Three of Western Australia’s most “heinous” killers will spend at least another six years behind bars after the state’s attorney-general decided to delay their parole eligibility.

Peter John Maloney, Catherine Margaret Birnie and William Patrick Mitchell have spent decades in prison over separate murders between 1978 and 1993.

WA Attorney-General John Quigley announced the trio would not be considered for parole for at least another six years, to spare victims and families further trauma.

Maloney has been in prison for 44 years after killing Caroline Fountain with a carjack in 1978 and Catherine Burden in an Esperance motel in 1979.

Birnie was jailed along with her husband David Birnie in 1987 for murdering, abducting, raping and torturing four women over five weeks in 1986.

They were caught when a fifth woman escaped and alerted authorities.

Mitchell killed Karen Mackenzie and her three children with an axe in 1993, while working at a farm in Greenough.

In 2018, the Labor Government reformed a law to give the Attorney-General sole power to decide the parole eligibility of certain serial killers and mass murderers — those who killed two people on separate days or three people on a single day.

Mr Quigley said his decision was intended to spare victims and their families further trauma.

“There are some crimes so heinous and so disturbing that they have a profound and lasting impact on the entire community,” he said.

“The prospect of a mass murderer or serial killer potentially being granted parole can have a significant impact on secondary victims and the broader community.

“The suspension of parole consideration for mass murderers and serial killers is primarily intended to address the re-traumatisation experienced by the secondary victims of these notorious crimes.”

Mr Quigley said he came to the decision after carefully considering their statutory reports and sentencing remarks.

He said the direction would be in place until December 13, 2030.

“This means that survivors and grieving families of loved ones lost can know that these cold-blooded killers will spend at least a further six years behind bars and no consideration will be given to their release by the board for that period.”

‘A concerning precedent’

Jamie Walvisch, senior lecturer at the University of Western Australia’s law school, is concerned about a politician having the power to make such a decision.

He said when most prisoners came up for parole, their case was investigated by the Prisoners Review Board.

It looks into how the person has been faring in prison, what steps they have made towards rehabilitation, how victims of their crime feel and what risk they might pose to the community.

He said leaving the decision up to the attorney-general alone lacked transparency and due process.

“They have no evidence at all on which to make any decisions,” Mr Walvisch said.

“The concern is the complete lack of transparency, impartiality and independence in the process.”

He acknowledged few people were likely to care if serial killers and mass murderers were denied a fair process.

But he said it set a dangerous precedent.

“This law is currently limited to serial killers and mass murderers,” he said.

Mr Walvisch said WA was the only jurisdiction that granted its attorney-general this power.

He believed there were ways to reduce the burden of parole reviews on victim’s loved ones while maintaining fairness within the criminal justice system.

For example, he said parole reviews could have been extended from three to six years, but the decisions could have been left to the Prisoners Review Board rather than the Attorney-General.

He believed the current system was an attack on the separation of powers which was fundamental to Australia’s system of government.

“The judiciary should be making judicial decisions,” he said.

“Not the attorney-general, other ministers or the governor.”

‘Trauma gets into your very being’

Attorney-General Quigley emphasised that his main motivation in delaying parole eligibility for serial killers and mass murderers was to spare victims and families trauma.

Centre for Women’s Safety and Wellbeing chief executive Alison Evans said it was an important consideration.

Dr Evans said the knowledge that perpetrators were coming up for release was often harrowing for victims and families.

She said it was particularly difficult when they felt no rehabilitation had occurred during the offender’s time in prison.

“We know that when a perpetrator is coming up for release, that fear… can come flooding back,” she said.

Dr Evans said support needed to be put in place for victims and families during this time, and if the offender was released, steps needed to be taken to ensure their safety.

While she did not comment on these cases specifically, she said she would like to see experts in violence against women and children more closely involved in parole decisions.