Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by David Tony Carver

30 April 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background

Tony Carver (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years and 1 month imposed upon his conviction for Aggravated Burglary and Aggravated Armed Robbery.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 10^th of May 2021.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 30^th of April 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, together with two accomplices, all wearing balaclavas and armed, invaded the home of their victim in the dead of night.  Their actions caused terror and physical injury to their victim, the resident of the home, who was subjected to a horrifying and prolonged physical attack with the intruders punching, kicking, and stomping on him.  After some time, the men left, taking with them some of their victim’s property.  The Board have had regard to the victim impact statement made at the time of sentencing.

The applicant was 33 years of age at the time of his offending, and as such was not, by any stretch, a youthful offender.  He was of an age and maturity and with a past record of offending that suggests his conduct was the product of long held disregard for the law and reflective of the anti-social lifestyle then led by the applicant.  Much of the offending appears drug related.  A question for the Board when considering this application is the extent to which drug use and an anti-social attitude remain dominant in the applicant’s life.

Whilst serving the custodial sentence it is noteworthy that the applicant has achieved a minimum security classification and has engaged in the Gottawanna therapeutic program.  He unfortunately remains on the waiting list for the Equips foundation, addiction and aggression courses due to factors that are largely beyond his control.  The exit report from the Gottawanna program reports the applicant as being reflective on his past anti-social lifestyle and drug use, aware of the negative consequences that this has had upon the quality of his life and significantly motivated by his son to change.

It is also apparent that the applicant possesses the tools to achieve change.  He has remained abstinent from drug use since being bailed in this matter to date.  He had been on bail for 8 months prior to his sentencing.  This appears to have been the first time for a prolonged period that the applicant had not been using illicit substances.  He noted that once no longer using drugs his whole outlook on life materially changed.  His focus moved from drug use to the future and his son.  To maintain his sobriety, he understands the importance of distancing himself from his anti-social cohort.

The applicant has available to him on release suitable accommodation which should afford him a supportive environment.  His family are supportive of him.

In their assessment of the applicant, Community Corrections note the efforts the applicant has made to engage in therapeutic interventions to address his offending whilst incarcerated. Therapeutic programs which have remained unavailable to him within the prison can be accessed by him in the community and support in seeking employment has also been identified as a priority for the applicant.  Community Corrections support the applicant as a suitable candidate for a parole order.

Given his past entrenched anti-social behaviours, there remains a risk that the applicant’s determination to change will falter.  Nevertheless, there are signs of substance that reflect well on his capacity to change. He was able to cease substance abuse and maintain abstinence well prior to his sentencing on these matters, he has served his sentence in a fully compliant manner and taken up all opportunities open to him to engage in therapeutic and vocational courses.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

• Will be subject to electronic monitoring.
• Not to contact the victim directly or indirectly
• Not to travel on B61
• Not to have contact with certain named persons.

Paroled from  11 May 2021 - 10 November 2022