The only problem I’ve got with the sentence handed-out yesterday to Christchurch man David Benbow for murdering his childhood friend, Michael McGrath, is the fact that he’s going to be eligible for parole. 

It’s going to be a while away. Because he’s been sent away for 17 years before he can be considered for parole. But I don’t think he should be eligible at all. 

And why’s that, do you reckon? 

Well, if you saw or heard any of the media coverage of yesterday’s sentencing, it would have been impossible for you not to have been moved by the victim impact statement read to the court by Michael McGrath’s mother, Adrienne McGrath. 

I’ll share a couple of things from her statement with you. In particular, what she had to say about the fact that her son’s body has never been found. 

“I find it hard to believe that Michael will never come home again. I worry about him being out there on his own… think about how cold and lonely he must be.” 

And who wouldn’t feel the same? If you saw or heard Adrienne giving that statement, you’ll know how emotional she was reading it out to the court.  

And that’s the reason why I don’t think David Benbow should ever be eligible for parole because, not only has he denied Michael McGrath’s family and his partner of a life with the man they love, he’s also denied them the opportunity to say a proper farewell. 

How many times do you hear police in cases like this saying that their main focus is getting the murder victim home to their family. And, in most cases, they achieve that. 

In other cases, they don’t. And, in this case anyway —and others too— they don’t get someone home to their family, because the person responsible refuses to say where the body of their victim is or what they did with it. 

Which, when you think about it, must be like adding salt to the worst kind of wound.  

And that is why we saw Michael McGrath’s brother, Simon, outside court yesterday saying that he thinks parole shouldn’t be available to murderers, like David Benbow, who don’t admit where the bodies of their victims are. 

And I’m with Simon McGrath on this one.  

Of course, David Benbow is still saying that he’s an innocent man. That he didn’t murder Michael McGrath. But then he would say that, wouldn’t he? 

But, after two trials, he was eventually found guilty and yesterday he was sentenced. And he can claim otherwise as much as he likes, but he is a murderer - and if there is an ounce of decency in him - he will admit what he did with his old friend’s body. 

The obvious argument against a ‘no body, no parole’ approach to sentencing murderers, is ‘what if someone is actually innocent?’. 

Because, if someone’s innocent, they’re not going to be able to tell you where a body is, are they? Because, if they’re innocent, they’ll have no idea. 

And so, if the rules were ‘no body, no parole’, then it would be extremely unfair on innocent people. That would be the argument. Because if they couldn’t help police find the victim, they’d be punished for it. 

But I don’t think that’s a strong enough argument. Because, if a person truly believes they’re innocent, they’ll use their time in prison to work on their appeals. And, down the track, if it’s found that they are actually innocent - then the issue of parole won’t even be up for discussion. 

So I think it’s a no-brainer. 

Prior to last year’s last election, Paul Goldsmith - who is now Justice Minister - didn’t go as far as saying it was a no-brainer, but he did say that, if National got into government, he’d be open to the idea. 

And Labour’s Ginny Anderson, who used to be the Justice Minister - also said before last year’s election that she was open to it as well. 

So there seems to be at least a little bit of interest politically. But where do you stand?