Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Timothy Lee King

9 October 2020

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

Timothy Lee King (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 7 years with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 moths imposed upon his conviction for matters of trafficking in a controlled substance.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 27 October 2020.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on 9 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 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

This is the applicant’s first imprisonment.  His prior criminal history consists of minor traffic matters and some family violence and drug issues.  His current offending involved the joint endeavour with another in trafficking methylamphetamine in respect of which the Court found the applicant was at the top of the chain of supply as opposed to a mere street dealer and the business “did not lack sophistication”.  On sentencing the Court found the applicant and his co-offender were “…relatively young men at the commencement of their offending with relatively good records, were addicted to methylamphetamine and have reasonably good prospects of rehabilitation…”.

The applicant has had some previous engagement with Community Corrections in the context of completing a Community Service and Probation order.  He engaged well with those orders until charged with this offending.  The offending was no doubt contributed to by the applicant’s own addiction to illicit substances.  His use of drugs appears to have commenced from the age of thirteen and then escalated in 2014 upon the death of two of his friends at the hands of each other to become a significant methylamphetamine dependency. The offending was in part the product of the need to fund his own addiction.

With the exception of one internal offence in May of 2020 involving the taking of an item from the kitchen unlawfully the applicant has served his sentence in a compliant fashion. His case notes describe him as polite and respectful.  He has been employed as a general hand in the woodwork area also to good reports.

The applicant has also engaged in therapeutic programs during his custodial term completing the equips domestic abuse and addiction  groups, the Apsley program and smart recovery.

Accommodation proposed for the applicant has been assessed as suitable and the applicant has viable plans for employment upon his release.  Indeed prior to his incarceration and despite the significant drug habit he had the applicant was able to be industrially productive in the community.

The assessment of Community Corrections is that the applicant has shown significant motivation to address his offending as evident by his positive engagement in a number of therapeutic inputs as outlined above in these reasons.  The Board agree with this assessment and consider that the applicant presents little risk to the community in light of his determination to remain drug abstinent and compliant with the laws of society.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

To obtain and comply with a mental health care plan.

Paroled from 27 October 2020 - 27 April 2024.