Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Brady Christopher Oates

29 January 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Brady Christopher Oates (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 5 years and 8 months with a non-parole period of 3 years imposed upon his conviction for matters of burglary, stealing, arson and assault.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 17 July 2020.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on 29 January 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 shortly to turn 27 years of age.  His history of criminal offending is short and unrelated to his current matters, consisting, as it does, of an offence of driving whilst his blood alcohol exceeded the prescribed minimum.  This is his first sentence of imprisonment.  The applicant’s offending involved him breaking into and stealing from pharmacies for the purposes of obtaining drugs for his own use.  The applicant attempted to set fire to one pharmacy, motivated by the wish to destroy incriminating evidence linking him to the crime and, on separate occasions assaulted ambulance officers who were attempting to provide him aid.  Clearly the motivation for the offending was the applicant’s drug addiction. The applicant’s youth, he was 22 years of age at the time of the commission of the stealing offences, prior good character and desire to rehabilitate were significant sentencing factors in those matters.

This is the applicant’s second attempt at parole.  On the first occasion he breached his order by returning to drug use.  That period of parole was terminated in July 2020 after the applicant had been in the community for approximately 6 months. The revocation of the parole order was the result of the applicant withdrawing from the pharmacotherapy program, testing positive for amphetamine and buprenorphine after urinary drug testing and engaging in offending namely a further assault and possession of an illicit substance.  In part the applicant’s change in attitude, compliance and reversion to drug use has been linked to the departure of his mother from their shared accommodation and from the state.

The applicant has a history of addiction to ice and morphine.  Whilst serving his custodial sentence he was able to participate in the Apsley program for drug and alcohol addiction.  The applicant asserts he received benefit from the program in terms of equipping him with skills to recognise the triggers to his drug use and the tools to make better choices.  Unfortunately the benefits of the program were unable to assist him sufficiently during the previous parole period.  The applicant has also engaged in other therapeutics inputs and vocational courses including Gottawanna, Equips Aggression, and a Certificate II in Construction which demonstrate his desire for rehabilitation and which also will have imparted to him some learning to assist him on that path. Since his return the custodial environment following the revocation of his parole order the applicant has engaged with ongoing drug and alcohol counselling.

The applicant’s behaviour has been respectful, polite and compliant with the exception of two internal offences occurring mid last year shortly after his return to the prison.

Suitable accommodation is available for the applicant and he has been assessed by Community Corrections as suitable for a parole order.  It is noted that the accommodation is again with the applicant’s mother who has returned to reside in the state.  The influence and presence of his mother is a positive factor for his potential to pursue drug abstinence and a pro social lifestyle.  The applicant has also advised that he will undertake the Bridge day program as a further support and has returned to the pharmacotherapy program.

Whilst the offending behaviour of this applicant has caused the hurt, distress and loss of a number of people it is clear that he is genuinely attempting to change his life. The need to  address his drug use his central to this.  Since his previous failure on a parole order the applicant has had a lengthy period back in the custodial environment to readdress his priorities and have reinforced why drug abstinence is so important for him if he wishes to be a functional, positive member of our community.  He has continued in his efforts to equip himself with the tools to achieve this.  Supervision on a parole order will provide him with further support.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

Excluded from west of Burnie including Smithton;

To obtain and comply with a mental health care plan.

Paroled from 10 February 2021 - 15 November 2022