Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Aaron Roy Johnston

11 December 2020

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

Aaron Roy Johnston (the applicant) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 4 months concurrent, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 2 months, imposed upon his conviction for aggravated burglary, stealing and receiving stolen property.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant became eligible for parole on 20 December 2020.

The applicant appeared before the Board in respect of his application at the hearing on 11 December 2020.

On that occasion the applicant 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 had been 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.”

Documentation

The Board has had regard to the following documents in considering the application: -

1. The application;
2. Comments on passing sentence;
3. Papers provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions;
4. Prison summary;
5. Record of prior convictions
6. Prison episode summary report;
7. Pre-parole report;
8. Home assessment.

Parole

The system of parole recognises the capacity of some prisoners for 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 by reducing the risk of reoffending and supervising the reintegration of offenders.

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 and the ability to remove or mitigate that risk by the imposition of appropriate conditions.

In making its decision, the Board carefully considers the circumstances of the victim, and has regard to any statement provided to it by the victim, or the parents or guardians of that victim.

Consideration

The applicant’s offending occurred in the company of his co-accused who, during mid 2017 stole several vehicles from properties in greater Hobart, which were then stripped or broken down. Various parts relating to the stolen vehicles were found at the applicant’s residence. The applicant was also involved in an aggravated burglary with his co-accused, entering a property to steal a vehicle and its contents, in addition to a trail bike and helmet and two subsequent incidents of entering commercial vehicle premises to steal vehicles.

The applicant has a prior history of similar offending, including a range of dishonesty offences as a youth and an adult. Notably, the applicant’s personal and family history were stable, and he was raised in the family home with his brother, with both parents in continuous and full-time employment during his childhood.  It is reported however that the applicant was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome at a young age.  His family were reportedly supportive and assisted him with the management of this.

The applicant continues to maintain a good relationship with his parents and brother, who have continued to visit him during his custodial sentence and will provide support for him if granted a period of parole.

In sentencing the applicant, his Honour Justice Geason referred to a forensic psychological assessment from Mr Damien Minehan which confirmed the applicant’s previous diagnosis of Asperger’s Disorder. His Honour noted the applicant had been assessed by Mr Minehan as having a level of cognitive impairment due to his disorder that has the effect of reducing his ability to exercise appropriate judgement and to make rational choices. His Honour also accepted Mr Minehan’s assessment that the applicant’s difficulties in respect of social interaction and close proximity to other people would make the experience of the prison environment more difficult for the applicant.

During his custodial sentence the applicant has attained a minimum security classification and is housed in the minimum security accommodation. Case notes provided to the Board indicate there is no record of internal offending in the past 12 months and his behaviour is polite.  He is currently employed as general hand in the prison’s vegetable shed and employment notes show good attendance and good work ethic.

The applicant has not engaged in therapeutic intervention as he reports no use of illicit substances throughout his life and limited alcohol consumption.  The applicant has however undertaken a Certificate ll in Construction and attained his White Card.

Relevant to the applicant’s risk of re-offending are the existence of a range of protective factors. The applicant has a long-term partner with whom he has two young daughters, and his family have maintained visits during the applicant’s incarceration.  The applicant has a good employment history and previously had his own business as a self-employed qualified fitter and turner for some years prior to his incarceration.

The applicant does have some history of previous community-based Probation orders. Information provided suggests that while the applicant did complete more recent orders, during his early periods of supervision on a suspended sentence in 2011 and subsequent probation order in 2012, he had limited engagement and in fact breached the orders due to re-offending.

Accommodation nominated by the applicant has been assessed as suitable and supportive and the applicant has prospective employment to commence in early 2021 having actively sought employment by regular contact with the employer during his time in custody.

In the Pre-Parole report, Community Corrections note that despite unsatisfactory performance on previous periods of community-based supervision, the applicant has been recommended for parole.  The recommendation is based on the applicant’s good record of behaviour in prison, having maintained employment throughout his custodial sentence, and the existence of pro-social support from family and his prospective employer.  While Community Corrections note some concern regarding the applicant’s former associates and the ability of the applicant to be influenced and led by others due to his Asperger’s Disorder, they have outlined appropriate case management and supervision to manage the risks.

The Board accepts the recommendation by Community Corrections and is satisfied the applicant meets the statutory criteria to be eligible for a period of parole.

The Board’s determination

Parole Granted

Special Conditions

Subject to the normal conditions of a parole order but additionally:

Obey the Probation Officer’s direction in relation to associates, including a named associate.

Paroled from 21 December 2020 - 20 February 2022