Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Jamie John Curtis

15 January 2021

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

Jamie John Curtis (the applicant) is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 30 years following his conviction for murder. The applicant was also sentenced to 25 years imprisonment for offences of abduction, aggravated burglary, four counts of causing grievous bodily harm, nine counts of criminal code assault, three counts of indecent assault, six counts of rape, one count of escape and two counts of burglary. That period of imprisonment was served concurrently with his sentence for murder and has been served in full.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole from 14 February 2016. His initial application was refused. A subsequent application was heard on the 13 April 2018 and parole was granted. The applicant was arrested in October 2018 on charges relating to breaches of his Community Protection Order and the parole order was ultimately revoked on 22 February 2019 after a period of suspension.

The applicant again appeared before the Board in respect of an application for parole at the hearing on 27 September 2019. At that time, the application was refused due to lack of suitable accommodation and the Board’s view the applicant needed to demonstrate improvement in his behaviour and attitude in prison prior the Board considering a further application.

The applicant subsequently appeared on a further application for parole on 5 June, 25 September and 11 December 2020, with the application being adjourned on each occasion for further information requested by the Board.

The applicant appeared again before the Board on 15 January 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 Victim

There are 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: -

The documents considered:

1. The application;
2. Comments on passing sentence;
3. Papers provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions;
4. Victim impact statements;
5. Prison summary;
6. Record of prior convictions;
7. Prison episode summary report;
8. Psychological assessment report of Damien Minehan dated 6 April 2016;
9. Treating psychologist’s reports dated 22 August 2017 and 6 February 2018;
10. Pre-parole report;
11. Home assessment.

Parole

The system of parole recognises the capacity of some prisoners for 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 by reducing the risk of reoffending and supervising the reintegration of offenders.

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 and the ability to remove or mitigate that risk by the imposition of appropriate conditions.

In making its decision, the Board carefully considers the circumstances of the victim, and has regard to any statement provided to it by the victim, or the parents or guardians of that victim.

Consideration

The applicant’s offending behaviour has previously been described as a “worst-type case”. In comments on passing sentence Cox CJ stated the applicant’s conduct “beggars description” and that the conduct involved a “sustained course of brutal abduction, assault, sexual abuse and ultimately murder in the vain hope of escaping detection” which “lasted throughout a period of some twelve hours”.

His Honour noted that the gravity and circumstances of the criminal conduct required a significant period of time should elapse before the applicant should be considered for parole.

The previous decision to release the applicant on a parole order in 2018 was based on consideration by the Board of a range of information provided regarding the behaviour of the applicant and his rehabilitation prospects, the probable circumstances of the applicant if released, the likelihood of the applicant re-offending and his ability to comply with parole conditions. On that occasion the Board noted that despite the significant impact for the victims of the applicant being released, its decision was that the applicant had:

“met the statutory criteria to be granted parole and that his reintegration into the wider community will best be served by granting him a period of parole with appropriate conditions. Those conditions will include that the applicant not consume alcohol or illicit drugs, that he not enter licensed premises, that he undergo ongoing counselling with a psychologist, be subject to a curfew that does not interfere with his work and that he not associate with his co-offender. Further conditions directed at protecting the victims from coming into contact with the applicant will also be imposed”.

The applicant was paroled from 4 June 2018 and was subject to the parole conditions imposed for life. The applicant was also subject to strict conditions under a Community Protection Order. Prior to release, the applicant’s capacity to re-integrate into the community had been positively demonstrated through his opportunities for unsupervised leave to attend his employment and reintegration leave with family under s42, all without incident. Upon release the applicant increased his working hours with his employer and had been living in the community with reasonable progress until the behaviour that led to charges of breaching his Community Protection Order.

The applicant was classified minimum security on his initial return to custody but due to an internal offence committed in May 2019 the applicant was regressed to a maximum security classification.

The applicant’s behaviour which led to the regression in his security classification and accommodation involved the applicant accessing the prison phone system to contact his partner contrary to a restraining order. It was the Board’s view that the internal offending was deceptive and demonstrated poor understanding of the type of compliance and behaviour that is appropriate for consideration of being granted parole.

Additionally, the Board’s view was the offences that led to the applicant’s parole revocation showed an apparent disregard for the level of compliance required with the type of order the applicant would continue to be subject to in the community if granted parole. Together with the lack of suitable accommodation, this formed the basis for the Board’s refusal of his application for parole in September 2019 and the recommendation the applicant concentrate on improvement in attitude and behaviour prior to any further application for parole.

Information before the Board since that refusal suggests the applicant has continued to work on his attitude and behaviour as recommended and has sought and engaged with additional supports within the prison to assist in management of clearly identified risk factors for re-offending to enable re-integration into the community.

During the past 6 months, the applicant has attained medium classification and is housed in medium security.  He is currently employed as a wardsman and case notes provided indicate the applicant’s behaviour is polite, respectful and he engages appropriately with Correctional staff.

In relation to his offending, various pre-parole and psychological reports prepared in respect of the applicant note his dysfunctional upbringing and history of abuse of alcohol. The psychological assessment of the applicant conducted by Mr Damien Minehan in 2016 also concluded that there was clear evidence of personality disorder with a high number of psychopathic traits.  It was noted that the applicant was then 60 years old, that offending does reduce as age advances and that the more difficult aspects of antisocial personality or psychopathic personality also tend to mellow or reduce with age. Further rehabilitative, psychological and offence-based work was recommended.

Prior to his initial release on parole in 2018, the applicant participated in psychological sessions. It is reported that more recently, in early 2020, the applicant commenced working with a Clinical Psychologist while in custody.

As part of this process, the psychologist undertook a psychometric evaluation with the applicant. This evaluation is designed to aid clinicians in the assessment of mental disorders, identification of specific problem areas and treatment planning.

The psychologist noted that based on this evaluation, the applicant was “likely to be viewed by others as domineering, self-centred and possibly grandiose – such features can be associated with the diagnostic criteria of narcissistic personality disorder”.  The psychologist further noted that with reference to risks to others, the applicant’s psychometric profile was “not consistent with an individual engaging in physically aggressive violent behaviour” and “did not indicate significant anti-social behaviour”.

In line with previous recommendations, the psychologist has provided clinical handover to a psychologist in the community and the applicant has recently commenced sessions while in prison to assist with his reintegration should he be granted parole.

The Board is aware there are a number of victims registered in relation to the applicant’s crimes. Written Victim Impact Statements provided under section 72(2B) of Corrections Act 1997 outline the devastating impact of the applicant’s crimes on the victims and their families. All victims express a profound fear of the applicant being released and encountering him in the community.

Additionally, in an exception to the normal practice of receiving written statements, and in recognition of the importance of the victim’s views given the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s crime, a request of one victim to appear in person before the Board was granted. All views have been carefully considered in determining this application.

Importantly, regarding the applicant’s circumstances if granted parole, in addition to therapeutic management, there are several protective factors regarding the applicant’s risks of re-offending.

The accommodation nominated by the applicant has been assessed as suitable and supportive and is located within easy access to supports and services the applicant will be required to attend as part of any parole conditions imposed.

The applicant has been in a relationship with his current partner since prior to his return to custody, and his partner has continued to provide support and assistance in establishing and organising various community supports.

Additionally, the applicant has the option to return to the employment he commenced during his previous parole period. It is reported that the applicant is a highly regarded employee and on release will be offered similar responsibility and full-time hours.

If granted parole, the applicant would also have ongoing support from the Beyond the Wire program and will be attending family relationship and financial counselling in the community to assist in managing any issues that may arise for the applicant in his re-integration.  Beyond the Wire will provide the applicant with access to counselling, emotional support and mentoring and life skills to assist in re-integration.

The applicant will continue to be subject to a Community Protection Order, and by way of further risk management, the applicant is willing to submit to, and has been assessed as suitable for electronic monitoring of relevant parole conditions if released to a parole order.

The Board acknowledges the need to consider carefully the suitability of the applicant given the extremely serious nature of his offending, and the lasting impact on the victim and members of the community affected by his offending.  Importantly, there have been significant steps taken to manage and mitigate identified risks by establishing a wide range of supports and appropriate conditions, including the applicant be subject to electronic monitoring as a condition of any parole order.

Community Corrections have assessed the applicant as requiring a very high level of supervision and extensive support to assist them with supervision and management of the applicant’s risk factors in the community.  Due to the wide range of supports that have now been put in place and confirmed as willing to engage with the applicant post release, Community Corrections have assessed the applicant as suitable for parole.

Taking all the matters set out into consideration and given the information regarding the extensive supports in place to assist in the close management of risk factors, the Board is of the view the applicant meets the statutory criteria to be granted a parole order.

The Board’s determination

Parole Granted

Special Conditions

• Subject to the normal conditions of a parole order but additionally:
• Must not contact or approach named registered victims.
• Must not enter a designated municipality except as noted.
• Must engage with a general practitioner to be assessed for a Mental Health Plan and attend psychological counselling as recommended by that plan.
• Must submit to electronic monitoring and associated conditions.

Paroled from 27 January 2021 for Life.