Legal Q&A – No Body, No Parole

Your browser window currently does not have enough height, or is zoomed in too far to view our website content correctly. Once the window reaches the minimum required height or zoom percentage, the content will display automatically.
Alternatively, you can learn more via the links below.

Hi there, thank you for your question. This information comes from the NSW State Parole Authority:
Under the No Body, No Parole legislation, the NSW Commissioner of Police must provide the NSW State Parole Authority a written report evaluating an offender’s level of co-operation and assistance in identifying the victim’s body or remains.
The legislation applies retrospectively, i.e. for any parole decision made after October 2022, regardless of when the homicide offence or conviction occurred.
Community safety is the Parole Authority’s highest priority when making decisions about releasing inmates on parole.
The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 states the State Parole Authority must not make a parole order if it is not satisfied that it is in the interest of community safety.
Hi there, thank you for your question. This information comes from the NSW State Parole Authority:
Under the No Body, No Parole legislation, the NSW Commissioner of Police must provide the NSW State Parole Authority a written report evaluating an offender’s level of co-operation and assistance in identifying the victim’s body or remains.
The legislation applies retrospectively, i.e. for any parole decision made after October 2022, regardless of when the homicide offence or conviction occurred.
Community safety is the Parole Authority’s highest priority when making decisions about releasing inmates on parole.
The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 states the State Parole Authority must not make a parole order if it is not satisfied that it is in the interest of community safety.

Following the “no body no parole” amendment, the State Parole Authority is required to have regard to the written advice of NSW Police about the offender’s level of cooperation and assistance concerning the location of the victim.
This includes an evaluation of the timeliness of the offender’s cooperation; the truthfulness, completeness and reliability of information or evidence provided and the significance and usefulness of the offender’s cooperation.
Therefore, the Parole Authority cannot make a parole order unless it is satisfied that the offender has cooperated satisfactorily in police investigations or other actions to identify the victim’s location.”
Similar laws have been introduced in the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia.
While intended to provide a sense of closure for the family and friends of victims, critics argue that the legislation has serious repercussions for people who are wrongfully convicted. In late 2024, the Bridge of Hope Innocence Project wrote an open letter to the NSW Attorney General, signed by over 100 people, arguing that the law doesn’t effectively incentivise cooperation but instead traps wrongfully convicted individuals in prison, even if they pose minimal risk to society. One high profile example is Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton, who served three years in prison for the murder of her daughter, Azaria. Chamberlain-Creighton was later pardoned when new evidence was found indicating she was innocent.
Following the “no body no parole” amendment, the State Parole Authority is required to have regard to the written advice of NSW Police about the offender’s level of cooperation and assistance concerning the location of the victim.
This includes an evaluation of the timeliness of the offender’s cooperation; the truthfulness, completeness and reliability of information or evidence provided and the significance and usefulness of the offender’s cooperation.
Therefore, the Parole Authority cannot make a parole order unless it is satisfied that the offender has cooperated satisfactorily in police investigations or other actions to identify the victim’s location.”
Similar laws have been introduced in the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia.
While intended to provide a sense of closure for the family and friends of victims, critics argue that the legislation has serious repercussions for people who are wrongfully convicted. In late 2024, the Bridge of Hope Innocence Project wrote an open letter to the NSW Attorney General, signed by over 100 people, arguing that the law doesn’t effectively incentivise cooperation but instead traps wrongfully convicted individuals in prison, even if they pose minimal risk to society. One high profile example is Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton, who served three years in prison for the murder of her daughter, Azaria. Chamberlain-Creighton was later pardoned when new evidence was found indicating she was innocent.
This article discusses some of the human rights that may be relevant in prison with reference to human rights protections under the Human Rights Act 2019 (QLD) in Queensland.
Parole is a process that gives some people the ability to get out of prison and serve the last part of their sentence in the community, under the supervision of Community Corrections (which used to be known as Probation and Parole).
Bail is a promise you can make that you will return to court. It means you can stay in the community (instead of jail) until your legal matters finish. If you are being held in custody and you haven’t been found guilty, you may be able to apply for bail.
The way the NSW court system deals with bail hearings on weekdays has changed.
There is a lot of talk about human rights in prison – with things like ‘the Mandela Rules’, ‘the principle of equivalence’, and access to health care without discrimination.
Procedural fairness, often called “natural justice”, is a collection of rights, established under common law in Australia around the 1980s.
Generally, debts can be put into two categories. First, there are private debts (e.g. from a bank, a landlord, a car dealer, or ‘Afterpay’). Second, there are debts owed to the State (e.g. unpaid fines).
The concern for those who are subjected to government decisions is that they often do not get to see the integrity of the information which was considered by the decision-maker and don’t get to check if it’s correct.