Victims call for ban on prisoners taunting them with misinformation about their crimes

VICTIMS often suffer in silence, but are angry with an increasing trend to allow the criminals who wronged them to spin their side of the story on the internet.

SA Victims of Crime Commissioner Michael O'Connell on the steps of the Supreme Court. Picture: Matt Turner

NOTORIOUS prisoners are posting misinformation about their crimes online, traumatising victims and their families and prompting Commissioner for Victims’ Rights Michael O’Connell to call for a ban.

Mr O’Connell said despite checks, prison visitors were being allowed to deliver mail from fans to prisoners and later post their replies on the internet.

He was commenting on the inclusion of notorious murderer Eric Gassy on the prison advocacy group Justice Action’s website, iExpress, which now has an online application form to allow supporters to communicate with him.

Notorious murderer Eric Gassy.

The international website, which is the subject of ongoing complaints by the State Government to stop the smuggling of content from a number of notorious SA prisoners, boasts: “Welcome to iExpress, the world’s first full online avenue of expression for people in prisons and hospitals, bringing them into the digital world’’.

Acting on a murderous grudge, Gassy gunned down his former boss, mental health services head Dr Margaret Tobin, in her Hindmarsh Square offices in 2002, and was sentenced to a non-parole jail term of 30 years.

“Given policies and procedures stopping prisoners in prison having access the internet, some people may be astounded by the number of prisoners who access websites via third parties to post profiles,’’ Mr O’Connell said. “They are then proclaiming their version of their crimes, even professing their innocence and inviting ‘pen friends’.

“It is evident that prisoners do gain access to the internet and via it to social media. Prison visitors might deliver email to prisoners and later post prisoners’ replies.’’

Damon Karger was jailed for murder.

Robert Andrews was jailed for killing his girlfriend.

The iExpress website first came to public prominence in 2015 when The Advertiser revealed SA prisoners and ex-prisoners had been featured on the site — Damon Karger, jailed for murder; Peter David Copeland, jailed for murder, Robert James Andrews, jailed for killing his girlfriend and Paul Michael Radford, who was jailed for two rapes.

Since then, the organisation has switched its efforts to email as a tool for inmates to communicate.

Justice Action co-ordinator Brett Collins said the system was in no way designed to offend anyone but help prisoners rehabilitate and when released, be integrated into the community. Despite SA prisons banning prisoner access to the internet, Mr Collins said it had email contact with up to 50 inmates in the state at a time, people who were no longer “locked up and forgotten about”.

“Email access works very effectively in the ACT, and I was in one of their prisons four months ago to witness the benefits,’’ he said. “Twenty two thousand emails went in and out of the jail each week and it means these people are in contact with five people each so they have access to a lawyer, family that can still remember them when they get out.’’

A spokesman for the Department of Corrections said the department continued to complain to Justice Action about iExpress.

“The department’s position has always been that allowing convicted murderers and rapists to publicly display detailed accounts of their offending behaviour from their perspective, without consideration to the perspectives of their victims, or indeed the official record of agreed facts, represents an affront to their victims and all victims of crime,’’ the spokesman said.

Contraband mobile phones are also sometimes used by prisoners to post on the internet.

Mr O’Connell said another tactic prisoners are using is contraband mobiles, allowing them to post directly on the internet. He wants visitors punished if they post information for inmates. Mr O’Connell said access to the internet for criminals was a significant fear for victims. “Victims and other witnesses rightly fear that prisoners will use the internet to harass or threaten them, or to arrange for others to do so,’’ he said.

“The prevalence of cyberstalking and cyber-bullying and online fraud shows there is no doubt the internet is a prime facilitator for offenders.

“Others worry that prisoners will use the internet to continue their criminal activities. “Accusations include prisoners might arrange drug deals, organise retribution, or commit new crimes. Child sex offenders might access child pornography.’’

Criminals’ internet access is a significant fear for victims. Picture: iStock

Mr O’Connell said unlike the mainstream media, social media was not controlled by any governing bodies.

“At least the media, such as newspapers, is governed, unlike the internet-based social media that allows prisoners to promulgate their views etc with little, if any, accountability,’’ he said.

Mr O’Connell has also complained about unrestricted access to the internet by prisoners on home detention, which was meant to be a near-identical alternative to imprisonment.

He said victims recognised the value of electronic communication for rehabilitation, but uncontrolled access was fraught with difficulties.

“Can the public be confident that their activities are being scrutinised and intimately analysed in the same way that prisoners in prison are kept under constant and vigilant surveillance?’’ he said.

“On home detention, prisoners have access to the internet etc yet it is supposed to be an alternative to imprisonment.”

The department spokesman said there were differences between what criminals were allowed to do on home detention, compared to prison custody. “Offenders on home detention remain members of the community and, as such, are required to look after themselves and access to the internet supports this,’’ he said.