Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Simon Peter Frosi

14 August 2020

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Simon Frosi (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months with a non-parole period of 6 months imposed upon his conviction for armed robbery and resisting a police officer.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 26 June 2020.

The applicant was heard before the Board at its meeting on 14 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 of 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 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

This is the Applicant’s first custodial term.  He has no relevant prior criminal history specifically for matters of dishonesty and violence.  The Applicant has been the beneficiary of a good start in life with a functional, loving and supportive mother who has afforded him the benefit of a good education. Indeed the Applicant is a very intelligent and talented young man achieving a degree in music at honours level. He is a pianist.

Yet in late 2019 the Applicant threatened a shop attendant with scissors seeking money.  At this time he was homeless and using drugs. Upon his arrest he made complete admissions as to his involvement in the crime claiming he was motivated by the need for money to purchase food and had acted whilst under the influence of alcohol and cannabis.  Since committing the crime the Applicant has been consistent in expressing a deep shame regarding his conduct.

At the time of passing sentence the court accepted that;

“…you are not a person with a general propensity to commit criminal acts, and if you properly address your substance abuse and mental health problems, you are unlikely to reoffend.”

and allowed for the earliest opportunity for parole.

As identified by the Court, the Applicant’s offending can, in large part, be attributed to his mental health and drug dependency issues.  These matters appear to have become particularly acute following the Applicant’s frustration in not achieving success in a musical career and the completion of his studies in the last few years.  At some stages in this period the Applicant has required hospitalisation to assist him deal with these issues.

The Applicant is from King Island.  This is where his mother remains living and he has good pro social connections, supports and pursuits available to him there.  The offending behaviour occurred after he had left the island.  The Applicant identifies the associations he made when living in mainland Tasmania, whilst engaging in drug use and anti social behaviour, as contributory to his offending behaviour and a risk to him to reengage in that lifestyle upon his release.  For these reasons it would be to the benefit of the Applicant’s rehabilitation for him to be paroled back to King Island.  Accommodation is available to him there and has been assessed as suitable despite its distance from mainland Tasmania making supervision by Community Corrections more remote than it would otherwise have been.  In addition there appears to be employment opportunities available to the Applicant upon his return to King Island riding race horses for track work.  The King Island community is small and the Applicant appears known to the resident members of Tasmania Police and accordingly there can be some satisfaction that the actions of the Applicant when within that community will receive some informal monitoring.

The manner in which the Applicant has served his sentence has been compliant and appropriate.  He has achieved a minimum classification and is described in case notes as quiet and respectful.  Whilst there is an instance of internal offending behaviour the matter was minor.

The Applicant has been employed as a general hand in the prison kitchen and prior to that in the Tailor Shop.  He has been described as a great worker and polite.

Arrangements for the Applicant to access appropriate psychological and drug and alcohol support have been made for him and are available to him upon his release to King Island.  Assessment by Community Corrections has identified the Applicant as suitable for a parole order.  In light of the above matters the Board agrees with that assessment

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

The Applicant obtain and comply with a mental health care plan.

Paroled from 24 August 2020 - 24 February 2021