Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Geoffrey Peter Foster

28 August 2020

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Geoffrey Peter Foster (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 2 ½ years with a non-parole period of 15 months imposed upon his/her conviction for matters of two assaults and demanding property with menace and intent to steal.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 9 July 2020.

The applicant’s application initially came before the Board at it’s meeting of 3 July 2020. At that time it was adjourned for the obtaining of further information and heard again before the Board on 17 July 2020. Parole was granted following that hearing however subsequently that decision was vacated due to accommodation that had been identified at that time becoming unsuitable. Subsequently the matter was adjourned to the Board’s meeting of 28 August 2020 at which time suitable accommodation was able to be found and the parole order re-instated. 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’s offending behaviour occurred in the context of a domestic relationship.  The Applicant had gained the trust and affection of his then partner and entered her life and that of her two children becoming increasingly jealous, controlling and possessive of her.  He tracked her movements, limited her capacity to leave the family home and ultimately became violent to her.  He essentially robbed her of her independence, strength and peace of mind.  The violence for which he was sentenced consisted of him punching his victim about the head and attempting to choke her.  The demanding property with menaces matter involved him attempting to force the victim to remove a substantial sum of money from her account to give to him.

The use of violence and control in his domestic relationships feature in the Applicant’s history.  He was convicted in 2003 for an assault on his ex wife in Western Australia.  In 2014 he breached a family violence order.  The propensity to act in this way may be a product of the Applicant’s psychiatric profile. He has been diagnosed with anxiety, depression and panic attacks.  In his report of the 21^st march 2019 Mr Minehan, psychologist, suggested a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and recommended that full longitudinal assessment with a multidisciplinary approach of the Applicant be made.  What does appear relatively clear from the medical information is that upon his return into the community the Applicant would benefit from access to psychological therapy as a risk management strategy against future offending.

Certainly amongst the male population of the prison the applicant has been able to demonstrate suitable, appropriate, compliant and non violent behaviour consistently over the period of his sentence.  In terms of future planning he has been described as motivated to seek mental health support and arrangements have been made with his pre sentence psychiatric provider to resume treatment upon his return to the community.

Case notes have described the Applicant as polite and pleasant.  He has been engaged in employment in IT support with good reports.

The Applicant has undertaken equips and stopping violence programs during his term of imprisonment. Reports from the equips program paints a picture of a person who was able to understand the course content but found it difficult to relate the same to his own behaviour.  This stance appears to have improved through the duration of the program with the Applicant ultimately being described as empathetic, thoughtful and showing great insight into his own mental health and communication styles which have contributed to his past behaviours.

The report from the family violence intervention program reveals that the Applicant scores at high risk of reoffending on the SARA assessment tool and describes the Applicant as a highly involved member of the group, took responsibility for his past and future behaviour and identified the need to care for his own mental health as central to preventing future offending.

Accommodation has been identified for the Applicant as suitable.  He has previously been the subject of community based orders with intermittent engagement linked to his mental health.  The Applicant remains the subject of a family violence order in favour of his victim and her children.

On balancing all matters and noting particularly the community’s interests in this matter would be better served by the Applicant’s release back into the community being under the auspices of supervision from a Parole Officer with the understanding of the importance to reengage the Applicant in psychological therapy, the Board have determined that this Applicant is appropriate for a parole order with specific focus on accessing appropriate therapeutic interventions to ensure mental health and stability.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

Subject to the usual conditions of a parole order.

Paroled from 8 September 2020 - 9 October 2021