Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Alexandra Rose Kobelke

30 October 2020

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

Alexandra Rose Kobelki (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 8 months with a non-parole period of 16 months imposed upon her conviction for matters of trafficking in controlled substances.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant’s application initially came before the Board on 17 July 2020 and again on 11 September 2020. On both occasions the application was adjourned. On 11 September 2020 no suitable accommodation was available to the applicant. Ultimately that accommodation became available and the application heard on 30 October 2020. On that occasion the applicant was present at the hearing and was invited to provide any information she had in support of her application and made herself 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

Over a period of just over a year the applicant was engaged in trafficking cocaine and methylamphetamine into this state from Sydney by air.  She was not the “kingpin” of the operation but received money and/or drugs for performing her part.  She has no criminal history of relevance.  She has in the past been subject of a requirement in New South Wales to submit to supervision by Community Corrections as part of a good behaviour bond but failed to comply.

Perhaps ironically considering the impact of her conduct in providing a means of access to hard drugs by vulnerable members of the Tasmanian community the applicant was motivated to engage in the offending behaviour by her own drug addiction.

The applicant has served her custodial term compliantly and cooperatively.  She is classified as minimum security and her case notes reflect her as being a polite and friendly inmate.  The applicant has worked as a leading hand in the kitchen with reports identifying her work to be of a high standard.

The applicant has also engaged in vocational work whilst an inmate to enhance her employability upon return to the community.  She has undertaken certificates in cleaning operations and salon assistant as well as obtaining her white card.

It is the applicant’s intention to not return to New South Wales but to forge a new life in Tasmania including having her father travel to the state to join her.  Accommodation has been identified for her as appropriate and which could provide her with opportunities for future work.  The applicant also has the assistance of Beyond the Wire upon her return to the community.

The applicant has been drug abstinent upon her incarceration and is motivated to remain so. Arrangements are to be made for her to access appropriate therapeutic interventions to assist her in this aspect of her rehabilitation.

There are some very real potential for the applicant to embark upon a new path in life within Tasmania. She is aware that to make the most of the opportunities that her return to the community will give rise to she has to be vigilant in not relapsing into drug use.  There are appropriate supports available to her to assist her in this.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

Nil.

Paroled from 9 November 2020 - 4 November 2021.