with a psychologist and explain what his motivations for the
Speaker 2: crime were because he didn't commit the crime. He can't
Speaker 2: sit with a board or conduct a program surrounding things
Speaker 2: like offending alcohol abuse when he didn't offend and commit
Speaker 2: the crime, and he hasn't used alcohol or drugs for
Speaker 2: more than a quarter of a century. So this has
Speaker 2: all been very frustrating for Kevin, and I think people
Speaker 2: really need to understand why that would be frustrating for Kevin,
Speaker 2: that he's almost been punished for maintaining his innocence. And
Speaker 2: I should point out, as we have in the past,
Speaker 2: that it has been only Queensland that has operated in
Speaker 2: this way that holds it against a person for maintaining
Speaker 2: their innocence. But now we do see light at the
Speaker 2: end of the tunnel that, as the Parole Board have
Speaker 2: said themselves, they're looking at this afresh and this will
Speaker 2: give us a new chance to appeal to the Parole
Speaker 2: Board and to outlay the way we see Kevin's integration
Speaker 2: back into the community going his release, and why he
Speaker 2: should be released, and the fact that he should no
Speaker 2: longer be punished for maintaining his innocence.
Speaker 3: How significant will it be the fact that under the
Speaker 3: Queensland government's recent reform to parole that there has to
Speaker 3: be an average monetary Strait Islander person on that parole board.
Speaker 5: Why hasn't there.
Speaker 3: Been a First Nation's representative on the Parole Board in
Speaker 3: the past.
Speaker 5: And do you think, I mean, why do you think
Speaker 5: it's so.
Speaker 3: Important that there is a First nation's voice on that board,
Speaker 3: particularly in relation to Kevin.
Speaker 2: I think it's exceptionally important and it's very disappointing that
Speaker 2: it hasn't happened. In the past. The understanding has always
Speaker 2: been that a parole board meeting to discuss the future
Speaker 2: of an Aboriginal or torres Strade Islander person who's in custody,
Speaker 2: that board would have at least one representative of the
Speaker 2: community on the board. And this is not just any person.
Speaker 2: This is still a professional parole board member, a professional
Speaker 2: person with experiencing the law, law enforcement and relevant areas.
Speaker 2: But it seems quite clear that that has never taken place.
Speaker 2: But now finally we've been assured in writing that an
Speaker 2: Aboriginal and Torestrade Islander person will be on the board
Speaker 2: that considers Kevin's future. And there's quite a few reasons
Speaker 2: why that is important. Firstly, are the basic statistics. Aboriginal
Speaker 2: and Toros Straight Islander people are systematically denied parole far
Speaker 2: at a far greater number than non in Indigenous people.
Speaker 2: That's despite when you wait equally the crimes they've committed,
Speaker 2: the length of time they've served, their rehabilitation, their efforts
Speaker 2: to undertake any of the programs that have been required,
Speaker 2: their behavior inside prison. So clearly Aboriginal and Terros Straight
Speaker 2: Islander people have been treated unfairly, and that's been obvious
Speaker 2: to Kevin as he's watched people who have committed heinous
Speaker 2: crimes walk free while he still sits in prison. And
Speaker 2: again that only adds to his frustration, and it adds
Speaker 2: to the frustration of all Aboriginal and Torostraight Island to
Speaker 2: prisoners when they play by the rules and do the
Speaker 2: right thing and yet they get denied parole while other
Speaker 2: non Indigenous people get paroled all the time having committed
Speaker 2: far more serious crimes. Now there's some quite crucial reasons
Speaker 2: why this is the case. Of course, there is the
Speaker 2: basic fact of discrimination, and the facts are clear on that.
Speaker 2: When you wait case to case, the discrimination is clear.
Speaker 2: There can be no argument as to that. But there
Speaker 2: are some reasons why that takes place. Some of the
Speaker 2: things that are required of an individual to gain parole
Speaker 2: is to show things like that they will be welcomed
Speaker 2: back into their community, that they will have a place
Speaker 2: to live, and that the way the parole Board previously operated,
Speaker 2: and we hope that that has now changed, has been
Speaker 2: very much focused on non Indigenous culture. So when an
Speaker 2: Indigenous person, particularly someone like Kevin Henry from a place
Speaker 2: like Warabinda nominates a place to go back to as
Speaker 2: a high he nominates someone like his uncle, and this
Speaker 2: is the best place for someone like Kevin, where he
Speaker 2: can live with someone who's a mentor someone who can
Speaker 2: help him reintegrate into the community. So much has changed
Speaker 2: in twenty five years. It also allows Kevin to connect
Speaker 2: back to country and culture, and all the studies show
Speaker 2: that this reconnection with country and culture, living with family,
Speaker 2: having role models is what helps Indigenous prisoners on their
Speaker 2: release and prevents recidivism. But it's not something that is
Speaker 2: at all understood by previous parole boards and has not
Speaker 2: been understood really by parole boards right around Australia. And
Speaker 2: so it's vital that there is an Aboriginal or Torrestrate
Speaker 2: Islander person on the parole board that can explain these
Speaker 2: issues to the other parole board members, that can explain
Speaker 2: why these things are important, Why moving back and living
Speaker 2: on country for someone is important. Re engaging in their culture,
Speaker 2: reconnecting with their family. These are the things that give
Speaker 2: people hope and meaning and purpose and this is what
Speaker 2: we know helps prevent recidivism. It also has to do
Speaker 2: with things like literacy in the non Indigenous community. Literacy
Speaker 2: is a very black and white issue. It's considered someone
Speaker 2: is basically literate and that is ninety to ninety five
Speaker 2: percent of the population or not literate. And for people
Speaker 2: in the non Indigenous community who are not literate, finding work,
Speaker 2: going through restorative justice programs, rehabilitation, reintegration can be very difficult.
Speaker 2: For Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people. This is not
Speaker 2: at all the case. Aboriginal in Torres straight Islander people
Speaker 2: could be considered illiterate in the non Indigenous sense and
Speaker 2: yet speak up to five languages from their own country.
Speaker 2: This is not someone who is illiterate, but they are
Speaker 2: considered that way. An Aboriginal and Torostraight Islander person could
Speaker 2: be someone who has a deep knowledge of their community,
Speaker 2: their country, who's had considerable work experience, working on the land,
Speaker 2: working in their community. Someone like Kevin is a great stockman,
Speaker 2: he's a great artist, and he has a lot to
Speaker 2: offer and there's a lot he can do. But this
Speaker 2: is not understood by the non Indigenous community, and all
Speaker 2: these things go against people like Kevin and all Aboriginal
Speaker 2: people when they come to meet with the Parole board
Speaker 2: and those decisions are made. And finally, the thing that
Speaker 2: is probably most difficult for non Indigenous people to understand,
Speaker 2: particularly professional parole board members who may have never had
Speaker 2: any contact with Aboriginal people, is understanding how an Indigenous
Speaker 2: person in that parole interview is going to express themselves
Speaker 2: and explain what is important to them and how they're
Speaker 2: going to manage their relapse prevention plan and how they're
Speaker 2: going to ensure that the practical day to day side
Speaker 2: of things are taken care of. Indigenous families act like
Speaker 2: a community of their own. Contrary to what a lot
Speaker 2: of people believe and a lot of the stereotypes that
Speaker 2: are pushed, Indigenous families are very caring, providing, nurturing and
Speaker 2: it's an all encompassing way of life. This is not
Speaker 2: something non Indigenous people often relate to. And so while
Speaker 2: Kevin would be considered just to look at his file
Speaker 2: not to have such support, that is in fact entirely incorrect.
Speaker 2: A place like Warabinda is a dry community. Only non
Speaker 2: Indigenous people in Australia are released into potential dryer communities.
Speaker 2: This gives them a huge advantage and should in fact
Speaker 2: be a benefit to them when going before the parole board,
Speaker 2: but instead being released back to an Indigenous community is
Speaker 2: for some reason seen as a negative. This is something
Speaker 2: else we wish to challenge. Where Kevin is from in Warabinda,
Speaker 2: there is also a healing center. This enables people like
Speaker 2: Kevin and all members of the community to connect with
Speaker 2: their culture, to work with their and to grow for
Speaker 2: themselves in a sense of connection to who they are,
Speaker 2: their people and country that just doesn't take place in
Speaker 2: mainstream education. All the science shows this works, and yet
Speaker 2: the science has not been caught up to by the
Speaker 2: parole boards, by corrective services, and by those who incarcerate
Speaker 2: Aboriginal in Toro straight Islander people en mass. So, just
Speaker 2: like most Aboriginal Interiro Straight Islander prisoners, Kevin has a
Speaker 2: lot going for him. The problem has always been that
Speaker 2: the system has not been able to understand that and
Speaker 2: see that. Now we are hoping under the new system
Speaker 2: will be able to present these facts and that the
Speaker 2: parole board, having an Aboriginal Interros Straight Islander member on
Speaker 2: that board will be more receptive of what we've been
Speaker 2: able to put in place for Kevin and to see
Speaker 2: the person that Kevin is a kind and generous person
Speaker 2: as you've heard from people on this podcast. A man
Speaker 2: who is great on the land, an artist who's cared
Speaker 2: for his fellow inmates, who's very well known and liked
Speaker 2: by many of the people inside the system who run
Speaker 2: the prison system, and these things should be positives for him.
Speaker 2: Things like literacy should not be used as negatives against
Speaker 2: a person who is perfectly capable of functioning in society.
Speaker 3: So, Martin, what's the timeline around this?
Speaker 2: So basically, what we're hoping is in the next few
Speaker 2: weeks that Kevin will have a chance to sit down
Speaker 2: with the parole board. This new parole board that we
Speaker 2: are told is more professional and will include an aboriginal
Speaker 2: or torrestraight on a person and be able to detail
Speaker 2: to them his experiences throughout these years twenty six years
Speaker 2: in prison, how he is ready to be released, and
Speaker 2: why he should be released, and the things he'll be
Speaker 2: able to do to go through that process. Now, we're
Speaker 2: organizing for Kevin to have a support person in place
Speaker 2: when that takes place, because, as I've outlined, this is
Speaker 2: very complicated. But I really believe when the parole board
Speaker 2: can listen to Kevin and hear him explain and speak
Speaker 2: for himself. They'll be able to see just what we've
Speaker 2: been talking about throughout kurtin the podcast, So that should
Speaker 2: take place in the next few weeks. In the meantime,
Speaker 2: we're also working with the parole Board to come up
Speaker 2: with plan so that if release is granted, then we
Speaker 2: have everything in place for moving forward. It's quite a
Speaker 2: complex process when someone's released from prison after so long.
Speaker 2: You need to understand that when Kevin went inside, there
Speaker 2: was no mobile phones or internet or anything like that.
Speaker 2: So just getting things like Medicare cards and working out
Speaker 2: how to live in the twenty first century requires some adjustment,
Speaker 2: and so we're working through all of that. So potentially
Speaker 2: this could take place in the next few weeks, and
Speaker 2: we asked that those who support Kevin keep thinking about
Speaker 2: him and keep the encouraging messages that this is his
Speaker 2: time to be released, that he poses no threat whatsoever
Speaker 2: to the community, and that when the parole Board hear
Speaker 2: him speak in the next few weeks, that they will
Speaker 2: understand he is an innocent man and it's time for
Speaker 2: him to go home. We've worked very hard and for
Speaker 2: a long time to overcome all these systematic hurdles that
Speaker 2: every prisoner, particularly Indigenous prisoners in Queensland face and we're
Speaker 2: hoping Kevin is as much a test case as well
Speaker 2: to show that what has happened what we first posed,
Speaker 2: that there are innocent people in prison. There are innocent
Speaker 2: Indigenous people in prison, and it's time for them to
Speaker 2: be released. It's time for the Parole Board to do
Speaker 2: their job and send them home.
Speaker 1: And we've talked a lot about parole, but what are
Speaker 1: other options for Kevin as well? And can you tell
Speaker 1: us a little bit about other avenues that you may
Speaker 1: be working on.
Speaker 2: So, as we've discussed previously on the podcast, not only
Speaker 2: have we been working on the parole issue, and this
Speaker 2: is something we've litigated heavily to get all those pres
Speaker 2: rejections over the last few years rescinded so it would
Speaker 2: be looked at afresh. But also we still have and
Speaker 2: are maintaining our efforts to have Kevin granted a full pardon.
Speaker 2: And so more information is coming in and that information
Speaker 2: is being presented to the Governor of Queensland so that
Speaker 2: they have all the information about this case so that
Speaker 2: they can see Kevin Henry's innocence and pardon him completely
Speaker 2: and absolve him of a crime he did not do.
Speaker 2: To quickly summarize that, as you've heard, that includes new
Speaker 2: forensic evidence, It includes the confirmation of Kevin's alibi. It
Speaker 2: includes multiple witness statements that not only point to Kevin
Speaker 2: not being involved, but pointing to exactly who was involved.
Speaker 2: These eyewitnesses who saw people known to them commit this crime,
Speaker 2: and those people were not Kevin Henry. There is not
Speaker 2: a piece of information that we've received over the last
Speaker 2: year or so that hasn't gone further to show Kevin
Speaker 2: is innocent, and so we continue to present that. And finally,
Speaker 2: as we've discussed before, the sole piece of evidence against
Speaker 2: Kevin Henry is his confession. We've already poked serious holes
Speaker 2: in that confession. In fact, we didn't have to do that.
Speaker 2: The judge showed there were huge holes in the confession
Speaker 2: and ruled up to eighty percent of it inadmissible because
Speaker 2: it was not voluntary. But there's more to come on
Speaker 2: that confession and that will further go to prove Kevin
Speaker 2: Henry's innocence.
Speaker 5: That was Episode forty of Curtain