Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Shane Phillip West

18 September 2020

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Shane Phillip West (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for a number of matters including parole revocations, demanding property with menaces, robbery and stealing.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 21 March 2019.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board initially in respect of this application on 21 February 2020 at which time the hearing was adjourned to enable appropriate accommodation to be identified, and the obtaining of psychological assessment reports. Ultimately the application was heard before the Board at its hearing on 18 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 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 has previously been afforded the opportunity of parole in respect to both this and prior sentences of imprisonment.  Parole orders made in 2000, 2002, 2006, 2012, 2014 and 2017 were all revoked due to the applicant not meeting the conditions of the parole orders.  The applicant’s capacity to sustain a parole order appears to have diminished over time with the earlier grants lasting for over a year however his last attempt in 2017 lasted just shy of 8 weeks. Nevertheless, the advice from Community Corrections suggest that the applicant’s engagement and compliance with orders has steadily improved over the parole periods.

This poor history of compliance with parole orders was raised with the applicant and he pointed to changes he had made in himself that would improve his capacity to comply.  He noted that in the past he had resumed use of drugs and alcohol when in the community and felt he had to return to the custodial environment.  Now he has engaged in the dog program and gardening in the prison which has assisted him to take ownership and responsibility over his life.  He wishes to continue his involvement with dog care upon return to the community by assisting at dog shelters.

The applicant is a product of a dysfunctional and neglected childhood with the absence of a supportive and loving and stable homelife, the involvement of a number of institutions and his exposure to abuse and trauma.  He has significant mental health and addiction issues.  He has been offending throughout most of his life to the extent that since he was 23 years of age he has spent only 3 ½ years in the community.  He is institutionalised.  The applicant’s offending history has included crimes of violence.

The applicant is classified minimum security in the custodial environment and is described as polite, friendly and courteous.  He has been employed as a leading hand in the gardens at Ron Barwick Prison and dog handler. In the past the applicant has engaged in therapeutic programs and counselling.  More recently he has completed an indigenous art project, undertaken some TAFE study and completed a certificate in safe food handling.

The issue where the applicant would be best accommodated were he to be granted parole is a vexed one. There appears to be little debate that his integration would be best supported were he to return to Cape Barron Island.  Unfortunately, the supports he requires and the capacity for the parole conditions to be monitored are not available on the island.  Suitable accommodation has been identified for him off the island on mainland Tasmania and that accommodation has been assessed as suitable and will provide the capacity for compliance monitoring of the applicant.

The applicant professes an intention to rehabilitate and no longer commit crime.  He acknowledges that when in the past he has claimed this intention he has not had the desire he has now.  He points to the wish to engage with his children, the Aboriginal community and accessing support for his mental health as protective factors to his reoffending.

The applicant’s prospects for reform and the secondary benefits this would have for the community would be enhanced by his structured and controlled release from custody and his access to mental health supports.  In her report for the Parole Board, dated 19^th of April 2020, Dr Washington noted the applicant’s significant trauma history and his positive response to engagement with a psychologist from 2012.  She identifies a pattern to the applicant’s offending which she suggests is motivated by poor coping, trauma symptoms, poor interpersonal connections, loneliness, and substance use.  This is confounded by his deteriorating mental health, negativity, impulsivity and difficulty connecting with supports.  She noted that he identified a turning point in the acknowledgment by the sentencing Judge of the role that his trauma and poor life circumstances have played in his offending.  She concludes that for the applicant support and structure in the community are integral to the management of his risk for future violence and offending and notes that he has insight into his own needs, is able to act compliantly and cooperatively within the prison structure but it remains unknown as to his capacity to regulate his behaviour outside of that structure.

At his hearing before the Parole Board the applicant appeared genuine and committed in his aim for a pro-social life and desire to maintain connection and involvement with his family.  It is clear that his capacity to achieve this aim will be enhanced by the structure and support of a parole order.  Whilst the applicant has demonstrated an inability to sustain compliance with parole orders in the past there remains potential in him to achieve his aim of a pro-social lifestyle.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

To obtain and comply with a mental health care plan;

To self-exclude from gambling venues;

Not to contact directly or indirectly the victim.

Paroled from 29 September 2020 - 2 January 2024