Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Timo Juhani Murto

30 October 2020

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

Timo Johani Murto (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months imposed upon his conviction for matters of armed robbery.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 4 July 2020.

The applicant’s application initially came before the Board on 19 June 2020 but was adjourned for the obtaining of further information and a request for a supervision plant to be provided from Community Forensic Mental Health. The matter was again adjourned at the Board’s meeting of 31 July 2020 to enable the reintegration plan of Community Forensic Mental Health to be actioned. Ultimately the application was heard in a substantive respect before the Parole Board at its meeting 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 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

The applicant suffers from chronic schizophrenia.  He has suffered from this condition for most of his life.  When not controlled by an appropriate medication regime the applicant’s mental state seriously declines with the suffering of delusions and he is at risk of engaging in offending behaviour.

In her report forensic psychiatrist Cheryl Colquhoun diagnosed the applicant with “…Treatment Resistant Schizophrenia characterised by heightened religiosity, delusions, ideas of reference and functional decline.” She further noted the presence of personality deficits which predated the psychiatric condition, was pervasive and could consist of an autistic spectrum disorder or schizoid or schizotypal personality disorders.  Nevertheless her opinion is that, properly treated the applicant’s risk for further violence if released back into the community under supervision would be low noting that he would be under the supervision also of the Community Forensic Mental Health Team, living in suitable accommodation which was supportive and insightful regarding his mental health issues and his compliance with treatment and the positive response to the introduction of clozapine.  Also relevant to the assessment of risk is the fact that the applicant, prior to the offending for which he is serving his custodial sentence, had “…already demonstrated a 15-year period of mental health stability with no offending behaviours on his dose clozapine.”

In January of 2019 the applicant entered onto the premises of McDonalds in Moonah and whilst brandishing a knife robbed members of staff. The incident was no doubt distressing and alarming for the staff and customers who were present.  Whilst it appears the motivation for the action of the applicant on this occasion was not due to the experience of delusions but due to an intensely personal upset, the importance of achieving and maintain mental health stability was recognised in the comments on passing sentence with the Court.  Indeed the Court noted that the applicant would need to remain at the Wilfred Lopes Centre within the Prison complex to allow for stabilisation of his clozapine dose during his custodial term and thereafter release on parole back to his family would be appropriate.

The applicant’s treatment has now achieved a return of stability.  The forensic mental health care team at Wilfred Lopes has implemented a process of gradual reintroduction of the applicant into the community.  This process has been conducted over a period of some months with the applicant having twice weekly reintegration leave for three hours at a time in the company of support workers.  No issues of concern were raised during these periods.

Aside from his family and treating medical practitioners the applicant also has the support of workers through the National Disability Insurance scheme.  Forensic Mental Health and Community Corrections both now identify the applicant as suitable and ready for a period of parole.

This applicant has a number of supports in place both personal and professional which recognises, as he does, the importance of maintaining stability in his mental health.  He is remorseful for his offending behaviour.  He has demonstrated in the past the capacity to be stable both in terms of accessing and complying with treatment and not offending for a lengthy period.  The assessment of risk for future offending has been described as low.  The applicant would benefit from parole supervision working in concert with Forensic Mental Health noting that the applicant will be under a Forensic Mental Health Order upon his release.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

To comply with Forensic Mental Health Order.

Paroled from 30 October 2020 - 4 January 2022.