Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Adam James Bishop

14 May 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Adam Bishop (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months imposed upon his conviction driving whilst not the holder of a driver licence, failing to stop at an accident and dangerous driving.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on 27^th of February 2021.

The applicant initially appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing von the 12^th of February 2021 and that time the application was adjourned for the obtaining of further information and for the applicant to focus on his behaviour, continue his alcohol and drug counselling and develop and exit plan for his release. The application came back before the Board on the 14^th of May 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 has a lengthy record for criminal offences.  Central to his offending behaviour has been a significant and intractable addiction to drugs.  At the time of his sentencing on these matters Porter AJ observed that “…various attempts at rehab over the years have failed”.  Those attempts included two drug treatment orders.

The applicant has had a poor response to past attempts at community supervision and indeed has shown that court orders including suspended sentences do not influence his behaviour so as to curb offending.  He has failed to comply with numerous Community Service, Probation, Drug Treatment and Parole orders.  With respect to the Parole Order that Order was granted to the applicant in 2016 but was revoked within 2 weeks as a result of new offending.

The applicant is classified as Medium Low and his behaviour whilst in custody is described in positive terms.  He has also attempted to engage in therapeutic programs during his sentence however in large part those attempts have been thwarted by programs not being available to him.  He has remained on the waiting list to undertake the family violence intervention and equips foundation programs.  The applicant has, however, been able to engage in alcohol and dug counselling which he has done so since January of this year.  He has also completed a food handling course.

Of concern is the applicant’s record on internal offending.  This offending occurred in March, July, September and October 2020 and January 2021 and consisted primarily of unauthorised possession of items and failing to obey orders and maintain prison discipline or security resulting in loss of Arunta privileges for short periods and cell detention.  Following his first appearance before the Board in February, however, the applicant has been able to maintain compliant behaviour without further internal offending.  This suggests a capacity for the applicant, when motivated, to act compliantly with the rules and regulations of his environment.

Appropriate accommodation is available to the applicant upon his release.  He has engaged in post sentence management and reintegration sessions within the prison and has been described as engaging fully and producing a plan including a relapse prevention plan which meets his needs.  Specifically, he has referrals to continue his alcohol and drug counselling with providers in the community upon his release and has completed an initial assessment for the Bridge Day program which will be a further source of support in his ongoing efforts to remain drug abstinent.

The applicant’s poor previous record of noncompliance and offending whilst under community orders, including a parole, order and his ongoing battle with drug addiction have been identified by Community Corrections as issues of concern regarding the suitability of the applicant for a parole order at this time.

The applicant has, however, worked toward establishing supports to assist him upon his release including the aforementioned Bridge Program, engagement with NDIS and assistance with Beyond the Wire.  The applicant, at his hearing, pointed the Board to the improvements in his behaviour, that this had been the product of a conscious effort by him to remove himself from issues within the prison environment and the supports and tools that he now had available to him to assist his transition back to the community. He further noted that now, in his thirties, he has greater maturity and desire to succeed living a pro social lifestyle.

On balancing all matters the Board accept that the applicant has genuine motivation for reform of his former lifestyle and would be best supported in this by supervision under a parole order.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

• Mental health care plan

Paroled from 24 May 2021 - 27 November 2022