Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Jayden Glen Montgomery

24 May 2019

Reasons for Decision

The Background

Jayden Glen Montgomery (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 18 years with a non-parole period of 10 years imposed upon his conviction for murder.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for parole on 28 September 2018.

Previous application for parole on 21 September 2018 was refused.

The applicant’s application came before the Board in respect of this application on 24 May 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 applicant is currently nearly 32 years of age. He has spent the last decade in a custodial environment. At the age of 21 years he committed the heinous offence of murder. The applicant took the life of another with whom he’d had an earlier confrontation in which the victim had got the better of him. The actions of the applicant were described by the sentencing judge, the Honourable Chief Justice Crawford, as he then was, as a voluntary and intentional stabbing. The Court found, however, that at the time of arming himself with a knife the applicant did not, at that stage, have the determination to take the victim’s life. In considering the issue of parole the Court noted the applicant’s young age at that time which suggested early parole eligibility but noted a record of prior offending behaviour including matters of violence which suggested a longer period was required to be served prior to parole eligibility occurring.

Factors identified as contributory to the applicants offending behaviour had been matters of self-esteem, personality and drug use.

Whilst serving his custodial sentence the applicant has achieved a medium classification. He has been described as polite and compliant and engaged in work in prison based employment with an apparent good work ethic.

The applicant has, however, a history of internal offending behaviour. The most recent of these offences occurred in November and December 2018 and involved unauthorised possession. This pattern of internal offending behaviour appears to have ceased at this time.

Central to the applicant’s cessation of offending behaviour has been his engagement with the Apsley Unit. His prior offending was very much intertwined with ongoing drug use and, on the applicant’s assertion, the need for him to use drugs whilst serving his custodial sentence in order to cope emotionally with his circumstances.

Whilst undertaking the Apsley Program the applicant has been described as an engaged participant and a leader in the unit exercising a positive influence on others engaged in the program. Indeed the Apsley exit report refers to the view of the facilitators that this applicant holds “strong positive values and that he has a desire to live by these upon his release from custody.”

The applicant has also engaged in other therapeutic and vocational inputs. Whilst serving his custodial sentence as follows:

1. Preparing for Change;
2. Gottawanna;
3. Getting smart;
4. New Pin Inside Parents Program;
5. Apsley Rehabilitation Unit twice;
6. Equips Foundation;
7. Alcohol & Drug Counselling;
8. Smart Recovery Group;
9. Equips Aggression;
10. Abstinent Rehabilitation Program;
11. Certificate II Horticulture;
12. Barista Course;
13. Community Services Certificate;
14. Learner’s driver’s license;
15. Licence to operate a forklift truck;
16. Volunteer certificate.

The applicant has had the benefit of section 42 leave to undertake activities such as football umpiring, forklift training, attending an art exhibition and assisting with the prison vegetable truck. Leave, however, was cancelled from August 2016 when the applicant was found to be in the possession of unauthorised items.

Accommodation proposed for the applicant upon his release on parole has been assessed as suitable.

One of the risk factors for the applicant will be isolation and boredom upon his release into the community. He indicates that he is aware of these risks and intends to engage in volunteering and TAFE courses.

Psychological assessment has been undertaken of the applicant and a report provided of Ms Amy Washington. In that report she notes the existence of protective factors for the applicant’s return to the community including his good engagement with treatment and responsiveness. She notes good potential to engage in supervision and that he has positive personal supports available to him on his return to the community. Ms Washington notes that there are issues with respect to parole eligibility including a predisposition to anger, poor coping and substance use. She notes, however, that this applicant has learnt to manage his dysregulation, is more self-directed and has greater insight and reflective capacities. She believes that these risk factors are capable of being managed whilst the applicant is in the community. Certainly the applicant’s prior propensity to aggressive behaviour appears to have moderated over the years of his custodial sentence. He has good insight into his drug use issues and has engaged well in his most recent stint of treatment at the Apsley Drug Unit.

The applicant’s offending behaviour was at the highest level. The taking of the life of another deserves the strongest approbation from the community. The victim impact statement provided has been thoroughly considered by the Board. For the family of the victim the ongoing overwhelming feelings of loss and anger continue.

This loss and the nature of the applicant’s offence renders it reasonable to exclude the applicant from areas accessed by the victim’s family.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied:

Subject to the usual conditions of a parole order together with not to travel south of Oatlands.

The applicant is further to obtain and comply with a mental health care plan.

Paroled from 4 June 2019 - 28 September 2026