Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Conway Wayne Richardson

9 October 2020

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

Conway Wayne Richardson (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 5 years and 8 months imposed upon his conviction for a number of matters including assault, injure property, bribing an officer of justice and conspiracy.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 14 January 2018.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board initially at its meeting on 10 January 2020. The application was then adjourned to 19 June 2020 and ultimately heard by the board at its hearing on 9 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

Yes

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

This applicant has a lengthy criminal history for a range of offending including matters of violence, dishonesty and drug use.  His propensity for an anti social lifestyle has been contributed to by his abuse of drugs and the suffering by him of a head injury at the age of 17years. Nevertheless the applicant professes a genuine motivation for reform.  He is now older and has recognised that a pro social path will provide a far better lifestyle for himself.  The intention of the applicant to reform was asserted at his sentencing when it was noted by Evans J that the genuineness and resilience of the applicant in this regard remained, at that time, to be seen.

The applicant was granted a parole order in June of 2017.  The order was revoked in September of that year due to the applicant committing further offences namely being in possession of a firearm and ammunition without a licence and having the loaded firearm in a public place.  He was sentenced to a further 6 month custodial sentence due to that offending.

Subsequently the applicant applied for parole again in May 2018, January and June 2019.  All of these applications were refused due to a belief by the Board that the applicant remained unready for a parole order and a desire to see sustained good behaviour and engagement from him.

The current application for parole initially  came to the Board for hearing in January 2020, at that time the application was adjourned for 5 months with a request to the applicant to demonstrate in that period his commitment to change through his behaviour in that period.  When the application returned to the Board in June 2020 Covid 19 had gripped the world and it was the belief of the Board that with the constraints placed on the capacity to supervise and monitor the applicant the matter required further adjournment until a return to appropriate service levels in the community.

At hearing before the Board in October the applicant again asserted his focus toward leading a prosocial lifestyle once returned to the community.  He has demonstrated through his behaviour that he has the capacity, at least in the custodial environment, to comply with rules and regulations and associate with others in an appropriate way.  His last internal offence was over a year prior to his appearance before the Board in October.  He had remained compliant and received consistently positive behavioural reports in the period despite the frustrations and disappointments of the delays in approving him for parole and the restrictions brought about by the pandemic. He has achieved a Medium-low classification and has been empllyed as a wardsman with good work reports.

The applicant has also been proactive in preparing for release by putting place pro social supports and working toward engaging with Holyoak for assistance with his drug dependency.  The applicant has engaged in therapeutic programs addressing his addictions and offending behaviour whilst serving his custodial sentence and the exit reports reflect his positive engagement with those inputs.  The applicant was, however, unable to complete the Apsley Drug Treatment program in July 2019 and self withdrew after 3 days in the unit.

The applicant has significant support and employment prospects upon his return to the community. He has been assessed by Community Corrections as suitable for a parole order.  The Board concur with this assessment.  The applicant appeared significantly motivated for return to the community in a pro social manner.  He has plans to engage in employment and develop his motor mechanic skills.  He has good insight into his risk factors for return to drug use.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

To obtain and comply with a mental health care plan.

Paroled from 20 October 2020 - 14 May 2023.