Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by M D

1 October 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

MD (‘the applicant’) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 10 years with a non-parole period of 6 years imposed on conviction of charges of maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person under the age of 17, indecent assault and aggravated sexual assault.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 18 May 2021.

The applicant first appeared before the Board at its meeting on 14 May 2021. At that time the application was adjourned for the Board to obtain a psychological assessment and report. The matter was subsequently 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.

Registered Victim

There is a registered victim

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 offending was an appalling breach of parental trust involving a sustained course of sexual abuse of his daughter occurring between 2000 and 2008 to 2010, when the victim was aged between 4 and 12 to 14. As noted by Pearce J at the time of sentencing, the applicant “took advantage of his victim’s age and vulnerability, lack of knowledge and insight, her trust and his parental authority to ensure compliance and silence.”

The Board recognises the profound impact the applicant’s offending had and without doubt continues to have on the life of the victim, having been deprived of a safe, secure and loving childhood and subjected to repeated sexual abuse during a period so important to any child’s intellectual and emotional development.

The applicant is now 50 years of age. Prior to the commencement of the applicant’s offending at around 35 years of age, he had no prior history of similar offending. He had a good employment record and in fact was an active member of the Salvation Army and Anglican Church, a factor noted by the Court at sentencing as a “betrayal of both institutions”.

The applicant has served his sentence of imprisonment compliantly and politely, with no indication of behaviour contrary to the rules of the prison. He is housed in the minimum and external O’Hara cottages and is employed in the Prison store which case notes indicate is a trusted position that sees the applicant access various areas of the prison unsupervised for deliveries.

In line with the nature of his offending, the applicant has completed the New Directions Sexual Offending program and is continuing to engage in individual sessions. An exit report provided to the Board indicates the applicant’s risk of recidivism assessed via the Static-99R tool placed him in the below average risk level.

Additionally, the Board has been provided with a psychological report prepared by Dr Georgina O’Donnell, which indicates the applicant does not present with risk factors such as substance use problems, major mental illness or personality disorder that can contribute to a higher risk of re-offending. Dr O’Donnell reported there was no evidence in the applicant’s case of predatory approaches to strangers or sexual offending outside the context of incest.

Suitable accommodation is available to the applicant, and he has been afforded the opportunity for s42 reintegration leave regarding his accommodation without incident.

At interview, the applicant expressed remorse for the harm he had caused to his daughter and family and appeared to have gained insight into the triggers and distorted thinking associated with his offending through undertaking the New Directions program. He articulated realistic goals regarding reintegration in the community, identifying community and church-based activities such as the Men’s Shed, and confirmed he would be seeking to engage further with a psychologist in the community regarding strategies to assist in management of his behaviour.

The applicant has been assessed as requiring a medium level of supervision if released to parole. While concerns have been raised by Community Corrections regarding the proximity of children to his nominated address, it is suggested the associated risks could be mitigated by the imposition of electronic monitoring and other strict parole conditions. It is noted Dr O’Donnell report provided similar recommendations regarding management of the applicant’s risks.

In balancing all factors, the Board concurs with the assessment of Community Corrections that the applicant is suitable for parole, subject to appropriate conditions.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved

Special Conditions applied

• Submit to electronic monitoring
• To obtain and comply with a Mental Health Plan regarding engagement with a psychologist
• To not contact directly or indirectly the victim or her family
• To not remain in the presence of a person under the age of 18 years except in the presence of a nominated person or probation officer.

Paroled from 12 October 2021 - 18 May 2025