Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Brereton James Jones

30 October 2020

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

Brererton James Jones (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 4 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months imposed upon his conviction for a number of matters including aggravated burglary, assault, burglary, stealing, aggravated armed robbery, motor vehicle stealing, contempt of court and a parole revocation.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 2 September 2019.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on 30 October 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 Victims

No registered victims

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

As a teenager the applicant, in the company of a number of other young men and late at night, attended a home to buy drugs from a person who lived there with his grandparents.  Upon the resident refusing to supply drugs and deny their entry into the home the applicant and his associates forced their way in seeking items to steal, assaulted the young resident and stabbed him and his elderly grandfather.  The applicant was not criminally responsible for the stabbing but was for the assault by punching the face of the young resident.  After departing the premises the group including the applicant continued on their spree by breaking and entering into the East Devonport Post Office and stole items including charity money.

Concerningly in the context of considering the applicant’s suitability for parole and specifically whether he presents a risk to the community and will comply with parole orders, the applicant engaged in further offending following his release on bail in respect of the above matter.  On that occasion the applicant terrorised a young French couple with a pogo stick whilst wearing a balaclava and demanded they hand over their money to him.  Upon arrest by police for this matter the applicant denied all involvement and gave a false alibi as to his whereabouts at the time of the commission of the offence. This does not reflect well on the applicant, his respect for community members or the law.

Indeed the applicant’s past conduct both in terms of his offending behaviour and his performance on community based supervision orders are also areas of concern.  The applicant’s record of offending dates back to the tender age of 13 years.  His record reflects that his offending has really only been interrupted by periods of incarceration and has involved matters of dishonesty, civil disobedience, bail breaches, driving offences and resist police.  In light of the young age at which he commenced offending the applicant had the benefit of supervision of Youth Justice through suspended detention and supervised release orders.  Reports reflect that the applicant often failed to comply with such orders including to the extent of engaging in further offending whilst subject to them. The observation was made, however, that at times he was compliant and that these periods coincided with periods of stability in the applicant’s life particularly surrounding his living arrangements and personal relationships.

At the time of his sentencing the submission was made that the applicant was positively motivated toward reform.  Those matters which were identified as central to his desire to move away from a criminal and drug taking lifestyle were the birth of his son and the fact that the police had taken him seriously when he made complaint to them regarding historical abuse to which he had been subjected.  The Court noted that it was his intention to use his sentence of imprisonment to focus on his rehabilitation.  We are now well placed to consider how the applicant has served his sentence to consider particularly if he has followed through on this statement of intention.

The applicant has achieved a medium classification and has been employed as a general hand litter collector.  Case notes reflects a positive outlook and compliant behaviour. His work has been described as being performed to a high standard.  All of these reports reflect well on the applicant and his attitude.  The applicant has not, however, engaged in therapeutic work during this sentence however the intervention of Covid19 has meant that such programs have not been accessible to him.  A concern arises from the applicant’s booking for assault of another inmate in October 2020.  At the hearing the applicant explained his conduct as being retaliatory to the conduct of another inmate.  It is noted that the applicant was penalised with 3 days separation whereupon he was permitted to return to the medium unit and was described as polite compliant and remorseful at the hearing.

Accommodation that is suitable for his needs is available for the applicant were he to be released on a parole order.  The applicant has also engaged with White Lion who will provide him with post release support.

There are no doubt concerns with respect to the applicant’s capacity to engage functionally and compliantly with a parole order.  The Board are cognisant of the risk that non-compliance may well take the form of further offending thereby placing members of the community at risk.  Nevertheless the applicant presented well at the hearing before the Board.  He continues to assert his desire to change his pathway in life from a pro-criminal mindset to a path that is pro social and one in which his son can be justifiably proud of.  He recognises that abstinence from drug use is essential for him to achieve this aim.

The applicant, even at his relative young age, has lived a disordered, dysfunctional and disengaged life.  He has demonstrated, nevertheless, a capacity at times of stability, to comply with orders and engage with providers who are aiming to improving his welfare.  He would no doubt benefit from the ability to explore the possibility of drug abstinence and complaint behaviour with the assistance of Community Corrections’ supervision.  There is still time for this applicant to change the narrative of his life and at this time he has strong determination to use this opportunity.  The community will be better protected by affording him a parole order.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

To continue to engage with his counsellor at SASS;

To seek advice from a financial counsellor;

To not associate with certain named persons.

Paroled from 9 November 2020 - 26 June 2021