Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Carly Elizabeth Lyon

27 November 2020

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

Carly Elizabeth Lyon (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 9 months with a non-parole period of 4 ½ months imposed upon her conviction for unlawfully setting fire to property.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 1 September 2020.

The applicant’s application initially came before the Board at its meeting on 17 July 2020 but was adjourned until ultimately heard on 27 November 2020. During the period of the adjournment the applicant was requested to focus on her internal offending behaviour. At the hearing on 27 November 2020 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 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

When being sentenced for her current term of imprisonment, upon her conviction of unlawfully setting fire to property, the Court commented upon the planned nature of the applicant’s offending and her motivation to be returned to custody.  That motivation appears to have stemmed from a belief that once in custody she would be able to access care for her complex mental health and physical needs.

It appears that the applicant has lived a somewhat chaotic lifestyle.  She has children that have been removed from her care for their safety, she has issues with substance abuse, homelessness and significant mental health issues.  In the period leading up to the hearing of her parole application the applicant required hospital treatment following significant and concerted efforts of self-harm.

At the hearing of her parole application the applicant advised that she was experiencing mental stability following a change in her anti-depressant medication which she stated had put her in a “much better head space” than before.  She asserts she is highly motivated by the prospect of gaining access to and ultimately the return of her children by working cooperatively with Child Safety Services and appreciates that in large part her conduct will be central to her success in this.  This is not, however, her first opportunity for community supervision, although she has not previously been subject to a parole order.  In the past she has breached a restraint order, probation, and a community correction order.

A major risk factor for the applicant is her use of illicit substances and any success in compliance with a parole order and developing a position of trust with Child Safety Services will in large part be determined by her capacity to remain drug free. This and the record of internal offending whilst serving her sentence of imprisonment raises concerns regarding her suitability for a parole order.

Some supports however are being put in place for the applicant’s return to the community were she to be granted a parole order in the form of mental health and alcohol and drug services.  In addition the applicant has demonstrated the capacity for compliant behaviour. Indeed her behaviour has been described as “notably improved” since mid this year.  This is on the background of prolific internal offending from the commencement of her custodial period.  This improvement is also commented upon in the pre-parole assessment report as well as the applicant’s engagement with counselling within the prison.

The applicant has appropriate accommodation in a supportive environment available to her for a parole period.

The applicant has an obvious motivation in her children to successfully complete a parole period and remain drug and offending abstinent.  There is no doubt, however, that her intentions in this regard will require significant work from her and a willingness by her to utilise the support services available to her in the community.  Parole supervision is an appropriate vehicle in which the applicant can achieve these goals.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

To obtain and comply with a mental health care plan;

Not to enter into Norwood and Kings Meadows.

Paroled from 7 December 2020 - 7 June 2021