Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Trent James Jones

12 February 2021

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

Trent James Jones (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, with a total non-parole period of 15 months imposed upon conviction on charges of dangerous driving and evading police.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 17 January 2021. The applicant’s initial appearance before the Board on 15 January 2021 was adjourned due to lack of suitable accommodation and to allow for the assessment of alternative accommodation.

The applicant was subsequently heard before the Board at its meeting on 12 February 2021.

On that occasion the applicant 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 of the Board had been 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.”

Documentation

The Board has had regard to the following documents in considering the application: -

1. The application;
2. Comments on passing sentence;
3. Papers provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions;
4. Prison summary;
5. Record of prior convictions;
6. Prison episode summary report;
7. EQUIPS Foundation Report;
8. Pre-parole report;
9. Home assessment.

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 punish for the criminal wrongdoing.

Consideration

This applicant’s offending behaviour was a continuation of what has been an extensive and appalling history of persistent serious offending related to driving, including numerous convictions for reckless driving, driving whilst disqualified, evading policy, and driving whilst unlicensed, in addition to a range of dishonesty offences.  On this occasion, in breach of a court ordered disqualification, the applicant was driving on a local highway and to avoid interception by police proceeded to engage in a course of dangerous driving at excessive speed over approximately 3.5 kilometres.

Clearly contributory to the applicant’s long history of driving offending has been his abuse of illicit drugs and associated mental health issues, having reportedly commenced use of cannabis around the age of 10. By the age of 15 the applicant had started using amphetamines and then later methamphetamine (“ice”), quickly escalating to daily use prior to his incarceration. The applicant has stated he “did jobs” to pay for his substance use, referencing his prior history for some offences of dishonesty.

At the time of offending, the applicant was subject to a drug treatment order but had absconded from the order and was at large. The applicant reports that he was suffering poor mental health at the time of offending, using drugs to manage his depression as had been a pattern in the past. Additionally, the applicant has identified learning difficulties including dyslexia and poor literacy skills.

At the time of sentencing in 2019, his Honour Justice Brett noted that while the applicant had been given several opportunities by sentencing courts to commit himself to rehabilitation and lead a law-abiding life, there was little evidence the applicant had made any such commitment.

Information provided to the Board does give an indication that during his incarceration the applicant had taken steps to change this. The applicant has attained a minimum-security classification and is currently housed in the minimum-security O’Hara Cottages. The applicant has recently been granted leave under Section 42 to participate in community-based employment at the Risdon Vale Community Centre. Case notes reflect generally positive behaviour despite an internal offence in early 2020 relating to being in possession of food not authorised.

The applicant has participated in the EQUIPS Foundation course to address his offending behaviour and is currently waitlisted for therapeutic courses designed to address his substance abuse.  A report provided to the Board states the applicant was able to demonstrate insight into his previous offending behaviour and the impact it has had on his loved ones and family.  The applicant was reported to have consistently expressed determination to make significant lifestyle changes, to abstain from drugs and be able to reconnect with his children.

The applicant has 6 children from two different relationships, and prior to his incarceration undertook the role of stepfather to a further three children of his current partner. The applicant has contact with his three oldest children but is in the process of negotiating contact with his three youngest children through Child and Youth Services. The applicant reports stable and supportive relationships with his own mother and sister in addition to his current partner.

The applicant’s apparent determination to change his lifestyle was reflected in his interview before the Board. The applicant appeared genuinely motivated to continue the approach he has demonstrated in prison, stating he had been free of drugs for two years and intended to remain drug free in the community.  The applicant advised he had taken the positive step to sell all motor vehicles to prevent himself from driving while unlicensed and wanted to continue to demonstrate the behaviour that has seen him attain his minimum classification and privileged accommodation and employment status in the custodial environment.

Alternative accommodation nominated by the applicant for him to reside if release on parole has been assessed as supportive and pro-social.

While the applicant has a poor record of compliance on previous community based and probation orders, Community Corrections have assessed the applicant as suitable to benefit from an intensive period of parole to support his reintegration into the community, noting his success would be dependent on his willingness to submit to and maintain engagement in supervision.

Community Corrections have identified appropriate therapeutic supports available in the community for the applicant to address his substance abuse and identified mental health needs.

On balancing all factors, the Board is of the view the applicant’s aim for a pro-social life and desire to remain drug free and maintain connection with his family would be enhanced by the structure and support provided by a parole order.

The Board’s determination

Parole Granted

Special Conditions

NIL

Paroled from 22 February 2021 - 17 April 2022