Parole Board Decision

In the matter of the Corrections Act 1997

and

In the matter of an Application for Parole by Leigh James Butwell

8 April 2016

Reasons for Decision

Leigh James Butwell (“the applicant”) has made application for parole. At the age of 37, whilst employed as a truck driver, in a long-term relationship and the father of children the applicant in the company of two others then aged 17 lured another man to a remote area and then proceeded to kill him. The victim was senselessly, and relentlessly beaten by the two much younger offenders and stabbed (by the applicant) 16 times with a knife.

At sentencing by the Honourable Chief Justice Underwood (as he then was) it was noted that the applicant was not the initiator of the crime indeed the two younger accomplices had developed the plan prior to the applicant coming across them. Nevertheless the following was noted:

• “From the extent of the horrific injuries sustained by the deceased I can only conclude that each of you went into a frenzied savagery that is you struck at his body with the weapons that each of you used. You Butwell admitted that you intended to kill the deceased. I accept that, but reject your claim that you stabbed him repeatedly in the chest as an act of mercy to put a dying man out of his agony.”

The following was further noted at sentencing:

• “You Butwell are 37 now and without relevant prior convictions. I do accept that sometime after the deceased had been murdered, you may have regretted your criminal conduct and to an extent, were remorseful as is witnessed by you directing the police to the body and by your immediate attempts to plead guilty to murder upon the basis that it was you who struck the fatal blow. However, I am well satisfied that your confession to the police was tailored by you to put yourself in the best light possible in the circumstances.”

The applicant was sentenced to a period of 25 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years. The applicant became eligible for consideration for parole on 31 March 2016 and this is his first application.

In considering this application for parole regard has been had to the applicant’s presentation before the Board at hearing on 18 March 2016. The applicant was at that time given the opportunity to provide any further information he wished to be put before the Board relevant to his application and further answered any questions that the Board had of him.

In addition the Board had available to it the following documents which it considered:

• The applicant’s application;
• Comments on passing sentence;
• Prison summary;
• Record of prior convictions;
• Prison episode summary report;
• Pre-parole report;
• Reference;
• Certificates.

Further, in considering this application for parole regard has been had to the statutory criteria provided for in the Corrections Act 1997.

The circumstances of this application are somewhat unusual. Prior to the offence the applicant had no relevant criminal history. He was at the time of the offending behaviour relatively mature and to all appearances was in a settled position having employment and significant relationships. Nevertheless at the time of the hearing of the application the applicant identified that this was far from the reality. Rather he was suffering from issues possibly including mental health issues of depression which meant that he was unhappy, including with his relationships and far from settled.

There is no doubt that the applicant’s offending behaviour has had significant impact upon not only the victim (for which the impact was terrifying and ultimately final) but also to the family and friends of the victim. The Board has regard to this.

Whilst serving his custodial sentence the applicant has reverted to a functional and compliant approach. There are two occasions of internal offending behaviour both of them minor and occurring some significant time ago. They are considered irrelevant to this application for parole.

The applicant is classified as minimum security and indeed is housed out the O’Hara Independent Living Cottages on the prison perimeter. He has full- time employment and indeed this will continue upon his release. He has engaged in section 42 releases for the purposes of that employment and also to reside within the community and has been regularly undergoing leave for 2 nights and 3 days without difficulty.

The applicant has 4 children aged 19 to 27 years of age and it appears that they and his family in general are supportive of him. It is proposed upon his release that he reside with his cousin and this accommodation has been assessed as suitable.

In summary the applicant’s behaviour during his custodial sentence has been exemplary. This behaviour supports the proposition that there is a low level of risk of the applicant reoffending if released into the community. The protection of the public is therefore not considered to be compromised were the applicant to be afforded the opportunity for parole. This is particularly so noting that the applicant has been at liberty in the community under section 42 releases for regular periods of 3 days and 2 nights without incident.

There are no matters which would suggest the applicant will not comply with any conditions that are imposed upon his release.

Whilst the offending behaviour is grave, indeed it is hard to contemplate a behaviour worse than that for which he has been convicted, the Board nevertheless considers that the applicant has made great strides concerning his individual rehabilitation whilst serving his custodial sentence he and ultimately the public will benefit from him being able to pursue his rehabilitation within the community in a supported and supervised manner.

In light of the above the Board approves this application for parole.

Paroled from 21 April 2016 – 31 March 2025