Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by John Julius Boles

1 October 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

John Julius Boles (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 8 months with a non-parole period of 14 months imposed upon conviction of charges of dangerous driving, disqualified driving, stealing and evade police.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 8 October 2021.

The applicant appeared before the Board in respect of his application at the hearing on 1 October 2021.

On that occasion the applicant 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 had been 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.”

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

At the time of his offending the applicant was 28 years of age. The behaviour leading to the applicant’s current custodial sentence involved a sustained course of erratic and dangerous driving at excessive speeds to avoid interception by police, after the applicant had stolen fuel from a service station on the East Coast. The dangerous nature of the driving continued over a considerable distance throughout a journey from Triabunna to Sandy Bay in Hobart before the applicant abandoned the vehicle.

Despite the serious nature of the driving behaviour, the applicant does not have an extensive record in relation to serious driving or traffic offences, although at the time of the offending he was subject to disqualification due to two incidents of driving a motor vehicle with an illicit drug present. The applicant does however have prior history for drug-related offending, reflective of the applicant’s problem with illicit drugs which reportedly commenced in his early teens.

The applicant does have prospects for rehabilitation, and as noted by Justice Brett at the time of sentencing, the applicant was reportedly drug-free and maintaining steady employment over a period of approximately 4 years just prior to his offending, having moved with his wife to Tasmania. Unfortunately, the applicant relapsed into the use of methylamphetamine after his wife’s brother, a heavy drug user, came to live with the applicant and his wife, ultimately leading to loss of employment and the breakdown of his marriage.

The applicant has expressed remorse and a commitment to remaining drug-free into the future, and his behaviour during his custodial sentence is largely indicative of a capacity to remain compliant and engage in positive pro-social behaviour if returned to the community.

The applicant is classified as minimum security and housed in the minimum-security O’Hara units. There is no record of internal offending, and the applicant has maintained employment in custody and is currently involved in daily off-site employment with the Clarence City Council.

The applicant has not engaged in any therapeutic intervention while in custody but has focused on education and vocational courses to improve prospects of employment, including completing a construction skill set course, a Certificate I in information technology and obtaining his chainsaw licence.

The applicant has suitable accommodation and will be supported to engage with Holyoake counselling relating to his substance abuse. The applicant has also been assessed as suitable for additional support by the Salvation Army Beyond the Wire program and has had the opportunity for s42 leave with his Beyond the Wire worker to assist with reintegration planning.

Community Corrections have assessed the applicant as medium risk for reoffending but suitable for a parole order due to the ability of such an order to provide appropriate supervision and support the applicant to obtain employment, access mental health support and intervention to address his substance use.

On interview, the applicant reiterated his motivation to remain drug-free, stating he does not want to continue to suffer the loss associated with his past drug use. In considering the applicant’s demonstrated compliant behaviour, past capacity to live a drug free lifestyle, and motivation for reform, the Board is of the view the applicant would be best supported in this by supervision under a parole order.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved

Special Conditions

• To obtain and engage with a Mental Health Care plan

Paroled from 11 October 2021 – 8 February 2023