In the matter of the Corrections Act 1997
and
In the matter of an Application for Parole by Andrew Darrell Legge
6 October 2004
The Applicant is presently in custody in relation to being an accessory after the fact to murder contrary to Section 159 of the Criminal Code and 1 count of Unlawfully setting fire to property contrary to Section 269 of the Criminal Code.
The Board notes that the Applicant originally pleaded not guilty to 1 count of murder contrary to Section 159 of the Criminal Code but was found guilty of the alternative charge of accessory after the fact to murder contrary to Section 159 of the Criminal Code.
The Applicant pleaded guilty on an early occasion to 1 count of Unlawfully setting fire to property contrary to Section 269 of the Criminal Code. The Applicant was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment commencing on the 22nd March 2001 by His Honour Mr Chief Justice Cox. Chief Justice Cox made no order in relation to parole and as such the Applicant was eligible to be considered for parole after serving one half of his sentence.
The Applicant lodged an appeal against the sentence of His Honour Mr Chief Justice Cox. The Applicant's appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Criminal Court of Appeal. On the 11th September 2002 the Full Court of the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant's appeal.
The Applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on the 22nd August 2004. The Applicant appeared before the Board on the following dates:
1. 27th August 2004.
2. 10th September 2004.
3. 24th September 2004.
In relation to the matters for which the Applicant was convicted, the Board has been provided with documentation which fully outlines the circumstances surrounding those offences and the Board takes into account the comments on passing sentence made by His Honour Mr Chief Justice Cox. In particular the Board notes that His Honour described the Applicant's participation in these criminal offences "as a purely selfish commercial transaction on your part".
The Board notes that similar comments were made by members of the Court of Criminal Appeal as then constituted.
In particular the comments of Mr Justice Slicer:
"In this case, the Applicant, aged 33, had numerous convictions for minor crimes and had previously been to prison. He had agreed to destroy the victim's motor vehicle for money, knowing that its owner had been murdered whilst inside the vehicle. He knew of the nexus between the homicide and the need to destroy the "site" of the murder for over 5 hours before he actually set it alight. The learned sentencing judge was entitled to find that the offender "deliberately assisted the murderer in the concealment of his crime in order that he may escape just punishment."
In considering the application for parole the Board has taken into account the statutory criteria which it is required to do so pursuant to the Corrections Act 1997.
The Board has been provided with a victim impact statement from a relative of the deceased. The Board has carefully considered the comments made in that victim impact statement. In particular the Board notes that had the Applicant cooperated with police at an earlier time the ordeal of family members of the deceased would have come to an end much sooner than it did. The Board also notes that the victim impact statement provided by the family member of the deceased was an extremely balanced document acknowledging that the Applicant will eventually be released back into the community.
The Applicant was interviewed by the Board at length on the 24th September 2004.
In considering the Applicant's application for parole the Board has taken into account the following matters:
a) The lengthy interview conducted between the Applicant and the Board on the 24th September 2004.
b) The comprehensive pre-parole report prepared by his Probation Officer.
c) The Applicant's prison record which has been exemplary.
d) The fact that the Applicant has prospects of employment upon his release from prison.
e) That the Applicant will return to reside with his parents upon his release from prison.
The Board is of the view that the Applicant returning to reside with his parents will have a positive influence upon him.
The Board was advised by the Applicant during his interview on the 24th September 2004 that his involvement in these crimes occurred as a result of his then addiction to illicit drugs. The Applicant also conceded that he had difficulties with alcohol.
The Applicant has sough assistance for these addictions whilst imprisoned.
Prior to the commission of these offences the Applicant had a number of prior convictions for what could be described as petty crimes. The Applicant had previously been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment.
When the Applicant appeared before the Board on the 24th September 2004 he was quite candid that prior to these crimes occurring his life was out of control due to the use of illicit substances. He accepted that his offending behaviour was controlled by his addictions. It appeared to the Board that the Applicant’s present period of incarceration had given him a greater insight into the connection between his offending and his substance abuse. The Board was satisfied that the Applicant has taken steps to address his drug and alcohol problems and the prospects of him re-offending are minimal.
The Applicant asserted that the length of time he had spent in prison had given him a greater resolve not to re-offend again.
In the circumstances the Board has formed the view that the Applicant meets the statutory criteria to be granted parole.
By order of the Parole Board
