Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Advocates for the current arrangements would argue that Keli Lane has served a lawful sentence determined by the courts, and that weekend release is a standard, closely supervised part of the parole and reintegration process designed to reduce reoffending and help prisoners rebuild stable lives. They would note that Patrick Cogan has not been convicted of any offence, and that a tribunal or court ordered his reinstatement presumably because his dismissal did not meet the legal threshold required to remove someone from their post; punishing him for his choice of partner, rather than any wrongdoing of his own, risks setting a troubling precedent for guilt by association. On this view, due process and the principle that rehabilitation should be genuinely possible after punishment matter more than public discomfort with how content someone convicted of a serious crime appears to be.

The case against

Critics would counter that the crime at the heart of this case, the killing of a newborn baby, is of such gravity that visible ease and enjoyment on release understandably distresses the public and, most importantly, anyone connected to the victim, and that parole boards must weigh public confidence in the justice system alongside individual rehabilitation. They would also argue that schools, particularly those responsible for children's welfare, have a legitimate interest in exercising caution over who they employ and in what circumstances, and that being compelled to reinstate a teacher closely associated with a person convicted of killing an infant raises reasonable concerns for parents and pupils, regardless of the teacher's own conduct. From this perspective, the story reflects a broader unease that formal legal processes can produce outcomes that feel, to many, at odds with proportionate justice and institutional judgement.