In the matter of the Corrections Act 1997
and
In the matter of an Application for Parole by Damien John Simpson
29 August 2003
The applicant, Damien John Simpson, was convicted of murder on the 28th February 1996 and sentenced to sixteen years imprisonment. He became eligible for parole on the 20th June 2003.
It is not the role of the Parole Board to question the length of the sentence given to the applicant by the Judge, if the sentence appears too low to some or to the Parole Board. It has to be noted that the Judge had the advantage of hearing all the facts of the case in a hearing of plea in mitigation on behalf of the prisoner. The sentencing Judge took all these matters into account when sentencing the applicant. The Judge, in considering the circumstances of the crime, imposed a penalty at the lower end of the scale of those sentences given for the crime of murder. The sentence imposed allows the applicant to be eligible for parole in June 2003.
It is the role of the Parole Board to determine whether the applicant is entitled to parole having reached the eligibility date for parole. There are a number of factors the Board is required to consider when determining eligibility of parole. Those factors are listed in Section 72(4) of the Corrections Act 1997. The Board has considered all those matters.
The prisoner is unlikely to re-offend and is not considered a danger to the public if he is released on parole.
The prisoner had no prior criminal record whatsoever before his conviction for murder.
He has been a model prisoner amassing an impressive collection of certificates and qualifications whilst in prison. His behaviour in prison has been exemplary.
The sentencing Judge stated that the murder was contrary to the applicant’s character and reputation.
The applicant has indicated to the Parole Board, and the Parole Board believes him, that he is remorseful. He states to the Parole Board, in his statement, that he thinks of the victim and the victim’s family every day.
The prisoner has been on prison release schemes under Section 42 of the Corrections Act on a number of occasions for periods of up to forty-eight hours without breaching any conditions. There is nothing in the prisoner’s behaviour or report, which suggests that he will
re-offend or be a danger to the public. His behaviour whilst in prison and his compliance with the conditions whilst on release under Section 42 of the Act have been such so as to indicate to the Board that they can have confidence that he will comply with his parole conditions.
The Board has been supplied with a psychological report concerning the applicant. That report indicated that the clinical test showed no evidence of clinical psychopathology. The test revealed no areas of concerns regarding clinical psychopathology, self-concept or inter-personal style. The prisoner showed no evidence of mental disorder.
The Board also noted that the pre-sentence report, which was provided to the sentencing Judge, indicated that the prisoner showed deep remorse for his crime, his sentence and the penalty imposed upon him.
The pre-parole report provided to the Board indicated that the applicant maintained weekly telephone contact with his mother who resides in New South Wales and notes that the applicant intends to relocate upon release to New South Wales to live with his mother.
As already stated the applicant has amassed a collection of certificates and qualifications in prison including vocational trading certificates in upholstery, first aid certificate, fork lift and chainsaw licenses, front end loader and tractor licenses, literacy and numeracy certificates, skills for job seeking and computer skills. These qualifications and the support from his mother will greatly assist the applicant in his rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.
The probation report refers to the prisoner’s contrition, which has been consistent since prior to him being sentenced.
The Parole Board has considered the Victim Impact Statements provided by the victim’s family and will impose the appropriate conditions on the applicant’s parole.
In all circumstances the Parole Board takes the view that there is no further benefits to the community or to the prisoner for him to remain in prison and he should be granted parole. The applicant will be released on parole, subject to appropriate restrictions and supervision by a Parole Officer.
The applicant will be released on parole effective on the 19th September, 2003. he will be on parole until the 9th June, 2011.
