Shannon Deery: Andrews government’s stance on Paul Denyer smacks of hypocrisy

Legislating against individuals sets a dangerous precedent but the Andrews government’s refusal to back a law to keep serial killer Paul Denyer behind bars for life smacks of hypocrisy.

A Bill parliament this week will debate a Bill to keep sadistic serial killer Paul Denyer behind bars for life.

Daniel Andrews has made it clear his government opposes the proposed law, and in doing so will side with a serial killer over the victims of his crimes.

Legislating against individuals can set dangerous precedents. But the government’s stubborn refusal to back the Denyer law smacks of hypocrisy.

Andrews was opposition leader when a law to keep Hoddle St killer Julian Knight jailed for life was passed in 2014.

He was premier when the government imposed identical restrictions on Russell St bomber Craig Minogue four years later.

These laws deemed both men ineligible for parole unless on their deathbeds or so infirm they were deemed harmless.

The Bill currently before parliament would make Denyer just the third Victorian to be subject to such restrictive conditions.

Psychiatrists formed a view that Paul Denyer obtained immense gratification from the humiliation, mutilitation and killing of other human beings.

The depraved, sadistic and merciless nature of Denyer’s crimes should never be forgotten.

As sentencing judge Frank Vincent said, Denyer was “not one of us”.

He hated women and found the infliction of injury, suffering and death intensely gratifying and pleasurable.

Details of the “extraordinary savagery” behind the murders of Elizabeth Stevens, 18, Debbie Fream, 22, and Natalie Russell, 17, are as chilling today as they were in 1993. They were premeditated, calculated, horrific attacks.

“You obtain immense gratification from the humiliation, mutilation and killing of other human beings,” Justice Vincent said when sentencing.

“You do constitute such a danger, and at our present state of knowledge, apart from separating you from society there is nothing that can be done about it.

“Perhaps there will come a day when you will be able to walk among the ordinary people of our community. Whether you will ever do so must await the passage of years and the decision of the executive government of the time.”

Psychiatrists formed a view that Denyer obtained immense gratification from the humiliation, mutilation and killing of women.

Justice Vincent said: “For many, you are the fear that quickens their steps as they walk alone, or that causes a parent to look anxiously at a clock when a child is late.”

He sentenced Denyer to die behind bars, imposing three life sentences and refusing to set a parole period.

Denyer became just the second Victorian to have no parole period fixed since the abolition of the death penalty.

But Denyer successfully appealed this sentence, partly because of his youth at the time, and secured a 30-year non-parole period.

Now that he has served this time, Denyer wants out. He insists he has rehabilitated himself.

Denyer became just the second Victorian to not have a non-parole period fixed since the abolition of the death penalty.

The Bill needs the support of at least seven crossbench MPs to pass the upper house and put pressure on the government to back it in the lower house.

It is unlikely to do so.

But failing to act definitively on Denyer should not be an option for the state government.

The Adult Parole Board states the purpose of parole is to promote public safety by supervising and supporting the transition of offenders from prison into the community.

The aim is to minimise their risk of reoffending (in frequency and seriousness) while on parole and after they finish their sentences.

Andrews says he has confidence in the parole board making the right decision. That approach could lead to Denyer being released one day, even if it comes with an inherent risk to the community.

There is currently no limit to how many times he can apply for parole, and each time he does, those close to his victims are retraumatised.

So are many members of the public, particularly in the Frankston and Seaford communities, still haunted by his crimes.

Governments riding roughshod over the courts take a slippery slope, and this should be tolerated in only the rarest cases.

Denyer’s is one of those.

The government has shown itself willing to legislate against individuals before.

If it won’t back this Bill, perhaps it will consider a broader approach.

In 2018 laws were passed in Western Australia allowing its government to prevent mass murderers and serial killers being considered for parole or resocialisation programs.

These reforms were to address the trauma and emotional toll of the family and friends of murder victims and others affected by these crimes.

WA elevated the interests of the community over that of offenders.

Perhaps it is an approach this government could adopt.

The WA parliament agreed to this law to apply to “the very worst mass murderers and serial killers serving life and indefinite terms”.

Denyer is one of our very worst. To use the judge’s phrase, he should remain “not one of us”.

Shannon Deery is state politics editor