Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Joseph Edward Auton

14 May 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Joseph Auton (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months imposed upon his conviction for ill treating a child.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 2^nd of January 2021.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board in December and February in respect of his application however on both occasons the application was adjourned due to the lack of any suitable accommodation for the applicant were a poarole order made. Ultimately the application was heard by the Board 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.

Pre-parole reports prepared on behalf the Board were 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 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 victim was the son of his then partner. The criminal conduct took place over a three week period and involved significant abuse of the victim resulting in bruising lacerations and scratching to also most all of his body.  The applicant hit his victim repeatedly at times with such force as to cause bleeding, restrained him at times with duct tape and with the cord of his dressing gown, attempted to silence him with duct tape applied to his mouth and poured cold water over him after placing him in a barrel.

This reprehensible conduct appears at least to some degree to reflect an intersection between the immaturity of the applicant and the disability and consequently high needs of the victim.  The fact that the victims mother delayed in obtaining help due to her fear of the applicant is perhaps reflective of the fear and intimidation the applicant was able to provoke through his conduct.

The applicant is described at the time of his sentencing as failing to understand or accept the seriousness of his conduct by his attribution of the same to the need to discipline his victim.  Time spent serving his sentence has led to the applicant reaching greater insight and understanding as to the reprehensible nature of his conduct. In his application for parole the applicant refers to his remorse and describes his conduct as “extremely inappropriate”.  He states that he is “sickened and disappointed at what I have done and the impact I had on my victim, and I wish I could take it back”. At his appearance before the Board the applicant also talked of his extreme regret at his past actions.  He appeared genuine in his expressions of remorse.

The applicant has no relevant prior criminal history.  He has served his custodial sentence in a compliant manner and is now housed in the O’Hara cottages.  His case notes reflect positive behaviour overall and the applicant has been employed as a cleaner.  The applicant has also completed the equips foundation course.

The applicant has also had the benefit of s42 leave from the prison facility to assist the set up and packing of the relay for life event. Suitable accommodation is available for him upon release under a parole order.

The applicant has appeared to have matured whilst in custody. He expresses an insight and understanding into the horror of his actions against his victim and family.  That horror, the Board notes, is still felt by them. Prior to sentence he served, compliantly, a period of bail for two years.  During that period, he sought psychological care from Mr Double who, in a report to the court on the 10.3.19 expressed the opinion.

“With regard to risk of violent reoffending, taken together Mr Aton’s risk is low.  His criminal history does not contain any priors which incorporated physical harm towards others.  His risk factors are largely static and historical.  He has responded to offence focus treatment, especially with regards to reducing his dynamic risk factors including maintaining treatment, supervision response avoiding destabilises (drug abuse, antisocial peers) etc.”

The applicant would benefit from a parole period and engagement, during the same in therapeutic interventions targeted to violence in a domestic setting.  He has been assessed by Community Corrections as suitable for supervision.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied

• To obtain a mental health care plan
• Excluded from the suburb of Ravenswood

Paroled from 24 May 2021 - 2 July 2022