Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Brendan David Cranston

28 August 2020

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Brendan David Cranston (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 32 months with a non-parole period of 16 months imposed upon his conviction for matters of trafficking and dealing with the proceeds of crime.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 5 September 2020

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on 28 August 2020. 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 was 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 High Court, in Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623 rejected the proposition that the primary purpose of parole is the rehabilitation of the offender, deciding that it is "to provide for mitigation of the punishment of the prisoner in favour of his rehabilitation through conditional freedom, when appropriate, once the prisoner has served the minimum time that a judge determines justice requires that he must serve having regard to all the circumstances of his offence".

The system of parole does recognise, however, the capacity of people to 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 in reducing recidivism.

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, the ability to remove or mitigate that risk by the imposition of appropriate conditions and understanding the victim’s “voice” and the desire to continue to punish for the criminal wrongdoing.

Consideration

The Applicant, from an early opportunity, has expressed remorse and regret for his criminal behaviour. His engagement in the dirty business of trafficking methylampethamine contributes to the bringing of significant misery and potential criminality into the lives of many.  His complete disregard not only for the law which renders such activities illegal but also for the inherent immorality of his conduct is perhaps best demonstrated by the presence of his two young children in the rear of the car from which he was making drug deals and from where he ultimately became the subject of an arrest.  He now cites his young family as motivation to maintain a pro social lifestyle.

At the time of his sentencing the Court accepted that the Applicant wished to rehabilitate and identified the fact that he had not committed any further offences since his arrest as “… some evidence of that commitment”.  The Court did however find it noteworthy that the Applicant offended not to support his own drug habit but as a commercial endeavour for profit.

The Applicant has a past criminal history of drug offences and indeed this offending resulted in the activation of a suspended sentence imposed on a previous trafficking matter. Nevertheless the Applicant has previously been the subject of probation and community service orders which he has been able to engage well with and comply with the requirements.

The Applicant has been a compliant inmate.  He is classified as minimum security has no record of internal offending in the last 12 months at least and has engaged in employment as a general hand market gardens/grounds to good reports.

Whilst serving his custodial sentence the Applicant has sought to engage in therapeutic programs but through no fault of his own the same has not been able to be offered to him. He has however engaged in a certificate II of Horticulture and a numeracy courses.

Suitable and supportive accommodation has been identified as available to the Applicant upon his release under a parole order.   The Applicant also has good prospects for his pre custodial employment to remain open for him to return to upon his parole.

The Applicant has been assessed as suitable for a parole order by Community Corrections.  The Applicant has acknowledged that a risk factor for him is reconnecting with his previous cohort and has undertaken not to resume contact with them.  At his hearing before the Board the Applicant expressed significant motivation to remain offence and drug free.  He wished to provide a functional family environment for his children.  He asserted he was drug free and been particularly motivated to change by the length of his current sentence.

The Board accepts the Applicant’s intention to remain drug and offence free and believe that he would be well supported in this endeavour by a parole order and poses minimal risk to the community for the duration of that order.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

Subject to the usual conditions of a parole order.

Paroled from 7 September 2020 - 5 January 2022