Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Michael Lyndon Dennison

9 October 2020

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Michael Lyndon Dennison (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 16 months with a non-parole period of 8 months imposed upon his conviction for a number of offences including matters of driving, burglary, stealing and drug matters.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 14 October 2020.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on 9 October 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 has previously been approved for a parole orders but has been unable to sustain compliance with the requirements of those orders resulting in their revocation and his return to the custodial environment.  He has not, however offended, whilst on the parole orders.  The revocation of the orders have come about as a result of the applicant breaching the terms of the orders at times by using drugs and breaching curfew.  His difficulty in the past has been finding the capacity to comply with the requirements for an order in a sustained way.   At the time of his hearing before the Board the applicant acknowledged this and attributed his lack of resilience to stress getting to him.  He is aware that he has a drug dependency and that he will need the resources of drug and alcohol counselling and programs such as the bridge program to help him remain abstinent.  The applicant has completed an assessment for attendance at the residential program which he plans to attend upon return to the community.

The applicant has access to suitable accommodation on his return to the community.  It is reasonable to conclude that he is sincerely motivated to reform and lead a pro social life.  He has, as indicated above, not offended whilst in the community on an order despite his very lengthy history of engaging in crime.  He has attended or sought to attend programs within the prison to specifically address his criminal behaviour and drug dependency and has indicated an intention to volunteer for Salvation Army to assist in programs to dissuade the youth from adopting an anti social lifestyle.

The applicant’s past reflects an entrenched anti social, violent and dishonest lifestyle.  He is in part the product of a dysfunctional childhood.  He first came to the attention of the Courts at eleven years of age.  By ten years of age he was abusing alcohol and quickly progressed to significant drug abuse.  He presents to the Board, however, as an intelligent man who recognises that the lifestyle he has led in the past is not one he wishes to continue to pursue.  He remains classified as maximum security at the prison but has received some positive case notes regarding his behaviour.  His internal offending in recent times have related to his use of Buprenorphine, not prescribed and misuse of the Arunta phone system.

The applicant will require significant support and monitoring during his parole order as he negotiates particularly his drug dependency issues and to ensure early intervention, to protect the public if abstinence is not maintained.  For this reason the application was initially adjourned during the Covid 19 lock down period whilst services in the community were constrained or absent.

It is the determination of the Board that this applicant continues to strive for a better, pro social lifestyle and would benefit from the support that an order would provide. Community risk can, as reflected on past orders, be managed by close monitoring and supervision of the applicant during the course of the order.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied

To obtain and comply with a mental health care plan;

To not contact directly or indirectly the victim to his offending;

To not be in contact with certain named persons.

Paroled from 26 October 2020 - 27 August 2025