Convicted murderer Alicia was approved to do IVF from prison. There's been an update.

In 2014 in Norlane, a quiet suburb in Geelong, a terrible murder happened. Alicia Schiller, 25, returned to Tyrelle Evertsen-Mostert's home, where she had been temporarily staying, to find $50 missing from her room. 

Both Alicia and Tyrelle took the street drug ice, per the Geelong Advertiser, and Alicia had consumed some that day. Rather than simply asking for the cash back, a furious Alicia jumped on Tyrelle's bed and stabbed her three times with a kitchen knife, per the report.

That measly $50 was enough for her to commit murder. Tragically, Tyrelle was a mum of three whose son, just four, was in the home when the crime took place.

Alicia was sentenced to 16 years in prison in 2017, but ten years on from her startlingly brutal crime, she was given 'special leave' to temporarily depart the maximum security prison to attend IVF appointments. 

It's a decision that shocked the nation. How could a convicted murderer, one who took a mother's life, be given a "second chance at being a mother" by the government?

And what on earth would happen if she was successful in falling pregnant while in jail, knowing that she has five more years of her sentence to serve? 

Well, we're going to talk you through exactly how this nearly happened, and the people and bodies who were eventually able to prevent it. Schiller has since withdrawn her application for IVF.

Why was Alicia Schiller allowed to exit jail to get IVF treatment?

The situation was going to proceed due to a Supreme Court ruling back in 2010. 

Jacinta Allan, the premier of Victoria, said that the historical case provided a pathway for someone in Alicia's circumstances to expand her family from jail. 

The case in question was of Kimberley Castles, who was 45 when she was locked up for committing social security fraud, per Human Rights Law Centre.

Kimberley was just five months away from the cut-off for IVF (which is 46 in Australia), and had been doing IVF treatments before she was apprehended. 

She was sentenced to three years jail, but was to be released within 18 months. At first, the Secretary of the Department of Justice denied Kimberley's plea to access IVF, citing amongst other things that the prisoner did not have the 'entitlement to this form of medical treatment'. 

However, she argued that she had the right under the 1896 Corrections Act, which states that prisoners have 'access to reasonable medical care and treatment necessary for the preservation of health'. She also used other acts that state people have the right to privacy, family, equality and humane treatment in detention. 

Eventually, it was agreed that she could undergo IVF treatment, and she was given leave to exit the prison for doctor's visits and treatment. The court agreed that IVF is a 'a legitimate medical treatment for a legitimate medical condition'.

From a non-legal perspective, it's not hard to see that Kimberley and Alicia's cases are vastly different. Alicia is a convicted murderer, while Kimberley is a fraudster. Kimberley had 18 months to serve, Alicia has five years.

Yet, this precedent gave Alicia the right to access IVF, despite still having years on her sentence. She would have needed to pay for her own transportation and for the treatment, but she would be able to welcome a child. 

What would happen if Schiller had IVF and got pregnant?

If Schiller's IVF journey was successful, she would be allowed to raise the child in prison until they're five, and then the child would be placed in her full custody as their mother upon release. 

It was a decision that has made Tyrelle's family very upset. 

Her in-laws Jim and Yvonne Gentle spoke to The Project about the decision. 

"Although the law might say she has a legal right to do [IVF], I don't think that a person convicted of such a horrific crime as she was convicted of, and did, [should have] those rights. 

"It should be a punishment. [She] shouldn't be able to escape for a better position in prison, which I think will probably be the reason that she's doing it," Yvonne added. 

Jim also spared a thought for the child, whose early years would also be spent behind bars. 

"Think of the poor child. If a child was born in there, it's five years before he comes out and that's not fair on the child," he said. "The poor kid, you just can't do that."

For Yvonne, remembering that Tyrelle was a mother throws the issue into an even starker light. 

"What about the person that she destroyed? What about the person's life that she took away? She doesn't get a second chance," she said. 

"She was a lovely, loving kind mother… it's very sad that a situation like this can happen. That someone's life can be snuffed out."

Shadow Corrections Minister Brad Battin agreed.

"In what world would this convicted killer be seen as a suitable mother while still in prison serving a lengthy sentence for stabbing someone over a $50 debt?" he said.

Premier Jacinta Allan, however, was more measured in her response, per the Herald Sun.

"I have a clear understanding and appreciation that this matter will receive a very strong reaction," she said. "It would be, though, deeply inappropriate to participate in that commentary because it then would go into commenting on this particular case.

"As the circumstances stand today, there is a Supreme Court ruling that provides for a pathway for prisoners to access this private health treatment."

It is worth noting that prisoners are often taken to and from hospitals for healthcare, and that IVF treatment is considered healthcare using special medical techniques. 

The update: Schiller withdraws her application.

After her story created a media storm, Schiller withdrew her application to undergo IVF.

Both Monash IVF and Melbourne IVF, along with the state's public IVF service, confirmed to the Herald Sun that they would not provide their fertility services to Schiller.

A representative for Melbourne IVF said they did not believe "it is appropriate" given "she is currently in prison serving a very long jail term."

A Monash IVF representative added that it is within a clinics right to refuse IVF if they believe a child could be at risk of abuse or neglect.

The Herald Sun reports that Schiller's own mother, who would have had to help with custody in the gap between the child turning five and Schiller's release, said that she would not care for the child.

As a result, Schiller withdrew her application and will no longer undergo the procedures.

Featured image: Victoria Police/7News.