Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Jason Aaron Lee D'Monte

30 April 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background

Jason D’Monte (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 3 months imposed upon his convictions on multiple counts of fraud as a clerk or servant and stealing by agent.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 4^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

Over a 5-year period the applicant went down, what he described, as a frightening path of executing deception upon deception against his employer by diverting money into his personal possession and for his personal use that belonged to and ought to have remained with his employer and falsifying the audit reports on the employer’s accounts in order to cover his deception.  To have undertaken this activity was a complete betrayal of trust. The applicant was a member of the National Institute of Accountants and held the position of financial controller and secretary for his employer.  His conduct caused the employer significant financial loss.  There does not readily appear a motivation for the conduct, no significant debt, gambling issues nor the living of an excessive lifestyle that would explain the applicant’s actions.

The applicant has no prior record of offending that is of relevant or of note.  He professes regret at his offending and confidence that it will not be repeated.  In this context it is noted that the applicant admitted his conduct upon detection and paid the compensation order made by the Court to recoup the moneys fraudulently diverted by the applicant.

The applicant recognises the significant deleterious impact his conduct has had not only upon his personal reputation in the small community in which he lives but also upon the lives of his wife and children and the members of his employer victim.

This is the applicant’s first experience of prison.  He has served his sentence in a compliant manner, is classified as minimum security and has worked as a leading hand in the prison kitchen to work reports which speak of his work ethic, good attitude and describing him as a “positive example of good behaviour to other workers”.

The applicant retains good support in the community from his wife and family.  His accommodation is appropriate to his needs and he has good prospects for securing employment.

The assessment of Community Corrections is that the applicant is appropriate for a parole order at this time noting his risk and needs as having been assessed as at a low level.

The Board agrees with this assessment.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

• To obtain and comply with a mental health care plan

Paroled from 10 May 2021 - 19 June 2022