Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Joseph William Freeman

16 April 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Mr Freeman (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 18 months imposed upon his conviction of assault.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on the 5^th of October 2020.

The applicant initially appeared before the Parole Board in respect of his application for parole at its hearing on the 25^th of September 2020.  The application was, however, adjourned due to the absence of suitable accommodation where the applicant could be housed during an parole order.  The application was again before the Board on the 11^th of December 2020.  On that occasion it was again adjourned with a request for the applicant to focus on his behaviour in the custodial setting and to engage in release planning into a residential rehabilitation program addressing his drug addiction.  The next occasion on which the application was before the Board was at its meeting of the 12^th of March 2021 when further adjournment was required for the proposed accommodation to be assessed for electronic monitoring capability. Ultimately the applicant’s application for parole was heard by the Board at its meeting of the 16^th of April 2021.  On that occasion, as on all other occasions the application had been before the Board, 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.

All pre-parole reports prepared on behalf the Board were read to the applicant prior to his appearance at the hearing.

Registered Victims

Yes

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

This application has travelled a lengthy pathway before its final hearing and resolution.  The applicant is commended for the resilience shown by him during its pathway to completion.  One of the difficulties associated with the application was the recognition that the applicant would benefit from, and indeed wished to engage, in a residential/inpatient drug treatment program immediately upon his release back into the community.  Sadly there appears to be no mechanism enabling a seamless transition from assessment within the prison to accommodation within and residential rehabilitation facility for correctional inmates.  This disconnect appears counterintuitive to enabling support provision for inmates seeking treatment for their addictions.

The applicant’s offending involved a significant assault.  He “coward punched” his victim due to his belief based on flimsy rumour that his associate intended to harm him, so he got in His victim was left with significant injuries.

The applicant has a history of offending behaviour involving, typically, offences of dishonesty such as stealing, burglary and the like.  In light of the past criminal history the applicant has had past engagement with Community Corrections.  He was the subject of a probation order in 2011 and a Drug Treatment Orders in 2012 and 2016 all of which he abjectly failed and reoffended during their terms. The applicant has also attempted parole in the past.  An order granted to him in 2013 was revoked due to his ongoing drug use and a further order commencing in 2015 was also revoked due to further offending.

Drug dependency is significantly contributory to the applicant’s offending behaviour.  As outlined above the applicant has had the opportunity of diversion through Drug Treatment Orders to no avail.

The applicant initially did not serve his sentence well.  He is classified as maximum security and engaged in a number of internal offending by unauthorised telephone use, assaulting another inmate and drug possession.  The last offence however dates back to November 2020 reflecting a change in the applicant’s behaviour and compliance.  This change is also reflected in the case notes where his interactions are described as “generally positive”.  The applicant has also held employment as a general hand in the painting project and participated in alcohol and drug counselling, and a resilience course.  In 2019 the applicant did commence the Apsley program but did not complete due to discipline matters.  The applicant has remained on the waiting list to undertake the Equips addiction course and has undertaken vocational courses including the Certificate I Access to Work and Training, Safe Food Handling and a maths course.

Suitable accommodation is available for the applicant upon his release on parole with the view that shortly following his entry into the community he will be accepted as an inpatient in a treatment program.

The applicant professes a strong desire to rehabilitate and abstain from offending behaviour.  He has developed some skills through his engagement in programs and counselling in the past but most parties engaging with him, including himself and his family, recognise that he would be best assisted by entering a residential program.  It is noted that whilst a parole order may well facilitate that occurring, his eligibility for parole has been considered on the basis of those matters enumerated in the Corrections Act as referred to above.  To put it another way, it is the determination of the Board that this applicant is a suitable candidate for a parole order regardless of whether he is able to access an inpatient program, however a benefit of a parole order may well be to facilitate that access.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied

• No contact directly or indirectly with the victim
• Electronic monitoring
• Not to associate with certain named persons
• To obtain and comply with a mental health care plan

Paroled from 27 April 2021 - 21 January 2022