Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Jarrod James Cartledge

1 October 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Jarrod James Cartledge (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 14 months with a non-parole period of 7 months imposed upon conviction on dangerous driving, evade police, drive while disqualified, possess controlled drug and drive with illicit drugs present.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 13 September 2021.

The applicant first came before the Board on this application at its meeting of 3 September 2021. At that time the application was adjourned for the Board to seek further information regarding the suitability of the nominated accommodation. Subsequently the matter was heard by the Board at its meeting 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

The applicant’s current custodial sentence resulted from the cancellation of a Drug Treatment Order initially made by Blow CJ in January 2020 in relation to the applicant’s driving behaviour. Pursuant to the order, the applicant had commenced participation in a residential rehabilitation program and engaged for a period of 15 months prior to relapse and disengagement from treatment that led to the cancellation of the order.

The applicant has a significant history of complex trauma, experiencing family violence and abuse in his family of origin, and subsequently while in state care at Ashley Youth Detention Centre. This history reportedly underpins his substance use issues, having been self-medicating since he was a teenager with substances such as cannabis. As a young adult he also began experiencing significant problems with methamphetamine following traumatic experiences in youth detention.  His substance use appears inextricably linked to his offending which led to imprisonment on a previous occasion when still a young and vulnerable adult.

The applicant has had the benefit of several Drug Treatment Orders (DTO) in the past and has reportedly engaged in a respectful and open manner despite experiencing difficulties and lapses relating to his substance use disorder. These attempts to overcome his drug problem, including the time spent in residential rehabilitation, were recognised by Blow CJ in imposing the shortest possible non-parole period when activating the current custodial sentence.

During his custodial sentence, case notes indicate that on entering custody, the applicant initially engaged well and progressed to a medium-low classification quickly, gaining employment in the Vegetable shed as a processor. However, in late August due to internal offending relating to attempting to bring illicit substances into the prison through a visit with his partner, he was regressed to maximum. Notably, information suggests external pressure on the applicant’s family led to the applicant’s involvement in this offence, and on discussion at interview the applicant expressed regret and remorse for his involvement.

Information before the Board also indicates the applicant has struggled with substance use during his incarceration, openly admitting using buprenorphine, and has sought help with this issue. Community Corrections report that the applicant’s vulnerability as a prisoner and the nature of his addiction issues are such that ongoing drug use for self-medication and survival is difficult for him to avoid within the prison environment. Due to his sustained use and difficulties with dependence, the applicant has recently been placed on the suboxone program for treatment of his substance use disorder.

Additionally, the applicant has commenced engagement with a psychologist regarding his trauma history and is reportedly gaining benefit from this process. It is intended the applicant will continue to engage with this support if released into the community.

While the applicant has struggled to deal with his substance use issues, it is apparent that when afforded opportunity, he has attempted to engage in therapeutic intervention. The applicant has also had the support of his partner of six years, with whom he has three children.  It is reported the applicant’s partner has been a positive and supportive influence and accommodation with the applicant’s family has been assessed as suitable.

Community Corrections have assessed the applicant as motivated to engage with the supervision provided by a parole order, noting “the structure of such an order will be helpful while he is adjusting to community living, having spent much of his life incarcerated as a youth and as an adult”.

On interview by the Board, the applicant reaffirmed his motivation to engage with the supports he has now been provided with and appeared to have realistic goals for returning to the community and engaging in pro-social activities.

While it is clear the applicant faces challenges, the existence of protective factors such as family support, prior and ongoing engagement with therapeutic intervention directed at his substance use and participation in the suboxone program to assist with this are relevant in the Board’s determination that the applicant is suitable for parole.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved

Paroled from 11 October 2021 to 13 April 2022.