Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Daniel Andrew Graham

13 November 2020

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

Daniel Andrew Graham (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years and 3 months imposed upon his conviction for being an accessory after the fact to murder and failure to report the killing of a person.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 12 February 2020.

The applicant’s application initially came before the Board at its meeting on 5 June 2020 however it was adjourned until 13 November 2020 with a request for the applicant to focus on his behaviour in the custodial environment. In addition the Board wished to see a relaxation of the restrictions Covid 19 had placed upon the supervision capacity of Community Corrections before the release of the applicant into the community. Ultimately the applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing 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.

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 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 was present, using drugs, in a home when the occupants of that home terrorised and killed a woman in his presence.  He did nothing to intervene to stop the events from unfolding and assisted the others to attempt to conceal the crime.  The fact that he had put himself in that position, associated with persons capable of acting in such a way as to take a young woman’s life, and lacked the humanity to intervene to protect or come to her aid is something that this applicant will have to live with for the remainder of his life.

Whilst he has a lengthy prior criminal history the offending mainly revolved around matters of dishonesty and drug use.  He has engaged in the past with Community Corrections on a probation order in 2013 however he failed to comply with that order and committed further offences during it.

The applicant has a significant drug dependency.  At the time of the offending he was using intravenous methamphetamine, cannabis and alcohol.

His use of drugs appears to have continued for some part, at least, of his custodial term as demonstrated by his positive urinalysis test for cannabis in March 2020.  This incident is the last occasion on which he has been identified as having engaged in internal offending.

On the positive side he has achieved a minimum classification with positive case notes as to his behaviour. A further random urinalysis conducted on him in October 2020 returned a clear result from all illicit substances. He has worked productively as a general hand in the cool room and undertaken the Gottawanna and equips aggression courses.  The applicant has also strived to improve his employability by undertaking vocational courses directed towards his English and math skills, food handling and mental health first aid.

Suitable accommodation has been identified as available for the applicant with familial and pro social support.

The most significant risk for the applicants return to offending behaviour is relapse to drug use. The assessment of Community Corrections was to the effect that the applicant had a willingness to engage with counselling and support upon release regarding this risk and was motivated by seeking access to his young son to maintain compliance and sobriety.

There is significant potential benefit to the applicant and as a result to the community for his intentions toward reform to be supported in the community setting and supervised under a parole order.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

To obtain and comply with a mental health care plan;

To engage with drug and alcohol services/Holyoake;

To take steps to obtain his white card;

To not associate with specified person.

Paroled from 23 November 2020 - 3 September 2022