Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Michael Adam Thompson

8 November 2019

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Michael Adam Thomson (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 25 years with a non-parole period of 16 years imposed upon his conviction for murder.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 31 March 2016.

The matter was heard before the Board at its meeting on 8 November 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:

The applicant in concert with two others was engaged in a savage attack on his victim resulting in that victim’s death. The attack on the victim was prolonged, vicious and was purported to be motivated by concerns with respect to the manner in which the deceased victim had treated his partner, that partner being a person with whom the applicant wished to pursue a relationship.

Complicit in the offending behaviour was the applicant’s use and abuse of drugs. At the time of the offending behaviour the applicant was 19 years of age but regardless of his relative youth he had already accumulated a number of prior convictions for matters of violence and dishonesty.

The applicant has previously been subject to two separate parole orders, both of which he breached by reoffending. All of these matters raise significant concerns with respect to the suitability of this applicant for a parole order.

The applicant first became eligible for such an order in 2016. Application was made by him around that time but was refused then and a further application was again refused in 2017 due to, in summary, a belief that the applicant was not at that stage ready for release into the community.

Subsequent application made for parole was again refused in 2019 for the same reason. This accordingly is the applicant’s fourth application for parole since he became eligible for consideration of the same four years ago. With respect to this application the applicant presented to the Board in a considered manner. He was well able to articulate the issues and risks that he would face with respect to his return to the community. He had also been recently reclassified to maximum security due to intelligence information received within the prison. Efforts by the Board to gain an understanding as to the specific issues raised in the intelligence failed to elicit anything but broad inferences of potential involvement in drug trafficking within the prison environment.

The applicant has three incidents of internal offending behaviour in the last 12 months with the last of those occurring on 29 August 2019 which consisted of using a telephone in a way which was unauthorised. This shows a remarkable improvement on previous behaviour noting that the applicant has approximately 150 internal offence reports occurring since originally imprisoned in 2000.

Whilst the applicant has engaged in therapeutic courses over the last 12 months he has involved himself in programs during his custodial term. Further he commenced the Equips Aggression Program on 3 July 2018 but was frustrated in his ability to complete the program as a result of his movement from the medium to maximum classification.

Accommodation has been identified for the applicant upon his release into the community and this has been assessed as suitable.

A further issue of concern surrounds the applicant’s struggle with drug addiction. He informs the Board that he wishes to commence on the Suboxone Program were he to be returned to the community and identifies his risk with respect to drug use to be embedded in his propensity for anxiety. Accordingly, his approach to supervision needs not only to focus on drug abstinence but also his mental health.

In respect of his 2016 application for parole the applicant was assessed by forensic psychologist Dr O’Donnell, who noted that at that time the applicant appeared genuinely motivated to live a more productive life in the future. But, in her view, and at that time, “he still needs to learn more about how to function within the demands of current community life, without relying on violence and substance abuse to solve problems.” She specifically noted that potential destabilisers within the community were antisocial associates, alcohol and drugs and personality driven reliance upon aggression to deal with interpersonal problems. She noted the benefits of close supervision in the context of a parole order from a parole officer with whom the applicants shares a rapport and feels able to speak freely with respect to any challenges he faces.

In his appearance before the Board the applicant was upfront and honest with respect to his drug use. He advised that he had last used drugs 3 to 4 weeks prior to his appearance before the Board which he associated with disappointment arising from his reclassification. Drug abstinence is a difficult pathway and is of the utmost importance to ensure successful supervision. Whilst the applicant has risks with respect to engaging in drug use whilst in the community he strikes the Board as someone who would be upfront, frank and engaged with his parole officer regarding his risks and concerns in this regard. He appears highly motivated to remain compliant with community expectations upon his return to society.

The applicant’s offending was horrendous. The Board has taken particular note of the victim impact statement, which speaks of significant and long-standing impacts the offending behaviour has had upon the victim’s family. It is also noted that there is an element in those statements of fear for their own personal safety, were the applicant to return to the community.

This applicant was a youthful offender. He has spent considerable time within the custodial environment. He has attempted to improve himself and reduce his risk of offending by his engagement in therapeutic inputs. Whilst serving his custodial term his behaviour in recent times has significantly improved and this is reflected in a reduction in the frequency and seriousness of his internal infringements.

Whilst abstinence from drugs remains an issue for the applicant he is cognisant of that issue and appears to be highly motivated to remain abstinent and lead a compliant life within the community. Noting the length of his incarceration, the applicant will experience difficulties upon his return to the community, his desire for a prosocial lifestyle and his reintegration back into the community are both matters which he will be assisted by the supervision afforded by a parole order.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied:

Subject to the usual conditions of a parole order.

Paroled from 19 November 2019 - 31 March 2025