Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by R R Y

27 November 2020

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

RGY (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years imposed upon his conviction for two matters of sexual intercourse with a young person under the age of 17 and possession of child exploitation material.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 10 July 2020.

The applicant’s application initially came before the Board at its meeting of 5 June 2020 at which time it was adjourned to enable the obtaining of a psychological assessment report from Dr O’Donnell. The application came again before the Board at its meeting of 11 September 2020 at which time it was again adjourned to enable the preparation of a detailed post release treatment plan and to explore options for engagement with an employment agency as recommended in the Sex Offender Treatment Summary. Ultimately the application came before the Parole Board at its hearing on 27 November 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.

Registered Victims

There is a registered victim.

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 purpose of 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’s offending occurred when he, as a 24year old, cultivated a connection with two young girls, aged between thirteen and fourteen years, through social media. Each connection was arrived at and explored separate from the other however both resulted in the applicant persuading the victim to meet with him at a place, location and time which enabled him then to pressure for and pursue with them sexual activity.

Concerningly the applicant has a history of engaging in criminal sexual activity with minors.  In 2012 he pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault, indecent sexual assault and sexual intercourse with a young person and possession of child exploitation material.  The victims of this offending were aged 12 and 14 years of age.  As a result of that offending the applicant was placed on the register under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act.  His current offending occurred despite his presence on this register.

As highlighted at the time of his sentencing on these matters;

“The Defendant’s history of offending discloses that he poses a considerable risk of offending against underage girls.  He has not been deterred by having been apprehended and sentenced before, or by the reporting order.”

The Parole Board must weigh the present risk the applicant poses to underage girls in the community and the benefits for him to be released subject to the supervision of a parole order.  There is a reasonable basis to believe that the applicant will be compliant with the conditions of a parole order.  He has previously been subject to a community service order which he compliantly completed.  He has served his custodial term also in a compliant manner achieving a minimum classification, accomodation in the O’Hara units, and good engagment with work.  He has engaged in therapeutic and vocational work having undertaken sex offender treatment via New Directions and obtained his IT,  asset maintenance, chainsaw and barista certificates and licences.

Accommodation that is supportive and suitable is available for the applicant’s use upon his release on parole and the applicant has been assessed by Community Corrections as suitable for such an order.

In order to explore the reasons behind the applicants consistent trajectory of offending against young females despite past detection and punishment the Board requested and facilitated the applicant’s psychological assessment.  In her report to the Board following that assessment Dr O’Donnell diagnosed the applicant with a paraphilic disorder and autism and noted the combination of the two conditions complicated the treatment pathway. Specifically she noted that;

“… Mr Y’s recidivist behaviour is reflective of the combination of his Autism Spectrum Disorder and Paraphilic Disorder. We often see young men with this  combination of clinical issues engaging in recidivist sexual offending, because they have a fixated interest that they find difficult to shift due to the nature of their neurodiversity. They require more intensive and longer term  intervention efforts from practitioners with experience in ASD, to assist them to  develop healthier age-appropriate relationship skills, and more broadly, healthier  emotional coping skills. Once that is achieved, the dependence on the fixated interest  wanes in favour of healthier relationship opportunities.”

Dr O’Donnell was of the view that the applicant would benefit from community based supervision and engagement with a mental health professional with experience in autism.

It is beyond doubt that the applicant’s offending behaviour, his manipulation and sexual abuse of young girls have left his victims with a profound and indelible impact in their lives. There is also concern that the applicant presents at a high risk of reoffending.  However when seen in the context of the presence of his autistic traits the engagement by him in appropriate personality and offence based psychological treatment may be significant in shifting his fixed traits thereby reducing his risk of reoffending.  The applicant remains a young man with prospects for developing age appropriate and functional relationships.  When pressed at the hearing of his application the applicant did demonstrate insight into the inappropriateness of his fixed sexual interest, a desire to not reoffend and an acknowledgment that his reform would take significant work for him in concert with appropriately qualified therapists.

Ultimately it is in the interests of the community for the applicant to be the subject of such therapeutic input whilst under the supervision of a parole order.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

No contact with children except in the presence of an approved nominated person;

No access to the internet;

No contact with the victims to the offending.

Paroled from 8 December 2020 - 10 December 2021