Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by R D A

16 April 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

RDA (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years imposed upon his conviction for matters of indecent assault and penetrative sexual abuse of a child.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 30^th of April 2021.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 16^th of April 2021.  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

No

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 is historical, occurring between 1977 and 1982.  At this time the applicant was aged between 17 to 22 years. The victims had a familial connection with the applicant as the child and step child of his sister.  The applicant’s conduct has caused irreparable harm to his victims who were deprived of a safe and innocent childhood and also resulted in a substantial disruption of relationships among the wider family.

There is a prior relevant conviction for similar offending, on that occasion defilement, when the applicant was 16 years of age involving a 7 year old victim.

At the time of his sentencing for these matters, Wood J had the benefit of a forensic psychologist report of Mr Cummins which concluded that the applicant was suffering an Adjustment Disorder as a result of a deprived and dysfunctional childhood and that this interfered with his normal development and may have delayed his psychosexual development.  Wood J accepted this opinion;

“This opinion provides some context for his offending.  It appears he was more immature than typically his age would suggest. It also provides an explanation for why his sexual offending involving young girls did not continue as he grew older and matured”

In the years between the offending and the Applicant’s conviction and sentencing he has not reoffended.  He married, had children of his own and remained industriously employed.  His children remain supportive of him.

The applicant has been classified as minimum security with consistently positive case notes attesting to his good behaviour.  He has worked as a general hand in the store with good reports attesting to his good work ethic and attitude.

The applicant has completed the sex offender treatment program and his white card.  Assessment on the STATIC-99 tool measuring the risk of reoffending placed him in the below average risk category.  He has suitable accommodation available to him upon his release and has been assessed as a suitable candidate for parole by Community Corrections.

On balancing all matters the Board accepts that the applicant is suitable for parole, poses little risk to the community and indeed the community would benefit from his earlier release under supervision.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied

• Not to be in the presence of a child under the age of 17 unless in the company of an approved nominated person

Paroled from 30 April 2021 - 30 April 2022