Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Garry Thomas Petersen

12 February 2021

Reasons for Decision

Offences and Conviction

Gary Thomas Petersen (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 18 years with a non-parole period of 11 years imposed upon his conviction for the charge of Murder.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 27 February 2021.

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

Registered Victim

There are 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. Therapeutic program reports;
7. Prison episode summary 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

At the time of his offending, the applicant was 31 years old. The incident in 2010 that led to the applicant being charged with murder arose out of a chance meeting with the victim, on a street in a local suburb of Hobart.  The applicant and his 25-year-old victim were not known to each other, but both had been using cannabis and consumed considerable quantities of alcohol at different and unrelated locations. They came across each other on the street, engaged in a verbal argument, then became involved in a physical altercation which continued for some distance down the street. At some point during a serious of blows, the applicant produced a knife and inflicted several stab wounds to the victim’s body, ultimately causing death.

In comments on passing sentence, Evans J noted that the applicant had a difficult childhood and had led an itinerant lifestyle since the age of 14.  He became a cannabis user from an early age and then went on to abuse illicit drugs such as amphetamine, heroin, and morphine.

Complicit in his offending has been the need to fund his addiction to drugs and is reflected in his record of prior convictions for dishonesty, offences such as resisting, threatening and obstruct police and several violence offences.

The impact of the applicant’s profoundly serious crime was, and without doubt still must be significant for the family of the victim, who lost a young man, a son and brother because of a chance meeting on a street with devastating consequences.  The Board notes the details of the impact on the victim’s family contained in victim impact statements provided to the Court at the time of sentencing.

It is apparent that during his custodial sentence the applicant has taken some steps to address his offending behaviour, having progressed through the prison system to be able to engage and participate in several therapeutic programs aimed at addressing his substance abuse and criminal conduct.

The applicant completed the Pathways and Preparing for Change Programs early in his sentence and more recently completed the Gottawanna, EQUIPS Aggression and Apsley programs.

Details contained in program reports provided to the Board suggest the applicant has developed insight into the impact of his abuse of alcohol and drugs on his behaviour, with an ability to recognise his tendency towards aggression and the need to find other strategies to manage his behaviour in conflict situations. Additionally, it is reported the applicant had spoken about the impact of his offence on others and expressed regret towards his victim and others affected by the crime.

The applicant’s behaviour throughout his custodial sentence gives an indication the applicant has prospects for rehabilitation despite the seriousness of his crime.

He is currently housed in minimum security and is classified as medium-low, with no internal offending recorded in the past 12 months. This improvement in his security rating was attained in mid-2020, having previously alternated between medium and maximum-security ratings for most of his sentence. The applicant has been employed during much of his sentence and is currently a general hand in the prison vegetable shed. Case notes indicate he has spent his time in custody productively by participating in courses and programs to address his criminogenic needs and develop personal goals important for reintegration into the community.

Considering the seriousness of the applicant’s offending, the protection of the broader community must be balanced against other factors that are relevant to the applicant’s suitability for parole. During his interview before the Board, the applicant stated he had difficulty coming to terms with his actions and had spent his time in prison trying to “rehabilitate” himself, learning strategies to control his emotions to avoid similar behaviour if released back into the community on parole.

Accommodation nominated by the applicant if released on parole has been assessed as suitable and supportive.  Additionally, the applicant has been accepted into the Beyond the Wire program which provides ongoing support and assistance with transition back into the community to ensure maintenance of stable accommodation, and addressing issues that may contribute to reoffending.

The applicant has been assessed by Community Corrections as having a very high risk and needs profile due to the gravity of his offending and extended length of his sentence.  While the applicant has been assessed as suitable for a parole order, it is suggested the applicant would need ongoing support regarding his historical substance abuse and therapeutic intervention from a psychologist to assist him in reintegration into the community.

An additional protective factor regarding the applicant’s risk of re-offending is the Board’s ability to impose a condition that the applicant submit to electronic monitoring of his parole conditions.  The accommodation nominated by the applicant has been assessed as suitable for the purposes of electronic monitoring and the applicant confirmed his willingness to submit to this condition on interview.

On balancing all factors, it is the Board’s determination that the applicant meets the statutory criteria to be deemed suitable for parole, and the risk factors identified can be appropriately managed by supervision and management of the strict conditions imposed.

The Board’s determination

Parole Granted

Special Conditions

• Must submit to electronic monitoring of parole conditions as set out in the parole order
• Must engage with a general practitioner to be assessed for a mental health plan and engage with psychological counselling as recommended by the plan
• Must not contact or approach named registered victims

Paroled from 1 March 2021 - 27 February 2028