When should a person serving a life sentence for committing a heinous crime be considered for parole? This was a question posed by Pretoria high court Judge Nicolene Janse van Nieuwenhuizen during an application for leave to appeal against her judgment‚ which ordered the placement of Chris Hani’s killer Janusz Walus on parole.Court bid to keep Janusz Walus in jail underwayJustice and Correctional Services Minister Michael Masutha’s advocate‚ Marumo Moerane SC‚ told the court that Tuesday's application came just two days after the 23rd commemoration of Hani’s murder.At the time of his assassination‚ Hani was the secretary-general of the South African Communist Party‚ a member of the African National Congress’s national executive committee and uMkhonto we Sizwe leader.Moerane said the judges sentencing Walus in 1993 described the murder as a deliberate and cold-blooded one. The act was cowardly in the extreme. It was preceded by weeks of planning.Moerane said in her judgment ordering the release of Walus on parole‚ there was no justification of finding that decision of minister was irrational.Moerane said Judge Janse van Nieuwenhuizen did not distinguish between rationality and reasonableness in her judgment.“They are lumped together in one sentence.”The judge said there was no question that the crime Walus committed was heinous.“How many years should one be in prison before one is considered for parole? It is now 23 years. There is no question that this was a heinous crime.”Moerane said he could not personally answer that question. He said he had referred the judge to the case of Sirhan Bishara Sirhan‚ the man convicted of the murder of American politician Robert "Bobby" Kennedy in 1968.Sirhan is still serving his life imprisonment sentence. He was originally sentenced to death‚ but his sentence was commuted to life in prison following a decision by the California Supreme Court decision in another case that capital punishment was a violation of the California Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.“It is up to decision maker (Masutha) to determine that (the length of sentence)‚ unless it is found what he did was irrational or unreasonable. None of those factors are dealt with in the judgment.”Moerane said Masutha’s decision to refuse placement in parole was not unreasonable.“The ladyship’s finding that the minister’s decision was irrational and unreasonable was a misdirection‚” Moerane said.The application continues...