Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Peter David Leaman

12 November 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Peter David Leaman (‘the applicant’) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 10 months, with a non-parole period of 21 months, imposed upon conviction for charges of robbery, aggravated burglary, burglary, stealing, and receiving stolen property.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 26 November 2021.

The applicant appeared before the Board in respect of his application at the hearing on 12 November 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.

Registered Victim:

There is a registered victim.

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: -

• The application;
• Comments on passing sentence;
• Papers provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions;
• Prison summary;
• Record of prior convictions
• Prison episode summary report;
• Pre-parole report;
• Home assessment.

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 punish for the criminal wrongdoing.

Consideration:

The applicant’s offending relating to his current sentence involved a pattern of robberies between March and November 2019, where the applicant was involved in breaking into sheds and properties to steal items, including firearms.  This behaviour culminated in an incident where the applicant broke into the shed of an elderly lady to steal firearms but was interrupted by the occupant who attempted to impede the applicant’s getaway. While the occupant was not injured, a victim impact statement provided to the Court highlighted the ongoing impact of the incident, causing the victim to feel unsafe at night, unable to sleep without medication and leading to her progressing the sale of the property more quickly to her financial detriment.

The applicant has a prior history for similar offending, in particular crimes of dishonesty.  It appears from his history and indeed in relation to these offences, that the prime motivation was to secure items to sell to fund his drug use.  The applicant reportedly developed a drug problem at around 17 years of age, developing an addiction to morphine in his early twenties with methamphetamine use later becoming established. The extent of the problem has fluctuated over time, and although the applicant has had the benefit of community-based orders, drug treatment orders and participation in suboxone programs, these have not been successful.

The applicant has also had the benefit of a previous parole order in 2017, but this order was revoked close to the expiration date due the applicant disengaging with supervision and relapsing into drug use.

During his current custodial sentence, the applicant has attained a minimum classification, and is employed as a general hand in the Woodwork workshop.  Case notes are of a generally positive nature, despite three internal offences in the past six months relating to having inappropriate use of the telephone system for another prisoner and having unauthorised items in his possession. Notes report the applicant has a recently acquired brain injury that has impacted his behaviour during his current sentence and has led to some cognitive impairment.

Concern has been raised regarding the applicant’s lack of participation in programs to address his illicit drug used while in custody, although the applicant has recently engaged in the Family Violence Offender Intervention Program (FVOIP) and is continuing with individual counselling to assist him with emotional regulation.  At interview, the applicant reported benefit from the program and ongoing counselling, assisting him to manage his anger and causing him to feel a change in himself and his ability to function in a community setting.

The applicant’s nominated accommodation has been assessed as suitable. He has good family support with family members who are pro-social and strong in their motivation to assist the applicant to avoid previous pro-criminal influences and relationships that impact his ability to remain drug free.

The applicant has acknowledged all his offending is drug related and asserted he wishes to move away from that lifestyle, and access appropriate therapeutic intervention in the community to assist him to do so.

Despite concerns held by Community Corrections regarding the applicant’s significant risk around relapse into drug use given his poor history of compliance, the applicant is recommended for a period of parole. It is proposed the applicant will be referred to a suitable program to assist him to address his substance abuse, such as the Salvation Army Bridge program.

The applicant asserts he has taken steps to remove himself from pro-criminal influences, and through Child Safety Services is seeking to re-engage with his children who are currently in the care of family members. He expressed the view it was “time for him to change” and outlined to the Board strategies and goals to assist him to remain occupied and avoid behaviour that risks relapse into drug use.

While concerns remain regarding the applicant’s ability to remain drug free, he appears motivated and well supported to engage in appropriate intervention to provide him with every opportunity to succeed on parole.

Accordingly, parole is approved.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Additional Special Conditions:

• Not to contact or approach the victim directly or indirectly
• To be excluded from the municipality of New Norfolk

Paroled from 26 November 2021 - 26 December 2022