Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Mark Anthony Bell

26 November 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Mark Anthony BELL (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for trafficking in controlled substance and use and possess a controlled drug.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 10/12/2021.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 26/11/2021.  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 of 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 offending related to the drug “ice” and whilst the Court could not reach a conclusion regarding the scale of his trafficking activity, he has a prior record for drug offending stretching back since the mid 1990’s.  The applicant’s own drug use is no doubt contributory to his offending.  Whether he is willing and able to remain drug abstinent will be a significant predictor of his capacity to succeed on a parole order and the degree of risk he may present on returning to the community for reoffending.

The applicant was on bail for two years between being charged and sentenced for these matters.  During that period he was compliant and did not commit any offence.  He has displayed exemplary behaviour and a positive attitude whilst incarcerated.  He is minimum rated, employed as a kitchen hand  and been described as polite, respectful and working to a high standard. Unfortunately, despite seeking access to therapeutic programs and alcohol and drug counselling those inputs have been unavailable to him.

The applicant has supportive and pro social accommodation available to him which will provide a layer of support to him beyond his direct supervision by Community Corrections.  The applicant has also demonstrated good compliance and engagement whilst subject to  community based supervision orders in the past including a period of parole in 2009 where his level of commitment to the order was praised by Community Corrections.

Community Corrections when assessing the suitability of the applicant for a parole order noted that the applicant’s motivation for pro social reform has increased by his awareness that his conduct is influencing choices that his son is making.  He is keen to present as a more positive role model for his son.

The applicant has been subject to three random urine drug tests all free of illicit substances.  His past demonstration of  good compliance and engagement in parole and other sentencing orders, his heightened motivation, the supportive environment he has available to him on his return to the community and the positive manner in which he has spent his time whilst in custody are all factors which support his suitability for a parole order.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• To obtain a mental health care plan

Paroled from 10 December 2021 - 10 August 2202