Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Bianca Elizabeth Pyke

3 September 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Bianca Elizabeth PYKE (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon her conviction for drive while disqualified, evading police and possess controlled drug .

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 30/05/2021.  The applicant’s application was initially scheduled to be heard by the Board on the 28/5/2021 however was adjourned at the applicant’s request as she did not feel ready for a parole order at that time.

The applicant ultimately appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 3/9/2021.  On that occasion the applicant was present at the hearing and 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 the Board was read to the applicant prior to her 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:

At the time of committing the offences for which the sentence of imprisonment was imposed the applicant was 27 years of age.  She had a lengthy criminal history of driving offences including five prior convictions for evade police and drug offences.  She has never held a licence.  A history of driving convictions such as that of the applicant can reflect an attitude of being above and beyond the dictates of the law to the detriment of community safety.

This attitude is perhaps also reflected in the applicant’s conduct in the past whilst under Community based orders including parole. A 2015 parole order was revoked following the applicant’s relapse to drug use and reoffending and spectacularly an order of parole in 2018 was breached by the applicant within two days of her release when she again engaged in offending.

The factors that have been identified as contributory to the applicant’s offending behaviour were described by the Court at her sentencing as including the influence of her father on her, he “normalised serious criminal behaviour” and exposed her to “illicit drug abuse”, the “shocking” abuse of her as a child and again as an adult in the context of a domestic relationship, poor mental health, and drug dependency.  The applicant is a mother.  Her first pregnancy, which was terminated, at the age of 13 and ultimately she gave birth to her first child at the age of 14/15 years.

On this background, however, the applicant has demonstrated a motivation for a better, pro social life for herself.  She is motivated by the wish to reconnect to her children. She has maintained a minimum classification albeit with some mixed comments on her attitude describing her as friendly and compliant and at other times, rude and demanding.  She has held employment as a general hand with, again, some mixed comments on her behaviour.  She has engaged in therapeutic and vocational course including Dialectical Behaviour Therapy, sewing, maths and literacy courses.  Her planning officer has described her engagement in case management as “willing and reflective”.

The fact that the hearing of the application for parole was delayed by the applicant at her request due to her concern that she was not at that stage ready for parole reflects maturity and an exercise of sensible insight by the applicant.  It is perhaps noteworthy that in June, following the decision to delay the hearing into her parole application the applicant breached prison rules by engaging in disorderly conduct which may endorse her self-assessment at that time as not being ready for parole.  During the period of delay the applicant engaged in the Dialectical Behaviour Therapy and expressed to the Board that she now felt equipped and ready to again attempt a parole period.

The applicant has also engaged in the Red Cross peer support program which equips selected inmates with the skills to act as mentors for new inmates entering the system.  Her participation is described as enthusiastic and she as “an absolute pleasure” to work with.

Post release arrangements made for the applicant include the availability of suitable accommodation, her linking with appropriate medical supports for her general and mental health and engagement with mentors. The applicant’s plans on release primarily revolve around reconnecting with her children, assisting her mother in the care of her sister’s children and exploring future vocational and employment opportunities with Max Employment and Taffe.

Understandably given her background and mental health the applicant requires significant support if she is to achieve a compliant parole period and ultimately a lifestyle change.  She impresses as a person that is developing the maturity and the skills to achieve drug abstinence and a pro social lifestyle.  She has good insight into her needs and understanding that she will need to reach out to her supports at times of challenge.  She is appropriate for a parole order and would benefit from supervision and guidance under that order.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• To obtain a mental health plan

Paroled from 3 September 2021 - 31 May 2022