Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Jamie Reginald Hall

11 June 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Jamie Reginald HALL (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Aggravated Armed Robbery & Armed Robbery, Breach of Suspended Sentence, Aggravated Armed Robbery & Aggravated Burglary and Assault.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 21^st of June 2021.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 11^th of June 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, in respect of another sentence, has previously been afforded a parole order. That order commenced on the 4^th of April 2011 and was to conclude on the 23^rd of March 2012. Disappointedly, the applicant was unable to sustain compliance with the conditions of the order, reoffended whilst on the order and the order was consequently revoked after approximately 8 months with only a further 4 months to go until its completion.

The applicants offending which make up his current sentence involves his robbery of the Cooley’s hotel whilst armed with a knife, his robbery of the Lenah Valley Newsagency and Post Office whilst armed with a knife and the robbery of the Sandy Bay Newsagency again whilst armed with a knife.  On all occasions the applicant attempted to conceal his identity with the use of balaclavas or face masks and was in the company of accomplices.  On all occasions the applicant no doubt caused distress and fear to those that were working and present at these businesses.

The matter of assault was a crime committed by the applicant against another inmate whilst the applicant was serving his sentence.  The assault was a spontaneous, unplanned, and violent attack on an inmate who had been convicted of the manslaughter of the applicant’s former fiancé’s brother.  As a result of the attack the inmate received significant injuries requiring attendance and treatment at a hospital.

The applicant has a terrible criminal history for crimes of dishonesty including for armed robbery. This history was described during one sentencing of the applicant in the Supreme Court of Tasmania as demonstrating “…a relentless rate of offending”.  Whilst there appears to have been lip service toward rehabilitation it doesn’t appear to have been borne out by the criminal history which remained ongoing.

In addition to the parole order referred to above the applicant has also had the benefit of Community Service and Probation orders as well as court mandated diversion with mixed success.

The applicant has, however, been able to serve his custodial sentence in a relatively compliant manner. Except for two internal offences occurring in January and April of 2021 he has been able to sustain appropriate and polite behaviour and interactions with custodial officers.  The two offences involved the applicant being in unauthorised possession and leaving a place where he was not authorised to be nevertheless current assessment is that the applicant requires minimum security.

Contributory to the applicant’s offending has been his long-term addiction to methamphetamine.  He has utilised his incarceration to engage in therapeutic programs to assist him address his addiction and offending behaviour. The applicant has completed the Gottawanna, Equips Addiction and Getting Smart Programs.  He also partially undertook the Equips Foundation program but was unable to complete it due to facility lockdowns and his reclassification. The exit report from the Equips Addiction programme noted that the applicant had displayed a willingness to change and “actively set goals to reduced (sic) engaging in his addictive behaviours”. The Gottawanna Program facilitators noted that the applicant had made “considerable positive changes” since their last involvement with him and was striving for a future that did not involve crime by recognising the impact his behaviour has had upon him, his family and the community and establishing and engaging with supports in the community upon his return including from his family and by way of accessing further education.

The motivation to engage in further education has been demonstrated during the applicant’s imprisonment.  He has undertaken a peer support program, safe food handling, certificate I in IT, obtained a white card, engaged in maths and English classes, obtained a responsible service of alcohol certificate, a certificate II in Construction and a Certificate I in Access to Work and Training.

Suitable accommodation is available to the applicant to reside at upon his release on a parole order.

The assessment of Community Corrections is that whilst the applicant has in the past demonstrated poor performance on community-based supervision orders he now has shown good insight into his offending and greater maturity which may well be protective factors against further offending.  He is considered suitable for a parole order.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved

Paroled from 23 June 2021 - 6 November 2028