Government's policy of denying drug importers the right to apply for parole until half their sentence is completed has been ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court.

Former Home Affairs Minister Terry Lister - as a Minister is entitled to do under the Parole Board Act - gave the order to the board in 2002 as part of his “concerted effort” to send a “powerful message” to those trying to bring drugs into Bermuda. Anybody convicted of offences not related to drugs, violence or sex is permitted by law to apply for parole once one third of their sentence is completed.

But during a Supreme Court judicial review yesterday involving the case of convicted Jamaican heroin importer Audley Patrick Lawe, Puisne Judge Ian Kawaley upheld the defence's argument that it was illegal to have prevented Lawe making an application at the same time as every other inmate.

Lawe was sentenced to nine years imprisonment in October 1999 for attempting to import heroin with an estimated street value of $388,000 from New York.

The policy came under fire in April 2003 when Lawe and four other Jamaican drug importers went on hunger strike at Westgate in protest against the restriction. Mr. Lister, however, rejected their protests at the time arguing that changing the policy would undermine Government's tough stance on drugs.

“We in Bermuda take importing drugs very seriously and that's a message we want those beyond our borders to take. It would be inappropriate for us to change the policy given what we are trying to accomplish,” he said.

Contacted by The Royal Gazette last night, Attorney General Larry Mussenden said he would await the receipt of the judge's written ruling before commenting in depth on the matter.

He was at pains to stress, however, that while the ruling now permitted drug importers to apply for parole before 50 percent of their sentences are served, it did not necessarily mean their applications would be successful.

“I will wait until I have seen the learned judge's written reasons for the ruling and I have discussed the matter fully with the Ministry of Home Affairs before making any public comment,” he said.

“What I can say is that the philosophy behind the policy was that drug importers - who have been tearing our community apart over many years - needed to be treated by harsher penalties. This was reinforced by a policy which stated that any parole application should be considered at a later stage than other offenders,” Mr. Mussenden explained.

“This was deemed of particular importance to foreign drug importers who if released on parole might not be properly supervised or subject to the same standards of recall in other countries.”

“I would also add,” he continued, “to underline Government's commitment to taking a tough stance on drugs and all the harm, addiction and danger that they bring to our shores.”

Mr. Mussenden concluded: “As was promised in the Throne Speech, we are working on legislation which will mean harsher sentences for drug offences and let me assure everyone that the Government is committed to combating the issue at all levels.”

Meanwhile, one of Lawe's defence lawyers, Charles Richardson said he was “delighted” with the ruling.

“It has always been my position that this policy is discriminatory, unfair and counterproductive,” he said.

“We are all aware that between 45 and 60 percent of convicts in Westgate are in there on drug related offences.

“This policy took away any hope of parole and also any incentive to take part in prison rehabilitation programmes. This is not to mention the extra $40,000 per inmate this policy cost the taxpayer.

“What the ruling effectively means is that about 50 percent of the prison population who were unable to apply for parole under the strictures of the unlawful policy are now free to apply on their own merits.

Mr. Richardson concluded: “This is a significant development in the protection of the rights of incarcerated persons.”