Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Shane Anthony Mayne

12 July 2019

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Shane Anthony Mayne (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 25 years with a non-parole period of 14 years imposed upon his conviction for murder.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for parole on 18 February 2019.

The applicant’s application came before the Board on 10 May 2019 when it was adjourned to enable the obtaining of a psychological assessment and report before it was again before the Board at its meeting on 12 July 2019. On that occasion the applicant was present at the hearing and was invited to provide any information he had in support of his application and made himself available for questioning by the Board.

A pre-parole report prepared on behalf the Board had been read to the applicant prior to his appearance at the hearing.

Statutory Criteria

In determining the application, the Board has had regard to the following statutory criteria:-

The Corrections Act 1997, s72, establishes a statutory criteria for determining suitability for parole.

S72 (4) specifically provides as follows:

“In determining whether or not a prisoner should be released on parole, the Board is to take into consideration –

• The likelihood of the prisoner re-offending; and
• The protection of the public; and
• The rehabilitation of the prisoner; and
• Any remarks made by the court in passing sentence; and
• The likelihood of the prisoner complying with the conditions; and
• The circumstances and gravity of the offence, or offences, for which the prisoner was sentenced to imprisonment; and
• The behaviour of the prisoner while in prison and, if he or she has been in a secure mental health unit, while in that secure mental health unit; and
• The behaviour of the prisoner during any previous release on parole; and
• The behaviour of the prisoner while subject to any order of a court; and
• Any reports tendered to the Board on the social background of the prisoner, the medical, psychological or psychiatric condition of the prisoner or any other matter relating to the prisoner, including in the case of a prisoner who is or has been a forensic patient any report of the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist; and
• The probable circumstances of the prisoner after release from prison; and
• Any statement provided under subsection (2B) by a victim, or, if subsection (2AB) applies, the parent or guardian of the victim, of an offence for which the prisoner has been sentenced to imprisonment; and
• If the prisoner is a sex offender prisoner, any notice or assessment given to the Board pursuant to section 31(6) or (7) concerning the prisoner's participation or non-participation in appropriate treatment; and
• Any other matters that the Board thinks are relevant.”

When considering the application for parole of a sex offender s31(3)(b) of the Act is also relevant:

• “The Director, on giving the sex offender prisoner the opportunity to participate in the appropriate treatment, is to inform the prisoner that…
• Participation, non-participation or unsatisfactory participation will, if the prisoner becomes eligible for parole, be factors taken into consideration by the Board in determining whether the prisoner should be released on parole.”

The purpose of parole:

The system of parole recognises the capacity of some prisoners for change and reform, the benefits of supervision, treatment and program delivery in the community and ultimately the potential this has for the protection of the community by reducing the risk of reoffending and supervising the reintegration of offenders.

When considering eligibility for parole this purpose must be weighed against the risk each prisoner may pose to members of the community if released to serve the remainder of their sentence amongst them and the ability to remove or mitigate that risk by the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Consideration:

This application for parole has been made following a previous refusal for a parole order by the Board on 8 February 2019. At the time of that refusal the Board recommended to the applicant that he complete a program at the Apsley Drug Treatment Unit and concentrate on his internal behaviour before reapplication. The applicant has followed through on those suggestions having engaged with the Apsley Drug Treatment Unit and not engaged in any internal offending behaviour since that decision.

The applicant’s offending behaviour is as concerning as it is inexplicable. For no apparent reason and after having been approached by an innocent visitor to the Launceston area who had come to Launceston to study at the Tasmanian University, to ask for directions, the applicant, his passenger and an associate who were then occupying a vehicle, the applicant driving the same, deliberately drove the vehicle such that it collided with the victim not on one occasion but twice. On the last occasion the victim was struck by the vehicle and became trapped under it and dragged beneath the vehicle for at least 25 m. As a result of the injuries suffered by him in the incident, the victim died.

Before the Board the applicant stated that he reflects every day with remorse on his actions and the life that he took from his innocent victim. Nevertheless the comments at sentencing by the then Honourable Justice Crawford are of relevance. In particular his Honour commented as follows:

• “His violence and contempt for another human being can only be regarded with horror and utter disgust. It was random violence, one of the worst examples with which I have had to deal.… He was given the benefit of parole for the 1998 aggravated robbery sentence but has offended a number of times since. He is a young man with personality and intellectual deficits and it is possible that he may one day be able to persuade the Parole Board that he ought to have his freedom. Nevertheless, in view of the nature of the crime and in light of his record, the minimum time he should spend in prison before become eligible for consideration in that regard is 14 years.”

The applicant had at the stage of that sentencing had a criminal history including a number of matters of assault and aggravated robbery. He has in the past been sentenced to imprisonment on a number of occasions. He has also been previously the subject of supervision under probation orders and parole orders. It appears that the applicant engaged in offending behaviour during a probation order resulting in its breach and also was unable to complete a parole order due to ongoing drug use.

Factors that have been found contributory to the offending behaviour includes the use of illicit drugs and the fact that he is easily influenced.

The applicant’s case notes identify that during his custodial term he has been polite and compliant. He has held the position of wardsman and his reports have been to the effect that he has discharged the work required of him to a high standard.

The applicant has engaged in a number of therapeutic and vocational courses while serving his custodial sentence, including as identified previously, engagement with the Apsley Drug Treatment Unit.

The applicant has also engaged in section 42 leave for a number of purposes including to work as a volunteer at the RSPCA in 2017. That leave was, however, revoked as the applicant admitted that he had been trafficking tobacco back onto prison property for his own use. These circumstances re-occurred in early 2018 when volunteering at the Tasmanian Dogs Home. On the latter occasion the applicant conceded that he had been bringing unauthorised items onto the prison grounds, but had been doing so under pressure exerted on him by other inmates.

Accommodation proposed by the applicant upon his release has been assessed as suitable with the occupant of that property also being identified as reliable and realistic.

The exit report from the Apsley Drug Treatment Unit identified that there has been a growth in the applicant’s confidence whilst undertaking the program and the applicant meaningfully engaged in the course work.

Psychological assessment of the applicant undertaken in 2019 identified some risk of institutionalisation of the applicant. The applicant’s family also are a risk to the applicant of exposure to destabilising factors and substance abuse. Accordingly, strong supervision will be required. There are, however, positive plans identified including engagement by the applicant with church based support and counselling. In summary the opinion of the psychologist was stable accommodation, abstinence from substance use, meaningful activity, guidance and positive associations will be key factors for the applicant’s transition back into the community and therefore these matters need to be the subject of meaningful supervision of him.

The Board have been provided with a victim impact statement from the victim’s mother. That statement starts with “what can I say about losing my son and the effect it has had on us as a family and our own individual journey”. No doubt the loss of a loving son embarking upon the commencement of his adult years living remotely to obtain a university qualification is of such magnitude to be incomprehensible. The Board accepts and understands this.

Nevertheless, the applicant shows motivation and reasonable prospects of rehabilitation and reform which would benefit from supervision within the community. He has identified some family and church based supports for him in the community and has realistic plans to transition back to a drug-free and compliant prosocial lifestyle.

The application for parole is approved.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied:

Subject to the usual conditions of a parole order together with obtain and comply with a mental health care plan and not approach directly or indirectly the victim’s family.

Paroled from 23 July 2019 - 18 February 2030