In the matter of the Corrections Act 1997
and
In the matter of an application for parole by Gerald Wayne Hyland
24 July 2002
Background
On the 24th October 1994, His Honour, Mr Justice Wright, sentenced Mr Hyland to a total effective sentence of sixteen (16) years’ imprisonment. It was ordered that the sentence was to run from the 26th June 1993, being the date that Mr Hyland was first taken into custody. He was sentenced in relation to one count of rape and one count of manslaughter. He pleaded guilty to those charges. He had originally been charged with murdering Miss Carter.
In sentencing, the Learned Judge acknowledged the appropriateness of the Director of Public Prosecution’s acceptance of the plea of guilty to the alternative crime of manslaughter and acknowledged that “Mr Hyland’s was a case where some discount should be given in the sentencing process consistently with the views which I expressed in Dowie’s case, ie that credit must be given for the fact that by entering guilty pleas, [Hyland had] abandoned all prospect of an outright acquittal”. His Honour acknowledged that by accepting the plea “in this case the Crown had accepted that Mr Hyland neither intended to kill Miss Carter, nor knew that his actions were likely to cause her death. On the other hand, [he] acted with cold blooded distain and contempt for [his] victim after having overpowered her and sexually assaulted her…… Some cases of manslaughter approach cases of murder in terms of criminal culpability. In my opinion, this is such a case”.
His Honour, although empowered so to do by Section 12B of the Parole Act 1975, chose not to impose a non-parole period in relation to the sentence. Nor did His Honour give any reason for the failure to fix a non-parole period. It is assumed by the Board that the Learned Sentencing Judge was aware of the law in relation to parole eligibility at the time he fixed the sentence. Mr Hyland was therefore eligible to be released on parole, by virtue of the sentence imposed by His Honour, on the 26th June 2001.
History of Proceedings
Mr Hyland was first interviewed by the Parole Board on the 18th June 2001. At that time, the matter was adjourned and psychiatric and psychological assessment were ordered.
The matter was adjourned for some six (6) months whilst those materials were compiled. Mr Hyland was again seen on the 17th December 2001. His matter was further adjourned on that occasion.
On the 9th April 2002, the Board interviewed Mr Hyland again. The Board had before it an extensive parole file, including a pre-parole report, information from Corrective Services Division, and the relevant portions of the Police and DPP files, as well as other relevant material.
The Board were advised by pre-parole report dated the 23rd April 2001, that Mr Hyland was assessed as being a medium risk offender profile. It was noted that Mr Hyland was not in denial of his offending and openly admitted his guilt. The author of the report was of the opinion that empathy existed in this instance. It was also noted that typical dis-inhibitors such as alcohol and drugs have not been a part of Mr Hyland’s lifestyle and were not likely to be upon his release.
Inquiries with Victorian and New South Wales Police authorities indicated Mr Hyland was at liberty for some twelve (12) years following the commission of the crime and prior to his apprehension. He lived that period of time without a conviction. The Board was advised that Mr Hyland had arrangements in place that were appropriate in relation to this release.
Reports from Corrective Services were uniformly positive. Mr Hyland was described as having a positive attitude, working hard and being polite and well mannered. He tendered to the Board many references from a variety of sources, including the Operations Manager at Hayes Prison Farm, the Official Visitor to Hayes Prison Farm and the Senior Program Co-Ordinator for Adult Literacy and Basic Education. All were extremely positive in their terms.
Clinical Psychologist, Dr Chris Williams, in his report to the Board stated: -
"Mr Hyland presented as being in control and matter of fact. He presented an account that differed somewhat from that noted in Justice Wright’s summary (24/10/94). The possibilities are:-
1) That the current account is inaccurate;
2) That the original account was agreed as consequence of some negotiation process; or
3) That the current account represents a more emotionally acceptable recollection of a distressing series of events.
The interpretation of formal psychological tests had to be limited and cautious due to validity scale scores. There was a tendency to present a position impression. Interview conclusions suggest Mr Hyland to be a reasonably intelligent, resourceful man who tends to be emotionally controlled. There was not particularly strong evidence or remorse or empathic concern for the victim. Whilst this may be reflection of the time that has elapsed since the crime, it may be indicative of an individual who typically functions at an intellectual level rather than an emotional level. These characteristics are likely to be reflective of long-term personality characteristics.Mr Hyland has functioned very well within the prison system and presents an impressive array of positive references. He has an appropriate support system outside the prison and appears to have functioned adaptively within that system. There were no offences during the twelve (12) year period between the offence and the apprehension. He is now fifty (50) years of age and has no history of substance abuse that might facilitate problematic behaviour”.
Likewise, a very experienced forensic psychiatrist, Dr Ian Sale, in report to the Board of the 16th July 2001, indicated that he could find no evidence of psychiatric disorder in Mr Hyland, past or present, nor evidence of personality disorder.
Other Issues
The Board noted that although there were a number of prior convictions, there were none of a similar nature. It was noted also that Mr Hyland’s prior convictions are relatively minor.
In accordance with normal practice, the Board has also had regard to a number of Victim Impact Statements. Those statements, particularly that from the Carter family (with attached psychological reports dating from 1996, which appear to have been penned in connection to an Application for Criminal Injuries Compensation) make harrowing reading. The impact upon Miss Carter’s family as a consequence of these crimes can not be understated.
Conclusion
Taking all matters into account, it is clear to the Board that Mr Hyland meets the statutory criteria to be released on parole.
There is little prospect of him re-offending. Reports from a psychiatrist, a psychologist, prison services, and community corrections are uniformly positive. He has in fact served over nine (9) years of a sixteen (16) year sentence. He has demonstrated remorse as well as insight into his offending. No rehabilitative purpose is likely to be served by his continued imprisonment.
His parole terms are:-
a) Upon release immediately report in person to the Manager, Community Corrections at 27 Liverpool Street Hobart.
b) Be subject to supervision on parole of a Probation Officer who shall be such person as is appointed for that purpose from time to time by the State Manager, Community Corrections.
c) Report to the Probation Officer, or other person nominated by the Probation Officer, in the manner and at the places and times directed by the Probation Officer and shall be available for interview at such times and places as the Probation Officer or nominee may from time to time direct.
a) Reside at any address arranged or approved by the Probation Officer.
b) Only engage in employment which is approved by the Probation Officer.
c) Not change address or employment without first obtaining the permission of the Probation Officer, or, if that is not practicable, then the parolee shall inform the Probation Officer of any change of address or employment within 48 hours after its change.
a) Obey all reasonable directions of the Probation Officer including such directions as the Probation Officer may see fit to give as to counselling in relation to gambling, alcohol or drug use.
b) Obey the Probation Officer’s direction in relation to associates.
c) Not frequent or visit any place or district specified in a direction by the Probation Officer.
d) Not leave the State of Tasmania without the prior written approval of the Regional Manager Community Corrections/Parole Board.
e) Be of good behaviour and not violate any law and in particular shall not commit any offence involving;
A. intoxication;
B. dishonesty;
C. sex;
D. actual or threatened personal violence;
E. the possession or use of firearms or weapons;
F. possession or use of prohibited drugs; or
G. traffic laws, including the Road Safety [Alcohol & Drugs] Act.
a) Attend as directed by the Probation Officer any rehabilitation program nominated by the Probation Officer and not, without the permission of the Probation Officer, be discharged from or do anything to bring about a discharge from that program.
b) Do whatever is necessary to authorise all medical or other professional or technical advisers or consultants to make available to the Probation Officer relevant reports as to the parolee’s medical or other conditions at all reasonable times.
a) Not, other than in strict accordance with a Doctor’s directions, use, possess or administer any drug or substance which cannot be legally obtained without prescription from a Doctor unless the parolee has such a prescription.
b) Not to remain in the presence of any person using or administering any prohibited substances.
c) Present for urine and/or breath analysis or other testing as and when required by the Probation Officer and is to do all things and sign all such documents as may be necessary to enable such an analysis or testing.
a) Not follow Debra Quinn, Faye Carter, Brenton Carter and their families or loiter outside their places of residence or any other places frequented by them or keep them under surveillance or act in any other way that could be expected to arouse their apprehension or fear.
a) Refrain from the excessive consumption of intoxicating liquor.
b) Not enter upon or remain upon any licensed premises during the first 3 months of the parole period unless specifically authorised in writing in advance by the Probation Officer.
