I would take the words that the legislation has, which is the requirement that the judge give reasons, but only in one direction. In effect that is a presumption, though it doesn't state it, so what this is going to do in those cases of multiple murders is create classes of them.
The classes are also going to be determined, to some extent, by something that is completely independent of the offence, which is, to a large extent, how much confidence the judge has in the paroling process. A judge who has confidence in the parole process is going to say, “I'm handing down a life sentence, and when that person is safe, I have confidence that the National Parole Board will be able to identify that”. Another judge might not have that confidence and therefore would, in effect, put his own stamp on it by giving consecutive parole ineligibility periods, so it seems to me that it creates mischief.
I have more confidence in the paroling process, and we're not talking about the faint hope clause. I had confidence in the paroling process, really, because of the three-step process. It was first with a judge, then with a jury, and then with the parole process.
When I look at the parole data, I don't see the National Parole Board being terribly easy on people. Most offenders who go into prison these days are being released at the two-thirds point, not prior to that. That's not a lenient parole board.
What's it's saying is that we're not confident, and we want you, the judge, to take the heat when you have something like a person who has killed his family before you. We want you to take the heat for why you didn't give that penalty. It doesn't seem to me that this is appropriate.