Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Jason Ralph Jay

17 September 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Jason Ralph JAY (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 17/09/2020.

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 is a citizen of New Zealand, despite having resided in Australia and accordingly will be placed into the custody of Border Protection and accommodated in a detention centre before his deportation to New Zealand if granted parole.  In considering the suitability of the applicant for parole his likely circumstances upon return to New Zealand and the risk that he might pose in that country have been considered by the Board.

The victim to the applicant’s offending was a vulnerable woman he had met online and who he had travelled to Tasmania to meet.  That meeting went badly when the victim refused to engage in sexual intercourse.  This was sufficient provocation for the applicant to then senselessly and violently punch, kick and choke her.  A statement has been provided by the victim and considered by the Board in respect to this application.  In that statement the victim clearly paints the picture of devastation the applicant has wreaked on her life.  She thought she was going to die and continues to labour under the anxiety and fears the episode caused her constantly.

This is not the first occasion on which the applicant has been violent to women.  In 2009 he was convicted of a serious attack on a woman in similar circumstances to this matter and there have been other convictions for assault over the years. The applicant’s use of alcohol and drugs, his attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder together with his mental health have been identified as contributory to his past offending.

During his time in custody under sentence the applicant has engaged in efforts to address his offending.  He has completed the Equips Foundation and Family Violence Offender Intervention Program as well as receiving alcohol and drug counselling. In the course of the Family Violence Offender Intervention Program, the applicant was assessed as a moderate risk of recidivism under the VRS pre-treatment assessment tool.  He is described in the exit report for that program has having engaged well in the course albeit at times he struggled to regulate his emotions and behaviour which provided opportunity to provide constructive feedback to him.  The capacity for self-control was identified as integral to the capacity of the applicant to avoid reoffending.

The applicant is classified as medium-low.  He has a lengthy history of breaching prison rules and regulations however the last such offence was a significant time ago in 2020. Since that time it is apparent that the applicant has developed a capacity to control his behaviour and comply with the rules of his environment.

Upon his deportation to New Zealand if granted parole the applicant will come within a support program offered in that country which will provide him with access to emergency funding, options for sustainable accommodation and assistance in his administrative, health and employment needs. He will be supervised by Community Corrections in New Zealand.

The applicant has gained the benefit of his involvement in therapeutic programs whilst serving his custodial sentence.  He asserts that he has learnt to identify triggers and strategies to deal with them other than resorting to violence and appears motivated toward not reoffending.  The Board assesses the applicant as suitable for a parole order.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Paroled from 15 November 2021 - 15 April 2022