Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by J T R

17 July 2020

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

J T R (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years with a non-parole period of 12 months imposed upon his conviction for two armed robberies.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for parole on 1 February 2020.

The applicant initially came before the Board at its meeting on 20 March 2020 at which time his application was adjourned to enable a psychological assessment and report. It was also requested that the applicant maintain good behaviour during the period of the adjournment and to explore further opportunities for therapeutic programs whilst in detention. At the time of the hearing of the application the applicant remained resident at Ashley Detention Centre.

The applicant’s application was again heard before the Board at its meeting on 17 July 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.

The pre-parole report prepared on behalf the Board had been read to the applicant prior to her 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 system of parole recognises the capacity of some prisoners for 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 by reducing the risk of reoffending and supervising the reintegration of offenders.

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 and the ability to remove or mitigate that risk by the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Consideration

At the age of 16 years the applicant entered a service station pointing a firearm at the attendant working behind the counter and demanded cash from the till. Ultimately he left the premises with a laptop computer and a customer’s scooter. Shortly after this incident he came across a person walking on a walking track and pointed the gun at his direction demanding he hand over his mobile phone and wallet and any other items of property he had on him.

Despite his tender age the applicant has a record of prior convictions including matters of robbery, aggravated robbery, aggravated armed robbery, burglary, aggravated burglary, stealing, motor vehicle stealing, receiving stolen property, destroying property, unlawfully setting fire to property, assault and breach of bail.

It is also noted that he has a number of prior convictions for breaches of probation orders and detention orders. It was noted at the time of sentencing that the applicant had had 11 admissions to the Ashley Youth Detention Centre since September 2016 and it was typical of him to reoffend within a short period of release from that facility.

Internal reports of behaviour whilst serving his sentence at Ashley demonstrates a very lengthy period of poor behaviour with, however, some recent improvements.

Complicit in the applicant’s offending behaviour appears to be his use of drugs, antisocial friendship group and the criminal orientation of his family.

Whilst attending Ashley the applicant has engaged in individual therapy counselling on multiple occasions with an aim to focus on his emotional development, challenge his antisocial attitudes and substance misuse. Ultimately, however, input was terminated by reason of the applicant’s non-attendance.

Were he to be approved for a parole order the proposed address for the applicant was identified as suitable.

Effectively the applicant has been in youth detention since the age of 13 years. He is young, immature, unsophisticated, has a limited understanding and appears to be someone that feeds his ego off flouting societies conventions and rules.

There obviously is significant concern in the capacity of this applicant to comply with a parole order given the above. Nevertheless he is of a young age and if remaining or returning to a custodial environment will be returned to the adult prison population.

Assessment was undertaken on behalf of the Parole Board by Dr Amy Washington of the applicant. In her report of 29 June 2020 she noted that the applicant’s non-verbal reasoning abilities exceeded his verbal. She noted, however, that he is at risk of harming another as a means of intimidation or gaining compliance. He has demonstrated this capacity for aggression at a young age. Factors that would make the applicant vulnerable to future violence include his personality style, substance use, peer influences, pro-criminal associations and his exposure to a traumatic past.

It is noted that there has been a report of improvement in the applicant’s behaviours whilst at Ashley and the Board notes that he has obtained green status and has been able to maintain that status. There is, however, the risk as identified by Dr Washington that his ability to have done so may be as a result of his stand over behaviour becoming more sophisticated and subversive.

Nevertheless Dr Washington was able to identify several protective factors were the applicant to return to the community including a supportive mother, accommodation in the community and the capacity that he has demonstrated to engage with education whilst in custody. Dr Washington noted that the applicant’s capacity to manage his parole conditions in the community is of concern with his cognitive testing indicating that he may have difficulty in taking verbal instruction and communicating his needs.

The Youth Justice Services report of 7 July 2020 noted that the failure of the applicant to have been afforded parole when his application was first heard in March 2020 appeared to have been a wake-up call for him and signalled an improvement in his behaviour over the past 16 weeks. It is noted in that period that he has being classified at the lowest level of risk and the highest incentive level and has been completely incident free.

The applicant’s suitability for parole was further assessed by Community Corrections and reported in that pre-parole report. It was noted that the applicant has indicated his preparedness to engage with interventions deemed suitable by Community Corrections whilst under a parole order and he appeared to present with improved insight than he had previously demonstrated. Accordingly whilst concerns remain with respect to the capacity of this applicant to comply with a parole order he was assessed as suitable for a parole order. The Board agrees with this assessment and parole is approved.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

Subject to the usual conditions of a parole order together with a non-association clause with certain named persons.

Paroled from 27 July 2020 - 1 February 2021