James Patrick Earley
Who is Jimmy Earley?
James (Jim) Patrick Earley is an Irishman, a good hearted, good humoured larrikin, who immigrated to Australia with his family when he was about 7-years old. He and grew up in the northern suburbs of Adelaide but has been imprisoned since 1989 – age 27. Jim was imprisoned for the shooting death of a man who had home-invaded a woman and small child. Jim had been visiting the woman who had been subject to death-threats from her former partner during the week prior. After hearing the child screaming, Jim emerged from another room and shot the intruder with a shot gun. Jim left the house and shot at a car which had brought the intruder to the house. The intruder died at the scene and Jim left, and was later charged with murder.
The trial
At the first Trial, Jim was found guilty of murder. There were issues with the trial and his conviction was overturned on appeal. At the second trial, the question of manslaughter was raised, however Jim was again found guilty of murder. He appealed again but lost in a 2-1 split decision. In an unusual set of circumstances, the trial judge was also one of the three judges that heard the appeal. That judge was one of the 2 that denied the appeal.
Jim was initially sentenced to an 18 year non-parole period with a mandatory head sentence of life. Between 1991 and 1994, Jim received a further 5 year sentence for an assault that occurred in prison. In 1994, truth in sentencing was brought in which removed offenders’ ability to gain remissions on sentences. All outstanding sentences were readjusted to account for the lost opportunities for remissions. Jim’s sentence was recalculated to make his non-parole period 14 years and 9 months. He was due for release in 2003. However, political interference would stall his parole application for around 9 years.
Political interference in parole
Prior to 2003, the Rann government sought political votes with a ‘tough on crime’ stance. The government would later call their strategy to keep prisoners in jail longer ‘Rack ’em, Pack ’em and Stack ’em.’ Rehabilitation was not on the agenda. One means of doing this was to legislate a political decision-making body, known as the ‘Executive Council’ to make decisions on applications for parole made by people convicted of murder.

This process meant that any person convicted of murder and seeking parole may be granted parole by the parole board, but that the final decision lay with the Executive Council. This legislation was questioned as being a self-serving vote-grabbing stunt with no benefit for the community.
In their effort to gain more votes, the politicians sought to ‘throw away the key’ on people convicted of murder. They systematically began rejecting parole applications, despite these applications being approved by the Parole Board. The Executive Council would give no reasons for their decisions. The person who had their parole application rejected would simply need to blindly go through the parole application process again – without knowing what they needed to address for a favourable decision.
Jimmy was caught in this bureaucratic abuse. In 2003 Jim’s parole application was approved by the parole board but rejected by the Executive Counsel. Jim was on a merry-go-round for the following 9-years. In that time the Parole Board repeatedly approved his applications for parole, but rejected by the Executive Counsel. In 2013, approximately 10 years after Jim’s original application was made, the Executive Counsel granted parole. Jim had served 24 years in prison with very little rehabilitation provided.
Kicked out of jail with no rehabilitation
At the time Jim was informed of his successful application for parole, he was also told that he would be moved to the prison pre-release centre for just 2-weeks for preparation before release into the community. Jim asked the Board for extra time at the pre-release centre, pleading that 2-weeks was not enough time to reintegrate after 24 years in prison. The prison authorities rejected Jim’s request. To make matters worse, the house provided to Jim was directly across from a pub. That pub often had drunk patrons wandering the nearby streets when the pub closed.
Just a short time after release, drunk patrons from the pub decided to trespass onto Jim’s property and urinate on his car. Jim chased them away with a cheese knife. The police were called and Jim was arrested, had his parole cancelled, and had to front court. After a short delay the court gave Jim no further penalty for the incident and Jim was again able to apply for parole – it was 2014.
Reapplying for parole and the deportation order
Jim’s 2014 application for parole was deferred due to pending changes to relevant parole legislation. Jim again waited years for a response. However, changes to immigration laws meant that non-citizens who had committed serious criminal offences may be deported from Australia. Despite living in Australia since he was 7-years old, Jim was not a citizen, instead he had a permanent visa. During 2017, before his new parole application was decided, Jim received notice that his visa had been cancelled. He would be deported back to Ireland. Jim was then around 55-years old and had no family or friends in Ireland. He was arguably institutionalised after spending around 28-years behind bars.
Jim has since been advised that his parole would be granted. The final decision is pending on Jim accepting the parole conditions. If he accepts parole, Border Force will pick him up from prison and taken to a detention centre. He’ll then be flown to Ireland, given a bus pass and sent into the Irish community without any effective support.
What is the situation now?
Jim in now in his 60’s. He has refused parole for a number of reasons. Firstly, Jim would rather remain in Australia to be able to see his remaining family face to face. He has received significant support from his brothers during his imprisonment. He would rather stay in prison and be able to see his brothers in person during prison visits than be sent overseas and not have face to face contact with them again.
Secondly, Jim has a lump in his Aorta about 5 cm in diameter. He is on limited duties within the prison due to the likelihood of death if the Aorta bursts. Flying overseas is not approved by a doctor, yet no alternative has been considered by the Immigration Department.
Thirdly, Jim has received no effective rehabilitation to assist with his reintegration. Nor can he get effective rehabilitation in the prison he is held. Mobile phones did not even exist in 1989. Jim’s had no practice at using phones and internet for any activity, let alone for activities crucial to daily life. Hes had no practice in driving, shopping, maintaining a budget or paying bills. No practice in catching public transport, buying a ticket for public transport or finding his way around a city.
It’s been around 35 years since his imprisonment. He had difficulty managing a confronting situation in 2013 because of the lack of reintegration. Yet authorities are content with putting him out on the street in another country, with no support, some 10-years later and still no meaningful reintegration strategy. Jim is seeking to have his visa returned on humanitarian grounds so he can stay in the country after accepting parole.

Contact us for further info…
Crim Nation, South Australia – Prison Reform Advocate