Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Adam Michael Halbwirth

17 September 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Adam Michael HALBWIRTH (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for dangerous driving, drive whilst disqualified, breach of bail, drive a motor vehicle whilst a prescribed illicit drug is present in your blood and evading police.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 18/12/2020.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 17/09/2021.  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:

The applicant has a lengthy record for offending.  His first sentence of imprisonment was imposed when he was 19 years of age.  At the time of his sentencing for these matters Brett J recognised the possibility for behavioural change toward reform and allowed for the opportunity for early release on parole.  The applicant had the benefit of parole order granted on the 18/05/2020 in respect of this sentence however the order was revoked due to noncompliance with conditions, specifically drug use and curfew, on the 21/12/2020.  An application for parole made by the applicant in December 2020 was refused.

The applicant now presents to the Board as a “changed man”.  He claims that the issues that he had during his previous parole period including the death of two people to whom he was close, and his health are no longer relevant.  He has used his return to prison to regain his fitness and health.  He claims to be future focused and has plans to obtain employment with an opportunity opening for him in construction.

Nevertheless, the applicant has a history of failing to comply with Court and community supervision orders.  Since 2006 he has had two periods of parole, three Probation Orders, a suspended sentence and a Community Service Order and has failed to appropriately engage and comply, including by reoffending during the term of the order.

Relevant as contributory to the applicant’s past offending and noncompliant behaviour has been an entrenched drug addiction.  He has sought to but been unsuccessful in engaging in therapeutic programs to address his offending and drug use.  He has however recently completed the resilience program and engaged in alcohol and drug counselling and claims to have obtained benefit from that participation.

Whilst it is a concern that the applicant remains classified as maximum security his record of internal breaches has significantly reduced with the last offence being recorded approximately 5 months ago.  His behaviour has been described in case notes as “always polite and compliant with staff”.  His engagement in counselling and the resilience program has also been positive.

Suitable accommodation is available for the applicant to serve his parole period and the assessment of Community Corrections is that the applicant appears to have made changes which “augur well” for him compliantly completing a parole period.  The Board accepts that the applicant is motivated to effect change in his life and that he would benefit from the support of supervision under parole in this endeavour.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• Mental health care plan to be obtained and complied with

Paroled from 27 September 2021 - 29 June 2022