Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Robert John Bearman

23 July 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Robert John Bearman (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Murder.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 21^st of February 2014 having been sentenced to 25 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 ½ years.

The disposition of the applicant’s application for parole has been delayed initially in May of 2020 due to a request from the Board that a comprehensive exit plan for release be developed and subsequently because of the absence of suitable accommodation to house the applicant were he to be released.  The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 23^rd of July 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

This is the applicant’s eight application for parole.  Previous applications made by him were refused by the Board twice in 2015 and 2017 and once in 2016, and 2019.  A factor relevant to the past refusals for parole was concern regarding the risk he may present to his former partner were he to return to the community.

The applicant was convicted in 2002 of the murder of the partner of his ex-wife.  His actions were described by the Court at the time of his conviction as “cold blooded and premediated”. His motivation arose from his obsession with his former wife.

The applicant had no relevant criminal history aside from a conviction of assault on his former wife some months prior.  This is his first sentence of imprisonment.  The applicant’s conduct in marching his victim to a grave he had previously dug, shooting him for no greater reason than his relationship with his former wife, the attempts to avoid responsibility by persistent lies and the lack of remorse all speak to deficiencies in the character of the applicant at that time.  Relevant to the question of what risk the applicant currently presents if released is whether, over the last 20 years the applicant has spent in custody, he has overcome or controlled those deficiencies and obsession.

The applicant is serving his sentence in a compliant manner.  He is classified as minimum security and is described in his case notes as engaging well and as polite and respectful.

However there have been some instances of concern.  He at times has been obsessive, hoarding material in his cell and being found to have possession of unauthorised items.  His last offence for unauthorised possession of an item was, however, in October 2020. He has health issues requiring support and treatment.  Indeed, it is anticipated that he will undergo an ACAT assessment once returned to the community.  Perhaps most concerningly is his confused thinking in respect of his former wife and family.  He speaks at times of having the support of his former wife and indeed having been visited by his daughter.  There are no records of the latter occurring and no basis upon which he could reasonably believe that his former wife holds anything but fear toward him.

The Board have reviewed psychological opinions provided regarding the applicant over the years. In a 2017 report Ms O’Donnell identified a number of risk factors to the applicant reoffending including;

1. Grandiose narcissistic personality features
2. Propensity to keep grudges over the long term
3. Social isolation
4. Difficulty adjusting to the loss of his prison social network
5. Lack of insight into the lack of vocational options for him in the community
6. Sensitivity to emotional triggers including rejection
7. Lack of empathy

At the time of her assessment in 2017 Ms O’Donnell was of the opinion that the passage of time and therapeutic interventions that had occurred during the custodial period had not reduced the risk the applicant presented particularly to his former wife and those close to her and that there were few protective factors for him upon outside of the prison.

Whilst incarcerated the applicant has at times sought therapeutic care from Mr Grant Blake, psychologist.  In his report to the Board in 2018 Mr Blake noted that in seeking that care the applicant was motivated by wanting to “look good for the parole board” rather than to work on himself.  He concluded that the applicant lacked insight into his “condition”, that he had no treatable mental illness and remained a risk to his former wife.

The applicant has however had the benefit over a lengthy period of resocialization leave into the community without incident.  He has engaged positively in prison programs and employment.  He is a skilled craftsman in woodwork and this skill will provide a pro social activity for him.  The applicant also now has the benefit of support from Beyond the Wire who have assisted in securing accommodation for the applicant in a supported group environment.  The applicant has also the support of Pastor Norm Reed and has positive pro social plans for gardening, engaging with health services and with the church.

The applicant presented well before the Board at hearing.  He was able to discuss his thoughts and family without the distortions which had been present in the past.  He has an opportunity to be accommodated in a closely supervised and supportive environment which presents as a good transitional pathway to community living.  He can be electronically monitored in respect of his movements.  Whilst risk has been an issue of concern the Board notes the age and health of the applicant, his intention to engage in pro social activities, the availability to him of the opportunity to do so and finds that these matters are protective against reoffending.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied

• Excluded from the Eastern Shore
• To obtain and comply with a mental health care plan
• To not contact directly or indirectly the victim to his offending
• To be electronically monitored

Paroled from 3 August 2021 - 21 August 2026