Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Dwayne Albert Cashman

12 February 2021

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

Dwayne Albert Cashman (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years imposed upon conviction on charges of causing death by dangerous driving and dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 19 February 2021.

The applicant appeared before the Board in respect of his application at the hearing on 12 February 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.

Registered Victims

No 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: -

1. The application;
2. Comments on passing sentence;
3. Papers provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions;
4. Prison summary;
5. Record of prior convictions
6. Prison episode summary report;
7. Pre-parole report;
8. 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 tragic consequences of the applicant’s offending behaviour in 2019 cannot be underestimated for the family of the victim. The victim was killed as a consequence of the applicant’s driving behaviour which caused him to lose control of his vehicle and cross into the path of, and collide with, an oncoming vehicle. The victim’s wife and two children were seriously injured in the accident and the Board notes the details provided in victim impact statements of the physical and psychological impact of their injuries and the significant effect of the loss of their husband and father on their lives.

At the time of the accident it is reported the applicant was returning home from a trip to the south of the state, having stayed with a friend and consumed alcohol during the late evening and early morning. After several hours sleep the applicant set off on his return trip home at 6.00am.  While on the Midland Highway he was travelling at excessive speed, and while at that speed reportedly took his eyes of the road, allowing his left wheels to hit the gravel verge and ultimately spinning out of control across both lanes of traffic.

At the time of the accident, it is reported the applicant’s blood alcohol level was determined to be in excess of the prescribed limit at 0.086mg. The applicant has a prior conviction for driving with alcohol in his system exceeding the prescribed limit in 2010 but no other prior convictions of any nature.

In comments on passing sentence his Honour Justice Pearce commented on the tragic nature of the applicant’s offending, noting he was “a man of otherwise good character who has provided service to his country and community…..however his actions have had a terrible impact on the ….family.”

The applicant has a relatively stable background, having grown up in a close supportive family, but leaving at 18 years of age to join the army. The applicant initially left the army after four years, having developed PTSD in relation to a deployment in Rwanda. The applicant returned to Tasmania, married, and commenced work as a council parking inspector for several years before returning to the army believing he had recovered. However, the applicant was ultimately medically discharged from the Army in 2006 due to a re-emergence of his PTSD.

The applicant has reportedly acknowledged a history of sporadic alcohol abuse, directly attributed to the drinking culture from his years in the army, in addition to when he subsequently spends time with former army colleagues. He has in the past sought some therapeutic intervention in relation to excessive alcohol use.  It is reported the applicant states he has not had a drink since the accident.

The applicant has attained a minimum-security classification and is accommodated in the O’Hara Units situated externally to the minimum security accommodation buildings. It is notable that the applicant is also employed in the Community Employment Program, working externally to the prison at the Botanical Gardens. This is reflective of the applicant’s progress through the system to a position of privilege and trust, and all case notes are very positive noting his work ethic is of a high standard and no record of internal offending since entering into custody.

The applicant has good prospects for rehabilitation and significant protective factors to assist in reducing his risk of re-offending.  He has strong family support from his parents and extended family and has had regular contact with family members throughout his custodial sentence through visits, phone calls and letters.  In the years preceding the accident had been working for “Mates4Mates”, as a volunteer and mentor for ex-army veterans and has many pro social friends and acquaintances in the community. It is reported the applicant intends to recommence various volunteer roles in the community, with defence force recruiting and the RSL.

The accommodation nominated by the applicant is suitable and supportive.

In his application and on appearance before the Board, the applicant expressed deep remorse for his actions on the day of the accident, and the impact on his victims, knowing his behaviour had caused the victims to lose a father and husband.  The applicant reportedly wrote to the victims expressing his remorse and has received indication they hold no animosity towards him. Regardless, the applicant expressed it was still hard for him to deal with the impact with his offending and intends to reconnect with his previous psychological and health support in the community.

Community Corrections have assessed the applicant as having a medium level of risk and need, and believe the applicant has sufficient community support to assist him in successfully completing a period of parole. The applicant has been assessed as suitable for parole and the Board agrees with that assessment.

The Board’s determination

Parole Granted

Special Conditions

NIL

Paroled from 22 February 2021 - 19 August 2022