Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Wayne William Howlett

11 June 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Wayne William HOWLETT (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Recklessly discharging a firearm and Unlawfully injuring property.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 27^th of June 2021.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 25^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

On the 24^th of June 2018 the applicant, angry at a perceived slight or insult, armed with a rifle and a significant quantity of ammunition, fired 25 bullets at the closed entrance door of Pablo’s cocktail bar.  Whilst through sheer luck no one was killed for the 30 patrons that were present at Pablo’s the event must have been shocking and distressing.  At the time he was sentenced for the crime the Court did not accept that the applicant was genuinely contrite or remorseful for his actions noting that he failed to give himself up to the police, did not disclose the origin of the weapon he used nor who had accompanied him to Pablo’s on that night.

The applicant has a criminal history mostly for matters of violence and dishonesty.  He has previously served sentences of imprisonment for his offending.  During the last of those sentences the applicant took up power lifting.  This was to ultimately change the trajectory, at least for a period, of his life.  From the completion of that sentence the applicant worked to change himself.  He ceased what had up until then been an addiction to illicit substances and immersed himself in the world of power lifting.  He became a competitor in national and international competitions from 2011 until injuries suffered in an accident in 2017 meant that he could no longer compete.

In the period prior to 2011 the applicant struggled with addiction and in part his criminal history was a product of that addiction.  So too, he says, was the Pablo’s crime.  Over time, he claims, when he was no longer able to compete, he became disconnected from his family, wife, and children, returned to drug use and the party and club scene.  Indeed, his flamboyant public persona he perpetuated through social media at that time perhaps attests to the degree of his disengagement from normality and reality. He was using cocaine and this in turn led to him associating with people he hadn’t associated with before.

His partner and children have remained supportive of the applicant as have a large number of the community who have provided the Board with detailed written references of the applicant.  In large part these references paint a picture of him as generous, kind-hearted, passionate, responsible, a leader and loyal.

Except for an offence of attempting to bring steroids into the prison the applicant’s behaviour whilst in the prison environment has been extremely positive.  He has spent a period housed at the O’Hara Cottages prior to reclassification to medium low following the aforementioned offence. His case notes describe him as compliant and respectful.  He has worked as a cleaner also to good reports and assisted other inmates with their weight training.  The internal offence he states occurred due to pressure exerted on him by others to bring in steroids.  He asserts that he no longer uses the drug and is remorseful of having acted on the pressure he felt.  Five months have now elapsed since that offence without any further incident.

The applicant has engaged in therapeutic courses within the prison including the Equips Aggression and Foundation courses and Gottawanna.  The applicant has also undertaken a barista course and the Circle of Security parenting program.

Pro social, supportive and suitable accommodation is available to the applicant for the parole period.

When assessed based on his record and conduct before 2011, significant concerns arise regarding the applicant’s capacity to comply with a parole order.  He has been consistently non-compliant with previous efforts at parole. Parole granted to the applicant in February 2005 was revoked in December 2006 due to the applicant committing further offences and using steroids during the parole period.  A further parole period was afforded to the applicant in January 2008, but this order was again revoked in August 2008 also due to further offending.  A further period of parole was attempted in November 2008 but was revoked in December 2008 when the applicant again offended by trafficking methylamphetamines.

A significant period has elapsed since these instances of failure.  In that time the applicant has been able to be compliant with the law whilst resident in the community for a lengthy period.  He has raised a young family and engaged himself in a positive way in the powerlifting and gym scene.

Whilst the applicant’s relapse has been significant and catastrophic involving as it did, his return to drug use and the commission of this crime, he has utilised his time in prison to regain his sobriety to drugs, reflect on his actions and the impact that it has had on his family, those present at Pablo’s and the community.  He has demonstrated, overall, good behaviour and compliance within the custodial environment and has been assessed by Community Corrections as a suitable candidate for a parole order.

The Board accepts that the applicant is willing to resume working toward regaining and maintaining a drug and crime free lifestyle with his family and finds that a period of supervision under parole conditions will assist him in this endeavour.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied

• Electronic monitoring

Paroled from 5 July 2021 - 27 June 2023