Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Christian Laurence Beaven

3 September 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Christian Laurence BEAVEN (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for several driving, drug, evade police and dishonesty offences including burglary and stealing.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 03/09/2021.  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.

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 use of illicit substances appears central to his offending behaviour. His criminal conduct often occurs whilst he is under the influence of drugs and is motivated by his need to obtain the funds necessary to sustain his drug use. This has been the pattern of the plaintiff’s life since his teenage years.  The applicant has been subject to efforts in the past to address his drug use.  In 2020 he was made the subject of a Court Mandated Drug Diversion order.  The order was ultimately cancelled in 2021 with the applicant having continued to use during its duration albeit possibly to a lower level than he had outside of the order.  The influence of the applicant’s anti-social cohort was attributed by him as causative of these lapses.  At the time of the termination of the order the Court made the following comments;

“there were glimpses of effort, however overall you were unable to successfully deal with your drug addiction. After each period of serving sanctions you used very soon thereafter. In 2020 you committed a large number of offences, the reality is your drug addiction is directly linked to your offending – you need to address your drug addiction. Overall success was deemed minimal and thus the entirety of the custodial component was activated.”

The applicant has also been subject in the past to community service and probation orders with issues of noncompliance also occurring. In 2019 he completed only 1.5 hours of 84 hours required under a community service order and engaged in offending whilst subject to the order.

On this background the applicant has demonstrated some effort to get in control of his past addiction issues during his custodial term. He has engaged in alcohol and drug counselling and has requested one-to-one alcohol and drug counselling be available to him upon his release.  The applicant is rated as minimum security with case notes describing him as polite and compliant.  He has worked as a wardsman also to good reports.

Suitable and pro-social accommodation is available to the applicant during his parole period and he would benefit from the support and structure available to him at that address. The applicant is also motivated to change his lifestyle particularly by his young daughters with whom he wishes to re-establish contact and the impending birth of his third child.

Community Corrections have assessed the applicant as a suitable candidate for a parole order particularly noting that intensive supervision would be offered under the order together with linking the applicant to further therapeutic options to address his drug use and offending.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Paroled from 13 September 2021 - 13 March 2022