Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by John Frederick Duggan

20 August 2021

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

John Frederick Duggan (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 32 years with a non-parole period of 17 years imposed upon conviction on the charges of murder, arson, aggravated burglary and stealing.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 3 May 2021. His application first came before the Board on 30 April 2021 but was adjourned to await a decision from Queensland Corrective Services regarding a transfer of any parole order made by the Board.

The applicant again appeared before the Board in respect of his application at the hearing on 20 August 2021 and 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

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

In 2005, the applicant, along with two co-accused was sentenced in relation to his involvement as a party to the crimes of murder, arson, aggravated burglary and stealing. The crimes involved in the death of a 79-year-old man that arose from the invasion of the victim’s home with the intent to rob the victim by gunpoint for the purposes of stealing ammunition for the gun one of the co-offenders had acquired that day.  All three men were significantly intoxicated and after invading the victim’s home, the victim was beaten and shot at least twice with one of his own rifles, ultimately causing death, and the house was set on fire.

The crimes involved a brutal and senseless killing of an innocent man, and the Board has been provided with victim impact statements from extended family members outlining the long-lasting effect of the loss of a loved and respected member of their family.

At the time of committing these crimes the applicant was 38 years of age and had a long history of offending from a young age for crimes of violence, having served numerous prison sentences relating to his offending.  At the time of sentencing the Court noted the applicant had a history of problems with alcohol and drugs linked to his prior history of offending.

The applicant first commenced use of alcohol at the age of 13 and reportedly grew up in a family where heavy alcohol consumption was “normalised”.  By his own acknowledgement, his use of alcohol was a significant contributing factor to his offending, leading to poor decision-making and a lowering of his inhibitions.

This is the applicant’s first application for parole, and he has made an application for his parole order to be transferred to Queensland in the event he is granted parole.  The applicant’s only family live in Queensland and the applicant expressed a desire to remove himself from Tasmania and make a “fresh start”.

The applicant has served his sentence compliantly and attained a minimum-security classification. He has a significant history of employment in custody, including periods as a wardsman, maintenance worker, painter/tradesman, laundry hand, cook, peer tutor, carer, gardener, and volunteering vegetable growing for the charity SecondBite.  He has also been involved in vegetable processing and dog training as part of the ‘Pups in Prison’ program.

He has engaged in therapeutic intervention programs to address his patterns of substance abuse and establish a relapse prevention plan for release, including the Making Choices, Getting Smart, and Pathways Alcohol and Drug programs.  Due to the applicant’s previous addiction to opioids and acknowledged illicit use of buprenorphine at various times during his sentence, although not currently, he has been provided with referral to an appropriate alcohol and drug therapy service in Queensland pending release.

Given the significant length of his incarceration and the issues the applicant would face in reintegration into the community if granted parole, the applicant has also been working with a life coach for supportive contact and assistance with establishing a staged approach to reintegration. Case notes reflect that when the applicant has faced personal stressors or triggers in custody, he has regularly engaged with and sought support from Therapeutic Services and been willing to work through or learn from this support.

At his presentation before the Board, the applicant expressed remorse for his offending and stated his involvement in external programs through the prison such as SecondBite and the dog programme was his attempt to give back to the community to try and “right my wrong somehow”. He appeared realistic regarding the challenges he would face returning to the community but was clear in his motivation to live a crime free life and avoid ever returning to the type of behaviour that led to such a serious crime.

The pre-parole assessment conducted indicates the applicant would require a high level of intervention from Community Corrections due to the length of his incarceration.  His nominated accommodation and application for a parole order to be transferred has been approved by Queensland Corrective Services. The Board are advised the applicant would be provided with a positive, supportive, and pro-social environment if he were to relocate to Queensland and referrals have been put in place to provide appropriate ongoing alcohol and drug support and from the Queensland CREST program, a specialised support program to assist parolees during their transition into the community.

The Board has determined the applicant meets the relevant statutory criteria to be assessed as suitable for parole and approves the transfer of the applicant’s parole order to Queensland Corrective Services.

The Board’s determination

Parole granted

Special Conditions

• Must not contact named co-offenders
• Must not contact named registered victims
• Must submit to electronic monitoring and all other additional conditions deemed appropriate and imposed by Queensland Corrective Services

Paroled from 1 September 2021 - 24 January 2036