Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Matthew Luke Johnson

27 November 2020

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

Matthew Luke Johnson (“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 assault, stalking and interfering with a witness.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant’s application initially came before the Board at its March 2020 meeting but was adjourned to enable a psychologist’s report to be obtained and in light of the absence of suitable accommodation. The application again came before the Board at its meeting in June at which time it was adjourned to a later period to allow for the relaxation of Covid 19 restrictions. When the application returned to the Board at its meeting of 25 September 2020 the applicant did not have suitable accommodation. Ultimately the application was heard before the Board at its meeting on 27 November 2020. During the period of the adjournment the applicant was requested to focus on his internal offending behaviour. At the hearing on 27 November 2020 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 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’s offending has occurred in the context of a domestic relationship. Instead of being able to engage in a mutually respectful and loving relationship the applicant embarked upon intimidatory and violent behaviour resulting in his partner requiring the assistance of a restraint order. Despite the existence of a restraint order the applicant acted in breach of its terms and conditions.

It is also noteworthy that some of the applicant’s behaviour occurred in breach of a suspended sentence and that he attempted to resume contact with his partner within nine days of his release from prison in 2018. Perhaps worn down by the incessant efforts by the applicant to contact her she agreed to meet with him at a hotel. During that meeting the applicant turned violent and assaulted his former partner including by grabbing her hair and kneeling on her and holding her face into a pillow for a number of minutes. Reasonably the applicant’s victim felt that her life was under significant threat. The applicant continued to harass his victim principally by multiple text messages and the Court described at sentencing that these messages demonstrated “… an apparently obsessive persistence in seeking to bend the complainant to your will”.

The Court described the criminal behaviour as serious and brutal and a clear breach of trust.

Specifically relevant to the issue of suitability for parole his Honour Justice Brett stated the following:

“…. I note that you have hopes for the future and I hope that it is sufficient to motivate you to seriously pursue a course of rehabilitation to address the deficits in your personality and character which seem to underlie your offending conduct and to ensure that you comply with the order that I impose on you. I will provide for rehabilitation by making provision for your early release on parole”.

As reflected above the applicant has an extensive history of family violence offending and as such there is in place an indefinite non-contact family violence order in place protecting his former partner from him. There is also another order protecting a person with whom he had a previous relationship. Obviously that relationship was subject to elements of violence.

The applicant has also been the beneficiary of supervision through Community Corrections in the past. He has had some difficulty with engaging in that supervision at times breaching conditions and not engaging in the Family Violence Offender Intervention Program.

The use of alcohol has been identified as contributory to the applicant’s offending behaviour. Also, I daresay has been his attitude of possession and inability to control his aggression. Nevertheless the applicant has expressed a desire to change his past behaviours and cease his offending behaviour.

During his custodial sentence the applicant has achieved a minimum classification and has worked as a general hand in the prison store. This has included him obtaining a working pass to work in external locations to the prison. His case notes are neutral with some positive comments, albeit with an occasional negative issue raised.

The applicant has attempted to engage in therapeutic programs by way of the Equips Domestic Abuse Group, Foundation and Addiction courses as well as Gottawanna, the Apsley Program and Alcohol & Drug Counselling , however, these courses have not been available to him most likely due to the intervention of the Covid 19 restrictions. The applicant has engaged in the Family Violence Offender Intervention Program as well as undertaking some vocational courses in cleaning and construction.

A report from the Equips Domestic Abuse Program was to the effect that the applicant was a willing participant displaying a good understanding of program concepts and how it is applied to his behaviour. Nevertheless it was identified that he had difficulty in translating those concepts to his own circumstances. The Family Violence Offender Intervention Program exit report noted the applicant’s engagement in the group program was cancelled due to the onset of Covid 19 restrictions, however, facilitators worked with him in a distanced capacity providing weekly packages of written work and feedback. The report remarks that the applicant showed “… great motivation and has thoroughly completed all the written work provided.… has shown increasing insight into the full range of his abusive behaviours and when reflecting on these was able to experience empathy for his victims.”

The program facilitators note that the applicant would benefit if released under supervision of parole for him to receive intensive monitoring of his relationship status and alcohol use, together with supported contact around his mental health and engagement with alcohol and drug counselling.

Dr Washington’s assessment of the applicant was that there was several “red flags” for his potential for future relationship difficulties. She identified in this regard the presence of “… cognitive distortions, impulsivity, substance use, partial insight, previous interpersonal aggression, poor emotional control and limited family supports.” She notes that he remains at risk of future family violence offending due to his feelings of jealousy and possessiveness in relationships. This is heightened by his substance use. However, she notes that there was several factors which could be protective for future offending including comprehensive substance use and family violence offending treatment, engagement in psychological intervention and stabilisation of his lifestyle.

Accommodation has been identified as suitable for the applicant to serve his post parole period.

The impact that the applicant’s violent offending has had upon his former partner is recognised by the Board. Certainly there are significant concerns with respect to the risk that this applicant poses to his past and future partners with that risk centring around his personality profile as mentioned above. There are, however, opportunities to capture the applicant’s intention to reform by returning him to the community under strict supervision, but facilitating access to psychological support and other therapeutic interventions which may assist him to gain a better understanding of his conduct and equip him with the tools he needs to prevent its reoccurrence.

On balancing all matters the application for parole is approved.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

To obtain and comply with a mental health care plan.

Paroled from 7 December 2020 - 18 October 2021