Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Michael John Marlow

10 December 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Michael John MARLOW (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Murder.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 11/04/2021.

The applicant initially appeared before the Parole Board in respect of his application for parole on the 26^th of March 2021.  At that time the application was adjourned so that an assessment of him by a psychologist could occur and report provided to the Board.  From that point the application was unable to progress due to the absence of suitable available accommodation.  The application was ultimately heard by the Board at its hearing on the 10.12.21.  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.

Pre-parole reports prepared on behalf of the Board were read to the applicant prior to his appearance at the hearing.

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 with forethought and planning killed his victim due to a long-held grudge he had against him.  The fact that he lured his victim to the spot of his death, shot him twice in the back, ignored his pleas for his life, taunted him and then shot him again in the head killing him points to an unwavering resolve in the applicant at that time to take his victim’s life.  This absence of empathy or compassion for another raises concern as to the applicant’s psychological functioning and whether he could be suitable for return to live amongst us.

To explore these issues a psychological assessment was undertaken at the Board’s request.  In her consequent report Dr O’Donnell concluded that the applicant had a clinically significant personality disorder with features of psychopathy, however his advanced age and illness presented as significant protective factors against the risk of reoffending. The applicant has been diagnosed with prostate cancer.  Whilst this is unlikely to impact upon his life expectancy it perhaps has caused him to prioritise the remainder of his life.  He is motivated to re enter society in a functional pro social way and re-engage with his family who present as supportive and stable influences on him.

The applicant has engaged in life coaching to assist him in reintegrating back into the community which has been beneficial.  That coach has observed that initial engagement was confronting to the applicant who had little opportunity (due to his housing) and motivation (perhaps due to the length of his sentence) to engage in therapeutic input.  However, across sessions the applicant demonstrated great commitment to engage in the sessions recognising the benefit to him in assisting him to transition to life outside of prison.  Upon release life coaching will continue to be made available to the applicant by way of regular outreach support and daily contact.

The applicant is now classified as requiring minimum security.  His case notes are consistently positive describing him as compliant, well mannered and upholding a high standard of personal/cell hygiene. He works as a wardsman also to good reports.

In light of his record also including matters of sexual offending the applicant was requested to undertake the New Directions program which he did completing in September 2021. The applicant has also undertaken courses in computing and first aid.

The applicant has been incarcerated for the past twenty one years.  Return to society will be challenging for him given the changes that have occurred in that time frame to how we live our lives.  He has had the opportunity of one s42 release during which he was able to engage with services and view accommodation sourced for him by Beyond the Wire.  He completed this section without difficulty.  The applicant will have the support of the Beyond the Wire program and case worker whilst on parole.  The applicant’s motivation is clearly to live a quiet life for the remainder of his years. The applicant has been assessed as suitable for parole supervision.

The Board note the risk assessment of Dr O’Donnell as referred to previously.  The applicant has presented consistently during the latter years of his sentence, during his life coaching sessions and when before the Board as considered and motivated to live out his live quietly and compliantly.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• Electronic monitoring
• Not to enter Rossarden
• Not to associate with certain named persons
• To obtain a mental health care plan

Paroled from 10 January 2022 for term of his natural life.