Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Christopher Richard Stevenson

28 August 2020

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Christopher Richard Stevenson (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months with a non-parole period of 6 months imposed upon his conviction for matters of unlawfully injuring property.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 27 August 2020.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on 28 August 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 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, aside from the criminal behaviour in respect of which he is serving his current custodial term, has no prior criminal record other than an occasional detection for speeding.  This is his first custodial sentence.  The offending behaviour was not the product of drug use or addiction or mental health issues but appears to have been the product of personal ill will between the Applicant and the owners of the Banjos outlet in Huonville.  That ill will arose due to a breakdown in franchisee arrangements between the Applicant, his former wife and the owners of the business. Obviously the fact that the Applicant took recourse to a planned act of sabotage to the business premises rather than a lawful route to resolve his grievances is a matter of concern and reflects poorly on his character.

The Applicant has served his sentence in a positive and compliant manner.  He has engaged in employment working as a general hand in the kitchen to glowing reports.  He has maintained a minimum classification and case notes describe him as polite and courteous.

The Applicant has suitable accommodation to go to upon his release and has maintained a supportive relationship with his former spouse and children.  The Applicant has employment available to him upon release assisting his ex wife in her veterinary practice.

The Applicants matter was a long time coming to trial and as a result he was subject to bail conditions for a period of three years prior to the imposition of his sentence of imprisonment. There was no compliance or breach concerns regarding that period.

The Applicant now expresses regret and acknowledges that his behaviour put at risk members of the community. He has sought and obtained professional assistance from a psychologist to assist him deal in a more functional way with his feelings of frustration and anger at his past perceived injustices.

The Applicant has been endorsed by Community Corrections in their assessment as appropriate for a parole order and the Board concurs with this assessment.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied

Subject to the usual conditions of a parole order.

Paroled from 7 September 2020 - 7 March 2021