Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Wade Richard Burgess

29 January 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Wade Richard Burgess (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months imposed upon his conviction for his conviction for persistent family violence.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 15 October 2020.

The applicant first came before the Board on this application at its meeting of 9 October 2020. At that time the application had to be adjourned to enable the obtaining of a psychological assessment. Subsequently the matter was heard by the Board at its meeting on 29 January 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.

Registered Victims

Yes

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

This is the applicant’s first custodial sentence.  At the time that he was convicted for persistent family violence he was on bail for charges of drug trafficking.   Otherwise, the applicant’s prior record of offending consisted of a few minor traffic infringements.  He is however an abuser of drugs having developed an addiction to ice.  It is highly likely that this addiction, particularly the impact it had upon the applicant’s capacity to manage his emotions and anger, was contributory to his offending behaviour.  The applicant’s behaviour, in the context of his conviction for persistent family violence, was described at sentencing as “…domineering, brutal, vicious, spiteful and cowardly…the gravity of the offending is such that it outweighs the consideration of rehabilitation that have prominence in respect of young offenders.”  No doubt this was a well-measured and apt description.

It is noteworthy that the applicant’s propensity for family violence was not limited to the victim in the above matter but also was evident in a prior relationship, or at least upon that relationship’s breakdown, which led to the imposition of a Police Family Violence Order.  The perpetration of violence within what is supposed to be a mutually loving and respectful relationship has significant impact upon the victims.  In this case the Board has had the benefit of the victim’s impact statement which understandably describes a loss of self-esteem, fear and the loss of trust continued to be suffered by the victim.

During his custodial term, the applicant has attempted to address his offending behaviour by engaging in therapeutic programmes offered at the prison.  He has undertaken the Equips Domestic Abuse and Aggression group programs and the Gottawanna program.  The applicant’s participation in the Equips Aggression program was described by the facilitators as being to a “vey high standard throughout the duration of the program” and it was noted that he has “…adequate insight and an ability/motivation to use some of the skills he has learned to meet his needs when he is released into the community”.  The applicant’s participation in the Gottawanna program was also reported to be at a high level with the applicant demonstrating a motivation toward changing his lifestyle including abstinence from drug use.

The applicant is a father to a young daughter with whom he has maintained contact during his period in custody.  He has engaged with the parenting program at the prison to assist him develop functionally appropriate parenting skills and is significantly motivated to become a good father figure for her upon release.

The common themes that appear from the applicant’s engagement in addressing his offending behaviour through attendance at therapeutic programs is a recognition and shame regarding his previous violent and aggressive behaviours within relationships, his capacity to recognise risk factors for the return of those behaviours including drug use and the learning of skills to de-escalate situations that may led to family violence.  The insight the applicant has gained is a significantly positive factor when assessing his suitability for a parole order.

The applicant has received good reports on his behaviour whilst serving his custodial sentence. He is classified as medium-low security and his case notes refer to him as consistently polite, well-mannered and compliant.  He has been employed as a senior hand at the vegetable shed during his imprisonment also to good reports.

Stable, supportive, and pro social accommodation is available for the applicant for the parole period.

The nature of the applicant’s offending was demeaning, prolonged, intimidatory and violent and the risk therefore remains that a return to the community may result in a return to this standard of behaviour.  Ms Washington, in a psychological assessment undertaken of the applicant at the Board’s request, noted as much and believed the nature of the applicant’s offending and his characteristics placed him in a high-risk category for future family violence and that equipping him with coping skills in concert with a prosocial environment upon his return to the community will assist mitigate this risk.  She also stresses the importance of his maintaining good psychological health.

The applicant has usefully occupied his time during this, his first imprisonment, to engage in programs to improve his skills and capacity to act appropriately in his personal relationships.  He can be further assisted with a supervised return to the community, to a supportive and pro social environment and with access to psychological support to maintain good mental health and improve his coping skills in situations of stress and upset.  The manner in which he has served his custodial term is evidence of his motivation to become a responsible, respectful and loving parent and partner.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

To obtain and comply with a mental health care plan.

Paroled from 10 February 2021 - 15 July 2022