Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Rudi John Majcen

11 September 2020

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Rudi John Majcen (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of two years and six months with a non-parole period of one year and three months imposed upon his conviction for matters of trafficking in a controlled substance.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 25 September 2020.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on 18 September 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.

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

This is the applicant’s first custodial sentence.  At the time of the hearing of his application for parole he was adamant that he did not want to repeat the experience.  He attributes finding himself in this position, that is with a conviction for drug trafficking and consequent sentence of imprisonment to his life having spiralled out of control following his marital separation and his use of Ice. He asserts motivation for reform as stemming in large part from a desire to be there for his family and children.

At the time of his sentencing the applicant also claimed remorse for his behaviour and a desire to reform.  The Court, however, found these claims difficult to accept as genuine as the applicant had continued to traffic drugs after he had been arrested for trafficking and wished to pay his drug debts.

The applicant has a criminal history relevant to drug use and supply commencing in 2006. He has used illicit drugs for a lengthy period but asserts his use of ice was a relatively recent development and the need to fund that habit led to his engagement in trafficking.  The applicant’s risk upon his return to the community resides in a relapse to drug taking and a resumption of relationships with his pro criminal cohort.

Whilst serving his custodial term the applicant has achieved and maintained a minimum classification. Case notes refer to his positive interactions with custodial staff.  He has held employment as a cleaner and engaged in therapeutic and vocational programs.   Specifically the applicant is undertaking the Gottawanna which was ongoing but near completion.  His engagement in Certificate III Asset Management and Certificate I in Information, Digital Media and Technology are also ongoing.  The applicant had commenced Equips Foundation but was unable to complete the course.  He remains on the waiting list for Equips Addiction and Apsley drug treatment unit, the latter now discontinued.

Accommodation proposed for the applicant to serve his period of parole has been assessed as suitable.

In his application for parole the applicant has claimed to have taken steps to address his addiction whilst serving his sentence.  He states he has remained drug free during this period and has been an active participant in the Gottawanna program which has given him some insight into the impact his offending behaviour as a trafficker has had on others and provided him with the tools to remain drug abstinent.

In the pre-parole report Community Corrections has identified that a parole order would provide structured support to the applicant directed toward his substance abuse issues and identifies the applicant as suitable for such an order.

The applicant has had a lengthy history of drug use and abuse escalating to his addiction to ice and his engagement in trafficking to the misfortune of others caught in the same web as he.  This is the applicant’s first custodial term.  He has the significant motivation of his family to remain drug free.  He recognises the deleterious effect that drug abuse has had upon his life and has equipped himself with the tools necessary to move away from that lifestyle.  He has demonstrated himself in the past to have the capacity to lead an industrious and worth while life.  A parole order will assist him regain that life.  There appears low risk to the community for this applicant’s release.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

The applicant is to obtain and comply with a mental health care plan.

Paroled from 28 September 2020 - 25 December 2021