Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Tamika Maree Monks

26 March 2021

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

Tamika Maree Monks (‘the applicant’) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 15 months and 7 days, with a non-parole period of 10 months imposed upon conviction of several stealing charges, together with a range of driving related and traffic offences.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 14 February 2021.  The applicant’s first appearance before the Board was adjourned due to lack of suitable accommodation.

The applicant subsequently appeared before the Board in respect of her application at the hearing on 26 March 2021.

On that occasion the applicant was invited to provide any information she had in support of her application and made herself available for questioning by the Board.

A pre-parole report prepared on behalf of the Board had been read to the applicant prior to her appearance at the hearing.

Registered Victims

No registered victims

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. Pre-parole report;
8. 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 has a long-standing history of abuse of illicit drugs, which has clearly been a contributing factor in her lengthy record of prior offending involving some dishonesty offences and a myriad of driving and traffic related offending.

The applicant had a difficult childhood, entering foster care at an incredibly young age, spending most of her childhood with a carer before leaving at the age of 14 to re-establish a relationship with her birth mother. She continued education up to Year Ten but struggled to concentrate and had limited engagement in learning.

The applicant first experimented with drugs and alcohol in her mid-teens, and in her early 20’s commenced using amphetamines on a regular basis before starting to use methamphetamine. The applicant’s associations and relationships during this period were with pro-criminal individuals involved in drug use and supply. The applicant reports that her use of methamphetamine assisted to level rather than heighten her behaviour, and enabled her to sleep, eat and take care of herself properly

The applicant has had several custodial sentences imposed regarding her offending over the last 15 years, mostly suspended to allow the applicant the benefit of participation in probation and community services orders. However it is reported that despite the completion of Probation Orders, the applicant’s engagement was poor, and the Community service components of the orders were breached due to poor performance.

The applicant has continued to struggle with compliance, particularly regarding her ability to remain drug free on Drug Treatment Orders (DTO) through the Court Mandated Diversion program.  The applicant’s current period of imprisonment is due to the cancellation of a DTO issued in November 2019 as the applicant reportedly failed to admit ongoing illicit substance use during the Order. It is noted that the applicant reports her relapse occurred after the murder of a close friend and she returned to using methamphetamine as a way of coping with her grief.

During this custodial sentence, the applicant has reportedly been well-behaved, polite, and compliant aside from two incidents of internal offending, the most recent in January 2020.  The applicant has recently attained a minimum classification and case notes regarding re-integration sessions indicate the applicant is ‘future focused and has shown initiative in identifying her needs and seeking help to address them”.

Some concerns have been raised regarding the applicant’s high level of risk and her ability to comply with a parole order. Her poor compliance in the past, continued involvement in pro-criminal interpersonal relationships and limited pro-social influences and activities have been cited as relevant to this risk.

At her attendance at hearing before the Board, the applicant’s poor compliance in the past and her wish to pursue her application despite the expiration of her sentence within 6 weeks was explored with her.  The applicant maintained she was motivated and felt strong enough to change her behaviour so she could start to reconnect with her children who are all in the care of others, but acknowledged the need to be supported in returning to the community given her previous struggles with compliance.

The applicant also reported she had been assessed as suitable for additional support from Beyond the Wire and had been in contact with the local Aboriginal Corporation to organise a grief counsellor to assist in dealing with unresolved grief surrounding the death of her close friend.

Accommodation nominated has been assessed as suitable and although isolated, provides the applicant with pro-social family support and the ability to access appropriate services with assistance.

On balancing all factors, noting the concerns regarding the applicant’s significant risk factors, the Board deems the applicant as suitable to be afforded the opportunity for parole to provide supervision and management to assist her in reintegration into the community.

The Board’s determination

Parole Granted

Special Conditions

NIL

Paroled from 7 April 2021 - 6 October 2021