Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Christopher Michael GOSS

13 November 2020

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

Christopher Michael Goss (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months with a non-parole period of 12 months imposed upon his conviction for matters of assault and perverting the course of justice.

ParoleEligibility Date

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 24 September 2020.

The applicant’s application initially came before the Board on 18 September 2020 however the application was adjourned due to the unavailability of suitable accommodation. He was ultimately heard before the Parole Board at its meeting on 13 November 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.

Registered Victim

There is a 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

The applicant has a propensity for violence most significantly in the context of his domestic relationship as reflected in his criminal history.  His offending on this occasion appeared to have been in response to his partner’s justifiable resistance to his insistence that she not go out with her friends.  Despite the protection of a family violence order the applicant responded in an aggressive manner, kicking the door of her motor vehicle.  The difference in point of view continued in the days following and culminated in the applicant threatening to kill his partner and their children and then taking his son away with him whilst telling his partner she would never see his son again.  These actions no doubt caused significant distress to the partner and to the applicant’s children, particularly his son.

As is so often the case the actions of an offender engaging in actual and threatened violence within the home speaks of the inadequacy of the perpetrator, their desire to control, their victimisation of those that are often weaker and more vulnerable and their inability to resolve conflict in a functional way.

Relevant to the applicant’s offending behaviour in this instance was his significant addiction to methamphetamine.  This addiction was also central to his conviction for trafficking in 2017.  At the time of sentencing it was observed by the Court that the applicant had, by that time stopped using ice and completed the Equips Addiction Program, had not used whilst on bail and was “intent on rehabilitation”.

That intent appears to have been carried through by the applicant during his custodial term.  He has a minimum classification, positive case notes and engaged productively in employment as a senior hand in woodwork. The applicant has also engaged in therapeutic courses undertaking the FVOIP, equips addiction and parenting programs and one on one alcohol and drug counselling.  The applicant demonstrated at hearing good insight in understanding the effect a return to drug use will have upon his risk of reoffending.  He has engaged with Therapeutic supports which will be available to him upon his return to the community to assist him in this regard.

Another risk factor for future offending is the applicant’s involvement with anti-social peers.  He acknowledged this as a risk factor and asserted an intention to disassociate from negative influences.  His intention is to stick mainly with family and a pro social friend.

Suitable accommodation is available for the applicant with the occupants being described as offering “extremely positive supports” to him in the accommodation assessment.

The assessment of Community Corrections is that the applicant is a suitable candidate for a parole order.  In this assessment the significance of the offending and the impact on the victims, was specifically considered.  The Pre parole report refers to a positive shift in the applicant’s attitude during his custodial term and the applicant utilising all opportunities available to him to address his offending behaviour.

In considering the applicant’s eligibility for parole the Board has also carefully considered the serious nature of the applicant’s conduct and appreciated the ongoing effect this will have had on his victims, his former wife and children, who ought to have been able to expect only love, care and support from him.  It is also of concern that the applicant has demonstrated a past willingness to not comply with court orders noting this offending occurred in breach of a family violence order protecting the family.

Nevertheless the reports received from his engagement in programs paint a picture of a person who has insight into his own failings that have brought him into custody and a desire to reform his behaviour and remove himself from the influence of a drug addiction. At the time of his hearing before the Board the applicant described his growth whilst in custody.  He asserted that he had a greater maturity now than before and had learned a lot through his engagement with programs and remained drug free.  Parole supervision will assist him carry through with this.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

Not to enter into New Norfolk;

Obtain a mental health care plan;

Not to contact the victims of his offending directly or indirectly.

Paroled from 24 November 2020 - 4 March 2022