Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Brent Michael White

9 October 2020

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

Brent Michael White (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 16 months with a non-parole period of 8 months imposed upon his conviction for matters of stealing, aggravated burglary, bail breaches, computer related fraud, traffic and drug matters.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 14 October 2020.

The applicant appeared before the Parole 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

There is no registered victims.

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 is serving a custodial sentence imposed upon his conviction for a number of matters including stealing, aggravated burglary, computer related fraud and driving offences. His history of offending was significant up until approximately 2016.  From this point for a period of approximately four years he appears to have lived a functional law abiding lifestyle until he engaged in the offending for which he is currently serving his sentence.  The gap in offending suggests that the applicant has capacity to engage appropriately in society if motivated to do so.

The applicant has previously been the beneficiary of community service orders with mixed levels of compliance in the past.  He was able, however, to successfully complete a probation order with his engagement being described as exceptional.

The fact that the applicant has in the past been able to sustain a period of non offending and engage so positively with parole is all the more to his credit when considered in light of the negative influence his mother has played in his life. Specifically she has encouraged him to commit crime.

The applicant has engaged in internal offending behaviour in June of this year when he was found in possession of an unauthorised item however this appears to be an isolated infraction, his case notes otherwise reflect on him positively  as polite, respectful and compliant.  He is classified as Medium-low and has been employed as a wardsman.

The applicant has attempted to participate in the Gottawanna program but has been unable to do so due matters outside of his control.

Accommodation proposed for the applicant upon his return to the community has been assessed as suitable. A risk factor for the applicant is his choice of associates.  He is prone to being influenced by the anti social activities of those around him. He displayed good insight into this issue and has identified strategies and persons he can employ which will assist him isolate from this influence.  The applicant is motivated particularly by the desire to provide for his family and present as a positive influence for them.

Community Corrections have identified that the applicant is suitable for a parole order and would benefit from the structure that such an order would provide him.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied

To obtain and comply with a mental health care plan.

Paroled from 19 October 2020 - 14 June 2021