Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Emma Louise Bishop

9 July 2021

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

Emma Louise Bishop (the applicant) is currently serving a term of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years imposed upon conviction of aggravated burglary, aggravated armed robbery, and unlawfully setting fire to property.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant was previously granted parole at the Board’s hearing on 17 July 2020. In October 2020 the applicant’s behaviour led to her accommodation being withdrawn and a warrant was issued.  The Board suspended the parole order while the applicant continued to work to source suitable accommodation, and although suitable accommodation was obtained, due to further behavioural and non-compliance issues, the applicant’s parole order was revoked at the Board’s hearing on 29 January 2021.

The applicant appeared before the Board in respect of her current application at the hearing on 9 July 2021.

On that occasion the applicant was invited to provide any information she had in support of her application and made herself available for questioning by the Board.

A pre-parole report prepared on behalf of the Board had been read to the applicant prior to her appearance at the hearing.

Registered Victim

There are registered victims.

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.”

Documentation

The Board has had regard to the following documents in considering the application: -

• The application;
• Comments on passing sentence;
• Papers provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions;
• Prison summary;
• Record of prior convictions
• Prison episode summary report;
• Pre-parole report;
• Home assessment.

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 punish for the criminal wrongdoing.

Consideration

In company with her then partner and her partner’s uncle, the applicant attended premises in a remote rural setting occupied by a father and his daughter. The applicant and her associates invaded the premises, assaulted the resident, and sought access to drugs they believed were present on the premises. The ordeal for the victims being the residents and his daughter was prolonged and horrific.

At the time of sentencing, it was noted by the Court that the applicant had played a generally lesser role, but that role did include invading the premises, guarding the daughter, searching the property, and destroying mobile phones. The Court did note, however, that there is some hope for her rehabilitation. That comment was made noting at the time of sentencing she was 23 years of age and at the time of the crime she was 20 years of age. She had a criminal history for offences of dishonesty, assault, and some driving offences.

The applicant had a disrupted upbringing and a history of substance abuse, commencing with the use of alcohol at age 9, leading to more serious alcohol abuse throughout her early teens and later abuse of cannabis and amphetamines. Additionally, the applicant has a significant troubled relationship history characterised by family violence and substance use.  The psychiatric report from Dr Tuck obtained for sentencing described the applicant having significant symptoms relating to traumatic stress including distress, anxiety and tension. Dr Tuck noted that while the crimes were committed in the context of vulnerabilities in personality and traumatic relationship dynamics, the applicant did display a notable degree of insight, assumption of personal responsibility and remorse for her offending.

Despite the benefit of five probation orders previously the applicant has struggled with compliance due to lack of engagement and re-offending during the period of the orders.

The applicant has some history of internal offending during her current custodial sentence, predominantly involving behavioural issues. However, it is also reported that during her sentence the applicant has actively engaged in treatment options to address various criminogenic needs including substance use, and has been working with a high needs counsellor in the past 18 months.

The applicant demonstrated good insight into her risk factors on interview by the Board, acknowledging she needs to avoid contacting people from her pro-criminal anti-social past and be more responsible for her own decisions. She expressed that her motivation to reconnect with her young children is the most important goal and focus for her to maintain compliance if granted parole.

Accommodation nominated by the applicant has been assessed as suitable. It will be important for the applicant to maintain appropriate standards of behaviour and compliance in that accommodation setting to avoid a repeat of the issues faced on the last period of parole.

Beyond the Wire will continue to assist the applicant to secure longer term accommodation and other community-based requirements and she appears motivated and focused on liaising collaboratively with Child Safety Services and Save the Children to work towards regaining time with her children. She has also made connection with other community-based support agencies to assist her with dealing with past trauma as a victim of family violence and management of her underlying mental health issues.

While it is clear the applicant will continue to face challenges in the community with limited positive pro-social pursuits and influences, Community Corrections have identified the applicant has suitable for a further opportunity for parole.  The applicant has continued to demonstrate commitment to her treatment plan for her drug and alcohol use and has been able to clearly articulate her goals and aims for successful reintegration into the community.  It is the Board’s view that the support and supervision of parole order will give the applicant the greatest chance to succeed in this regard.

The Board’s determination

Parole Granted

Special Conditions

• Not to approach or contact directly or indirectly named victims.

Paroled from 28 July 2021 - 22 October 2022