With the recent action by the premier to try to put in place laws to stop Julian Knight from being released from prison, one has to ask, is this fair.

Now before anyone shoots me down, I'm the first to say there is no way a person who committed such a crime should even be spared their life, let alone released after serving the min sentence, however, the fact is he was sentenced, and has served his minimum time and, if the laws are wrong, then fix them.

I can see this escalating into another taxpayer funded appeal hearing as no doubt some do-gooder lawyer will jump on the opportunity to make some serious bucks.

I think it is fair Rechtub, but understand your reasons for posting the thread.
What I think is unfair is the sentence handed down in his first trial.
Again and again we debate sentences given and the vast difference in time served.
We should ask, some have, and been rebuffed by law givers, why sentences do not take in the public's wants and concerns.
Too why victims are often hurt deeply by slack terms given to those who took loved ones life.
Such a man as this should never be released.

On principle I'd say it's an abuse of the legal system but it depends on how the bill is worded, I'm sure the attorney general's office is aware of the Victorian charter of human rights and responsiblities.
To you and I it does seem like retrospective conviction and sentencing but I'm not a lawyer.
I'd also be interested to hear what the parole board decides anyway, has he been rehabilitated? Has he taken any steps toward rehabilitation?
Then there's the question of whether self improvement equates to rehabilitation, Craig Minogue is by all accounts a completely different man compared to the person he was when convicted of the Russell St bombing but should he be paroled?

....Such a man as this should never be released.

I hear you loud and clear Belly, but, my question is, is it fair to change his sentence some twenty odd years down the track.

JOM, while a agree you, I was of the opinion that the premier intends to bypass the parole board and only allow release for health reasons.

Rechtub,
After posting I refreshed my memory on the Knight case, his sentence was life with the possibility of parole after 27 years, so I guess this move by the government is in the spirit of the original decision.

What did a sentence of "Life" mean when he was sentenced?

If it was an amount of time stipulated by law then he should not be held beyond that limit.