Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Daniel Joseph Noonan

11 September 2020

Reasons for Decision

The Background

Daniel Joseph Noonan (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 6 years and 6 months with a non parole period of 3 years and 3 months imposed upon his conviction for of 97 convictions of fraud and 10 of stealing.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 22 September 2020

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on 11 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

The Applicant is a former football identify turned financial planner. His conduct in defrauding his vulnerable clients of significant portions of their life savings was for them a substantial betrayal of trust and financial loss and was for the Applicant a significant fall from grace.

During a significant period during which the Applicant conducted his activities and essentially plunged into a spiral of covering up one fraud with another the cumulative impact of his behaviour became too difficult to bear and he ultimately alerted the authorities to his actions and, from that time, has taken full responsibility for them.

It is, however, the losses he suffered and continued to suffer from gambling ultimately motivated his actions. It is a problem that he has had for a significant portion of his life but which only translated into his actions of theft and fraud over the period 2007 – 2016. It is however the losses he suffered and continued to suffer from gambling that ultimately motivated his actions.

Whilst full and frank in his admissions and genuine in his remorse he asserts he was always of the view that he would ultimately be able to pay all of his victims back.

This is the first sentence of imprisonment imposed on the Applicant. He does not have a criminal history at all. He has served his sentence in a compliant and positive manner. He is classified minimum security and has worked external to the prison, pre COVID 19, in positions of trust and responsibility including at Government House upkeeping the grounds.

The Applicant has undertaken the Gottawanna course and a Cert IV qualification in building and construction will be obtained by him upon his return to the community and completing some outstanding practical components.

Accommodation available to the Applicant upon his release is suitable and supportive. The Applicant has also been proactive in organising a number of appointments with his treatment providers were he to be given the opportunity of a parole order.

In considering the suitability of the Applicant for a parole order the Board have had the benefit of a number of reports regarding the Applicant including a statement from his former wife, a past and future employer, Relationships Australia, Dr Minehan and Gottawanna. All documents convey a recurring theme that this Applicant is proactive, perceptive and committed to his rehabilitation and future health.

Assessment by Community Corrections is to the effect that the Applicant has a low risk/needs profile and is suitable for an order of parole. The Board concur with this assessment.