Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Shannon Douglas Gee

13 November 2020

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

Shannon Douglas Gee (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 21 months imposed upon his conviction for matters of dangerous driving, driving whilst disqualified, evading police, possession of a controlled plant and driving a motor vehicle whilst a prescribed illicit drug was present in his blood.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant’s application initially came before the Board at its meeting of 8 May 2020 but was required to be adjourned to 13 November 2020 until suitable accommodation could be found. 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.

Registered Victim

No registered victim.

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 applicant has previously been the beneficiary of parole orders in respect of past offending.  In 2006 he was released on parole until ultimately the order was revoked after 5months due to a breach of the conditions of the parole order.  In 2007 a parole order was again approved for him however he absconded to South Australia for the duration of that order.

The applicant is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment for criminal conduct in which he engaged in February 2019.  That conduct included a serious example of dangerous driving and evade police which placed not only himself, the police but also the community at risk of peril, not the least being his female passenger.  Ultimately the episode of driving concluded with the car becoming stuck in a tree stump.  As described at sentencing;

“Your actions were deliberate and constituted a complete repudiation of your obligation to obey court orders and the law generally, and to act responsibly with respect to the safety of others.  Past sentencing seems to have had little impact on your conduct.”

The applicant has been offending since the age of 15years.  Much of his offending relates to driving matters.  The use of drugs has been identified as contributory to the applicant’s offending behaviour and indeed at the time of the offences he was under the influence of cannabis and amphetamine.

At the time of his sentencing the applicant professed a desire for reform which appears to have continued to be reflected in his actions whilst serving his custodial sentence. He has maintained a minimum classification, engaged well with reintegration and planning sessions and has no negative behavioural case notes recorded.  He has engaged with alcohol and drug counselling for just over a year from February 2019 to March of this year.  The applicant has also undertaken s42 leave into the community where he demonstrated compliant behaviour.

Accommodation has been located for the applicant were he to be granted parole which has been assessed as suitable for his needs.  The applicant has put into place some structure which will assist him if returned to the community on parole including engagement with Holyoake for addiction treatment and Beyond the Wire for general and accommodation support.

Whilst this applicant has many challenges to meet upon his return to the community not the least being his significant and longstanding drug addiction and his previous reliance on his pro criminal and drug using associates for social interaction he has demonstrated his firm desire to strive for a pro social lifestyle.  On assessment by Community Corrections he is suitable for a parole order albeit with high supervision needs.  The claimant asserts that he has not had the supports in the past that are now available to him and his desire to lead a drug and crime free lifestyle is strong.

A parole order is a suitable vehicle in which support and supervision can be given to the applicant to assist him in these endeavours.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

The usual conditions.

Paroled from 23 November 2020 - 31 January 2022