Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by K J H

14 August 2020

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

KJH (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months imposed upon his conviction for having sexual intercourse with a young person under the age of 17 years.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 28 August 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

The applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment for crimes committed by him in the early 1970s when he, aged in his mid-thirties, was working as a principal of a primary school. The offending behaviour involved significant transgression and breach of trust between the Applicant as a school principal and his then young, grade 4 student.  These actions, no doubt, have had an ongoing negative influence in his victim’s life. Indeed the statement provided by the victim, some 50 years later, confirms the extent and breadth of the ongoing impact the applicant’s offending has had upon him over the entirety of his life time.  He talks of the pain of the applicant’s assault upon him, the shame that he felt, the impact on his education and his enduring distrust of men in senior community roles, most particularly teachers.  In considering the application for parole the Board has recognised the significant and longstanding impacts the victim has had to endure due to the offending behaviour.

The Applicant has a relevant offending history.  In 1974 he was convicted of engaging in indecent practices between males and in 2002 and 2004 for sexual offending comparable to the current matters and occurring at different times from the late 1960’s to 2000. The offending relates to the applicant’s predatory conduct against pre-pubescent boys during that time.

The applicant received a parole order in 2006 and was compliant to the conditions of that order, successfully completing the same.

Psychological assessments completed in respect of the applicant have diagnosed him with paedophilia. There is no material that suggests he has actively engaged in satisfying his sexual desires for pre-pubescent boys since 2000.

The applicant has served his sentence in a compliant manner achieving minimum classification, positive case notes and no internal offending behaviour.

One of the factors to be considered in determining the appropriateness of a parole order in this case is whether the applicant has engaged in a sex offender treatment program. Whilst he has not engaged in such a program during the current custodial episode, he did complete the New Directions course during his prior sentence in 2006.  As such the assessment made by the programme facilitators was that he did not require to complete the programme again.  This ought to be viewed in the context that the offending behaviour predates that sentence and that program.  On this basis it is the determination of the Board that the absence of engagement in sex offender treatment by the applicant during the current custodial episode does not render him inappropriate for a parole order.

Accommodation identified for the Applicant to be housed upon his release on a parole order has been assessed as suitable.

The Applicant is aware of and recognises his need for vigilance and support to ensure he remains abstinent from acting upon his inappropriate and unlawful sexual proclivities. He has sought and utilised psychological support for this for an extended period which has enabled him to come to a position whereby he can live a healthy and normal sexual life in the confines of his marriage despite his paedophilic disorder diagnosis.

The applicant’s wife and others are aware of his offending but are prepared to offer support to him on his return to the community. As noted by Dr Michael Jordan in a pre-sentence report dated 14^th of May 2020, his relapse prevention treatment within the community over many years has been successful in preventing reoffending. Dr O’Donnell has described the Applicant’s engagement in offence specific treatment and continued risk monitoring as “unprecedented” in her experience and she identifies on that basis that his risk of future sexually violent reoffending is low.

The Board accept that the applicant presents as a low risk particularly in light of the determined approach he has taken to obtain therapeutic support to ensure against relapse to sexual offending and further his return to the community will assist in his accessing these supports further.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Paroled from 26 August 2020 - 26 Febraury 2022